segnosaur

In your previous posts, you talked about "contemplating problems", and "introspection and self acceptance". These are not the way you would describe handling actual clinical depression (ones involving biological causes). If its not a chemical problem, then using marijuana is not necessarily going to help those types of problems. In your initial posts, you DID NOT discuss clinical depression resulting from biology. Really? Then why exactly did you criticize "pharma products designed to mess with your brains seratonin and dopamine levels"? After all, if you knew marijuana affected dopamine levels, then you shouldn't have been criticizing mainstream pharmaceuticals for doing the same thing. Actually I've given reasons. Namely, raw marijuana (in smoked form) doesn't provide consistent dosage, and may contain chemicals that have unexpected (and unwanted) side effects. Ever hear of the phrase "double blind study"? If a person is not suffering from inflammation, then why would you want to introduce chemicals that actually affect a problem they don't have?

If the Fatah was back in power in Gaza, would you allow them weapons? Sorry, I guess I should have clarified things... When I was talking about Hamas importing weapons, I was referring specifically to weapons that could be used in terrorist attacks (components for rockets, mortars, etc.). Since those types of weapons have been used almost exclusively on Israeli civilian targets, I would not let them have those type of weapons regardless of who was in charge. Of course, any organization that is responsible for policing territory will require small arms (such as sidearms). Those are acceptable (of course, there should already be enough of those in the Gaza strip to last for years and years.) Then you'd be thinking wrong. The number of rocket attacks coming from Lebanon had pretty much dropped to zero since the Israeli invasion a couple of years ago. No the 'temporary' cease fire Hamas was pretending to engage in (while at the same time digging tunnels under the border). Hezbollah has actually gone out of their way to avoid antagonizing the Israelis. Actually, according to opinion polls, the majority of Palestinians no longer want the 'right to return' (only about 10% want that right.) http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/...8034939264.html As for living in an 'integrated community', doubt it would be a good idea... Hamas is not exactly a 'fair, democratic' organization (I've posted links before to them cutting off freedom of speech, engaging in summary executions, etc.) They certainly wouldn't be considered 'democratic' by any measure we have in the western world. Yet given the growth in the Palestinian population, any Jewish-Palestinian state would eventually be overwhelmed by the Islamic side of things. Ummm... I see. Words escape me. Amazing. Just totally amazing. Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel, and you consider that, well, irrelevant. I just need to repeat that... the leadership of a significant part of the palestinians basically says "We want violence against dem evil jooosss", and you shrug it off. Just incredible. Wow. Is there anything that Hamas can do or say that you won't be willing to give them a free pass on? How do you feel about Tomorrow's pioneers? Think that's some innocent children's programming coming from Hamas? Yes, destruction that was initiated by the actions of Hamas and other groups (digging tunnels into Israel and firing rockets). Please point to me, anywhere in any sort of international legislation, that suggests that casualty accounts must be the same on both sides of a conflict.

Yes, they did. And the fact that Palestinians voted for a party who has, as its charter, the destruction of Israel, it greatly reduces my sympathy for them. MAYBE they didn't know what they were getting into. Hopefully they've learned their lesson. Given the fact that Hamas imports weapons from surrounding countries, if I were Israel I'd certainly be very cautious. Well, maybe they learned their lesson (much as Hezbollah did a couple of years ago.) Or maybe they're just trying to look peaceful so they can rearm and get themselves retrenched. Anyone find it ironic that Hamas would "want international recognition" at the same time it has, as its charter, the destruction of Israel?

Sure it is. That's why it builds shtettlements to house Jewish immigrants from any bloody place on the map (hey, I'm a Jew from Mars, give me an apartment!), while it illegally confiscates land from legal title holders. Israel may in fact be building settlements illegally (although that certainly isn't set in stone... after all, there are certain rules regarding defense and security which may, or may not, justify settlements.) For example: From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleea...ettlements.html some legal scholars say that Israel, as a country acting in self-defence, has the right to occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Eugene Rostow, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs in the administration of U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, wrote in 1991 that Israel has a right to have settlements in the West Bank under 1967's UN Security Council Resolution 242 However, even if the settlements were found to be illegal, I would have to say that that particular action is dwarfed by the attrocities committed by groups like Hamas. Hamas has: Fired rockets aimed at civilian targets (clearly a war crime violation), curtailed freedom of the press, used hospitals and ambulances in its attacks, and has killed, without any trial, its rivals in the Fatah organization. I consider those to be a much much MUCH more significant threat than some settlements that either A: Can be dismanteled if Israel decides to remove them (as they did in the Sinai), or B: can negotiate their existence, with perhaps a land swap within Israel itself.

How about the fact that Israel is a democratic nation where its citizens (regardless of religion) have certain basic rights that are protected by the courts, whereas groups like Hamas are basically armed thugs who have been known to kill people without any sort of legal investigation. I wouldn't be so quick to quote those statistics.... the initial casualty estimates were provided by groups within palestine controlled by Hamas. Given the world's experiences in places like Jenine (where initial palestinian estimates of 'hundreds killed' were wildly exagerated), its quite possible that the number was far far lower. From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...xaggerated.html The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera quoted Gazans claiming that less than 600 people had died in the 22-day attack, far fewer than the 1,300 reported by Palestinian health officials. "It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas – who sent them to their deaths," the newspaper quoted a doctor at the main Shifa hospital as stating. Other residents told the newspaper Hamas gunmen had used medical facilities to organise and co-ordinate attacks. Granted, at this point we cannot say what the actual death toll is and how many were actual Hamas fighters. (It will likely take weeks before we have a proper accounting.) But relying on data provided by Hamas itself in order to condemn Israel is like relying on the Oil companies for information on global warming. I could also point out (as I do quite regularly) that there is no international law that states that casualties on both sides of a conflict have to be equal. The main requirement is that civilians not be intentionally targeted. The fact that many of the deaths on the Hamas side were actual fighters, whereas rockets from Hamas seem to fall only in civilian areas suggests that Hamas is the one engaging in 'war crimes'.

Thanks for the update. (Note that I only brought up the issue when DrGreenthumb suggested that other drugs may not be good because they 'altered brain chemistry'... I just wanted to point out that even marijuana alters brain chemistry.) It may very well be that depression can be handled with some of the ingredients in marijuana. However, I'd suggest that if its going to be used to handle clinical depression, a better option would be to isolate/synthesize the active ingredient (much as Asprin is derived from willow bark.) That way, dosage can be better controlled, and any unexpected side effects can be reduced or eliminated. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana should be illegal... just that if people are going to praise the medical benefits, it should be done in a proper environment.

It depends on the reason for the depression... If the person is depressed because they have money problems, relationship problems, etc. then using ANY drug (be it marijuana, alcohol, or prescribed meds) is not going to make the underlying problem go away. When the high wears off, the underlying problem will still exist. People having those sorts of problems have to solve the underlying problems. Smoking pot because your unhappy after getting fired or dumped by your girlfriend won't necessarily help you get your job/girlfriend back. Ummmm... you DO realize that marijuana itself can affect the brain's chemistry (including affecting the dopamine levels)? http://www.scienceclarified.com/Io-Ma/Marijuana.html http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_0...r_cannabis.html And you do understand that at least some of the causes of depression have biological origins that relate to the chemistry of the brain? (And in those cases drugs that affect Seratonin and dopamine levels may be the best solution.) Which is irrelevant when discussing the supposed health benefits of the use of Marijuana (such as weight loss). The danger is people may use marijuana in an attempt to 'self medicate' when they should be seeking real medical help. Your wild claims (e.g. on its effects on cancer, weight loss, etc.) is counterproductive and dangerous. If we're going to accept marijuana as a real, actual 'treatment', lets do it right by actually doing proper scientific studies, not relying on anecdotes and childish stories about how the mind controls the body's health. Then, I have to say it, your life must be really sad and pathetic. Hey, it would probably be beneficial to liberalize our laws regarding marijuana. I just find it sad that people put so much emphasis on whatever chemicals they can dump into their bodies.

If you were only interested in pro-marijuana "rah rah feel good" stories, why did you specifically mention "cannabis to lose weight?" in the thread title? The thread title makes a specific claim (or a specific inquiry)... you should expect that to be challenged. Either that, or pot makes you so lazy and useless that you can't actually get motivated enough to find a decent job. Ummm... just out of curiosity, how exactly could you tell if someone was a 'fat pothead'? After all, Marijuana is a very common drug... there could be 600 lb people using it and unless they advertise that fact to the world you may never know. I've known several people who would be considered 'fat' who use (or have used) pot. Either that, or the narcotic effect simply makes you forget you had the problems. Correction... one chemical (out of many) in pot has been observed (in proper studies) to affect cancer cells. Taken as a whole though, its possible that other chemicals may undo whatever curative effects that that one beneficial chemical has. http://www.qmul.ac.uk/news/newsrelease.php?news_id=175 You know, there may be legitimate reasons to legalize marijuana (for medicinal, economic, or social reasons). I myself would not be opposed to steps taken in that direction. But the reasons to do so must be sound.... Use of new age 'mumbo jumbo' arguments about what you imagine is happening to your body is actually counterproductive to someone who is a true skeptic. Except that when the effect of the pot wears off, the problems will still be there. If a person is depressed, the the solution is to fix the problem, not try to mask the problem with drugs. (Again, that doesn't necessarily mean I would oppose relaxing the laws on marijuana... just that your 'argument' for doing so is flawed.)

Ah I see, so after years of occupation, and thousands of dead Palestinians, Israel feels that a single rocket is enough to abandon the peace process, and trample the rights of the Palestinians. Ahem.... a "single rocket"? In the months that there was supposedly a 'truce', there were over 3 dozen rocket and mortar attacks. Not one. dozens. I'm particularly amazed at your willingness to dismissed dozens of attempts to kill Israeli citizens (not soldiers, but citizens... women, children, the elderly, etc.) is dismissed as just a 'single rocket', something that should be tolerated. Well, lets see... If you actually want me to believe that the Palestinians are not the aggressors here, and that Israel should be willing to accept 'a few' rocket attacks, then perhaps the Palestinians should: - Not have an organization in power with the stated goal of the destruction of Israel - Should actually be shown to be making an attempt to stop the rocket attacks and other activities such as digging tunnels and kidnapping soldiers by, you know, actually arresting those involved - Not be showing TV shows like "Tomorrow's Pioneers". Yes, perfection may be a difficult goal to achieve, but your willingness to dismiss Palestinian culpability is rather distasteful. By the way, while you're trying to suggest that Israel should just accept constant bombardment, I want you to think of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel used to be subject to attacks from the north, until they actually invaded in 2006. The result? The attacks pretty much stopped. In fact, when there was a recent attack from Lebanon during the recent fighting, Hezbollah actually condemed the attackes and acted against those responsible. Hezbollah learned... why not Hamas? You're assuming that there actually IS progress. The fact that Hamas (you know, the people elected to run Gaza) has as its goal the total destruction of Israel suggests that perhaps there is not as much progress as you might think. I did answer it. You just ignored my answer. No, you haven't answered it. All you've done is tried to justify the actions of groups like Hamas. So, once again... Given the fact that UN resolution 242 requires all states to end beligerance, when has Israel ever had a period of more than a couple of years when it has not been subject to terrorist attacks and/or external military threats. So, still waiting for your answer. So, the leadership going from Fatah (a group that at least was willing to recognize Israel's right to exist) to Hamas (a group that has as its charter the goal of destroying Israel) is considered a sign of progress? Yeah, how dare those dirty Israelis make any attempts to stop the kidnapping of Israelis. Yes, that's right. Because we all know the only way to fight fair is to wear uniforms and stand in a field where no civilians are so that Israel can bomb the shit out of them with their billion dollar warplanes. You know, what you've done here is given a fall dichotomy. Believe it or not, there are alternatives that Hamas could engage in besides hiding behind baby carriages while they shoot at Israelis. Militarily they could restrict their attacks to actual military targets. They could restrict their movements to unpopulated areas (not "standing in a field"... believe it or not, the gaza strip consists of hundreds of square kilometers. If this really were some sort of legitimate military force, they would make use of some of that land. Even if it were necessary to operate within civilian areas, Hamas has far exceeded what would be acceptable, including: - Using a hospital for its operations (even having its people impersonate doctors).... http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes...-hospital/4086/ (oh, and by the way, that source doesn't come from the IDF) - Firing from areas around schools and hospitals ... http://www.newsweek.com/id/180691/page/2 (And by the way, many of the sources quoted in that article are not from the IDF) - Hijacking ambulances ... http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hamas-tri...2818246374.html - Firing rockets from an area used by journalists ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,603508,00.html By the way, I'd suggest you pay close attention to the article on hijacking ambulances. It has a section that describes how the Israelis were taking special percautions in order to allow the Palestinians to treat their wounded, and Hamas was willing to risk that in its operations. I never disputed the source, so I don't see why you think that is something wrong with my argument. Read what I wrote again. I never claimed you were disputing the source. It is certainly disconcerting, but again I don't know all the issue. YOu know, I rather suspect that even if you did know the issue, and Hamas actually was willing to let these other groups operate, you would find a way to excuse their actions. Oh, that is wonderful. Wonder if your average criminal could try that here. "You just robbed a bank, but if you agree not to do it again we won't arrest you". That makes absolutely no sense... You crow about Hamas feeling committed enough to peace to allow only dozens of rocket attacks, then you're saying that Hamas is justified in allowing others to continue attacks. Oh, that's right, IDF aren't terrorists because they wear uniforms, and they don't TRY to kill civilians. I realize that you were trying to be sarcastic here... but believe it or not, your description is accurate. Believe it or not, there is no law that specifies that the number of casualites on both sides must be equal. Except that would be an extremely idiotic claim to make, given the fact that the rockets used are wildly inaccurate. Well, given the fact that hundreds of Hamas fighters were killed in the fighting (despite Hamas' willingness to use human sheilds) is a pretty good indication that that is the case. By the way, if you read the following article, it gives a description of the guidelines the Israelis use in deciding whether to attack a target... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,603508,00.html On the other hand, the Hamas charter indicates that Israel must be wiped off the map. So, let me see if I understand your logic. 1) Hamas did it before, so it is reasonable to assume they are doing it again, even though there is a ceasefire on. Well, you yourself were willing to justify the Palestinians holding Israelis hostage even through a 'ceasefire'... why wouldn't Hamas feel the same way? While I don't trust the IDF 100%, they have shown themselves to be more trustworthy than other sources. (Hello... Jenine? Or how about your wildly inaccurate Rachael Corrie claims?) The tunnel went into Israel. Not exactly a location where they'd find a lot of sympathetic people willing to supply them. Hmmmm... Hamas takes agressive action, Israel takes steps to stop them.... and Israel is the bad guy... Hmm, gosh - that's a tough one. They could: 1) Tell Hamas to shut down the tunnel or else Israel will be forced to bomb it. First of all, even if Hamas shut down the one tunnel, there may have been others. Why should Israel trust Hamas to shut down all tunnels when they were constructing this one tunnel in secret? Secondly... you suggested Israel should 'bomb it'... wouldn't that run the risk of killing Hamas fighters (the thing that you're incorrectly blaming Israel for earlier?) Yeah... that makes sense... given the fact that much of the international community is anti-Israeli, and there is no ready military force to go in and investigate. (Not to mention the fact that I doubt ANY military is going to be willing to risk their soldiers in a potentially hostile situation) What colour is the sky in your world?

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster? Why or why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Do you believe there is an invisible pink unicorn living in your sock drawer? Why or why not? You see, in both of those cases, denying that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn isn't so much a 'belief'. We can look at the evidence (or more exactly, the lack of it) and say that we really don't need to believe in the absence of things... our senses (and science) tells us these things. On the other hand, when someone espouses christianity (or any other religion for that mater), they are expressing a belief in something for which there is no evidence. (Now, I'm sure there will be some individuals who claim evidence, but those claims invariably fall short when you apply the evidence. Yes, technically, it is true that you can't prove that there is no god (so perhaps the best philosophy is agnostocism). But what you can do is build up a strong enough case of non-observations to say "this belief likely isn't true". I think the best quote that describes atheism is the following (attributed to Stephan Roberts): I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

Not at all. In fact, for some of us, it can actually add purpose and meaning to our lives. If someone spends all their time believing in an invisible big daddy in the sky and a wonderful afterlife, they may not appreciate what we have hear on earth. By recognizing the fact that there is no evidence of any god (and thus no reason to believe in one), we can strive to make our current, physical world as good as it can be. Here's a question... if we truly are alone (as the evidence seems to suggest), then why is lying to people about 'big invisible sky daddy' a good thing? The difference is, Atheism is not technically a 'belief'. Belief implies that you think something is true without any evidence. (If you actually had proof, it would be 'knowledge' rather than 'belief'.) Atheists do not claim that they have evidence that god does not exist... instead, we look at the fact that there is no evidence for any god, just as there is no evidence for the flying sphagetti monster or invisible pink unicorns in my sock drawer. And the default position anyone should take is "If there's no evidence, then I should not believe it".

i am assuming because that's what they've done for over 20 years. Except for the past 20 years, Iran hasn't had nuclear weapons. If there were people who wanted to cause widespread destruction, they wouldn't have had the ability. Of course, if you DO want to look at what they've done, consider: - During the Iran/Iraq war, they were willing to sacrifice thousands of their own people in attacks (cannon fodder) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ramadan Of course, you're assuming that the Mullah's truly are motivated by only personal political/financial interists. Not sure how exactly you'd know that though. Have you met them? Hung out with them? Believe it or not, there are people out there who are "true believers". This is where you just lost a whole lot of credibility. (I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I think your knowledge and willingness to accept such rampant misinformation is important here.) You see, Cheney doesn't actually benefit at all from his relationship to Halliburton. It is true that he received pay from them after becoming vice-president, but it was actually deferred salary, and legally the amount cannot change, regardless of how well or poorly Halliburton did. http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_...alliburton.html interesting thoughts. it is possible that they may use the nuclear weapons as a "last defiant act". who knows what can happen. Well, given the rather horrific situation that would result if nukes were used, I'd rather keep such weapons far, far away from those who might have even a slight inclination to use them. Yes... those assumptions could be used in Pakistan (which worries me greatly). They could have been applied to Iraq (had the Nuclear program not been stopped). And keep in mind that Iraq was quite willing to use Poison gas when it was under a significant threat... At this point, we don't really know what would happen if a country had nuclear weapons and either A: had a fundamentalist, nihilistic leader, or B: a dictator who was about to be overthrown. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry. this is when we go back to looking at actions that the country has taken. israel is not shy about using its military. they have repeatedly said that all options are on the table. Actually I'm quite sure that Israel WOULD consider the use of Nuclear weapons if attacked by neighbouring states. But we're talking about preemptive nuclear attacks. Given the nature of Israel's democracy, I doubt they would do so. The only reason Israel would attack Iran is to stop a nuclear program. No nuclear program, no reason for them to attack. You want to consider past actions? Consider Iraq... Yes, Israel bombed one of their reactors (an act that most believe prevented Saddam from getting the bomb). But they never engaged in ground operations, never tried to overthrow Saddam. Heck, they never even bothered retaliating after they were attacked with SCUDs in the first gulf war. Yeah, people who are prone to blind rhetoric and who want to redefine and broaden the definition of 'terrorism' to include whatever pet causes they happen to champion.

Well, lets see... The phrase 'push (Israel) into the sea' is pretty much exactly like some in the Arab world wish to do. They do not hide the fact that they seek to turn the entire area (Gaza, West Bank, AND Israel) into one Palestinian state. These are not people seeking co-existance. The fact that so many people here are willing to accept the actions of Hamas is, well, disturbing, and I feel its necessary to remind people what Hamas really is about. As for "jewsmustdie dot com"... before you criticize me, go back and look at page 2 of this thread... On that page, KeyStone quotes an anti-Israel site (electronic Intifada), and uses it as 'proof' when he makes several claims. After that post, I pointed out where his claims were incorrect by using statements made by people who were actually there. At no point do I ever remember KeyStone ever admitting that perhaps his 'source' was flawed. If the pro-Palestinian side wants me to respect them, then they should use a little reasoning and avoid using such biased (and easily refutable) web sites. (I could also point out a statement made by KeyStone which suggested that the media was controlled by the Jewish people.) Relaveance? I'm not denying Palestinian children have died. But I'm not about to blame on the IDF when those Palestinian children have been used as human shields by terrorist groups. Do you see the word 'settlements' in there? Except for a few facts: - While Arafat 'accepted' the existence of Israel, other parties in the area did not. Go back and read 242... it specifically says all parties must cease their hostile activities. Arafat did not speak for all middle east Muslims. Heck, he didn't even speak for all Palestinians. Sorry, I try not to admit to things that aren't true. Once again, please point out, when in the past 40 years, that Israel has not been subject to either terrorist attacks or foreign military threats for an extended (+2 years) length of time. Please. I'm begging you. If you can point out such a time frame, then I'll admit that Israel is an evil entity and that their actions are bad, aweful, and the Palestinians are in the right. You should be able to do that, can't you? So lets see you do it. Should be a breeze for you. If you don't think I'm honest, then don't bother responding. Given the fact that you don't seem to understand that the word 'all' means (as it applies to 'all states' in 242), and that you seem to be an apologist for anything that the Palestinians do, there's probably nothing I'll be able to do to convince you otherwise. But keep one thing in mind... In the time I have posted in this thread, I have backed up my statements with almost a dozen references, from the looks of things more than anyone else in this thread. And unlike KeyStone, they aren't from some biased source, but from mainstream media sources. I have a pretty good idea what's going on in the middle east, and I'm not about to be convinced otherwise by someone who's method of debating is to sit around suggesting I'm "immature" for showing a proper condescending attitude to certain people.

Of course I said its not enough. Because while rocket attacks may have decreased they were still not eliminated. You know, I keep asking this question, but for some reason people like you seem to avoid answering it... If Israel is not 'looking for peace', then please point to any time since it became a country when it was not being subject to terrorist attacks or outside military threats for an extended (>2 years) time frame. If Israel is the aggressor here (rather than just reacting to outside threats) then you should have no problem pointing to a time when the noble, peaceful Palestinians really were brutally oppressed (as opposed to Israel reacting to the actions of others.) So come on... lets here it.... when was Israel not subject to such threats. When? Still waiting. If the Canadian terrorists were hiding within the general population, and the Canadian government did not stop the attacks either due to malevolence or incompetence, the U.S. would still have the right to defend itself, and any civilian deaths should be placed squarely on the terrorists who were using the general population as unwitting human shields. Well here are all the things wrong with your 'claim'... First of all, the article comes from Human Rights Watch, a group that certainly cannot be criticized as being 'pro-Israeli'. If they seem to think that the case was worth mentioning, they must have thought there was enough proof. But OK, lets say proof was lacking... keep in mind that Hamas is an organization that regularly arrests and detains palistinians themselves and holds them (often without trial... see: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=23565). So given the willingness of Hamas to arrest or even kill people that it thinks harm its cause, then why would these members of the Aqsa Martyrs' brigade not be treated with the same consideration that they treat other prisoners? I'm sure they do have plenty of Palestinians in their jails. Of course, Israel usually does things like, you know, actually lay charges, go through trials, etc. Surely, you aren't complaining that Hamas had one SOLDIER? You expect Hamas to let him go so he can start killing women and children again, just like a good little IDF terrorist? At the time of his capture, Gilad Shalit was not involved in any combat operations. In fact, he wasn't even in Palestinian territory. By the way, your description of Shalit as an 'IDF terrorist' demonstrates your ignorance of the word (and even the whole concept) of 'terrorist'. I brought up the issue of Shalit to illustrate a point... if Hamas were so interested in peace and a cease fire, then why did they not release Shalit. Again, no proof. Allegedly, there was a tunnel, and allegedly Israel just happened to know about it, and allegedly they were going to kidnap someone, and allegedly Israel just happened to intercept that conversation and allegedly Israel had no other way of dealing with it, and could not prepare themselves for the kidnapping attempt. Why exactly would someone want to believe in the reports of underground tunnels? Lets see: - Shalit was kidnapped after Hamas used underground tunnels to launch an attack. So, why is it so far fetched to believe that Hamas may have wanted to use the same tactics? http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/25/hamas-soldier.html - The fact that Israel had uncovered the tunnels in 2008 was widely reported in western media. To assume that there was 'no proof' is to assume some giant conspiricy theory in action. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5089940.ece As for there being 'no other way to deal with it', what do you expect them to do? Send flowers to the tunnel diggers? Invite them over for beer? What exactly is the relevance? Ah, so now its all because the Evil Jooose control the media?

A major problems with your 'analysis'... While you are assuming that those mullahs are eager to cling to power (not necessarily assured, since there may be some that hold nihilistic attitudes and would be willing to see widespread death if it were religiously inspired), there is no guarantee that they will keep power. Dictatorships are not necessarily stable... revolutions occur (e.g. Iran has to contend with students who disagree with the government), they get beaten by outside forces, etc. Even if you assume those controlling Iran are interested in their own political power, they may see the use of nuclear weapons as some sort of last defiant act as the leaders loose power. (Not to mention the chance that some within the government may have ulterior motives and may have an interest in supplying arms to others.) On the other hand, Israel is a democracy (and a relatively stable one at that). The leaders are democratically selected (lessening the chance of a religious nut with nihilistic intentions gaining power). And while an individual political party may loose power, there's little risk of the entire system collapsing. There also does not seem to be the same issue with Jewish terrorism, so the risk of Israeli nuclear weapons being diverted to fanatical groups is rather lessened.

Yes, Israel is limiting access to Gaza. Given the fact that there is a conflict there, perhaps Israel wants to limit the use of 'human shields', as aid workers and/or media might end up being. Of course, they could rely on the fine reports provided by the Media in Gaza. Except of course... Reporters Without Borders is concerned about a new system of accreditation that Ismael Haniyeh's government has announced for all telecommunications companies, Internet service providers, broadcast media and news agencies based in the Gaza Strip, which has been controlled by the Islamist party Hamas since June 2007. (From: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,RSF...7608714,0.html) So, while you're blaming Israel for cutting off information from the area, perhaps you should similarly consider criticizing Hamas for its anti-free press tactics.

So, the fact that they don't want their citizens to be killed by rockets fired from people who want the destruction of Israel is considered stalling. Why won't those evil Jooosss just role over and die? You still haven't answered the question... 242 indicates that all parties must cease 'belligerant' actions. Once again... when has Israel ever had a period of 2 or 3 years when it has not been subject to either terrorist attacks and/or military threats. Not relevant to the question. 242 doesn't discus settlements. And even if it did, the section indicating that all parties must cease hostilities (which the Arab side has not done) negates that. Not sure. I hope they do remove them. But then, why did Palestinians vote in a party that has as their charter the desire to destroy Israel if the majority of Palistinians want peace and a 2 state solution? Ummm... because they don't? Because the government has actually come out and stated that they want a 2 state solution? See: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/2ee946874...33;OpenDocument "There is a Palestinian state at the end of the process, but the terrorism must be dismantled," Livni stressed. "This is a step-by-step process but gives a political horizon." Oh, and the fact that Israel doesn't want to see its citizens killed and is willing to take actions to protect them (including military actions) does not mean that they are extremist... only that they are committed to their own citizens. Of course, Gaza is run by Hamas, which has (in its charter) the goal of destroying Israel. So on one hand you have the Israeli government, who has said "we want a Palestinian state", and on the other hand you have Hamas, who sais "We don't want an Israeli state". Notice the little, ahem. problem there? Umm... no, that's a straw man. I never ever said that settlements (as a whole) have been decreasing. I pointed out that they've been dismantled in Gaza (where the rocket attacks are originating from). And by pointing out their dismantiling of settlements in Gaza and the Sinai, I'm not suggesting that the population of the settlements has been decreasing, I'm saying that its likely that Israel will be willing to take necessary action to eliminate those settlements (or swap land with the Palestinians) when the time comes. what do you mean hamas control gaza? all the borders, the airspace, the sea, the economy is all controlled by israel. Hamas was voted in during the 2006 election. Hamas controls much of the media in the Gaza strip. Hamas controls internal security, and much of the social system. Hamas, as its charter, wants the desruction of Israel. As long as Israel exists, Hamas will want it destroyed. Its their reason for being, much as the KKK has white supremicy as its reason for being. The only way Hamas would be happy and NOT want violence is if Israel doesn't exist. Therefore, by that logic, Israel's provoking the situation simply by existing. thousands of dead children? The death toll on the Palestinian side is around 1000, and only a fraction of those are children. Yes, those deaths are unfortunate. But exagerating the situation doesn't exactly make you seem like a reasonable person. I have never ever referred to the work of Pipes, Kristol or Dershowitz. I get my information right from mainstream sources. (Unlike the average palistinian supporter here who uses the web site 'jewsmustdie dot com' as some sort of holy grail of information.)

Seems like the Red Cross (you know, that humanitarian group, not exactly a pro-Israeli source) disagrees. It has stated the following: The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally. (from : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_...te_phosphorus_2 )

Well, those didn't come from Hamas until just recently... Whether Hamas actually fired the rockets themselves or others did it from within Gaza, as the governing body Hamas has a responsibility to control the area. Hypothetical situation... if the Toronto's Liberation Front started launching rocket attacks at Buffalo (not that anyone there would notice), it would be up to Canada to stop those attacks. If Canada chose not to, then the U.S. would not be blameless for taking matters into their own hands and stopping the attacks themselves. As Human Rights Watch (a group which has no problem criticizing Israel) states: (see: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/lett...rocket-attacks) We recognize that until last week Hamas took efforts to halt rocket attacks by other groups as part of the June 19 ceasefire. However, throughout the ceasefire period other armed groups have continued to intermittently fire rockets from Gaza. As the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, it is your responsibility under international law to prevent such attacks, and to arrest and prosecute those who carry them out. Perhaps if Hamas spent less time trying to intimidate and control journalists, and less time broadcasting anti-semetic children's shows, they might have more resources to, you know, stop those attacks. Note that the same letter from HRW contains the following passage: On July 10 at least three members of the Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were detained for firing rockets. All were later released however, and no charges were brought against them So, you claim that Hamas was trying to stop rocket attacks during the cease fire. What exactly does it says about their 'attempts' to stop the attacks if they don't even lay charges against those firing the rockets? I guess it gives them 'plausible deniability'. Hamas: "See? We tried to stop the attacks. We detained people for firing rockets. They had to spend 5 minutes at the police station. Granted, we bought them dinner afterwards, but we didn't pay for desert!" Well, lets see.. the cease fire began in June 2008. In the 1 month following this cease fire, there were rocket or mortar attacks on the following days:June 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, July 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15. Oh, and by the way, at the time the cease fire was in effect, Israel had one if their soldiers held captive by Hamas. To me, holding hostages is not something that people do when they're trying to foster peace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit Oh, and by the way... you seem to keep suggesting that the cease fire fell apart only after Israel killed several Hamas members. Did you ever think that perhaps there was a reason? After all, there were reports that the Israeli attacks were the result of a tunnel uncovered at the Gaza/Israel border that was designed to assist in the kidnapping of Israeli solders. (Yes, I'm sure you'll be all apologetic and suggest Hamas would never do such a thing, and criticize the Israelis of spreading false information. But the fact that they have continued to old Gilad Shalit, without allowing him access to the Red Cross, suggests that such plans by Hamas are quite possible.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...estinians-egypt What, like continue to hold Israeli prisioners without giving them access to the Red Cross or any sort of legal representation? Like releasing people they pick up for launching rockets without putting them in jail? Like digging tunnels under the border? Well, lets see... do you think Hamas, with their TV program Tommorow's Pioneers, is a good step into easing the hatred and improving the culture?

The terms of 242 specifically say all parties must end their beligerance. As I have asked another poster... when exactly, since the state of Israel has formed, has there been any significant length of time (more than 2 or 3 years) when Israel was not either A: affected by terrorist attacks, or B: been under the threat of foreign military attacks? Irrelevant... First of all, voting against allowing a Palestinian state when said state is likely to be used to launch terrorist attacks would be insane. Secondly, believe it or not Likud is not the only political party in the region. In fact, the Israeli government has gone on record (as I have illustrated earlier here) supporting a 2 state solution. As I've already pointed out... when you have extremist Israelis, they tend to be marginalized by society and government. They hold little or no sway. On the other hand, the 'extremist groups' in the Palestinian side are far from marginalized... in fact, they actually hold power. Maybe you should spend some time watching the TV show Tommorow's Pioneers. That will certainly open your eyes to the difference in the way that the Palestinians deal with things and the way Israelis do. Yet those groups do not run the country. Unlike Hamas, who actually runs the Gaza strip. Yes, I'm sure most Palestinians and Israelis would be quite happy with a 2 state solution. The problem is, they also continue to support an organization (Hamas) who, as their charter, seeks to destroy Israel. That would be the equivalent of a Canadian saying "I'm not racist, but I'll vote for the Heritage Front because I like their economic policy". Sorry, you vote for a party which holds bizarre, destructive policies, you should not be surprised when those policies end up causing problems. In any sane political system, the voter will reject a party that has policies that, if acted on, would be detrimental to the citizens. Unfortunately, that hasn't yet happened in Gaza. oh no. there you go making excuses again. first of all, 9000 people were removed from gaza but at the same time, more than that amount have been moved into settlements in the west bank. But Hamas (you know, the group that wants to destroy Israel) controls Gaza. If settlements were the only problem, the Gaza residents should already be happy. they haven't. just because they remove a few trailers, it doesn't mean it's okay to start large settlement projects elsewhere. Ummm.... the Israelis did not just have a few trailers in the Sinai. There were over a dozen settlements... and in some cases the Israelis had to force out the Jewish settlers, then destroy their houses so they could not sneak back. So while I may not totally approve of the Jewish settlements, at least there is some historical evidence that Israel is willing to dismantle settlements (even over the objections of its own citizens). Actually, three are a lot of people (including some PLO members) who said that the violence had been planned ever since Arafat left the peace talks during the summer. that's not defending. perhaps israel should look into the condition that they've helped to create. What, you mean the condition they helped to create by not allowing themselves to be pushed into the sea? Yet you point to those chapter 6 resolutions like they are somehow significant. The fact that more Palestinians have been killed is not evidence of 'collective punishment'. The fact is, groups like Hamas engage in operations among civilian populations, and because of that, innocent people will die. If Israel REALLY wanted to kill off the Palestinians, don't you think they could do a better job than just 300? I believe that particular section also includes provisions that allow for safety and security. Preventing people from being killed by suicide bombers and/or rocket attacks would certainly fall under that. You made the claim, you are responsible for providing evidence.

Three years is a long time. Fine... make it 2 years. Heck, Make it a year and a half... Long enough to know that Palestinian society is truly committed to peace and not simply taking some time off to rearm. When has Israel had more than a year and a half when it was not subject to either terrorist attacks or external threats? Well, first of all, YOU were the one that suggested the Palestinians would be ignored by Israel (and would continue to be oppressed) were it not for the violence. I'm expecting you to do something to justify your position, by pointing out just WHEN there was a time when violence was NOT inflicted on Israel. Secondly, if there is a significant amount of the population that seeks the TOTAL distruction of Israel (e.g. Hamas) and that population's activities are not curtailed (or even encouraged) by the population, then why exactly would you risk giving them free reign by giving them their own country? Really, given that Hamas has the destruction of Israel as part of their reason for existence, and given the fact that they have TV shows like Tomorrow's Pioneers on TV, why exactly would any sane country give them their own free country from which they could continue to launch attacks from? Except for the fact that rocket attacks and Mortar attacks continued throughout this 'ceasefire' agreement. I guess you have no problem with that.

Excuse me, but before you claim 4a) is true, could you please point out any time in the recent history of Israel where there have not either been any direct hostilities (e.g. terrorism) or external threats (from countries like Syria, Egypt, etc.) for an extended period (lets say, 3 year). You keep suggesting that Israel would just ignore the Palestinians if it weren't for the violence. Yet how can you tell? Israel has pretty much always been subject to violence/attacks. So, once again, when has Israel had an extended (>3 years) period in which it wasn't subject to terrorist attacks and/or external military threats?

How can you say that? Saddam was giving 10s of thousands of dollars to the Palestinians. Of course, it was to support suicide bombers. And what about all the aid being smuggled into Gaza now from Iran? Of course, its mostly in the form of weapons. You're probably part right. But I think its not so much that they are worried about 'unclean Jews'. I think they're more worried about their own populations. As long as they have Israel as a whipping boy and the plight of the Palestinians, they can abuse their own people. If the situation is ever resolved, people in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. might actually start looking at their own living conditions and questioning why they are so poorly treated.

Except the 'rules of the road' probably require that you submit to a breathalizer. Even if you don't get convicted of DUI, you'd still be liable for non-cooperation with the police. Similarly, the rules of the NPT and the IAEA are supposed to allow surprise inspections. If Iran is denying those inspections, they ARE violating the rules.

My apologies for posting a non-functional link. (Although someone else was kind enough to post a functional one to the same document.) Yes they did. Of course, at the time there were issues that IAEA was not providing adequate inspections, and following the 90s gulf war, all sorts of violations were found. Strangely enough, Canada, France, Sweden, etc., all countries that have no intentions of military conquest or human rights abuses, don't seem to have the same problems with the IAEA. Pretty much irrelevant... Iran's violations go back decades, while Israel's desire to attack Iran's facilities is a much more recent development. The difference is, Israel never signed on to the NPT. Yes, they might have that as their plan. But given past violations of the NPT, any actions they take should be under tight scrutiny. That would be, at most, a minor inconvenience. Other countries manage to run nuclear plans without doing their own enrichment. And just why do you think that the nations of the world are threatening sanctions? Could it be because they've violated the NPT in the past? Suggesting that Iran should be able to enrich its own uranium because of sanctions is a little like a convicted criminal claiming he should have the right to steal because his criminal record reduces his chance of finding a job. Actually, earlier on (especially before the revolution) the U.S. actually helped Iran's nuclear program, building test reactors, and offering to help with enrichment technology. http://www.rertr.anl.gov/FRRSNF/EISREACT.html There are multiple countries in the world. Assuming Iran actually cooperated with the IAEA (that's a big assumption... apologists like you aside), it would be able to purchase fuel from several suppliers. And if it went with something like the CANDU design, it would not need enrichment at all.