Heck lets try an easier one

DO you believe in and condone Honor killing of female family members in Islamic society? where the Woman whose only crime is being alone in public(without male family companions) is murdered for being raped by a man, a amn not using his own self control to not rape a woman.

Honor killing is not sanctioned in Islamic societies. It is a violation of the Koran.

I do not condone murder even of Palestinians even if by Jews. I do not approve of murdering 1200 in response to 1 as did Israel in Cast Lead. Nor to I approve the murder of 600+ Palestinians by Jews in the three years leading up to Cast Lead.

Nor do I approve Gaza having been turned into a prison camp.

At bottom I do not approve of demons trying to demonize others whom they hate simply because they are not Jews.

For the record, I am politically libertarian although I resigned from the Liberarian Party when they made a big thing of the terrorist Irving Rubin joining the party. It is a matter of principle.

Matt,

In your worst of your rants, can you possibly defend this?

Pray tell how does showing racism and bigotry in one country become defense of another?

How does showing rampant bigotry in Israel which describes itself as a modern democracy and the outpost of western ideals in the middle east be compared with a backward country under control of religious extremists?

Is it not proper to expect the behavior of a country to match its claims about itself?

In this case, Iran is living up to its claims about itself.

Either Israel is not living up to the standards it has set for itself or it is making false claims.

From the news I read in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post it is fact that Israel is making false claims.

Lovely side step from a direct question.

It is elementary to public debate that one does not let the opposition reformulate the premise of the debate in their favor.

Are you new at this?

Not at all. And for a political debate, you are quite correct. Being "perceived" to win is the entire value, not being correct, not being the most intelligent, not in being honest.

I presume the lack of honesty as a requirement is why you are trying to defend the indefensible Israel in a political newsgroup. When a lie is proposed as fact like Czechoslovakia was ever part of the Soviet Union exposition of it is expected or you can remove that from the dishonesty category and put it into the unintelligent category if you wish.

However if you wish to convince people of things and you do not own the media, you need to be rational, intelligent, back up your claims, and If you wish to be listened to you will need to listen to others. The last portion, you are unwilling or unable to do.

If one could reason with Zionists there would be no Zionists. You propose something which in applicable to the Zionists mindset of murder and theft as instruments of Jewish advancement. Again, read Jabotinsky to see it all laid out.

The premise was simple to your proclimation against hebrew law, and for muslim shariah law. Claiming the latter is superior to the former. Stoning of women for adultery to western civilization went at the window at around 29 AD. "Let he who is without sin" etc. Even without mercy you would need to stone BOTH parties to be "Just". Barbaric, but "Just".

I merely observed Shiriah law is more civilized than Torah law. IT is some seven centuries more recent than the Torah and had the benefit of exposure to both Greek and Roman law. I was not talking about western law or the ravings of a heretic boiling in excrement in hell but of Torah. You certainly cannot have misread that. Again the dishonesty factor arises. The only western law point I raised was related to the a non-Jew being convicted of rape in Israel because he was not a Jew. That hasn't been western law since the civil rights movement which ended the last of it.

Which furthers my point, no government should belong to any religion. History is filled with the genocides that follow when that does happen. Jews and Muslims and Pagans alike were slaughtered during the inquisitions. It is long past time to move beyond that.

And in the Karaite Inquisition in Spain about a century before the famous one Jews slaughtered Jews. That is the way things go. For a fact in the real Inquisition only false converts were punished. That was the way the law read. They were given the choice of convert or leave. If they were real converts falsely punished that is a different issue but then they were Christians when falsely punished.

Side steps occur when the facts are inconvenient and you do not wish to face them. And I do understand why. A fragile belief system is a dangerous thing to mess with. Many lives have been lost from the rage that inevitably follows.

I deal only in what the facts really are without sugar-coating and without your nonsense of saying Jews were slaughtered in the Inquistion when the only way that could have happened would have been if they had falsely converted in violation of civil law. Whatever you think you learned from Mel Brooks needs be forgotten.

...
I am Christian

No one is perfect.

I do not consider myself "Zionist"
I find offense in Giwer's use of the term

I use the word as it is used by Zionists and in Israel.

You are offended by Zionists not by me for using it the way they do.

I also use it the way prominent Christians such as Hagee and Falwell have used it. Again if you have a complaint it is with those folks not with me.

Do you work at being offended?

The bar room brawl continues. This is broken record tactics. *yawn*

Might I ask you to take your sorry line down the street, cause this Five and Dime Ain't buyin it today!!

(whaa they hurt me)(they started it) (did not) (did too)

The solution will ultimately be in diplomacy. And neither side is ready to deal with that. Both are busy crying how they have been wronged.

*yawn* wake me when both sides are ready to join the 20th century.

End the occupation.

Again point goes to Soft.....well offered questions and he just can't offer a viable answer that gives a direct response.

The present situation in Palestine is the direct consequence of Jews going there and expelling the native population. It is presently the best it can be as a consequence of the actions of Jews.

Jews continue to CHOOSE of their own free will to live there under the present conditions so those conditions can't be all that bad.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.

That is all there is to it.

It is their land now. Deal with it. If you lose a confrontation (any other term for WAR) you do not make the terms of surrender, and in fact there has been no terms of surrender. There has been no surrender. Hence the hostilities continue.

I suggested you learn the difference between sovereignty and ownership. You continue to post as though you do not know the difference. Is this deliberate on you part?

When The Soviet union invaded czechoslovakia, it became part of the soviet union.

That is total bullshit. You have no idea what was meant by the Soviet Union. Or is this deliberate too?

Until the soviet union fell. Such is the fact of losing. You do not make the conditions.

Why do you continue to post things which are clearly false? Is there a point to it? When does the criminal occupation end? When do Jews stop provoking the Palestinians by committing crimes against them?

You have to know of their crimes to pretend to discuss them.

Sorry, did they leave this out of your Hammas text books?
Soviet union was the United Social Soviet Republic. USSR.

Czechoslovakia was never a Soviet Republic. It really is not hard to use google and learn which countries were in the USSR. You might study up on how to use google and learn something about the subject.

When do Palestinians stop provoking Jews and committing crimes against them?

You mean they should not have simply understood the pain of the Jews who were forced to set off bombs in their markets and forgiven them their mass murders?

This is really, really a tired argument. Both sides SHUT UP AND STOP THIS NONSENSE!!

You are one of the sides. Why do you not remain silent?

"I prefer strongly biased sources like Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post."

Of course you do. They reinforce your very opinionated self righteous views.
Gods forbid you could actually LEARN something and get a bigger view.

Are you now suggesting I cannot learn about Israel from the most prominent pro-Israel, pro-Jewish and pro-Zionists sources in the world?

What would you suggest I read instead? The Lebanon Star? Uruk.net? The Palestine Chronicle? The Tehran Times? Are they what you read?

Please let me know what sources you recommend and why? What are your sources?

By the historic view and by my understanding the person calling someone a ZIonist is a Bigot.

Binyamin Netayahu is a bigot. He has often made reference to himself and his fellow Zionists. The man is such a bigot he hates himself and all of his friends and some 60% of his fellow citizens.

For those who have not been paying attention he is also the current Prime Minister of Israel. But then all of Israel's prime ministers have been bigots for much the same reasons.

I pulled this out of my rather verbose post..
Requesting input.....

::: Any christians here consider themselves Zionists?
::: Anyone here Jewish consider Christans Zionist?
This is an input request. help me out here.

Thank you in advance.

soft^spirit

I do not know of any Christians who consider themselves Zionists. But there are some fundamentalist Christians who support the return of Jews to Israel because they believe that is a pre-condition to the return of Christ.

Just as an aside, it should be obvious that Matt_Gwier is a bigot who is unwilling to consider any other viewpoint than his own. He has been removed more than once from posting here, so it seems he has little respect for boundaries or social limits. It takes a lot of patience to keep up a dialogue with someone like him, so I wonder why you continue such a fruitless discussion?

What might this other viewpoint be? Please explain it. But while a criminal may certainly have a different view of his crimes than the rest of society that does not legitimize the point of view. I mean peodophiles have all kinds of rationales for the good they are for children but it is not reasonable to find such self-serving opinions acceptable.

So please tell me just what this other point of view might be.

End the occupation.

Matt,

Can you persuade the fanatics to abandon their insistence upon the annihilation of Israel?


If you can learn their language, you may well have a very good shot at doing so.

Make sure you stock up on supplies... 6000 years of recorded history gives very many episodes in the record to use as an excuse for claiming an affront and so demand whatever vengeance and retribution.

Are there enough stones in the region to throw to fulfil every 'religious' whim of the fanatics?


Moderates would have gained peace long ago otherwise.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... I deal only in what the facts really are without sugar-coating and without your nonsense of saying Jews were slaughtered...

No need to mention the holocaust. Or do you deny that?


More recently, something which most Israeli families still live with:

Yom Kippur War

The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War or October War, also known as the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, was fought from October 6 to October 26, 1973, between Israel and a coalition of Arab states backing Egypt and Syria. The war began with a joint surprise attack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which coincided with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Egypt and Syria respectively crossed cease-fire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights, which had been captured and occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War.

... The war had far-reaching implications for many nations. ... the subsequent peace process. The Camp David Accords that followed brought the return of the Sinai to Egypt and normalized relations—the first peaceful recognition of Israel by an Arab country. ...


And that followed on from Six-Day War

The Six-Day War of June 5–10, 1967 (also known as the June War) was a war between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms. ...

... Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border...


And so it continues... With the exception that Egypt is the only Arab state to have made peace.

All in the lands that all protagonists consider to be holy...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

The simple question is:

Do YOU, that is yourself, condone the arbitrary stoning to death of women? Or the stoning to death of anyone for that matter?

In my first response to this I referred to it as a biennial event. By that anyone familiar with the subject should know that is about as often as it occurs in a country of 75+ million people with one assumes the usual frequency of propinquity among among the general populace -- nothing propinques like propinquity. So it is a very rare event in the first place, not the adultery or rape but the sentence.

Further after the western media and the entreaties and the stern diplomatic notes the sentence is always commuted. One could easily get the opinion this sort of thing is choreographed. The rarity of the sentence is obvious.

The west also immediately ignores the rarity and never looks into the details but always assumes the innocence of woman as though this were the 19th where a women never cries rape unless it is true. How dare Iran impugn the honor of a woman even if she is a blackmailing slut.

But maybe I am wrong. Please recite the trial transcript for the testimony which shows this is an inappropriate sentence in accordance with Iran's legal system.

And if there is a problem with the legal system of today's Iran one should show it is more primitive than it was under the Shah or as it is in Saudi where such an execution did in fact take place a few years ago.

Or do you simply have too much slime and bile to answer anything honestly?

Regards,
Martin

Your preposition to my honesty does leave me in a quandary as outlined above.

If in fact you wish to the legitimacy of the sentence you certainly need to go into trial itself and the principles of law which applied.

If you wish to go into the inequities of the law in the Iranian legal system I suggest you get an expert in that legal system to log on here to expand upon that theme unless you feel qualified to do so yourself -- and ignorance is not a qualification. All legal systems are unfair. All legal systems appear not only unfair in some aspects to those subject to it but also in comparison to other systems. The most ready condemnation of legal systems is always that of other countries.

It easiest to condemn the legal systems of other countries. Are you aware Muslim countries in the middle east show the superiority of their legal system by citing US crime statistics? In almost every category the per capita crime rate is on the order of a hundred times higher than in their countries. In the few cases where it is not such as drugs it is only a few tens of times higher. And in non-crime areas they point to the unwed mother statistics as evidence of our primitive social system. They also point to our lax drug laws to the prevalence of drug usage while most in the US say they are too harsh.

Perhaps I have gone on a bit long on this and perhaps I should not have made a second reply but while I do not support judging another country by ourselves I do have a problem with a country which claims to be not only western but to share US ideals and which then men beat an American woman because she will not sit in the back of the bus with the women. And the police cannot find the perps and takes the word of the perps that they were not there over the identification of their victim.

I have a problem with a country that has taken billions in US charity and then tells the US to F off in the interest of avoiding peace.

I have a problem with a country that announces a good thing in English and says no such thing in Hebrew and a month later the starvation blockade is still in place.

Nothing in Iran can bother the US in the least. Let them have nukes, Mutually Assured Destruction works. Its nearest neighbors, China, Pakistan, Russia, India and Israel are all nuclear powers and only Israel has its loincloths in a bunch.

Israel is the only country known to have sold nukes and that was to Apartheid South Africa. Some 16 years ago South Africa did a video piece with a government official showing where they were stored. Just a couple of weeks ago some of the details of the negotiations were published in Israel by Jewish newspapers.

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

Yet more prevarication?

The simple question is:

Do YOU, that is yourself, condone the arbitrary stoning to death of women? Or the stoning to death of anyone for that matter?

In my first response to this I referred to it as a biennial event. ...

So you do condone stoning to death by a random mob.

The west also immediately ignores the rarity and never looks into the details but always assumes the innocence of woman...

Takes two for a sexual relationship. Why is the man not also to be stoned to death? He is as much a part of the 'Affront to God' as is the woman.

But maybe I am wrong. ...

So how do you read this article?


Iran stoning sentence woman asks to be reunited with her children

... Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two, said she thinks of nothing other than hugging her children and that she was mentally broken when authorities flogged her 99 times in front of her then 17-year-old son, Sajad. ...



... The documents provided by ICAS show that two of five judges who investigated Mohammadi Ashtiani's case concluded that there was no forensic evidence of adultery. "It's shocking, she's sentenced to death by stoning because three judges think, just think, that you had an illicit relationship outside marriage," said Maryam Namazie of the ICAS. ...

Or do you simply have too much slime and bile to answer anything honestly?

Your preposition to my honesty does leave me in a quandary as outlined above.

If in fact you wish to the legitimacy of the sentence you certainly need to go into trial itself and the principles of law which applied.

If you wish to go into the inequities of the law in the Iranian legal system I suggest...

... You improve upon your prevarications and abstractions and indirectness and redefining of the Letter From Nigeria... From your manner of writing, you offer a whole new level of experience in the art of profound verbiage and waffle that even the most discerning of Nigerian email authors would be most honoured and proud to graciously accept your teachings.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

The simple question is:

Do YOU, that is yourself, condone the arbitrary stoning to death of women? Or the stoning to death of anyone for that matter?

In my first response to this I referred to it as a biennial event. By that anyone familiar with the subject should know that is about as often as it occurs in a country of 75+ million people with one assumes the usual frequency of propinquity among among the general populace -- nothing propinques like propinquity. So it is a very rare event in the first place, not the adultery or rape but the sentence.

Further after the western media and the entreaties and the stern diplomatic notes the sentence is always commuted. One could easily get the opinion this sort of thing is choreographed. The rarity of the sentence is obvious.

The west also immediately ignores the rarity and never looks into the details but always assumes the innocence of woman as though this were the 19th where a women never cries rape unless it is true. How dare Iran impugn the honor of a woman even if she is a blackmailing slut.

But maybe I am wrong. Please recite the trial transcript for the testimony which shows this is an inappropriate sentence in accordance with Iran's legal system.

And if there is a problem with the legal system of today's Iran one should show it is more primitive than it was under the Shah or as it is in Saudi where such an execution did in fact take place a few years ago.

Or do you simply have too much slime and bile to answer anything honestly?

Regards,
Martin

Your preposition to my honesty does leave me in a quandary as outlined above.

If in fact you wish to the legitimacy of the sentence you certainly need to go into trial itself and the principles of law which applied.

If you wish to go into the inequities of the law in the Iranian legal system I suggest you get an expert in that legal system to log on here to expand upon that theme unless you feel qualified to do so yourself -- and ignorance is not a qualification. All legal systems are unfair. All legal systems appear not only unfair in some aspects to those subject to it but also in comparison to other systems. The most ready condemnation of legal systems is always that of other countries.

It easiest to condemn the legal systems of other countries. Are you aware Muslim countries in the middle east show the superiority of their legal system by citing US crime statistics? In almost every category the per capita crime rate is on the order of a hundred times higher than in their countries. In the few cases where it is not such as drugs it is only a few tens of times higher. And in non-crime areas they point to the unwed mother statistics as evidence of our primitive social system. They also point to our lax drug laws to the prevalence of drug usage while most in the US say they are too harsh.

Perhaps I have gone on a bit long on this and perhaps I should not have made a second reply but while I do not support judging another country by ourselves I do have a problem with a country which claims to be not only western but to share US ideals and which then men beat an American woman because she will not sit in the back of the bus with the women. And the police cannot find the perps and takes the word of the perps that they were not there over the identification of their victim.

I have a problem with a country that has taken billions in US charity and then tells the US to F off in the interest of avoiding peace.

I have a problem with a country that announces a good thing in English and says no such thing in Hebrew and a month later the starvation blockade is still in place.

Nothing in Iran can bother the US in the least. Let them have nukes, Mutually Assured Destruction works. Its nearest neighbors, China, Pakistan, Russia, India and Israel are all nuclear powers and only Israel has its loincloths in a bunch.

Israel is the only country known to have sold nukes and that was to Apartheid South Africa. Some 16 years ago South Africa did a video piece with a government official showing where they were stored. Just a couple of weeks ago some of the details of the negotiations were published in Israel by Jewish newspapers.

Your dishonesty is obvious in your preference to "win" the arguement(as in be the last one to SHUT UP)

Any religion left to dictate laws is flawed. And the extremes it will go to are well written through out history. Current events such as stonings serve as twisted reminders as humans have EVOLVED (well some have).

When law is selectively applied to effectively exterminate those who do not agree with you, well people get a lot more agreeable. Wonder why.

Impune the honor is far from a death sentence. If it was there would be no former politicians. And this section would be a lot quieter.

---

Janice

I will not go into all the things you "have a problem with". You have too many to recount. Might I suggest seeing a doctor about some of them?

You have a problem with Israel. You want to drag the rest of the world in on in to one side of the mutual destructive behavior. You promote Shriah law over legislatition. You admit you would rather be perceived as right than to actually be honest. You admit to not wanting to listen to anything beyond your (very small) point of reference. You deny well known world events.
You deny massive portions of history. You deny anything which does not
fit into your fragile belief system.

If you do not look from more than one angle, you can not see what is going on.
If you will not look, or listen, you will not perceive.

This would conclude either you are Insane, or a Liar. Take a pick, but nothing else fits.

---

Janice

"I deal only in what the facts really are without sugar-coating and without your nonsense of saying Jews were slaughtered in the Inquistion when the only way that could have happened would have been if they had falsely converted in violation of civil law. Whatever you think you learned from Mel Brooks needs be forgotten."

There was one official "Inquisition" by the Church of Rome. Its premise was well known: Convert them, or kill them. Wide spread use of torture and murder was achieved under the pretense it is the "Lords work" to destroy the body to save the soul. Much like the teachings of Mohammeds convert-or-die methods.

You will have to excuse the rest of the planet if we do not agree.

Under the inquisition, Natives were killed. Muslims were killed. Jews were killed. Anyone accused of doing anything not in accordance with the church was killed.

Off hand? A Mel Brooks movie is much better than ANY reference you have brought to this discussion. Which is of course not difficult.

---

Janice

The bar room brawl continues. This is broken record tactics. *yawn*

Might I ask you to take your sorry line down the street, cause this Five and Dime Ain't buyin it today!!

(whaa they hurt me)(they started it) (did not) (did too)

The solution will ultimately be in diplomacy. And neither side is ready to deal with that. Both are busy crying how they have been wronged.

*yawn* wake me when both sides are ready to join the 20th century.

End the occupation.

No. Seek peace. Or die. I do not care.

---

Janice

Again point goes to Soft.....well offered questions and he just can't offer a viable answer that gives a direct response.

The present situation in Palestine is the direct consequence of Jews going there and expelling the native population. It is presently the best it can be as a consequence of the actions of Jews.

Jews continue to CHOOSE of their own free will to live there under the present conditions so those conditions can't be all that bad.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.

That is all there is to it.

It is their land now. Deal with it. If you lose a confrontation (any other term for WAR) you do not make the terms of surrender, and in fact there has been no terms of surrender. There has been no surrender. Hence the hostilities continue.

I suggested you learn the difference between sovereignty and ownership. You continue to post as though you do not know the difference. Is this deliberate on you part?

When The Soviet union invaded czechoslovakia, it became part of the soviet union.

That is total bullshit. You have no idea what was meant by the Soviet Union. Or is this deliberate too?

Until the soviet union fell. Such is the fact of losing. You do not make the conditions.

Why do you continue to post things which are clearly false? Is there a point to it? When does the criminal occupation end? When do Jews stop provoking the Palestinians by committing crimes against them?

You have to know of their crimes to pretend to discuss them.

Sorry, did they leave this out of your Hammas text books?
Soviet union was the United Social Soviet Republic. USSR.

Czechoslovakia was never a Soviet Republic. It really is not hard to use google and learn which countries were in the USSR. You might study up on how to use google and learn something about the subject.

When do Palestinians stop provoking Jews and committing crimes against them?

You mean they should not have simply understood the pain of the Jews who were forced to set off bombs in their markets and forgiven them their mass murders?

This is really, really a tired argument. Both sides SHUT UP AND STOP THIS NONSENSE!!

You are one of the sides. Why do you not remain silent?

The Warsaw Treaty of Friendship Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was signed in 1955 by Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact was created in response to the decision to allow the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The Warsaw Pact allowed for the Red Army to be based in member states. It also provided for a unified military command and a system of mutual assistance. This enabled the Soviet Union to launch a multinational invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.


Despite your repeated attempts to place me on one side or the other.. No, I am on neither side. Honestly, I started out fairly sympathetic to the palestinian portion of blockade. But you have convinced me that as long as people think like you do, nothing can be done. Glimmers of news bring hope. But not for your tired perspective. Palestinians should blame people like you for their suffering.

---

Janice

"I prefer strongly biased sources like Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post."

Of course you do. They reinforce your very opinionated self righteous views.
Gods forbid you could actually LEARN something and get a bigger view.

Are you now suggesting I cannot learn about Israel from the most prominent pro-Israel, pro-Jewish and pro-Zionists sources in the world?

What would you suggest I read instead? The Lebanon Star? Uruk.net? The Palestine Chronicle? The Tehran Times? Are they what you read?

Please let me know what sources you recommend and why? What are your sources?

You could find more Israel friendly works in Al Jazerah than what you have sited. For accuracy which you might be comfortable with might I suggest
Mohammad Saeed Al-Sahaaf, Former Information Minister of Iraq.

---

Janice

... Glimmers of news bring hope. But not for your tired perspective. Palestinians should blame people like you for their suffering.

Agreed concerning Matt's tirade.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians are too easy an excuse for continued conflict for those wishing to stir up their own causes.

It certainly isn't for the benefit of the Palestinians or anyone else in that region... How long before the perpetrators tire or die?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Glimmers of news bring hope. But not for your tired perspective. Palestinians should blame people like you for their suffering.

Agreed concerning Matt's tirade.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians are too easy an excuse for continued conflict for those wishing to stir up their own causes.

It certainly isn't for the benefit of the Palestinians or anyone else in that region... How long before the perpetrators tire or die?


Regards,
Martin

Thousands upon thousands of years it would seem.

---

Janice