BBC BLOGS - Mark Mardell's America
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama goes further over Mubarak departure

Mark Mardell | 21:32 UK time, Friday, 4 February 2011

The world is waiting, and so is the White House. President Barack Obama has gone further than before in suggesting that Hosni Mubarak should go. But he couldn't quite bring himself, no doubt for very good diplomatic reasons, to say the words.


He was asked directly, in a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, if change could happen while Mr Mubarak remained in charge. The president said that Mr Mubarak should consult with those around him, listen to the voices of the Egyptian people, and make a judgment. Mr Mubarak had, Mr Obama said, already made the break by announcing that he was going in September, so he had to decide how to make the transition legitimate. He hoped the Egyptian president would end up making the right decision.

Again, Mr Obama said that it was important that the transition begin now. He said the US was involved in discussions but the decisions would be taken by the Egyptian people.

The Obama administration is relieved that today's huge protest didn't turn nasty. Violence is the biggest threat to the change the US wants. There were real nerves in Washington that the army would be forced to choose between their commander-in-chief and the people. Instead they were judiciously neutral, keeping rival demonstrators apart.

The president's spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Friday that the world was waiting for the Egyptian government to take quick, concrete steps toward an orderly transition. It should have happened on Tuesday, he said. They need to sit down with a coalition representing a broad cross-section of Egyptian society.

The reason this isn't happening is because the opposition won't talk while Mr Mubarak remains in power. Mr Gibbs did not rise to the bait when a reporter suggested that the demonstrators might be asked to change their position.

One brief exchange was tantalising though. Mr Gibbs was asked if there had been an assassination attempt against Vice-President Omar Suleiman in the last few days. Looking rattled, he said he wasn't going to get into that. Other sources are equally reticent as to any detail but certainly suggest something happened. If it is true, the big question would be who would be behind it this attempt.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 10:00pm on 04 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    Is there a helicopter waiting to whisk him away? That might be the safest way if the demonstrations are as described.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 10:30pm on 04 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    1 JMM...I suppose those with longer memories could make quite a long list of "friends of the USA" who became an embarassment after years of "rendering" faithful service to the prayerful and deeply righteous ones in Washington!

    An old pal of mine was a sergeant in the King`s African Rifles with Idi Amin...who was charming ...until elevated into power on our behalf.I wonder how many lives were lost as a result of his promotion?

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:42pm on 04 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    Why not get the UN in to assist with an orderly transfer of power...or some other third party that can help without seeming to act as a puppet of the USA? Or is this really about the US being unable to back down without losing face?

    Sometimes I feel that the USA treats other nations as a sort of theatre for their politicians to use for what are really domestic political purposes.

    How would you Americans respond if Obama apologised for the way his country has behaved in Egypt over the years and for your part in backing Mubarak`s regime?

    Are you big enough to say sorry?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 10:49pm on 04 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #3
    worcesterjim wrote:
    Why not get the UN in to assist with an orderly transfer of power...or some other third party that can help without seeming to act as a puppet of the USA? Or is this really about the US being unable to back down without losing face?

    Sometimes I feel that the USA treats other nations as a sort of theatre for their politicians to use for what are really domestic political purposes.

    How would you Americans respond if Obama apologised for the way his country has behaved in Egypt over the years and for your part in backing Mubarak`s regime?

    Are you big enough to say sorry?

    __________

    We have spent too much time under Obama saying we are sorry.

    The world should be saying thank you to us for our moral leadership and leading the fight against ilsanmic terrorism after leading the fight against stalinism and nazism

    Jim you might also say thank you.

    As far as the U.N their performance in Lebanon protecting Hezbollah shows they can not be trusted

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 11:13pm on 04 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    I do say thank you for the existence and good humoured generosity of American people MK...and feel a genuine respect and affection for you folks who post from the USA ...regardless of our differences of opinion.

    But your use of the phrase "moral leadership" does cause me more difficulty....and largely because I have come to the sad conclusion that the elites who run our western countries are little more than pirates and thieves and bullies masquerading as something they have no just right to claim to be.

    What moral leadership has been shown in relation to Egypt MK?

    Go on...stand back and be honest with yourself.It`s time we all grew up and had the guts to see our faults as well as our virtues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 11:14pm on 04 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    The Oldloadr prize is lost already at No. 4

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 11:16pm on 04 Feb 2011, ap45 wrote:

    I have been following events in Egypt, mostly on BBC. Ease of access to information,events in Tunisia, and restive,young population is finally giving expression to pent up frustration,currently in Egypt and a few other Arab nations.
    This expression is certainly welcome, however I fear that a lack of credible political opposition in these countries provide fertile ground for fringe ideologies to fill sudden power vacuum.
    I fear we in the west with years of experience of developing our political systems are jumping too quickly on the bandwagon of change. While this is good, it is also a dual edged sword, because this is Middle east, and most western nations are politically unable to be impartial mediators, with regard to Israel.
    Authoritarian regimes have existed, managed to survive so long partly because of their nature, and partly due to the tacit support of powerful western governments.
    I wonder what we can do if the political democratic and majority choice of the Egyptian people is a a Hamas like government, as in Gaza. In Gaza we could ignore our ideals, and decide not to do business with the elected government, however Egypt is not Gaza.
    My thinking is western leaders should go slow on advocating change "NOW", till credible cohesive,viable political opposition, can be identified who can negotiate and initiate a process of change that will reflect the views of the vast majority of youth who were the first face of this movement. It appears to me, organizations like Muslim brotherhood, are piggy backing on a popular movement, to gain political legitimacy.They may well have genuine support, translatable to electoral returns and political power. I think however their political beliefs are not supported by the majority. In our rush to support transition, we may be forcing the Egyptian government to legitimise a group, that is an unknown devil. I prefer a known devil the current president.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 11:33pm on 04 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    And did the reporters perhaps think to ask Stephen Harper to answer the same question?

    That might have been an embarrassing moment, given the report in the press this morning that the Canadian government is urging caution and stability, and has been considerably less than even luke-warm to democratic change in Egypt unless it involves "continuity" with President Mubarak.

    Yes, at any moment, even a moment where the leaders of almost every major western power are supporting democratic change in Egypt, Stephen Harper can still find a way to be small and mean-spirited.

    Yes, he must have decided that he has a great deal in common with President Mubarak, I guess: 70 % of his own people want him gone, too.
    And if "now" means "yesterday", nobody would object, either.

    Some men have the stuff of greatness. Others never will.
    Stephen Harper will always be on the outside looking in, on the wrong side of history, time after time after time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:

    Dear MagicKirin,
    A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 00:06am on 05 Feb 2011, Scott0962 wrote:

    President Obama is still scrambling to position himself at the front of the pack so he can claim he is leading instead of reacting to the polls that tell him most Americans think his position on events in Egypt has been overly cautious and overly frienly to an authoritarian regime instead of supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people for more freedom and a government of their own choosing.

    It does not matter what western governments think of those who are organizing the protests or of the loss of an ally in the war on terror. The people of Egypt have decided the Mubarak government is no longer legitimate and must go. If we truly believe in the democratic ideals we preach we should support the people calling for change there and trust to their goodwill when they establish a new government. We failed to do that in Iran when the shah was overthrown and it cost us an entire generation of ill will from the Iranian people. We mustn't make that mistake again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 00:09am on 05 Feb 2011, tuulen wrote:


    7. ap45

    ap45 wrote:
    "My thinking is western leaders should go slow on advocating change "NOW", till credible cohesive,viable political opposition, can be identified who can negotiate and initiate a process of change that will reflect the views of the vast majority of youth who were the first face of this movement. It appears to me, organizations like Muslim brotherhood, are piggy backing on a popular movement, to gain political legitimacy.They may well have genuine support, translatable to electoral returns and political power. I think however their political beliefs are not supported by the majority. In our rush to support transition, we may be forcing the Egyptian government to legitimise a group, that is an unknown devil. I prefer a known devil the current president."

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    My thoughts were quite similar to yours, but you posted them first!

    It appears that President Obama is sending a mixed message. Just days ago he was concerned about not developing a power vacuum during the course of Egyptian presidential transition, and President Mubarak's postponement of his departure until September could have allowed time for legitimate presidential candidates to present their plans and for the Egyptian people to make their decisions. That way, President Mubarak leaves office as per popular demand, and the Egyptian people could be confident of their upcoming election decisions. However, it now appears that President Obama favors a too hasty departure of President Mubarak, which could only help to create the very power vacuum President Obama had spoken against. Worse, the moment President Mubarak leaves office, there naturally will be an Egyptian public interest in replacing him, but that works against legitimate presidential candidates and the decision making of the Egyptian people, and could actually benefit a party such as the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, religion is ancient, and everybody already knows where a religious party stands. In that regard, the Egyptian people might then be tempted to vote for the religious devil they know, and not the legitimate presidential candidate devil they do not know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 00:27am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    This is what I expect from the president of THE GREATEST democracy in the world.
    After a long time we are seeing some principled stand from a US president in foreign policy decision and that too concerning one of its "biggest allay in middle east" and opposing an influential Jewish lobby in US (and Israeli) politics.
    I can not help congratulating our President.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 00:41am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:
    Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.

    For most of the time USA is governed by businessmen and industrialists. Sometime directly, but most of the time- indirectly, in guise of politicians. It's national policies were more influenced by corporate and/or private lobbying for business purposes rather than welfare of the people of the country. "progress" of common people were were just a by-product, not the main goal. Of course, all such policies were cleverly packaged with some kind of patriotism or "bigger interest of the country" philosophy.
    Things will change and are changing lately- although slowly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 00:47am on 05 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    Mardell: He hoped the Egyptian president would end up making the right decision.
    ----------
    Only God knows what the right decision is!

    Personally my opinion is the best decision Mubarack could make is to stay in office til' Sept, when election is due...

    But if he does go, I guess that Suleiman guy (hopefully not related to Octomom, just joking) is pretty smart, being the head of the security forces, ect and I believe he is pro-USA?

    So I guess maybe Suleiman would be alright...

    Who will be counting the votes in the upcoming Egypt election>?
    (an independent source?)

    Obama may not like Mubarack right now, but what happens if the Egyptian people elect someone who does not like USA?

    (obviously their right to elect WHOEVER they want because its their country, I'm just saying, perhaps all this complaining is being done in haste and that perhaps worse things await if he leaves)

    Woudl the Egyptian protesters accept Suleiman as President?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
    Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 00:53am on 05 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    If wrote: Stephen Harper will always be on the outside looking in, on the wrong side of history, time after time after time.
    ------
    So in your opinion IF what current Canadian would make a great President?
    -------
    Jim wrote: Why not get the UN in to assist with an orderly transfer of power
    ------
    WHy should the UN have the right to kick leaders out of countries?

    Sounds like too much power!
    -------
    Andy wrote: it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war
    --------
    A lot of countries played important roles in defeating the Nazis and I don't think we could have done it without each other!!! :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 00:53am on 05 Feb 2011, JClarkson wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 18. At 01:00am on 05 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    Scott wrote: If we truly believe in the democratic ideals we preach we should support the people calling for change there and trust to their goodwill when they establish a new government.
    -----------
    I understand what you are saying Scott...the Egyptians are their own people and have the right to run their country the way they want...but I don't think its so simple...

    Can a radical Islamic extremist who is elected by majority of the people and instates Sharia law be considered a democratic leader?

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 01:06am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    Giving more time to such corrupt leaders in such third world, mostly lawless countries, only allow them to either extend their own regime (by using brutal force) or install someone within their inner circle (to token satisfy for change).
    Such dictators know that common people cannot go on with their "revolution", without jobs, without huge reserve money and basic necessities. They like to wither away this initial phase of problem and then come back with vengeance. we have seen that far too often in many Asian and some African countries.
    I do support the change, NOW, even if that means Muslim brotherhood gains control. It is time for Islam to withstand the trail of time and trust-worthiness to other civilized societies in the world. It should be the right for local people to chose what type of rule, what type of society they like to live in. And if that style of rule or life threaten anyone else, then it's our, all of "civilized" countries to take care of that.
    The name "Muslim brotherhood" does not necessarily mean and organization full of fundamentalists or terrorists. Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology.
    After all, any change among majority of Muslim mindset MUST come from within Muslims. And we must give them chance to show that. Or at least give our support when some Muslims are brave enough to show that terrorism and fundamentalism is not that faith is all about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 01:46am on 05 Feb 2011, quietoaktree wrote:

    15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:
    Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
    Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY

    Anything on slave labor ?


    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 01:47am on 05 Feb 2011, publiusdetroit wrote:

    Ref 16 LucyJ-

    "So in your opinion IF what current Canadian would make a great President?"

    I don't know about you, Interestedforeigner, but I'm finding a three-way dead heat for Canadian President. Either of the McKenzie brothers. Beauty, eh. Or, who is Alex (Remember contestants. Your answer must be in the form of a question) Trevek? Doug McKenzie may have a bit of an edge if he runs on the New Conservative Green Party ticket.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 01:57am on 05 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    "Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
    Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"


    It doesn't mention Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather whose company helped Hitler. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    Neither does it mention the Zionists who betrayed their fellow Jews.
    http://www.palestinejournal.net/lilienthal_how-zionists-sabotaged-rescue.htm


    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 02:03am on 05 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142
    You and other Britons with the same complaint have a point, but you do not make the same complaint about the Swiss and the Swedes. The US was neutral, not an ally of Britain, as were they. In WWI we did not join the Franco-British alliance, we entered as cobelligerants. And yes, it was after Germany attacked us.

    I understand British impatience, and even of injustice regarding US citizens helping the IRA. I don't like the idea of people like the Fords and Bushes being cozy with the Nazis or trading with Nazi Germany either. You need to understand why Joseph Kennedy liked the Germans and actively disliked Britain, himself being Irish and all. But misrepresentation and outright distortion of history wins no prize.


    The US consists of more German and Irish citizens than British [I qualify in both categories] so it was a hard sell for the US government to forsake neutrality in order to join Britain. You need to understand that.

    You also need to understand that the US government actually broke the neutrality laws to give Britain support, in both wars, before actually becoming a participant. This support was often supplied indirectly through Canada or disguised as a commercial agreement such as "Lend Lease."

    My Irish and German parents and grandparents did not object to helping Britain after we were attacked and fought side by side with you. My father never completely recovered from being the last survivor of his unit who continued fighting with other survivers in the Battle of the Bulge. He was a Master Sargeant, who rounded up other strays to keep fighting, in the winter, under awful conditions.

    The eternal carping rubs us the wrong way and sounds quite ungrateful. It is disrespectful of people who fought, bled and died at the side of your Tommys and helped keep Britain free. I hope you will keep this in mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 02:17am on 05 Feb 2011, JClarkson wrote:

    Excellent picture choice. Needs a bubble above it with Obama's thoughts...


    1) How come there are no golf courses in Egypt?

    2) Where is my teleprompter?

    3) I'm trying to think but nothing happens!

    etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 02:23am on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    16 Lucy..Forgive me for expressing myself poorly about the UN. I had been watching a television report and a lot of the ordinary egyptians were quite firmly saying they did not want the USA involved any more.

    So that set me thinking what the alternatives are ....and like you and MK I have my reservations about the UN ...but it struck me that they are supposed to be the global HQ representing all nations... and the Egyptians might feel OK about their involvement and support while they organised a proper fair election...and just kept an eye out for any jiggery-pokery.

    I think the major problem is going to be that given a free choice people may still want a fairly hard line government similar to the Mubarak regime ....but finally free of US control.

    It`s important to have a constitution that allows for regular elections but some Islamists have a very strict view that it is God`s job to govern countries rather than ours.

    Fortunately they have no oil in Egypt or your government might prefer to leave a dictator or monarchy in charge for stability`s sake...as in Libya and Saudi Arabia.

    What we British found was that you were lucky to please some of the people some of the time...but you will never please everybody.

    Hopefully we can all stop interfering and let the Egyptians take control of their own destiny from now on..and concentrate on making our own democracies work better for us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 02:25am on 05 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    "Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
    Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"


    There is also the little matter of the alleged treason of George Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush; http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/240707_bbc_prescott_coup.mp3

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 02:26am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Jay, (#19. At 01:06am on 05 Feb 2011)
    "... It should be the right for local people to chose what type of rule, what type of society they like to live in. And if that style of rule or life threaten anyone else, then it's our, all of "civilized" countries to take care of that ..."
    For the historically challenged: Once the Taliban "freed" Afghanistan from the yoke of Soviet occupation, they provided the safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

    "... Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology ..."
    What nonsense. Examples of Christian democratic parties include the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Democrat Party of Chile, the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) in the Netherlands.
    http://www.cdu.de/en/3440.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democrat_Party_of_Chile
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_People's_Party_of_Switzerland
    http://en.old.cda.nl/default.aspx

    Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be conservative, and in several cases form the main conservative party in their respective countries. Germany, Spain, and Belgium come to mind. Where is the "religious fanatic ideology" there? In Latin America, by contrast, Christian democratic parties tend to be progressive and influenced by liberation theology. Is that what you call "religious fanatic ideology?"

    How many of them "do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology?" None, probably. You just made it up because you thought is sounded good.

    So how many are there? Details please.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 02:52am on 05 Feb 2011, jamesthefoodie wrote:

    In any free and fair election in Egypt, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Ayman al Zawaheiri, would at the very least, be one of the major opposition parties, and almost certainly a partner in any ruling coalition. This seems to frighten the Israelis and the Americans.
    And yet Israel's ruling coalition has minority partners with radical religious views, and such parties are members of government in many other Muslim states.
    Is democracy only suitable for Europeans and Americans, and those in the West? Should those with strong religious views be banned from partaking in government?
    This is a question worth asking. If so, where do you start?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 02:55am on 05 Feb 2011, jamesthefoodie wrote:

    I reckon Neil Young for Canadian President!

    " Think I'll go out to Alberta, weather's good there in the fall..."
    Keep on rocking in the free world.!

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 03:14am on 05 Feb 2011, USSilentMajority wrote:

    Mark,

    I appreciate your columns while maybe not always agreeing with them, however as time goes by, you are getting a better understanding of this country. Unlike your younger cohorts in the media and elsewhere.

    Isn’t it about time to quit beating a dead horse regarding Egypt and what lawyers (aka liars) like Obama “assume” (appropriate term) about a nation, they have no understanding of. Not much different than what he “assumes” about the US, considering the way he was indoctrinated in his younger years as well as being taught how to articulate so well!

    There are far more important things occurring in this country which need to be recognized.
    “Unemployment falls in January to 9% but the number of new jobs created falls well short of expectations.” That’s because people exhausted their unemployment benefits and now have nothing, including a job!

    “Some of the toughest anti-smoking measures to be adopted in a major city have been approved by councilors (misspelled counselors) in New York.”
    Next they will want to adopt Malawi’s new bill to criminalize flatulence (farting) in public, to promote public decency.

    What next will be rubber stamped to protect the citizenry?

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 03:17am on 05 Feb 2011, USSilentMajority wrote:

    #23 JMM

    Well written!!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 03:25am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    jamesthefoodie, (#28. At 02:52am on 05 Feb 2011)
    ”... Should those with strong religious views be banned from partaking in government? ...”
    No, they should not.

    ”... This is a question worth asking ...”
    No, it is not.

    ”... If so, where do you start?”
    You don’t.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 03:37am on 05 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    16. At 00:53am on 05 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    "So in your opinion IF what current Canadian would make a great President?"
    __________

    Note the trick question!
    Trying to lure me into another one of those "birther" issues, eh?

    No Canadian can ever be President. There was one Canadian, an American by birth, who could have been, and he would have been a great one: Clarence Decatur Howe.

    __________

    Who would be a great Prime Minister?
    Much tougher question.

    The best qualified party leader, right now, is Gilles Duceppe. He is extremely capable, highly intelligent, thoughtful, sincere, articulate, dedicated, experienced, and well respected. A man of integrity.

    One minor problem though: he is a separatist.

    ----------

    I think that Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is a lot smarter and tougher than people give her credit for being. I'd say she's got more character, and courage, than the other (male) party leaders, too - a bit of a shame, since every vote for the Greens is effectively a vote for Stephen Harper, and he isn't, (and never will be), a tenth the man she is.

    ----------

    Great leaders only come along only once in a while.

    Pierre Trudeau was clearly one, although I campaigned for his opponents. I think Allan Blakeney is another, but he never served federally.

    Tommy Douglas was certainly one.
    So were Sir Robert Borden (a truly great Prime Minister), Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. MacDonald.

    These guys were all giants.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 03:47am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #28
    jamesthefoodie wrote:
    In any free and fair election in Egypt, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Ayman al Zawaheiri, would at the very least, be one of the major opposition parties, and almost certainly a partner in any ruling coalition. This seems to frighten the Israelis and the Americans.
    And yet Israel's ruling coalition has minority partners with radical religious views, and such parties are members of government in many other Muslim states.

    ______________

    Do any Israel so call radical groups expound the desire for the genocide of moslems in other countries. Because that is what the moslem brotherhood does in regard to Israel

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 03:48am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #26
    Jackturk wrote:
    15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    "Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
    Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"

    There is also the little matter of the alleged treason of George Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush; http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/240707_bbc_prescott_coup.mp3

    ____________

    and anyone who know Mass could tell you joe Kennedy was a Nazi

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 03:50am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #9
    Andy3142 wrote:
    Dear MagicKirin,
    A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.


    ____________

    Not denying what U.K did but no U.S lead invasion on D Day no victory, learn your history

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 03:51am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #33

    As far as Candian PM what about Michael Coren

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 04:08am on 05 Feb 2011, Fluidly Unsure wrote:

    There are many unknowns and it might be best to wait before we judge if Obama's move was a good one. Mubarak is a son and heir of a mongrel bitch; but to some degree, he is our mongrel. What if he is replaced by something worse? What if his leaving facilitates those who are actively trying to kill us?

    Egypt will probably be Obama's El Salvador.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 05:31am on 05 Feb 2011, Stevenson wrote:

    WJim,

    The idea that you should say thank you to our Western leaders is ludicrous, except for the idea that they DO leave at the end of their terms. (limited by law)

    I'm scared that someday enough people will not care and let someone take unlimited control..as long as they feel "it does not affect them."

    That is something for which I AM grateful.

    Also, this idea that it is absolutely true that all leaders are thieves and cheaters is not true if you realize there those people whom do not vote in elections.

    It does say in ancient texts that the Rich always get richer and the poor get poorer--which is unfortunatly tooo true these days, especially.

    Potential voters often feel they are not informed enough for participating in elections. Those people I do not feel grateful to. And I have friends who practice this art of being above it all. I, of course, keep my feeling to myself--unless asked ...

    usually they respond, "my vote does not mean much or anything, therefore why bother."

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 05:49am on 05 Feb 2011, samlebon wrote:

    For those who are worried about an Islamist government taking over Egypt.
    What about the BORN AGAIN government that ruled America, and the damage they brought to the Iraqi people, the world and to America itself?
    These are signs of the falling of the American Empire and I can't wait to see it on the floor.
    I really laugh when people describe America as a democracy, it's a PLUTOCRACY ! period.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 06:03am on 05 Feb 2011, steelbluecactus wrote:

    28. At 02:52am on 05 Feb 2011, jamesthefoodie wrote:
    In any free and fair election in Egypt, The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Ayman al Zawaheiri, would at the very least, be one of the major opposition parties, and almost certainly a partner in any ruling coalition. This seems to frighten the Israelis and the Americans.
    And yet Israel's ruling coalition has minority partners with radical religious views, and such parties are members of government in many other Muslim states.
    Is democracy only suitable for Europeans and Americans, and those in the West? Should those with strong religious views be banned from partaking in government?
    This is a question worth asking. If so, where do you start?

    +++++
    That is a good and fair question. In the US our Constitution codifies that there will be a separation of church and state. This was done in order to ensure that all religions could be observed without government interference. At least that's the theory.

    We struggle all the time to keep this ideal alive. It seems that a lot of people wish to convert everyone to their own flavor of religion - be it Christianity, Islam, Jewish, atheist (although not so much with the Jews). They try to install their own moral code into our laws.

    Although democracy is generally viewed as "majority rule" it is, in the US anyway, actually set up to protect the rights of any minority (be it race, religion, etc.) from majority rule. That way everyone is supposed to get a fair shake. This is the hardest part of our brand of democracy.

    So it's not an easy question. My view, any person regardless of religious persuasion must be allowed to participate. But once religious views are allowed to be inserted into the mix things begin to go down hill. At that point it is only a true democracy or those who voluntarily agree with the majority opinions.

    So when an American speaks of "democracy" they not only mean "majority rule" but also "equal rights for all". Not sure if others will always agree with that and THAT may be where the disconnect lies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 06:10am on 05 Feb 2011, steelbluecactus wrote:

    36. At 03:50am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:
    ref #9
    Andy3142 wrote:
    Dear MagicKirin,
    A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.


    ____________

    Not denying what U.K did but no U.S lead invasion on D Day no victory, learn your history

    ++++++

    Please - both of you - to be perfectly honest the Allies would never have defeated Hitler had the US not entered the war. BUT had the Brits not done such a brilliant job of holding him off until we did enter it we would all be speaking German now. Had he defeated GB the rest of the Allies (you must include the Aussies, Canadians, etc) would probably not have been able to defeat them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 06:49am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    27. At 02:26am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
    For the historically challenged: Once the Taliban "freed" Afghanistan from the yoke of Soviet occupation, they provided the safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

    Well, my post was not for any ignorant or frog-in-a-well type of person.
    Do you, Chryses, know that US has its own responsibility to make a good part of Talibans and also Pakistan to go towards terrorism and that ultimately turned against US itself? US patronizing of successive military dictators in Pakistan and Afghanistan was equally responsible for that. US did not hesitate much to depart from that land, rapidly lost its interest once ITS own strategic interest was achieved (by 'defeating' Soviets in Afghanistan), leaving a huge trained (by CIA and US army) militia and lots of arms and ammunition. If US had acted in good faith to restore true democracy in Pakistan (rather than supporting many dictators and war-lords in that part of the world) we would not have got the taliban, Al-quida menace in the first place. Creation of a terrorist like Bin-Laden was not an exception but a eminent fall out of our own self-centered policies that exploited others to achieve own goal and left the people in limbo later. A policy without a moral ground or obligation does not always leave us with good results. People are not that stupid to trust us (or anyone) for long. Once the trust breaks, many may seek revenge (whether we like it or not).

    Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be conservative, and in several cases form the main conservative party in their respective countries. Germany, Spain, and Belgium come to mind. Where is the "religious fanatic ideology" there? In Latin America, by contrast, Christian democratic parties tend to be progressive and influenced by liberation theology. Is that what you call "religious fanatic ideology?"

    My intension was to highlight that a name that bears a religious word does not necessarily mean extremism or religious fundamentalism.
    There are some instances that some christian Dems are indulged in religious fundamentalism, as in Australia.
    "....attacked the Christian Democratic Party itself, stating that the party was a cult,[14] a hypocritical, anti-Christian, anti-democratic dictatorship that adhered to the values of extremist fundamentalism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

    So far "Muslim brotherhood" is concerned, it will be suffice to say that, "Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, says "Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative and non-violent,"[6] and "untested in government and poorly understood - especially in the West"[7]. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood

    US must not frame its policies for short term gain or to please its dictatorial allies but to support the people of that country, not the regime, per se. We have paid a heavy price for such policies in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arab etc. Marriage of convenience does not last long and when it break up, it creates a very messy footprints; as we are seeing in post British colonialism and partly US adventures from time to time in different parts of the world.



    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 06:49am on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    actions of the vice president in the past days earned my trust. i think most of the Egyptians agree. some won't agree because they will think he'll be a copy of President Mubarak
    i agree with everything said above and all the comments. it makes no difference if it's with or against President Mubarak delayed resign or retirement.
    except for:
    19 Jay
    the brotherhood in control =
    1. civil war in Egypt or Egypt turns to a new Afghanistan
    2. a first step towards wwiii
    of course i may be just jumping to conclusions and my judgement is affected a little by my worries, but it is almost this bad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 07:00am on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    i mean it may not seem like this, but this immediate change might be similar to placing a time bomb in a neat "democracy and change to the better" cover if it is not achieved with patience and extreme caution. notice that what increased the protesters who want Mubarak to leave numbers is the extremist Muslims who think this would be very beneficial to them. (besides, they were behind much of the propaganda that spread that President Mubarark is a dictator)

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 07:09am on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    It seems to me that the West has been over hasty in regarding the Egyptian crisis as a 'victory for democracy'. Obama's congratulating the people for such noble aspirations when it's obvious that they are very divided on the issue could be read as irresponsible interference. What is taking place in Tahir Square isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of the opinion of the majority of a population of almost 83,000,000.
    It obviously isn't as simple as that. Hosni Mubarak, faced with a very delicate problem, isn't an example of a leader of State who would hang on in just to satisfy personal ambitions.

    The pressure Obama is trying to exert on him now could well be ill-advised. The French President Sarkozy checked himself on the issue yesterday, suggesting that the outside world should now refrain from the temptation of interfering. This appears to be more a clear message to Obama, who, let's face it, doesn't have the greatest reputation in foreign affairs, if the acceptance of the 'democratic outcome' in Afghanistan was anything to go by. It would not improve his reputation if the outcome of such Western pressure was either a putsch or a civil war in Egypt, either of which could have catastrophic consequences for the nation, which geographically and strategically would naturally mean for the world.

    There is no organised opposition to speak of, and obviously more time and consideration is needed to work out how best the authorities can organise a transition that would lead to real democratic outcome. Under such circumstances external pressure from the West could be an expression of dangerous and arrogant oversimplification of what is obviously already a volatile situation. Fanning flames of any Iranian interference here, could well be inadvisable. America may have succeeded in forcing the issue in Tunisia, but the problem in Egypt isn't the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 07:13am on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 48. At 07:19am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    Rise of Islamic fundamentalism is one of the consequences of prolonged dictatorial rule in many Arab states. Local people are not allowed to express their views, do not get much education, hardly have the right and also ability to think for themselves. Govt does it all for them, since long. And government does not represent people in any way.

    As economy (the only good point in some Arab states) is going downhill, as unemployment is increasing, so is the frustration. Now they can not trust the same people who MAY be right in saying that this economic downturn is not their creation or even under its control. It's better that people in Egypt is revolting directly, rather than joining underground, well organised extremist organization (as they did in countries like Pakistan) to seek "justice" or employment or just for security (for themselves and their families).
    Many blame Jimmy Carter for allowing Muslim theocracy to replace the US's puppet regime of Shah in Iran. I think, Iran is a much better country so far world peace is concerned, as compared to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many people think that Saudi Arab (besides Pakistan and Afghanistan) is far worse to exporting Islamic terrorism and enemy for world peace than Iran; even though Jimmy Carter (or any other US president) did not over throw the fundamentalist, barbaric rulers of that kingdom.
    Probably that's why there are many in Iran (even among ruling elites) who still challenge sham democracy in Iran, as compared to Saudi.
    So far nuclear arms is concerned, UN or US should be equally critical about Israel's nuclear ambition as well (which is a open secret but not much discussed in media for many obvious reasons).

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 07:34am on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    if you hear something with the meaning "execute the dictator" in a Friday prayer, while it is supposed to be calming people and calling for peaceful actions, in a mosqure right in front of the place where you live, perhaps you'd be worried too. (this is not the mosque where i went to pray, by the way)

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 07:43am on 05 Feb 2011, Oldloadr wrote:

    9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:
    Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
    _____________________________________________________
    While it may be true that Republican businessmen (how do you know they were all republican?) were making money from the 3rd Reich (IF has pointed out that Godwin was violated in #4):

    1. The Democrat in the White House was making a mockery of the Neutrality laws in effect at the time.

    2. Once the US entered the war, it carried the lion’s share of the combat, both on the ground and in the air. Do you remember that RAF bomber command was afraid to fly in the daytime and so therefore contented themselves with terror raids on cities, all the while the 8th AF took the fight to the enemy’s war production facilities (in daylight so they could use their bomb sight) while taking a higher casualty rate then the any ground unit of comparable size. Your great hero, Montgomery’s only real accomplishments after El Alamein, was getting in Paton’s way, using up Paton’s resources, and planning the disaster known as Operation Market Garden (at least there was a movie, “A Bridge Too Far”. At least, the unintended consequence was the 101st Airborne was near Bastogne, licking its wounds, so they could get in position to stop the German counter offensive, later known as the battle of the bulge.



    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 08:49am on 05 Feb 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:

    Seems to me like Obama is just buying time so the CIA can get their own pro-Israel, pro-Western candidate to the forefront of the polls so to ensure that the Brotherhood will not win. Mubarak was originally the CIA's choice when he first came to power and ofcourse his replacement must be able to ensure "stability in the region".

    Why must countries - and I'm not just talking about the US here - meddle in the diplomatic affairs of others? Have we not learned our lesson from Iraq & Afghanistan?

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 09:05am on 05 Feb 2011, Oldloadr wrote:

    51. At 08:49am on 05 Feb 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:
    Why must countries - and I'm not just talking about the US here - meddle in the diplomatic affairs of others? Have we not learned our lesson from Iraq & Afghanistan?
    __________________________________________________________________


    2 things:

    1. What lesson would that be? Iraq seems to be improving every day, so the “War of Choice” as The One referred to Iraq when he was running for office has produced the best outcome so far in the practice of “Nation Building in this generation.” There was no choice (even according to The One) but to invade Af’stan, unless we wanted to continue to watch tall building full of civilians come crashing down. The fact that Af’stan is a tough nut to crack doesn’t change the fact.

    2. Yet, you could have a valid point, if these were the only 2 instances in the history of the world that a western nation (or alliance) has conducted regime change. However, we have some glaring examples of that working quite well (e.g. Germany, Japan, Panama).

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 09:14am on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    just returned. streets are very peaceful and quiet now. there are no longer people holding weapons in public (i don't mean the army). everything seems normal. the only danger is speedy cars. but, there is nothing to worry about. trains are working again. people started joking about the whole thing with a little bitter taste left. (that's in Alexandria which is usually calmer than Cairo)
    since i came here originally to try to help with clarifying the image, now i don't have to. many people here understand the situation very well, perhaps even much better than i do. also, i have to add that the new government and specially the vice president were very wise in dealing with the situation. i can't imagine how fast the 'circus from hell' left the country. i hope it won't come back again. it's almost a miraculous change. (this is somewhat personal, but i'll say it anyway. i was considering donating blood just to compensate for being a little harsh in my judgement of the protesters sometimes. i'll definitely do it once things get back to normal)
    i'll start helping people feel less worried instead of encouraging people to say to which side they belong to without fear. i'm thankful to everyone here for their patience and for their wisdom in dealing with this topic. (even those who were just unnecessarily too sarcastic or those who want to add more fuel to fire)
    now it's time to reunite and rebuild Egypt, hopefully even to become better than it was.
    i'll get back to the state that i used to be. (ignoring politics altogether) just pure hard work is enough for me as a goal
    it was my pleasure discussing things with everyone here. thanks for your patience and your consideration

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 09:17am on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    one thing more, the BBC was among the most honest and neutral sides of media i've seen during the crisis. also, that reporter who was in Alexandria was very brave! i can't imagine how hard it was for him to do all this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 09:20am on 05 Feb 2011, sayasay wrote:

    #48 Jay
    "US must not frame its policies for short term gain or to please its dictatorial allies but to support the people of that country, not the regime, per se."

    Pure hyperbole. So, if USA supports "the people of that country", what does that make the USA: government-in-exile or coloniser or rebel government or home office or offshore-call centre helpline?

    Let's be specific, Ben Ali's Tunisia and Mubarack's Egypt are just friends with benefits of USA. For a longtime in fact, and both learn nothing on how to reduce unemployment, conduct legitimate elections and how to run a transparent criminal justice system. Which are USA’s claimed expertise.

    Tunisia did their thing and has now moved on. The Egyptian people do not need USA's help in 'manufacturing' a government for them. Any sign of USA's 'handiwork' will destroy the credibility of the political consensus. After 30 years of 'friendship', the Egyptian people are adult enough to realise play-time and quality time with Uncle Sam is over.

    One more thing, since we are in the growing up mood. We will be celebrating 100 years anniversary of WW2 in about 28 years time, can we not wait till then to reminisce. This grandpa's story telling makes this blog sound like a retirement home's sitting room.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 09:29am on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #40
    samlebon wrote:
    For those who are worried about an Islamist government taking over Egypt.
    What about the BORN AGAIN government that ruled America, and the damage they brought to the Iraqi people, the world and to America itself?

    ___________

    are you talking about christian Conservatives? Well I don't think President Obama fits that category so unless you are outraged that chrismass is a federal holiday, chrstinalty has very little influence on goverment business.

    the people of Iraq were liberated, just ask a Kurd why don't you? they still live under oppression in Turkey and Iran.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 09:32am on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    Obama bet on an Afghan leader who doesn't seem to have a great deal of respect for the very principles of democracy that young soldiers of NATO are supposed to be defending and sacrificing their lives for. The consequences are evident. It's never to late to learn from even recent history, but populist Obama, who always seems to be more awe-struck and media influenced by a waving crowd of angry opposers in one particular place, than by a silent majority of Egypt's entire population of almost 83,000,000; so far, in my modest opinion, doesn't inspire the confidence behoving to his position.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 10:02am on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    Can I vigorously object to MK` and Oldloaders disgusting spielburgisation of history in the very strongest of terms and ask them to please be less abusive towards a British people who went bankrupt fighting WW2 and have never recovered from it.

    Also let`s remember that twenty million Russians died in WW2 plus Chinese and Japs and countless ordinary Germans and other Europeans ...a war which I believe was caused by CROOKS on Wall Street doing much the same things that they were still getting away with in 2008!

    Yet STILL the USA waddles about the world owing trillions of pounds arrogantly dispensing "justice" to the rest of mankind and grandly deciding our futures .......as though we are no more than bit part players in the absurd soap opera of American domestic politics...a politics so pitifully bereft of reason or rationality or choice that you are the laughingstock of mankind!

    Have you folks no SHAME or are you so brainwashed that you really don`t understand what damage you are doing?

    Obama probably knows about as much about Egypt as the rest of us...not a lot....but he will not be making decisions. His financier backers are more likely to decide what the USA is doing in collaboration with the media tycoons who are their close associates.

    And let`s not forget that the same type of "financiers" that made a lot of money out of WW2 are getting away with the 2008 heist... and no doubt having far more influence over what war the USA starts next than we can possibly have.

    Is that a way for mankind to organise a just and free and democratic world? NO...it`s like entrusting our grandchildren`s futures to the throw of a dice!

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 11:17am on 05 Feb 2011, Ad wrote:

    58 Jim and 50 Oldloadr - it really is a Grandad's argument (I'm a grandad too) but Jim's right about the Soviet Union's appalling losses in WW2. The war on the Eastern Front made D-day, Normandy, Arnhem and the Bulge look like a scrap in the schoolyard by comparison.

    Britain finished paying its war-debts to the USA when -- a year or two ago I think.

    Younger bloggers please, look forward. Don't read what follows. The past contains too much bitterness. Now Grandad's reply:

    My uncle was a Bomber Command pilot; shot down over Germany he lost 4 of his crew and was a POW for 3 years, repatriated with tuberculosis in the end, from which he recovered.

    Bomber Command lost over 55,000 men. Afraid to fly in the daytime? An insult. Their daytime losses in the first years of the War were so heavy that they could scarcely keep up with crew-training. They weren't afraid: they were realistic. The American bombers when they arrived were far more heavily armed and benefited from daytime fighter escorts later on. They were highly effective in maintaining the Allied strategy of round-the-clock bombing.

    An insult.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 11:51am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Jay, (#43. At 06:49am on 05 Feb 2011)
    "... 'For the historically challenged: Once the Taliban "freed" Afghanistan from the yoke of Soviet occupation, they provided the safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.'

    Well, my post was not for any ignorant or frog-in-a-well type of person ..."

    Let's take a look, shall we?
    "... Do you, Chryses, know that US has its own responsibility to make a good part of Talibans and also Pakistan to go towards terrorism and that ultimately turned against US itself? ..."
    You are mistaken. The U.S. supplied the Taliban in order that it might reverse the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. Without American arms and material the Taliban would have failed.

    "... US patronizing of successive military dictators in Pakistan and Afghanistan was equally responsible for that ..."
    Evidence please. What succession of military dictators in Afghanistan was "equally responsible for that?" You know - the ones the U.S. patronized. It sounds as if you are making it up as you go.

    "... US did not hesitate much to depart from that land, rapidly lost its interest once ITS own strategic interest was achieved (by 'defeating' Soviets in Afghanistan), leaving a huge trained (by CIA and US army) militia and lots of arms and ammunition ..."
    As the U.S. was not "in" Afghanistan, it could not "leave" it. Having forced the Soviets to leave, the Taliban assumed control of the country. Are you suggesting that because the Taliban had "arms and ammunition," they were compelled to use them? What nonsense.

    "... If US had acted in good faith to restore true democracy in Pakistan (rather than supporting many dictators and war-lords in that part of the world) we would not have got the taliban, Al-quida menace in the first place ..."
    Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. You criticize the U.S. for interfering in the politics of another nation by supplying munitions and materiel to the Taliban so that they could force the Soviet occupation forces out of Afghanistan, and in the same post criticize the U.S. for NOT interfering in the politics of another nation by restoring "true democracy in Pakistan." Since when is it the responsibility of the U.S. to impose "true democracy" on Pakistan? If you knew any history at all, you would know that Pakistan falls within the British sphere of influence, as it was created by the separation of British India in 1947. They're also right decent at the democracy thing, or hadn't you noticed?

    "... Creation of a terrorist like Bin-Laden was not an exception but a eminent fall out of our own self-centered policies that exploited others to achieve own goal and left the people in limbo later ..."
    Foolishness. Terrorism as practiced by al-Qaeda preceded Osama bin Laden.

    "...A policy without a moral ground or obligation does not always leave us with good results ..."
    A policy witha "moral ground or obligation" may also fail.

    "...' Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be conservative...'
    ... My intension was to highlight that a name that bears a religious word does not necessarily mean extremism or religious fundamentalism ..."

    Yeah. Right! Here is what you actually wrote in post #19. "Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology." One of the good things of a blog like this is that you cannot wriggle out of what you actually wrote. Nice try.

    There are some instances that some christian Dems are indulged in religious fundamentalism, as in Australia.
    "....attacked the Christian Democratic Party itself, stating that the party was a cult,[14] a hypocritical, anti-Christian, anti-democratic dictatorship that adhered to the values of extremist fundamentalism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

    Wrong again. That is not evidence, it is an accusation by a politician. At least try to understand the material before posting irrelevant spam.

    "... US must not frame its policies for short term gain or to please its dictatorial allies but to support the people of that country, not the regime, per se ..."
    So you DO advocate that the U.S. should intervene in the politics of sovereign nations. How amusing. You have just advocated that the U.S. should not necessarily work with the government of a nation. And yet in post #19, you wrote, "It should be the right for local people to chose what type of rule, what type of society they like to live in." Either the U.S. works with the government of a nation or not. Do try to get your stories straight. Contradicting yourself looks so foolish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 12:16pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    worcesterjim, (#58. At 10:02am on 05 Feb 2011)
    ”... Also let`s remember that twenty million Russians died in WW2 plus Chinese and Japs and countless ordinary Germans and other Europeans ...a war which I believe was caused by CROOKS on Wall Street doing much the same things that they were still getting away with in 2008! ...“
    What evidence can you provide to support your claim that WWII was “caused by CROOKS on Wall Street?” I was unaware of that being the cause of the rise of the Third Reich.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 12:27pm on 05 Feb 2011, Joe wrote:

    Yes, the US thinks everyone wants democracy. And while that's fine and good, and I applaud that desire, Mr. Obama wants the main opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, to be invited into the government. They are allies of AlQuieda, Hamas, and Iran. AlQuieda got much of their inspiration from the Brotherhood. After the first and only free elections the Brotherhood will shoot or muscle out any one else, and those will be the last free or fair elections. They will see to it with the army and secret police at their disposal. This has been Iran's pattern. Mr. Mubarek is right about them. Really, Mr. Obama, is it our business to be handing Egypt to Iran on a silver platter?

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 12:33pm on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Chryses. Why didn't the Americans deal more directly with the Afganis (with Massoud, for example) instead of with Pakistan who fostered the Taliban in the first place? Apparently Commandant Massoud was even approached at one time (in the mid 90's) by a certain Mrs. Raphael when she was in charge of the Afghan file of the Departement of State. According to Massoud "she was sincerely convinced that the Taliban movement would be good for the Afghans, which says a lot about the ignorance of the Americans about our country. The USA were greatly influenced by the ISI (Pakstani Secret Service) who had also intoxicated the government of Islamabad about the way to proceed in our concern".

    (Massoud, who represented real hope for Afghanistan, was assassinated by the Taliban the 9th September, 2001, two days before the twin towers were hit..).

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 12:37pm on 05 Feb 2011, iain wrote:

    hmmmmmmmmmm

    IF Obama wants Mubarek to go theres a reason????

    obama is part of the nwo
    THIS MEANS
    ONE WORLD RELIGION
    ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
    ONE WORLD CURRENCY


    so think on what he says and what hes told to say and what he does are all different ..............

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 12:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, quietoaktree wrote:

    Could the ´old soldiers´kindly fade away or go over to the Hewitt European blog where WWll is constantly discussed between British and American nationalists ?

    It is irrelevant if Obama says Mubarak must go or not-- if old oppressive structures remain.

    It is the system of oppression that must be dismantled -and that will stay unless it it specifically targeted. The ´old´ Tunisian secret police is again raising its head and the ´elite´ with the most to lose are fighting back.

    The Egyptian police, secret police and thugs have not been deterred by the protests -and have no intention to change anything ---unless they themselves become the hunted instead of the hunters.
    Civil Rights groups have been telling the world for decades about Mubarak and his murderous cronies -- now the world has seen them in action. It is naive to believe they are going to leave -- without actions that puts fear into them.

    While Amr is attempting to give the impression that he (and Egypt) is a victim of the protestors--

    "---also, i have to add that the new government and specially the vice president were very wise in dealing with the situation."

    "--now it's time to reunite and rebuild Egypt, hopefully even to become better than it was."

    "--(besides, they were behind much of the propaganda that spread that President Mubarark is a dictator)"

    "--the state TV seemed very fair to me. nothing was said to provoke people."

    ---Amr knows what side to butter HIS bread.


    The compartmentalization of ideas by some contributors is also interesting-- however we have seen and heard it all before --

    A right- wing dictatorship is always better that a left-wing dictatorship -- A Nazi Germany was better than a Communist Germany -- which at the time was a possibility had not ´The free world ´ prevented it !!!


    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 12:51pm on 05 Feb 2011, iain wrote:

    61 yes i can provide evidence that wall street funded the rise of the weirmar republic and when hitler wouldnt pay back the money they caused the hyperinflation and oncoming disaster
    schacht was the finance minister and head of a german bank which was run and funded by the wall street mafia...hitler apposed being held to ransom by the wall street hitmen and decided to go alone sacked schacht(after the war schacht should have gone to the nuremburg trials but was freed without charge ...done as a favour by the finacial elite) hitler built up germany with out wall street money ie vouchers for state works full employment etc etc lots of usa business in germany suffered wall street were angry
    wall street didnt like having the doors shut in their faces and starved germany from exporting and trading outside of there own country forcing hitler to expand military and invade poland etc etc

    all orchestrated hitler stood up like we should and iceland have same as 2008 financial hitmen terrorises nations for money!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 12:58pm on 05 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    Whilst the ordinary Egyptian folk long for change & have just begun to find their voice,under the surface is were that change will be won.Egyptian internal state security apparatus witch is larger than the Egyptian standing conventional forces & quite separate will be eyeing each other with no love loss.The Army is more representative of the guy in the street
    whilst the internal security the apparatus of oppression.My fear is,this
    has all the ingredients for a civil war...

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 1:18pm on 05 Feb 2011, powermeerkat wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 69. At 1:22pm on 05 Feb 2011, powermeerkat wrote:

    Re #60 Chryses:

    You are mistaken. The U.S. supplied the Taliban in order that it might reverse the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. Without American arms and material the Taliban would have failed.







    For the record:

    Taliban has not even existed during the Soviet-Afghan War.

    It's been created (in Pakistani madrassas, 'with a little help' from ISI) in 1994; long after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 1:23pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    66 Thanks iain...and you will find that Wall Street moneylenders financed the First World War as well...but don`t imagine you can get a debate going with these victims of the Hollywood Book of History!
    Not only have they been taken over by global capitalism but they have been comprehensively diseducated and brainwashed as well.....just like my parents seemed after the Second World War.

    The victor writes the history ....and the powerful use our media to tell us what to think....that`s why the financiers of Wall Street and their media mogul cronies are happy to lose money providing "our" media....it gives them so much power and influence that it pays off handsomely in the end.What do you think privatisation and all those wars are really about....of course...freedom and democracy???!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 1:35pm on 05 Feb 2011, powermeerkat wrote:

    "Why didn't the Americans deal more directly with the Afganis (with Massoud, for example)"





    Because Shah Massoud (a moderate Muslim) has been assassinated by al-Qaeda for objecting to Afghanistan becoming a Sharia-based caliphate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 1:40pm on 05 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    Western Europe owes its freedom to the sacrifice of so many from so many
    Nations,United States included.For us British to expect perpetual homage
    from the occupied for helping free them of the Nazi evil,is just bad form,its not done.

    Allies fought & suffered together it was a shared experience remembered with sober reverence.They did not fight for them,they fought with them.To have fought & fallen in that fight is not to find one self in a position of Kowtow with your Allies.If that is the feeling required of them,we are beginning to treat them as did the Nazis.It takes away from those who actually paid the price,& that price was not paid by me or you....

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 2:10pm on 05 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    65. At 12:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, quietoaktree wrote: "A right- wing dictatorship is always better that a left-wing dictatorship."

    I admit that when I was a lot younger I actually believed this, to a point. I never believed that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Falangist Spain were "better" than any other cruel dictatorship. [I believe you are quoting or suggesting other people's beliefs, so take this as addition, not criticism.]

    However I am now quite sure that no leftist dictatorship is any better than any on the right. Murders committed by Stalin, Castro, Hitler or Pinochet, are still murders regardles of any spurious philosophical underpinnings.

    With all its faults, as Winston Churchill pointed out, democracy is the best choice. Scandinavian social democracy may be the best compromise available between individual freedom and public welfare.

    The argument always comes down to two propositions, 1. Those people are not ready for democrace, having never had one. 2. A strong leader or "dictator" may be the best sollution early on.

    The history of the US would seem to suggest that both are false [thank God or fortune for George Washington refusing a crown]. Unfortunately through too much success the US population has becom complacent, fat arrogant and ignorant. We are in the process of losing our democracy. I hope it isn't too late to reverse this trend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 3:11pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    iain, (#66. At 12:51pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    "61 yes i can provide evidence that wall street funded the rise of the weirmar republic and when hitler wouldnt pay back the money they caused the hyperinflation and oncoming disaster ..."
    Good. Let us see.
    "... schacht was the finance minister and head of a german bank which was run and funded by the wall street mafia ...
    The bank to which you refer was Dresdner Bank, which was German. If you want any rational people to believe that Dresdner bank was "was run and funded by the wall street mafia," you'll need to provide some evidence that, a) it was run and funded by the "wall street mafia," and b) that there was a "wall street mafia."
    I rather doubt that you will even try, but hey, give it a shot.

    As for Hjalmar Schacht, he participated in the introduction of the Rentenmark, which replaced the German Mark, made worthless by the hyperinflation of 1921-1923, quite a bit before Hitler's Third Reich came to power. Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank during the administration of of President Friedrich Ebert and Chancellor Gustav Stresemann, NOT Adolf Hitler. You would benefit by bushing up on your European history. Hitler appointed Schacht as his Minister of Economics in late 1934.

    "... hitler apposed being held to ransom by the wall street hitmen and decided to go alone sacked schacht(after the war schacht should have gone to the nuremburg trials but was freed without charge ...done as a favour by the finacial elite) ..."
    Actually, Hermann Göring fired Schacht, but given the historical ignorance above, it is a mere quibble. The dismissal occurred due to the economic crisis of 1935-1936, again well after the period of hyperinflation. Further, Schacht was arrested by the Allies in 1945, and he was put on trial at Nuremberg. He was acquitted. Do read up on the history. It will save you from making it up.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht#Resistance_activities
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht#After_the_war

    "... hitler built up germany with out wall street money ie vouchers for state works full employment etc etc lots of usa business in germany suffered wall street were angry ..."
    You seem to be suffering from the same ailment that afflicts some other posters to these threads; just because you say it is so does not make it true.
    Evidence please.

    "... wall street didnt like having the doors shut in their faces and starved germany from exporting and trading outside of there own country forcing hitler to expand military and invade poland etc etc ..."
    Wow! What an imagination! What did did "wall street" do that "starved germany from exporting and trading outside of there own country?" Further, in what way did that "starvation" "force "Hitler to "expand military?"

    "... all orchestrated hitler stood up like we should and iceland have same as 2008 financial hitmen terrorises nations for money!!! "
    Other than expressing rage, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

    One thing I will give you, though. At least you tried to argue the case. As shown above, history does not treat your version of the events kindly, but that can be corrected by studying. Other posters however, just babble the first nonsense that pops into their heads, without being constrained by the shackles of cognitive effort.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 3:15pm on 05 Feb 2011, Oldloadr wrote:

    9. At 11:34pm on 04 Feb 2011, Andy3142 wrote:
    Dear MagicKirin,
    A point of fact. If you read the actual history, I think you'll find that while the USA bankrolled the defeat of Nazism, it was actually, ahem, us Brits who led the fight, both in standing up to Hitler when no-one else would (and when we didn't actually have to) and in strategic direction of the war. You in the USA remained on the sidelines until you yourselves were attacked. Republican businessmen were happily doing business with Hitler right up until Pearl Harbour.
    _________________________________________________________________


    For those of you who felt insulted by my comments at #50, I have reposted Andy’s comments at #9 which I was responding to. If you still feel insulted, then now you know how many Americans feel every day due to not only British, but European arrogance, but I digress. For the sake of conciseness, if no other, I should have left what JMM said at #23 since he hit all the major cultural factors.

    For the comments about WWII and who did what being out of context, considering that this post is supposed to be a dialogue between Brits and Americans based on a Brit’s perspective of America, WWII certainly fits the total character of the blog better than going on and on about Egypt since no American or Brit will be voting if there are free and fair elections in Egypt.

    Now, I would ask worcestorjim to explain to me how the Wall Street elites convinced Tojo and Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. This is relevant since the US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked, only on the Empire of Japan. Hitler, honoring his pact with Japan, then declared war on the United States.


    Finally, as for those who felt compelled to bring up the Eastern Front and the 20 million (supposedly) soviets killed, 2 things:

    1. I would file the Eastern front under the same category as Henry Kissinger put the Iran-Iraq War, “Too bad they both can’t lose.”

    2. Russian loses in WWII had nothing to do with Andy’s assertions about US involvement in WWII.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 3:16pm on 05 Feb 2011, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #58
    Worcester Jim I did not mean to insult U.K fight with us against Nazism Stalinsim and islamic terrorism

    I was responding to your original post about the U.S apologizing.

    I honestly feel that the U.S has given the world so much and yet it is never thanked or recognized for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 3:34pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    powermeerkat, (#69. At 1:22pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    ”... For the record:
    Taliban has not even existed during the Soviet-Afghan War ...”

    Good hit! I should have used “Afghan resistance” or some such instead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 3:38pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Oldloadr, (#75. At 3:15pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    ”... explain to me how the Wall Street elites convinced Tojo and Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. This is relevant since the US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked, only on the Empire of Japan. Hitler, honoring his pact with Japan, then declared war on the United States ...”
    Don’t hold your breath waiting for a lucid answer! LOL!

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 3:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 80. At 4:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    22. At 01:57am on 05 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    15. At 00:48am on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    "Cont. to my earlier post (#13):
    Just got this informative link to show, "Which american companies did business with Hitler during WW2?":
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090708092549AAlwOnY"

    It doesn't mention Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather whose company helped Hitler. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    Neither does it mention the Zionists who betrayed their fellow Jews.
    http://www.palestinejournal.net/lilienthal_how-zionists-sabotaged-rescue.htm

    ------

    Boring...
    Anybody who knows the Middle East conflict knows that it was the Palestinian Arab side that supported the Nazis. It's well documented that Hitler met up with the Palestinian grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who pledged to build concentration camps in Palestine once the Nazis had achieved success in Europe.
    And of course, the Arabs supported the losing side in both World Wars...

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 4:38pm on 05 Feb 2011, Oldloadr wrote:

    79. At 3:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
    _________________________________________________________
    What rule would that be? Bl***y amazing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 4:41pm on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    65 quietoaktree
    ok, you have an interesting point of view. i checked my posts earlier, even before you posted this comment, and you're somewhat right.
    "While Amr is attempting to give the impression that he (and Egypt) is a victim of the protestors--" from my side, it seems that soon they will demand the Egyptians that do not support their point of view to leave with Mubarak. is this still my country? do i still have a right to be here?
    "---also, i have to add that the new government and specially the vice president were very wise in dealing with the situation." this is my personal opinion, or i no longer have any right to say what i think? take a good look. things are much more peaceful now. protesters are well-protected, i think.
    "--now it's time to reunite and rebuild Egypt, hopefully even to become better than it was." ... i only tried to think positively now that things seem peaceful...
    "--(besides, they were behind much of the propaganda that spread that President Mubarark is a dictator)" ... it's funny since i feel you're almost trying to say that "we're saying he is a dictator, so he must be a dictator."
    next time you try to help a country become a better you should give people some warning like: "democracy" is coming; run for your lives!

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 4:53pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    MK I am just too angry with you (and your pet Chryses) to argue with you rationally.

    It`s quite clear to me that you are not here to engage in debate but simply to regurgitate your prejudices based on propoganda which I recognise has been very effective not just in the USA but here in Britain as well.

    If at any stage you had budged an inch under the welter of confounding information and opinion I would see some point...but if you are proved inaccurate or wrong you simply submerge without acknowleding the point and move on to another subject.

    I respect your deeply held views but disagree with them so often and so radically that I would prefer not to engage with you again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 5:00pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    22. At 2:01pm on 05 Feb 2011, Cosmologic wrote:
    ”. . ‘Here are the significant exceptions (in alphabetical order):-
    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.

    It is amusing how short some people’s memories are, particularly in light of the thread context.

    1. 1956 - The U.S. supported Egypt in its contest with France and GB over the Suez canal.
    2. 1965 – 1980 The U.S. supported the liberation of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia.
    3. 1960 – 1993 The U.S. actively supported the replacement of South Africa’s right wing apartheid government.
    4. 1982 - The U.S. actively supported GB against the right wing military dictatorship in Argentina in the Falkland War.
    5. 1994 - The U.S. put Jean-Bertrand Aristide back in power after he was overthrown by a military coup..
    Etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 5:02pm on 05 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    80. At 4:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:
    "Boring...
    Anybody who knows the Middle East conflict knows that it was the Palestinian Arab side that supported the Nazis. It's well documented that Hitler met up with the Palestinian grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who pledged to build concentration camps in Palestine once the Nazis had achieved success in Europe.
    And of course, the Arabs supported the losing side in both World Wars..."


    The fact that Haj Amin al-Husseini was indeed an anti-Semite and a thoroughly reprehensible person, does not detract from the information in my post, which I note you do not dispute. One of the points of which is to highlight the view that it is the aims of Zionist extremism to occupy the whole of 'Palestine' which have caused much of the upset in the Middle East.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Nostrano, (#63. At 12:33pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    ”To Chryses. Why didn't the Americans deal more directly with the Afganis (with Massoud, for example) instead of with Pakistan who fostered the Taliban in the first place? ...”
    I don’t know. State still has a few secrets unavailable at WikiLeaks, LOL! but I’ll hazard a guess that they were lazy and relied on the government of Pakistan for intel, rather than gathering it themselves. Just speculation on my part, but State is not generally known as "go getters."

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 5:06pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Oldloadr, (#81. At 4:38pm on 05 Feb 2011),
    ”79. At 3:48pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
    _________________________________________________________
    What rule would that be? Bl***y amazing!”

    It is a British PC thing. NP, I reposted it without being unPC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 5:15pm on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    quietoaktree:
    i understand the reasons behind the distrust.
    there is a reason i may seem to side to the current system. in the past days, the voices that kept yelling against Mr. Mubarak seemed too loud (not to mention the violence involved) that it didn't even give anyone a chance to think about what they really want to choose (same thing for the impatient demands if you noticed).
    if you're sitting in a football game and you, accidently, sat in a place where everyone is cheering for the team you're not a fan of, probably you'd hesitate to cheer for your team, right? that's what's happening now. i was trying to encourage the hesitant voices to choose the side they really want without fear. we live in a free country and we're free to choose what is best for our country.
    i'll say this once more: i came here originally to clarify the picture of what things are like in Egypt. if you ignored my opinion then you won't see the real picture. if you choose to see only the voices that support a certain point of view and ignore the rest, then my presence here is useless.
    if i said anything that doesn't seem right, please don't hesitate to point it out. i don't want to give the wrong idea since my worries affect my judgement of events sometimes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 5:16pm on 05 Feb 2011, quietoaktree wrote:

    #82 Amr

    --see next blog!

    You have NO Intention to keep us up-to-date.

    Why must I --when you are at the source ????

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 5:21pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    worcesterjim, (#83. At 4:53pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    "MK I am just too angry with you (and your pet Chryses) to argue with you rationally ..."
    Nothing particularly unusual about that.

    "... It`s quite clear to me that you are not here to engage in debate but simply to regurgitate your prejudices based on propoganda which I recognise has been very effective not just in the USA but here in Britain as well ..."
    Evidence please. If you want reasonable people to be persuaded by your claims, you'll need to begin supplying some.

    "If at any stage you had budged an inch under the welter of confounding information and opinion I would see some point ..."
    While you have been exceedingly generous with sharing your opinions, the same cannot be said about facts, data, and actual information.

    "... but if you are proved inaccurate or wrong you simply submerge without acknowleding the point and move on to another subject ..."
    Evidence please. If you want reasonable people to be persuaded by your claims, you'll need to begin supplying some.

    "... I respect your deeply held views but disagree with them so often and so radically that I would prefer not to engage with you again."
    Would you like me to provide suggestions as to how to achieve that goal?

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 5:28pm on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    60. At 11:51am on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
    You are mistaken. The U.S. supplied the Taliban in order that it might reverse the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. Without American arms and material the Taliban would have failed.

    And with US supplied arms and training Taliban and Al-Quida has surely been SUCCEEDED to attack US itself and became a major source of global supply of Islamic terrorism. I know that your distorted view of history and deliberate ignorance will not allow you to accept that.

    Are you suggesting that because the Taliban had "arms and ammunition," they were compelled to use them? What nonsense.
    Again that statement shows your ignorance about history and/or lack of analytical thinking.
    US flooded that part of the world (both Pakistan and Afghanistan) with arms and ammunition. When the Soviet left Afghnastan, US did not try much to install a civilized government (replacing the Soviets or its puppet government led by Nazibllah). US also lost interest there without even trying to recover the left over arms. US supplied, shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force as well. The same is true for US handling of Pakistan. US practically supported Pakistan's militery dictators. It deliberately turned a blind eye to Pakistan's use of islamic terrorism as part of foreign policy against its arch rival India (in Kashmir and many other parts of India). In fact US supported Pakistan in many UN resolutions against India/kashmir (a democracy in that region). Such US biased policies practically helped Pakistan's creation of Taliban and use of terrorism as state policy. matter started going wrong lately and US first realized its direct impact on 9/11 and there after.
    For more detail about US support for Pakistan's military dictators, you can go through the following article "Pakistan's Dictatorships and the United States": http://www.fpif.org/articles/pakistans_dictatorships_and_the_united_states

    the rest of your post is nonsense (like most of your other posts) and does not merit any response.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 5:34pm on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    No, US must not interfere with selection or election of local government by local people, ANYWHERE in the world. But if any government used disproportionately high force to suppress civil liberty, then it should take up the matter with the concerned government (in case of "friend") and/or though UN (in case of others).
    In this case of Egypt, US is now doing the right thing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 5:37pm on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    62. At 12:27pm on 05 Feb 2011, Joe wrote:
    Yes, the US thinks everyone wants democracy. And while that's fine and good, and I applaud that desire, Mr. Obama wants the main opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, to be invited into the government. They are allies of AlQuieda, Hamas, and Iran.

    ---
    DO you have any proof to show that "They are allies of AlQuieda, Hamas, and Iran"?
    It is all propaganda, mainly started by Israel and then by its lobbyists in US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 5:38pm on 05 Feb 2011, quietoaktree wrote:

    #80 Hctm

    Many trees have been planted in Israel in honor of the Arabs who saved Jews from the Nazis in North Africa.

    What is interesting is that their descendants are ashamed of those actions by their deceased relatives.

    ---Ask why !

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 5:39pm on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    89 quietoaktree
    i saw the news in tv. i think all the Egyptians, who are not busy working, are watching tv too except for the protesters who are busy protesting.
    moving to next blog (sorry)

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 6:25pm on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    i have just realized something. if it's a leaderless protest or revolution, then who makes their demands?

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 6:40pm on 05 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    23. At 02:03am on 05 Feb 2011, JMM wrote his post...

    This blog does not represent the feelings of the entire UK how can it.
    Some who participate from the UK have left leanings,& write well even if it is crap.Empty vessels make most noise.Do not tar us all with the same brush.My earlier post was an attempt at describing how many of the people I mix with think.

    I love aviation & monthly meet with about 50 or so like minded.The older "boys"many flew with Bomber command are so under stated & quiet even after they flew two tours about 60 trips with many over Berlin its a privilege to be in the same room.Others are just learning to fly & are young.I am not that good at expressing what I feel,but like all my aviation mates there is a deep & quiet affection for the US not spoken loudly,but its there believe me.May be we should be more vocal,but its not our cup of tea...

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 6:43pm on 05 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    it's strange that i'm the one asking the question. i feel like i just have to 'take a seat and enjoy the show' (with the rest of the Egyptians)...

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 7:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Jay, (#91. At 5:28pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    "And with US supplied arms and training Taliban and Al-Quida has surely been SUCCEEDED to attack US itself and became a major source of global supply of Islamic terrorism. I know that your distorted view of history and deliberate ignorance will not allow you to accept that ..."

    Deliberate ignorance? Wrong again. The Taliban never attacked the United States.
    Distorted view of history? Why do you just make this stuff up? You must know that someone will prove you wrong.

    "... When the Soviet left Afghnastan, US did not try much to install a civilized government (replacing the Soviets or its puppet government led by Nazibllah) ..."
    Aha! So now you criticize the U.S. for not installing a government of which you approve ("civilized").

    "... US also lost interest there without even trying to recover the left over arms ..."
    They did not then belong to the U.S. I thought you knew that.

    "... shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force as well ..."
    Evidence please.

    "... The same is true for US handling of Pakistan. US practically supported Pakistan's militery dictators. It deliberately turned a blind eye to Pakistan's use of islamic terrorism as part of foreign policy against its arch rival India (in Kashmir and many other parts of India) ..."
    You again suggest that the U.S. intervene in the politics of a sovereign nation.

    "... matter started going wrong lately and US first realized its direct impact on 9/11 and there after ...
    Are you completely ignorant of history, or just the bits that don't fit your political POV?
    1. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - Aug 7, 1998
    2. Nairobi, Kenya - Aug 7, 1998
    3. Aden, Yemen - Oct 12, 2000
    4. Istanbul, Turkey - Nov 15, 2003; Nov 20, 2003

    "... the rest of your post is nonsense (like most of your other posts) and does not merit any response."
    Do you think so? Let's take a look.
    You skipped the portion where I showed how mistaken you were about Christian Democrats. Why is that? Are you incapable of admitting that you were mistaken? Here is what you actually wrote in post #19. "Then we should be equally aware of many "Christian Democrat" type of political parties in many western countries and many of them do follow/believe many religious fanatic ideology."
    I provided various examples that contradicted your claim. I'll wager you had no idea that Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of Germany, is of the Christian Democratic Union? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel )
    I provided various examples that contradicted your claim. I’ll wager you had no idea that Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of Germany, is of the Christian Democratic Union? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel ) What type of “religious fanatic ideology” do you suggest M. Merkel practices?
    I may be mistaken, but based upon your posts, I get the distinct impression that you just invent whatever you think will suit your purposes. One of the good things of a blog like this is that you cannot wriggle out of what you actually wrote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 7:28pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    98 Amr

    Well you never imagined we were serious about you having a say did you?(joke!) No no...the Americans think the rest of the world is just a big stage on which they play DOMESTIC politics.

    Whatever happens it will all be Obama`s fault (or fantastic statesmanship) when Israel is most likely to be making "America`s" decisions anyway..based on keeping stability in the region...which can`t be a bad idea.

    Fewer than ten per cent of Americans could point to Egypt on a map...and when Soros/CIA installed an American lawyer to run Georgia in Europe some US Georgians complained!

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 7:36pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    97 UKW Why keep whispering darkly round the saloon bar door about other people being fools and you being far smarter but ...but that it`s beneath you to comment.

    If you have a point just be a welshman and make it loud and clear...or we may just think you aren`t really smart at all but just a Tory!

    If you want to talk about flying there are almost certainly forums for that.Relax!

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 7:53pm on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    No Chryses, (at 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011). It has nothing to do with Wikileaks. This information was first hand through direct interviews between the French journalist Christophe de Ponfilly who filmed his sessions with Massoud whom he greatly admired and believed in. The facts are incredible, yet no one, including wikileaks, seems to be aware of them, and one continues to deal with Pakistan as though it's still perfectly acceptable. It even seems to be getting to the ridiculous stage where the USA is paying Pakistan for the right to wage war against them..

    If you can read a bit of French, here are some extracts that are very revealing http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2010/07/massoud-1997.htm

    I trust that BBC won't feel that the publishing of this link 'breaks the house rules', because, it my view it's important information that should be widely shared.
    I'm certainly not anti-American either. I have a sister living in the States and an American Democrat brother-in-law. If I'm anti-anything it would simply be anti-stupidity and I regard the errors made in Afghanistan, and continually being made there by the West, far more seriously than any that were ever made in Iraq.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 7:54pm on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    No Chryses, (at 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011). It has nothing to do with Wikileaks. This information was first hand through direct interviews between the French journalist Christophe de Ponfilly who filmed his sessions with Massoud whom he greatly admired and believed in. The facts are incredible, yet no one, including wikileaks, seems to be aware of them, and one continues to deal with Pakistan as though it's still perfectly acceptable.

    If you can read a bit of French, here are some extracts that are very revealing
    http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2010/07/massoud-1997.html

    I trust that BBC won't feel that the publishing of this link 'breaks the house rules', because, it my view it's important information that should be widely shared.
    I'm certainly not anti-American either. I have a sister living in the States and an American Democrat brother-in-law. If I'm anti-anything it would simply be anti-stupidity and I regard the errors made in Afghanistan, and still being made there by the West, far more seriously than any that were ever made in Iraq.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 7:57pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    worcesterjim, (#101. At 7:36pm on 05 Feb 2011),

    It is quite apparent why ukwales feels uneasy about the posts of some of the contributors to this blogg.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 8:34pm on 05 Feb 2011, Janet Hudgins wrote:

    Mubarak must not go free! He must be sent to The Hague and the ICC there to account for the torture, killings all his abuses to his own people and others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 8:35pm on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    I should add,further to my last comment (to Chryses) that Europe and certainly France has a weighty responsibility regarding not taking Massoud's request for help serously when he came to Europe before the 11/9/2001. He then clearly informed Europe that he was convinced that the war against the Taliban wasn't a national war, it was international, and that if the West didn't help, they too would eventually fall victim. He words proved to be fatally true and he was assassinated also for having tried to inform the West via Europe, and for having tried to get the help the Afghans so needed at that time. In fact had he and his moudjahidin received help in 1997, he would probably still be alive, the Taliban would have been defeated and the Twin Towers might never ever have been hit. But that's another story, and such is history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 9:12pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Nostrano, (#102. At 7:53pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    ”No Chryses, (at 5:03pm on 05 Feb 2011). It has nothing to do with Wikileaks ...”
    I was making a little joke about the State Department being unable to manage their classified data. You may have read that there have been a few lapses. As I said, I don’t know why the State Department failed to do the due diligence that Massoud warranted. I just guessed that they were a bit lazy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 9:19pm on 05 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    101. At 7:36pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:
    97 UKW Why keep whispering darkly round the saloon bar door about other people being fools and you being far smarter but ...but that it`s beneath you to comment.

    If you have a point just be a welshman and make it loud and clear...or we may just think you aren`t really smart at all but just a Tory!

    IF you want to talk about flying there are almost certainly forums for that.Relax!
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    97 UKW Why keep whispering darkly round the saloon bar door about other people being fools and you being far smarter but ...but that it`s beneath you to comment.
    -------
    PPfftt,all I said some have left leanings write well,even if its crap,I
    hope I did not hit a nerve.To them who fit that bill,its so true that in life some folk are wise,& others are otherwise..

    -----------------------------------------------
    If you have a point just be a welshman and make it loud and clear...or we may just think you aren`t really smart at all but just a Tory!
    ------
    Some on this blog come up with the most fantastic theories of Wall St this,capitalistic that.Its only my opinion if I say that they are extremely stupid.I do not mean that in a derogatory sense,I simply mean they are not very intelligent...
    ------------------------------------------------
    IF you want to talk about flying there are almost certainly forums for that.Relax!
    -------
    As one of the very few here who pays for this forum,as long as they post & its my opinion on or off topic I will say what ever seems ok to me at that time,thats if its ok with you Cha Guevara...

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 9:32pm on 05 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Powermeerkat (1.35pm on 05 Feb 2011). I'm afraid you've got it wrong.
    A few months after Ahmad Shah Massoud had visited Europe with the hope of persuading the 'West' that they should help the Afghans against the Taliban, he was assassinated by two Moroccan suicide bomber members of the Taliban disguised as journalists. It was exactly two days before the Twin Towers were hit. Massoud was the only obstacle at the time between the Taliban taking full control of Aghanistan. In 1997, he was within 20 kilometers of Kabul with an excellent opportunity of routing them then.
    He never got the help he needed. He was assassinated. The Twin Towers were hit, two days later, and today the West is still bogged down dealing with the problem via Pakistan- the originators of it all, and after also having accepted Karzai, a Pachtoun, who claims that fraud in elections is perfectly normal and acceptable 'in young democracies' (amongst other affairs such as liberating Pachtoun criminals before their trials, and totally ignoring the interests of all other Afghan ethnics, etc.).

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 10:37pm on 05 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    42. At 06:10am on 05 Feb 2011, steelbluecactus wrote:

    "Not denying what U.K did but no U.S le[a]d invasion on D Day no victory, learn your history"

    ++++++

    Please - both of you - to be perfectly honest the Allies would never have defeated Hitler had the US not entered the war. ..."

    ___________

    Oh, dear.
    We re-fight WWII yet again.

    You seem to forget that the majority of the troops than landed on June 6, 1944 were not American.

    Rather more importantly, you seem to have forgotten that the war in Europe turned against the Germans well before any significant American forces landed anywhere on the European continent, (indeed, somewhat before they landed on the African continent, too).

    Germany would have lost the war whether the Normandy landing had been made, or not.

    The Normandy landings were not made because Germany was then winning the war.

    They were made because Germany was losing the war.

    They were made because a much larger, much tougher, battle-hardened, competent army was marching westward across the Ukraine and Poland, and it was time for the western allies to get moving.

    Do the names "Zhukov" and "Konev" ring a bell?


    "Learn your history", indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 11:02pm on 05 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    97. At 6:40pm on 05 Feb 2011, ukwales wrote:
    RE 23. At 02:03am on 05 Feb 2011, JMM
    My dear friend,
    Of course I don't blame all Britons, or even all the English. I don't even blame all left-leaning people, only the ones who swallow propaganda unquestioningly and parrot it forth on command.

    There is some truth in mmany of the Anti-American posts. Mistakes, some very bad ones, have been made by many of our administrations [not governments, as we have had one single uninterrupted government since 1789].

    The truth is that, as Europeans see things now, the US is right of center politically. As they saw things in 1780, though, they were terrified by the revolutionary leftists that posed an existential threat to their very way of life [hard to believe but true, the Americans were the Bolseviks of the early 19th Century].

    They were perfectly correct, there are hardly any European monarchies left, and none that are not constitutional. So far reaching has been American influence that most people are unaware of it except for the most recent and least beneficial actions.

    Occasionally I just get so irritated at the the ahistoricity and propaganda that I am compelled to tell one of the parrots off. I try [as, I hope in this case] to give the true facts, what many educated Americans really think and feel, and to avoid harsh retaliatory counter propaganda.

    America has its own dim and propagandized parrots [who can be read on various posts]. I hope you will not think them any more representative than the UK parrots. I just try to open some eyes to the necessity to look at the other side. No offense at all intended to you or the majority of UK readers.

    I have even admitted that George III has gotten something of a bad rap. When one poster called Americans masters of effective self-serving propaganda I got a good laugh, The American colonists won, in part, because they were very good at it indeed! Not that there weren't real grievances, of course.

    So, my friend, I hope neither you nor the silent majority of UK readers were offended by my history lesson.
    As you say, "Dymuniadau gorau a noson dda." No hard feelings and best wishes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 11:24pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    109..No I don`t mind you posting at all but I do get irritated when you criticise me without advancing an argument...and just make what is called an ad hominem attack.

    And it`s CHE not CHA....unless you are referring the obscure tea drinking Swansea revolutionary?

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 11:37pm on 05 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    99. At 7:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:
    Deliberate ignorance? Wrong again. The Taliban never attacked the United States. Distorted view of history? Why do you just make this stuff up? You must know that someone will prove you wrong.

    Anything that you does not know or like to ignore is surely "wrong". the only truth in this world is Herr Chryses.
    After so many years, Herr Chryses, declared that "The Taliban never attacked the United States". But Herr Chryses's political master, and Republican president GW Bush squarely blames the same Talibans for 9/11 attack on USA, for supporting and harboring Al-Quida. You do not have to say that, but I know that I am "wrong again" in your myopic eyes.

    shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force as well ..." ..Evidence please.
    For a start you can read "Stinger Missiles Supplied By CIA Now Pose Threat To US":http://www.rense.com/general15/pose.htm

    matter started going wrong lately and US first realized its direct impact on 9/11 and there after ...
    Are you completely ignorant of history, or just the bits that don't fit your political POV?


    I said DIRECT. None of those attacks were in US soil, within US territory. 9-11 is the first on that, that too massive American lives.

    may be mistaken, but based upon your posts, I get the distinct impression that you just invent whatever you think will suit your purposes.
    Yes, you ARE mistaken. I think you do just that and think everyone else also indulge in such practice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 00:13am on 06 Feb 2011, Jay wrote:

    US was well aware of creation of taliban and its rise, use of Islamic terrorism long before 9/11 by Pakistan Government as state policy. US practically supported Pakistan in that effort.
    "Pakistan had all three, but they were, and still are, directed against India. ("The stakes are high. Pakistan will simply implode if the US does not leave Afghanistan", Commentary, News). Pakistan started its jihad against India in Kashmir in November 1989 and its first suicide attack against civilians took place in Srinagar on 25 December 2000 – long before the west's invasion of Afghanistan": http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jan/16/big-issue-pakistan-taliban-west.

    Mainly after 9/11, the relationship between India and US (the two largest democracies in the world) became close and US (as well as India) that they are "natural allay" and "not a marriage of convenience".

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 01:35am on 06 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    Jay, (#114. At 11:37pm on 05 Feb 2011)
    "... Herr Chryses, declared that "The Taliban never attacked the United States". But Herr Chryses's political master, and Republican president GW Bush squarely blames the same Talibans for 9/11 attack on USA, for supporting and harboring Al-Quida. You do not have to say that, but I know that I am "wrong again" in your myopic eyes ..."
    One can always tell when one's adversary is whupped - he starts in with the ad hominems, as his quiver is otherwise empty. "Herr Chryses?" Oh, puhleeese! LOL!
    But I digress ...
    It matters not if Brahma and the Archangel Gabriel "blames the same Talibans" - or not. al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, and admit it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#December_13.2C_2001 )
    So ...
    Wrong again.

    "... For a start you can read "Stinger Missiles Supplied By CIA Now Pose Threat To US":http://www.rense.com/general15/pose.htm ... "
    You wrote, in post #91, "... shoulder fired stinger missiles later proved to be too lethal to US force ..." I asked for evidence of how they had been lethal to American forces. You provided a link to how they were dangerous, not how they "proved to be too lethal to US force."
    Try harder next time.

    "... I said DIRECT. None of those attacks were in US soil, within US territory. 9-11 is the first on that, that too massive American lives ..."
    So you are claiming that the U.S. didn't "realize" - to quote your post #91 - that there were terrorists prior to 2001 because those other attacks were not on U.S. soil? LOL! Suuuure they didn't!

    "... 'I may be mistaken, but based upon your posts, I get the distinct impression that you just invent whatever you think will suit your purposes.'
    Yes, you ARE mistaken. I think you do just that and think everyone else also indulge in such practice. "

    OK, if I am mistaken, WHERE was I mistaken? Happy hunting!
    LOL!

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 09:41am on 06 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    85. At 5:02pm on 05 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    80. At 4:20pm on 05 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:
    "Boring...
    Anybody who knows the Middle East conflict knows that it was the Palestinian Arab side that supported the Nazis. It's well documented that Hitler met up with the Palestinian grand mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who pledged to build concentration camps in Palestine once the Nazis had achieved success in Europe.
    And of course, the Arabs supported the losing side in both World Wars..."

    The fact that Haj Amin al-Husseini was indeed an anti-Semite and a thoroughly reprehensible person, does not detract from the information in my post, which I note you do not dispute. One of the points of which is to highlight the view that it is the aims of Zionist extremism to occupy the whole of 'Palestine' which have caused much of the upset in the Middle East.

    ----


    Whether the information in your post is true or not ('disputed' might be a better term), the fact of the matter is that Husseini, a leader, actively colluded with the most powerful Nazi of them all, and had he got his way. Forget occupation of "the whole of Palestine," had Husseini succeeded, "Zionist extremism" and occupation would have been a teddy bear's picnic in comparison; we'd be talking complete genocide of the Middle Eastern Jews. And who knows, the Nazis might well have turned on the Arabs once they'd finished with the Jews.
    Further to that, many more Jewish lives could have been saved had other countries worldwide allowed more Jews in, not just in Europe and the US. Countless more lives could have been saved if the Arabs in Palestine had not influenced the British, currently controlling Mandatory Palestine, to severely limit immigration - at a time when the Jews needed somewhere to escape to more than ever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 09:58am on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    117 Mirror Man...I read some tripe in my time but the barmy idea that British policy was influenced by Palestinian Arab opinion takes the biscuit! Churchill was heavilly influenced by British Zionists...not Palestinian Arabs.... whose opinions no one took seriously here.

    The depressing irony is that if we hadn`t declared war when we did MORE Jews might have got out!

    Of course the big elephant in our collective room is Zionist control of our media and politics...where it serves the purposes of a tiny Jewish financial elite to distract their fellow Jews from realising who really got them persecuted for centuries!

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 10:47am on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    And before Chryses lumbers up with a list of two thousand questions designed to disemble and mislead everyone...please just google the phrase "Churchill and Zionism" and have a little read for yourselves.

    Then google "Churchill and the Palestinian Arabs"... for a little balance!

    Have a nice day!

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 11:08am on 06 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    worcesterjim,

    Many people think honest questions and responses help create understanding. What do you think?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 11:27am on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    This (Pentagonal politics) additionally might also be considered pertinent to the subject:

    http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2010/11/pentagonal-politics.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 12:25pm on 06 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    117. At 09:41am on 06 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    "Whether the information in your post is true or not ('disputed' might be a better term), the fact of the matter is that Husseini, a leader, actively colluded with the most powerful Nazi of them all, and had he got his way. Forget occupation of "the whole of Palestine," had Husseini succeeded, "Zionist extremism" and occupation would have been a teddy bear's picnic in comparison; we'd be talking complete genocide of the Middle Eastern Jews. And who knows, the Nazis might well have turned on the Arabs once they'd finished with the Jews.
    Further to that, many more Jewish lives could have been saved had other countries worldwide allowed more Jews in, not just in Europe and the US. Countless more lives could have been saved if the Arabs in Palestine had not influenced the British, currently controlling Mandatory Palestine, to severely limit immigration - at a time when the Jews needed somewhere to escape to more than ever."


    The point of my original post, which you are trying to avoid, is its the actions of the Zionist extremists which have lead to the current situation in the Middle East and elsewhere. Their aims are to displace the Palestinians from their land and to occupy the whole of Palestine. The expansionism that is taking place in Israel now is obvious to the world. Thousands of people who have absolutely no connection with that part of the world, their religion certainly does not give them that connection, are being bussed in to displace Palestinians who have been there for generations.

    America's protestations have done nothing to halt Israel's illegal encroachment on to Palestinian land and to keep the objections from Arab countries from gaining momentum, America has been prepared to prop up dictators like Mubarak.

    It’s obviously extremely hard for you to accept the treachery of the Zionist fanatics and the price thousands of Jews paid with their lives so that the fanatics could achieve their aims but it is a documented fact which has been hidden from the majority of Jews. I only raised it to illustrate how extreme some Zionists are and how it is driving past and current policy in Israel. Many Jews have opposed Zionism but they have been denounced by Zionists as ‘self haters'.

    “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. I assert that it is wrong in principle and impossible of realization; that it is unsound in its economics, fantastical in its politics, and sterile in its spiritual ideals. Where it is not pathetically visionary, it is a cruel playing with the hopes of a people blindly seeking their way out of age-long miseries. These are bold and sweeping assertions, but I shall undertake to make them good.....

    ......I resent the activities of Dr. Weizmann and his followers in this country. The Jews of France have found France to be their Zion. The Jews of England have found England to be their Zion. We Jews of America have found America to be our Zion. Therefore I refuse to allow myself to be called a Zionist. I am an American.” Henry Morgenthau, Jewish Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of US President F D Roosevelt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 1:45pm on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    The whole Israeli-Palestinian problem should be dealt with historically.
    The facts seem to be that the Palestinians have been used by the Arab nations to continue to fan the flames of a war that the Arab States lost. Hamas has been created amongst other radical groups to represent the Palestinians who would rather forfeit any right of establishing a State of Palestine if it meant recognising Israel's right to exist.

    Had the Arab League (who felt it their divine right to decide on the future of the Palestinians) agreed with the UN resolutions of 1947 rather than categorically refuse to ratify them, this interminable problem would never have existed. Jerusalem would now be an international, sacred city administered by the United Nations. The allocated territories would have been established, there would never have been any Israeli-Arabian wars which created thousands of Palestinian refugees who completely destabilised and disrupted the multicultural jewel and example to the world that Lebanon once was.

    One keeps wielding around the word 'Zionism' as though it has connotations with 'Nazism'. Zionism simply boils down to the historic and biblical conviction of the Jewish right to the Holy Land.
    In fact if the Israelis were 'expansionists' as many like to pretend, they could certainly have increased their territory having won it militarily as claims of war. One only has to look on a map to see how ridiculous this issue is. Compare the size of Saudi Arabia or Iran with Israel, for example.

    The truth of the matter is, that in spite of the three monotheist religions of Abraham, all three of which should logically be represented in the Holy Land, and in spite of the facts of the history of Israel thousands of years up until the Bar Kokhba rebellion against the Roman Empire in 132 AD, the reason why the Arab League refused to sign the 1947 partition agreements, was because they cannot support the idea of sharing the Holy Land, not only with those who have most right to it (the Jews themselves) but with any other religion. The last Prophet, the Romans and the Arab League itself all share a great deal of historic responsibility.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 3:01pm on 06 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    113. At 11:24pm on 05 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:
    109..No I don`t mind you posting at all but I do get irritated when you criticise me without advancing an argument...and just make what is called an ad hominem attack.

    And it`s CHE not CHA....unless you are referring the obscure tea drinking Swansea revolutionary?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "And it`s CHE not CHA....unless you are referring the obscure tea drinking Swansea revolutionary?"
    ----------
    Cha not Che,Ha well, if one has an open mind some thing is learned each day.
    In my defence I was referring to Che`s posh relation Cha.
    -------------------------------------------------
    "No I don`t mind you posting at all but I do get irritated when you criticise me without advancing an argument...and just make what is called an ad hominem attack".
    -----------
    On this open forum you have said many many things.I do not want to exchange theories with you but only what I have experienced.Thus am able
    to talk with feeling about things from first hand perspective.This keeps
    things on my home ground & not drifting away on some intellectual pride
    fest.Not being an intellectual I would for certain lose.

    Wall St & Capitalistic endeavors.

    I will have to leave Wall St,so its capitalistic endeavors.Again I have to narrow this down to the UK,hmm actually to my instantly forgettable local market town.I feel confident that if one scaled up my experienced
    it would fit any scale.

    Since retirement one of the things I have volunteered to do is help out
    on a Saturday night,with helping young folk who are tanked up & very vulnerable.This enables me to help many young & unemployed folk.Some
    sound very much like you,with the fault to life difficulty's always
    on the door step of others.Its the immigrants from East Europe,China
    or any place even England taking all the jobs & work.Here they are drinking all they have & its every one else's fault.The new comers
    have a hunger for success & will make it,why?.They will apply them selves & work hard,remain cheerful & do it again.That hunger for success is self
    fulfilling.
    I can see so many opportunities here in Wales,even with all the difficulty's.What will it take to make them happen.Work sweat & tears,but the locals do not want any of that thank you very much.
    I hope I am making some sense.
    Wales is place of golden opportunistic chances for them who will seize the day.For them who will not its so easy to live under the chloroform of self pity playing the blame card of no jobs, no education, Foreigners which when full grown leads up to Capitalists & Wall St`s fault.
    Out siders can see & will go for it why oh why not the locals,
    I will tell you why they are just not hungry enough...


    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 3:02pm on 06 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    123. At 1:45pm on 06 Feb 2011, Nostrano wrote:

    "The whole Israeli-Palestinian problem should be dealt with historically."

    According to whose version of history? Jewish scholars who are not Zionists or yours and the Zionist editors who infiltrated Wikipedia and were banned for trying to change Palestinian history to suit their narrative!

    The fact remains that Zionism is the greatest enemy of the Jews.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 3:39pm on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:


    I think the main problem with trying to get a rational political debate going about anything relating to America is her Israeli skeleton in the cupboard and the dreadful genocidal events in Europe that my researches suggest had far more to do with the behaviour of financiers on Wall Street than any of you seems capable of handling.

    As each attempt to explore this is made a flurry of avoidance techniques are brought into play very similar to those employed by the republican`s in Ireland if anyone suggests for a moment that their two dimensional view of British people is challenged....or that Irish victimhood could at any stage or to the slightest degree be self induced.

    I think the Age of Usury and Debt and global capitalism are reaching a natural conclusion as China and Saudi Arabia and even Russia are gradually taking over the financial techniques that underpin the power of Wall Street and Israel and global indebtedness is spiralling out of any control.

    We have to be able to see the world and ourselves as we are...not how we desire ourselves to appear.Vanity and sef deceit are dangerous impediments to success now that have to tackle very serious challenges to the very existence of mankind and western civilisation as we have enjoyed it.

    Too many of you posters are really disinformers and misinformers with no real appetite for facing reality and solving problems if that involves challenging the cosy fantasies you have lived by.

    Well think about your grandchildren and their children a print yourself off a copy of a poem by Louis Mc Neice ..it`s called "Prayer Before Birth" and it`sone of the factors which keeps me on the straight and narrow and rocky path towards the truth.Then develop a bit more honesty and humility and make a start!

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 3:47pm on 06 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    112. At 11:02pm on 05 Feb 2011, JMM wrote his post,

    Thanks for the comprehensive reply to my ramblings, you are very gracious..

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 5:35pm on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (2:02pm on 06 Feb 2011)

    Nturally each country, each historian and each individual would have his 'own truth or version of history, but apart from that there are established and often incontestable facts that do make history. The massive persecution and expulsion of the Jews from their land by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba rebellion, can be considered a historical fact, for example. It would be useless to list other examples.
    Palestrina was hen the name the Romans gave to the Land of Israel, allegedly to add insult to injury.

    Obviously this doesn't mean that musulmans, or those who have been considered as Southern Greeks, living in 'Palestine' for generations since, aren't in their own country. It's probable that the Palestinian families who have been looking after their olive groves for centuries, would rather have been left in peace than be used by other States to try to oust their neighbours that ironically they also have to depend on.

    And if they are used to such an extent that they begin to be persuaded that their neighbours have no right even to exist, they shouldn't be too surprised by their neighbours' reaction.

    Any objective person would also find it unacceptable that the institution claiming to represent international law (UN) more or less condones Hamas and their criminal activities. It seems that for the privilege of living in Israel the Israelis have to contend with a terrorist organisation as a neighbour that no other country in the world would ever tolerate or be expected to tolerate. Israel has to be the exception to the rule, and the world's surprised, if not outraged, that surrounded by enemies who regularly threaten to wipe them out, the Israelis sometimes dare to react in order to defend themselves.

    As far as extremists are concerned. Every country has them. There are many Jews, however, who are sensitive to the 'Palestinian cause, but there are far less Palestinians who could ever pretend to be sensitive to the cause, or even the right to exist, of Israel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 6:50pm on 06 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    128. At 5:35pm on 06 Feb 2011, Nostrano wrote:
    To Jackturk:

    “Palestrina was hen the name the Romans gave to the Land of Israel, allegedly to add insult to injury.”

    Are you quite sure it wasn’t Arabia Fortuna? In any case trying to insinuate that the Palestinians are not the descendents of the Peleseti or Philistines, despite genetic evidence suggesting otherwise, seems very convenient in forwarding and Anti-Palestinian agenda. It resembles quite closely the equally self-serving Arab slurs directed against the authenticity of the Jews, also contrary to genetic evidence.

    Two wrongs do not make a right, nor two lies the truth. Your final point about the relative prevalence of sensitivity or toleration as between Palestinians and Israelis is, unfortunately, true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 7:31pm on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To JMM (6:50pm on 06 Feb 2011)

    Of course we know that in principle they are descendants of the Philistines, although even they might not regard that as the greatest of compliments. Going further back- as history tends to- apparently certain ethnologic historians claim that those who lived in that region originated from Southern Greece. I didn't invent it.
    I'm trying to regard the whole thing objectively and historically, which I feel is essential to try understand the interminable problem.

    Why since 132 AD the Palestinians never bothered to establish their State, and why only since the last 65 years, has this become a major issue, and why only recently, for certain countries like Peru, Brazil and Uruguay, who we all know are very fond of the Israelis, is it suddenly primordial to recognise 'Palestine'?

    Ironically the Palestinians themselves are less reluctant to recognise their State, especially those of Gaza. They seem to believe that by recognising their own State, they would be obliged to recognise the State of Israel.

    On Italian blogs on the same subject one often comes across supporters of the Palestinian cause, but when asked what the Palestinian cause actually is, no one seems to be able to give a coherent answer.
    It's true that after countless peace talks the cause of the so-called moderate Palestinians of Fat-ah, is very obscure. Is it a 'playing for time' cause? That of Hamas and their henchmen is clear as a whistle. No chance of misunderstandings there. Is that then the Palestinian cause? The unmodified statute of Hamas, the total destruction of Israel and the complete Islamisation of the Holy Land. Is that the cause one supports JMM?

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 8:12pm on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    Nostrano...as the zionist propogandists well know the Palestians and Jews are very closely related.... and that`s possibly because with the rise of Islam many Jews became muslims or got excluded from the region.

    If you google the phrase "Palestinian People" there`s plenty of information to see.

    It`s a waste of time trying to be open and honest with people who are brainwashed cult members..they have no investment in honest debate and can turn very nasty and irrational and personal under pressure.

    After centuries of persecution they have become distrustful of any opinion that contradicts their collective myths....even from within the wider jewish community.

    As we say..saveyour breath to cool your porridge...and we have to hope saner voices (like JMM`s) prevail.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 8:54pm on 06 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    112. At 11:02pm on 05 Feb 2011, JMM wrote:

    "[hard to believe but true, the Americans were the Bolseviks of the early 19th Century]."

    __________

    Hmmm.
    They were pretty rich and bourgeois for Bolsheviks. More like Boyars.

    A number of the leading American revolutionaries were among the richest and most powerful men in America, and they certainly included plantation and slave owners, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

    ----------

    Ultimately, at root the American revolution was prompted by a tax dispute over the financing of the Seven Years' War. The Americans, who had benefited from state spending by the UK exchequer to fight a war on their behalf, (a war of which the American colonists were the biggest winners on earth), did not then want to pay the taxes required to retire the debt incurred for them to obtain that benefit.

    Crazy, but true.

    Liberte, egaite, fraternite?

    None of it. More like "Read my lips: No new taxes."

    Imagine it though: Who would ever demand tax cuts when there is a huge outstanding budget deficit and accumulated debt?

    Thank heavens American government is much better than that now. It never spends money it doesn't have. It always makes sure public programs are properly funded by taxes before the money is spent. Good thing that politicians, voters, and taxpayers are far more sensible nowadays.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 8:55pm on 06 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    UKW:

    Still thinking on what to do.
    Need to get a move on, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 8:55pm on 06 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    118. At 09:58am on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    117 Mirror Man...I read some tripe in my time but the barmy idea that British policy was influenced by Palestinian Arab opinion takes the biscuit! Churchill was heavilly influenced by British Zionists...not Palestinian Arabs.... whose opinions no one took seriously here.

    ---

    It is true though. Though this was before Churchill became Prime Minister, you see. It's assumed that the British simply allowed Palestine to be flooded with Jews but in actual fact immigration was tightly controlled to appease the Arabs so as not to spark any rioting.
    Immigration peaked in 1935 due to the persecution of German Jews.

    Then in 1937, there was thing called the Peel Commission. A plan was recommended to create two homelands, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews, a Jewish state in areas in which the Jews were a majority, split into two noncontiguous areas. The Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it outright. It wasn't so much about the Arabs wanting self-determination but more so denying the Jews self-determination and sovreignity over areas in which they were a clear majority. For the Palestinians, turning down their own statehood was viewed as more preferable to giving the Jews a small and noncontiguous state alongside it. The Arabs responded to the plan with violence towards Jews.

    This Arab violence led to the British deciding to limit the flow of Jews into Palestine. They gave in to Arab demands and the 1939 white paper limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 over five years. Had this two-state solution been accepted, this would have allowed hundreds of thousands more Jews to escape to a Jewish state in Palestine before the Final Solution was implemented from 1941, when it was clear to the Nazis that there was nowhere for the European Jews to go and killing them appeared to be the answer.

    The fact of the matter is that British policy was to a degree influenced by Palestinian Arabs - not by public opinion exactly, but to prevent riots breaking out, as was common at the time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 9:22pm on 06 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    128. At 5:35pm on 06 Feb 2011, Nostrano

    In all my years of arguing with Zionists over their behaviour to the Palestinians, all I seem to get is obfuscation and diversion. The history of the 'Semites', Jews and Muslims in 'Palestine' can be found in many documents which broadly agree but it's only when extreme or militant Zionism rears it's ugly head that the record is 'revised' to defend the indefensible.

    To the outside world, your statement: "Zionism simply boils down to the historic and biblical conviction of the Jewish right to the Holy Land." means nothing. Whether or not there is a 'biblical conviction' to the Jew's right to the Holy Land is meaningless and portrays a mentality that is still in the stone age and has no place in modern society. Sure, people can believe what they want, in most cases it's a free world, but to use a primitive belief, whether it's Muslim, Christian or Jewish to justify killing and inhuman treatment of others is completely unacceptable. Even one of our own distinguished members of the Jewish community, Gerald Kaufman, raised as a Zionist has called them fools because of their brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Take a little time to watch this all the way through:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

    With the development of the internet etc., it is much easier for people to do their own research and communicate the results to others. Consequently, the game is up for Zionism and if Israel wants to survive it will need to learn to live like a good neighbour and not the pariah that it has become with the connivance of the USA and its puppets such as Mubarak.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 9:38pm on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Worcesterjim (8:12 on 06 Feb 2011)

    Yes I'm afraid you're right and I'm fully aware of it, but it's sometimes amusing to play the devil's advocate, and I can't stand the continual hypocrisy regarding this particular subject. To think that at one time, before Prophets, Roman Empires and Arab Leagues, who claim to know what's good for everyone everywhere, the great great ancestors of Jews and Arabs lived together without much problem for thousand of years.

    Couple of simple articles on the subject that one might find interesting, and naturally non-partisan:

    http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2008/12/consequences.html

    http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2009/01/consequences-suite.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 10:27pm on 06 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    130. At 7:31pm on 06 Feb 2011, Nostrano wrote:
    To JMM

    In reply to your unstated final question, I do not, can not and will not support any side that even hints at, much less engages in ethnic cleansing. Having heard from Palestinian and Arab lips, directly and without intermediary, that they want to kill all Jews [sometimes Israelis, but usually Jews] or throw them into the sea, it is quite impossible for me to support them.

    Israel's continuing to take Palestinian land, whether or not the excuse is to make a barrier in the interest of peace, is also unacceptable.
    I will not support that and my government should not either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 10:34pm on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (9:22 on 06 Feb 2011)

    I'm sorry but I don't follow your argument, other than in a very unilateral way. And I stand by what you believe is an over-simplification, because 'Zionists' are not the expansionists that so many people like to claim them to be. Rightly or wrongly they are simply convinced that the Promised Land is their Land. Even though the Israelis could have claimed territories from several victories of war, they never did, and when certain territories were returned, they were immediately reoccupied uniquely for belligerent purposes, again against Israel.

    And who is using 'a primitive belief to justify killing and inhuman treatment' ? Me? You might be referring to a minority of Jewish extremists whose mentality could be compared with that of Hassan Nasrallah. But you make no mention of Moslem radicals or their indoctrinated followers who use what one could certainly describe as a 'primitive belief to justify killing and inhuman treatment', not only in the region we are dealing with, but internationally; anywhere they possibly can.

    Can you tell me what the Palestinian cause is, Jackturk?

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 10:44pm on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:

    Look folks this has been cleverly conflated as something to do with the very survival of judaism...which anyone can see is rubbish. I honestly think NO other group of people would get away with creating their own state in this way...and know for sure I wouldn`t in a country where my "race" are the lowest of the low!

    Nobody is jumping up and down about that because I can`t exploit the guilty feelings of some of the richest and most powerful people on earth.

    BUT...the reason the zionists are so irrational stems from them knowing very well their ideas make no sense and ...like other religious and national groups ..having to resort to "faith" as a concept...and by definition faith is irrational and not subject to argument.

    The powerful write history and define the present...`twas ever thus!

    Get over it and "pray" that the powerful come up with a workable future for mankind...because despite all their tripe about "democracy" you can probably see by now how OUR opinions ...however sensible and rational and fair...won`t matter a damn!

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 10:58pm on 06 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    Nevertheless, without faith mankind wouldn't have got very far since the Paleolithic period to our present day and age. Even though it seems apparent that human nature never changes, never evolves, it simply adjusts to the progress of science and technology.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 11:09pm on 06 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    132. At 8:54pm on 06 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:
    RE 112

    What the founding fathers were really like is not quite so important as the image of a country established on the principle that kings and nobles could and should be dispensed with. Admittedly, for reasons you hinted at, we did not go as far as the French, and, with a few exceptions, the streets did not run red with blood.

    You have given the proper British [Loyalist Canadian] view, but it is as inaccurate as my categorization of the Guardian may have been. James Otis was a real republican, and far from rich. John Adams was not poor, but not in nearly the same income bracket at John Hancock [he and his ilk, BTW are the source for your stereotype]. Visit Adams' houses, still standing in Quincy, MA if you disbelieve me [I think you can do so on the internet].

    It was not wealthy planters who chased the red coats back to Boston from Lexington, though some leaders like Hancock might have been as described. At least in these parts the yeomen descendents of the Cromwellian roundheads were in full revolt. For all practical purposes New England was lost to Britain, not because of a few rich folks.

    Have you read the opinions of Prince Metternich, Talleyrand and other European ruling class persons about the Americans and their republican revolution? I have, though not extensively and only in translation.

    The fear [which eventually appears to have been realized] was that a bad example was being set that could cause tremendous problems for the ruling regimes and classes. Now we may have been responsible, as some say, only in setting off the French [and having Louis XVI stretch the French budget with another War with England was part of that], but I think that is overplayed.

    As late as the US Civil War, some countries were making efforts to bring the US down because it was becoming ever bigger an more dangerous. Your own country allowed confederate plotters and raiders to use Canada as a base of operations, though Canadian involvement in the Lincoln assassination was never proven and is probably bogus.

    Why do this if the US was not perceived as a danger? Was it UEL revenge? If so, then don't complain about the Fenians, that was more revenge, though aimed at the wrong party.

    Louis Napoleon did try to persuade Britain to join him in recognizing the Confederacy and dismembering the US. Britain wisely declined. Again, why do this if the US was not perceived as a dangerous rival?

    The US rejoinder was, upon defeating the south, to ship a lot of aid to Juarez and send a large army to the Mexican border to invite the French to leave. Though France was recognized as the greatest land power of the time, Nappy did not, apparently, feel that challenging the US in its own backyard was a winning proposition.

    Make fun of the tax issue if you will, but if it was so minor, why is it still alive? Be it Boston, Massachusetts, or the fed [or any other jurisdiction] keeping the government from taking and spending too much is a central theme in our politics. Why should it not be? It is our hard earned money, it does not belong to the government of right.

    In my personal opinion this resistance goes too far. There is no good reason why we can not and should not have a health care system like Canada or other developed countries. There is no good reason for not making corporations pay their fair share and making them obey laws and regulations for the public good.

    But I'm just one person, and you now have one person's overlong response. And a somewhat disconnected one, I fear. My posts have been
    unsatisfactory and contentious of late. It might be this virus that has kept me at home for a month. So I apologize for any inadequacy\ies in advance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 11:26pm on 06 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    Your response has illustrated my point very nicely.

    You may or may not be a Zionist, you could just be a devil's advocate, if that's the case, please don't waste my time or yours. However, in whatever capacity you are here you are using feeble tactics to deflect attention from the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Zionists:
    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/hari-ec.html

    "Can you tell me what the Palestinian cause is, Jackturk?"

    What a strange question, if you don't already know the answer, you're part of the problem!

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 00:43am on 07 Feb 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 258 peterbo

    To claim that the link Hamas-MB is ephemeral and platonic, is naive to say the least. Ideologically and politically, the overlap is 100%, and I wouldn't pay too much attention to any clumsy PR attempts of the two organizations to play distant relatives.

    I know I should let this subject drop, but the thought of what might constitute a 'non-platonic' relationship between Hamas and Ikhwan made me laugh out loud. Eeeew.

    Anyway, fine, I would concede that I may overestimate the role Palestinian nationalism plays in distancing Hamas from Ikhwan. But I would stand by my contention that pan-Islamism takes a backseat to Egyptian nationalism for Ikhwan itself.

    OTOH, your linking of Ikhwan to Iran via Hamas just doesn't hold water for me. Nor for near any other analysis I have come across thus far.

    Just for example, The Economist on Hamas and Iran.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 00:50am on 07 Feb 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    An essay from Foreign Policy re: Mubarak that hits the nail on the head, I think.

    A realist case for pushing hard for Egyptian democratization.

    I particularly like the man's rational for retooling the 'special relationship' with Israel:

    Of course, if the Egyptian government becomes more responsive to its population, we can expect it to be more critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its refusal to accept a viable two-state solution. It will also be less willing to collude with U.S.-backed policies such as the counter-productive and cruel siege of Gaza. In other words, we may be witnessing the birth pangs of an Egypt that it is a more like contemporary Turkey: neither hostile nor subservient, and increasingly seeking to chart its own course. And this might be precisely the sort of wake-up call that Israel needs, to help it realize that its long-term security does not lie solely in military strength or territorial control.

    Time to break the logjam.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 01:14am on 07 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    JMM:

    Not to worry. I was just having a bit of fun.

    Adams was a very good man, and not rich, at least not as a young man.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 01:45am on 07 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    worcesterjim, (#126. At 3:39pm on 06 Feb 2011)
    "... my researches suggest had far more to do with the behaviour of financiers on Wall Street than any of you seems capable of handling ..."
    LOL! What researches?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 07:15am on 07 Feb 2011, Amr wrote:

    89 quietoaktree
    ok, let's see it this way:
    let's say Mubarak is a father who is not giving his children the right to choose what they want. They start yelling at their father saying that it's their right. Mr. Obama tells Mr. Mubarak that he should listen to his children.
    now, some of the children are upset because the other children are saying bad things to their father, so they start quarrelling (police and protesters). Mr. Mubarak starts to realize that he needs to listen to his children more attentively. but, he knows some of the children want to quarrel with the neighbors. now 'some' of those children start to think, 'hey, maybe if we get rid of the father, we'll be able to force all the other children to fight with the neighbours as well."
    Mr. Mubarak is aware of those children and wants the new stepfather to be watchful about the the children fighting amongst themselves or with the neighbors. Mr. Obama thinks the children's voice got louder because Mr. Mubarak did not try to listen to them. in the meanwhile, some of the neighbour kids start to persuade the kids to kill their father and get the huge fortune he's hiding. the kids who want to fight with neighbors start spreading the rumor that the father is hiding a huge fortune from them and that he's mistreating his children that he deserves to die.
    as one of the children, i think that he should be treated with a little more respect and that the children shouldn't fight amongst themselves or with the neighbors.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 11:01am on 07 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (11:26pm on 06 Feb 2011)
    I don't believe I have given you any pretext to make personal remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. If I'm wasting your time, then surely you have better things to do than continue to reply with such disparaging tones to my comments that are based on facts. Neither do I see how my response has illustrated any point you have made. In fact I don't follow the logic of any of your points at all.

    'Ethnic cleansing' is also a very strong accusation to use against Israel. Had this been their goal it would have been achieved years ago, during the Israeli-Arabian wars for example. Such a pretext could then have been used, had that ever been the Israeli objective.

    Imagine for example if a small, quasi independent colony next to Nazi Germany, (as it appears you might be trying to make a parallel with Zionism and Nazism as is the vogue) regularly and systematically launched rockets blindly into the nearest German cities with the hope of killing as many German civilians as possible. How do you think Germany would have reacted, especially at such a time of war (the state of which Hamas never ceases to claim is the case with Israel)? They would have reacted in such a radical way that the entire colony would have ceased to exist.

    In spite of the continual, aggressive provocation, the use of kidnapping tactics (Gilad) that again the UN seems to shrug off as no big deal, the Palestinians of Gaza still get by pretty well. In fact not too long ago last year there was a Gaza kite contest, which would have gained entry into the Guinness Book of records according to the quantity of kites, had Hamas allowed such access to the GBR. There are also car races organised by Palestinian girls with the support of the Israelis. But of course people like you wouldn't be interested in such positive reports.

    As to the final question, I don't know the answer, apart from the most evident publicly established by the Hamas movement and the most essential part of their statute. Apparently you don't either. This comes as no surprise because I have asked the question several times with others who claim to support the Palestinian cause. They also seem to prefer to avoid, or simply aren't able, to clearly define what the Palestinian cause actually is, as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 12:20pm on 07 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To illustrate my last comment, here's a report (BBC) and a video of the oppressed Palestinians subject to Israeli tyranny, ethnic cleansing, starvation, and God knows what else, signalling to the powers that be- with the only modest means at their disposal- that their desperate needs be met, thanks to the arrival of more 'flotillas of Peace'..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10812015

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 12:41pm on 07 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    145. At 01:14am on 07 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:
    JMM:

    "Not to worry. I was just having a bit of fun.

    Adams was a very good man, and not rich, at least not as a young man."

    I'm not "worried" we hashed out the North American history long since. I am, however, out of sorts these days, under the weather is true in both literal and figurative senses.

    I would like to know if you have read the book I recommended,
    "Radicalism of the American Revolution" by Gordon S. Wood. It is not exactly light reading, and not Hollywood History, so it wouldn't appeal to everyone on this blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 1:39pm on 07 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    150. At 12:41pm on 07 Feb 2011, JMM wrote:

    "Radicalism of the American Revolution" by Gordon S. Wood.

    ----------

    No, I haven't read it, but I will add it to the (rather long) list, and maybe have a look. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Hope you're feeling better soon.

    Maybe time for some sunshine?
    Road trip to Florida, perhaps?
    Good food, good sleep, and good exercise?

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 2:26pm on 07 Feb 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 148 Nostrano

    You insinuate (I think) that the 'Palestinian cause' is the destruction of Israel.

    The Arab Peace Initiative would seem to point in another direction.

    An interesting opinion piece from the JPosthere

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 2:31pm on 07 Feb 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    JMM -- and failing Florida ... fresh orange juice?

    Cheers, and best wishes for a speedy recovery!

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 2:42pm on 07 Feb 2011, mscracker wrote:



    126. At 3:39pm on 06 Feb 2011, worcesterjim wrote:" I think the main problem with trying to get a rational political debate going about anything relating to America is her Israeli skeleton in the cupboard and the dreadful genocidal events in Europe that my researches suggest had far more to do with the behaviour of financiers on Wall Street than any of you seems capable of handling.

    As each attempt to explore this is made a flurry of avoidance techniques are brought into play very similar to those employed by the republican`s in Ireland if anyone suggests for a moment that their two dimensional view of British people is challenged....or that Irish victimhood could at any stage or to the slightest degree be self induced."
    *******************
    I sort of think that Ireland achieved a Republic in a similar way that Israel became a nation which is by not allowing the Irish or Jews to remain victims.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 4:23pm on 07 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    JMM,Best wishes for speedy recovery from West Wales.

    BTW,
    As for the Red Coats being chased back whence they came.It has long been over looked by historians,that Dinner for them was back at Boston 7:30 sharp.
    That evening it was to be roast beef & all the trimmings,this on a first come first served basic.Their unseeingly hasty departure, back down battle road was down to this little known fact & had nothing to do with the hot reception received from the Minute Men...

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 4:32pm on 07 Feb 2011, hms_shannon wrote:

    133. At 8:55pm on 06 Feb 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote his post.

    Please be under no pressure what so ever.The fund raising is on going & is going well.Just your prayers would be of great value,many thanks...

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 5:01pm on 07 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Chronophobe (2:26pm on 07 Feb 2011)

    I'm not insinuating anything. It's not necessary. I'm referring to facts. After umpteen peace talks across 60 odd years, nothing has ever been established between Israel and the so-called moderate Palestinians. This despite all the offered concessions and compromises. One can only conclude that the Palestinian 'moderates' have simply and constantly played for time. That's the only cause, as far as they are concerned, that seems apparent, if not coherent.

    There's no chance of incoherence or ambiguity as far as Hamas is concerned. Hamas, re-elected to represent the Palestinians of Gaza, has never modified its statute. It can easily be found on Internet if one has any doubts regarding its content which is still the destruction of Israel and the Islamisation of the totality of The Holy Land.

    As the Arab League refused to sign the partition plan of 1947, nothing was ever firmly established regarding the issue of terrtory. It virtually became a 'free for all' after the declaration of Independence of Israel in 1948 when the following day Israel was was invaded by five Arabian countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) also militarily supported by Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan. Considering the unexpected results of the Israeli-Arabian wars, Israel had plenty of opportunity to exercise any expansionist tendencies the State might have had at such times and opportunities, if the State so wished. From this one could conclude what has always seemed obvious; that if Israel makes incursions into what is considered Palestinian territory, and often chooses to occupy it- despite the fact that there was never any established partition agreement anyway, thanks to the Arab League- it would primarily be to assure it's own security.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 6:22pm on 07 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Chronophobe (2:26pm on 07 Feb 2011)
    Thanks for the link re. The Arab Peace Initiative, by the way. If it's as good an opportunity as the report claims, then Israel would be irresponsible not to accept it, at least as a base on which to build and finalise the best possible mutually acceptable peace plan, at this point in time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 6:24pm on 07 Feb 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    Nostrano -- "Devil's advocate" indeed. Pardon me for saying so, but what you write reads to me like full on hasbara .

    But go on, keep looking back. Nurse your grievances, demonize your enemy, tell yourself that the only solutions are through territory and military strength. You are entitled to your views.

    But I'm listening to those who are looking forward, like Alon Ben-Meir. There is a better way ... .

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 7:00pm on 07 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Chronophobe (6:24pm on 07 Feb 2011)

    From certain participators I'm beginning to wonder if the meanings of certain expressions are understood. But let's pass that.
    Instead of writing personal comments that have no bearing on the particular subject we are dealing with here, wouldn't it be more constructive to counter my arguments intelligently rather than launch into a meaningless diatribes? I've yet to have any such convincing responses to any of the points I've raised.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 9:35pm on 07 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    To Nostrano

    I note your feigned indignation at my dismissive response to your fanciful posts, you say you don’t follow my logic, probably because you cannot see beyond your Zionist propaganda such as:-

    ”Had the Arab League (who felt it their divine right to decide on the future of the Palestinians) agreed with the UN resolutions of 1947 rather than categorically refuse to ratify them, this interminable problem would never have existed......

    .........the reason why the Arab League refused to sign the 1947 partition agreements, was because they cannot support the idea of sharing the Holy Land, not only with those who have most right to it (the Jews themselves) but with any other religion.”


    In 1947 the population of Palestine was almost two million, 33% Jewish and 67% non-Jewish yet the partition agreement proposed that the Jews have 56% and the non-Jews 34% of the land. Not satisfied with this, the Jewish terrorists in 1947 started attacking Arab villages and before the state of Israel was declared, they had driven 300,000 Arabs from their own land and claimed even more territory. This was the start of the ethnic cleansing which is still going on today. There are many corroborating accounts here: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/sources-for-israelipalestinian.html.

    The injustice inherent in these ethnically-motivated mass expulsions was internationally recognised. For example, UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte stated that: "It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine" (UN Doc Al 648, 1948). (The Count was then murdered by Zionist extremists).

    This is a brief account of the situation by Michael Ben-David, an adviser to both parties, who was born and raised in Jerusalem where his family have been residents since before the Ottoman era. Michael learned Arabic from his parents who were fully integrated as Palestinian Jews prior to the establishment of the state of Israel.

    Referring to the period before 1948:-
    “It was during this period that conflict arose between Palestinian Arabs and the Zionist settlers who were arriving from Eastern Europe and Russia. Israel had not yet been created but the desire of the European settlers to create exclusive Jewish communities gave rise to conflict with Palestinian Arabs. In addition European Zionist funds were used to purchase land from absentee landowners and the Arab residents of the land were often evicted by the new owners. This process exasperated the conflict with often violent results. During 1947 and 1948 when the state of Israel was formed, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were evicted or fled from their homes in the land that became Israel and never allowed to return. These people and their descendants became the Palestinian Refugees of today and their plight is the root and cause of the Israel Palestine conflict.”

    Because you have even distorted the basics of the conflict, it really is pointless to take the discussion any further with you and become deflected by circular arguments, a tactic which is deployed by most of the Zionists who post in these blogs, many of whom will have been recruited by the Israeli propaganda machine to infiltrate the media:-
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-recruits-army-of-bloggers-to-combat-anti-zionist-web-sites-1.268393

    Ethnic cleansing is in full swing in Palestine and it is going to lead to the downfall of Zionism which is the greatest enemy of the Jews.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 10:19pm on 07 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    161. At 9:35pm on 07 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    To Nostrano

    I note your feigned indignation at my dismissive response to your fanciful posts, you say you don’t follow my logic, probably because you cannot see beyond your Zionist propaganda such as:-

    ”Had the Arab League (who felt it their divine right to decide on the future of the Palestinians) agreed with the UN resolutions of 1947 rather than categorically refuse to ratify them, this interminable problem would never have existed......

    .........the reason why the Arab League refused to sign the 1947 partition agreements, was because they cannot support the idea of sharing the Holy Land, not only with those who have most right to it (the Jews themselves) but with any other religion.”

    In 1947 the population of Palestine was almost two million, 33% Jewish and 67% non-Jewish yet the partition agreement proposed that the Jews have 56% and the non-Jews 34% of the land. Not satisfied with this, the Jewish terrorists in 1947 started attacking Arab villages and before the state of Israel was declared, they had driven 300,000 Arabs from their own land and claimed even more territory. This was the start of the ethnic cleansing which is still going on today. There are many corroborating accounts here: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/sources-for-israelipalestinian.html.

    ........

    Because you have even distorted the basics of the conflict, it really is pointless to take the discussion any further with you and become deflected by circular arguments, a tactic which is deployed by most of the Zionists who post in these blogs, many of whom will have been recruited by the Israeli propaganda machine to infiltrate the media:-
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-recruits-army-of-bloggers-to-combat-anti-zionist-web-sites-1.268393

    Ethnic cleansing is in full swing in Palestine and it is going to lead to the downfall of Zionism which is the greatest enemy of the Jews.

    ------------------------------------

    To be frank, talking about distortion and simplification is a bit rich coming from you. Dismissive response? That's the height of hypocrisy right there. Whenever a person dares make a comment, fact or opinion that you happen to disagree with on the Israeli-Arab conflict, you immediately dismiss them as a Zionist propagandist, hired to infiltrate the media and stifle discussion. Are you that insecure in your arguments that you can't accept other people might disagree with yours and have a logical lucid and convincing explanation? Do you really believe that everybody speaking up for the Palestinian side is either a) Jewish; b) a Zionist; c) Zionist propagandist? That's the height of paranoia. Could it be that even after weighing up all the pros and cons of both sides, the violence and all, the motives, the reasons, the background of the conflict, they've made a reasoned choice and chosen to take an impartial stand or perhaps, shockingly, even side with the Israelis and not the Palestinians?

    You've explained what you say are the reasons that the Arabs rejected the 1947 two-state plans. Why do you feel then that they rejected the 1937 Peel Commission plans which offered the Arabs a MUCH larger area and the Jews a smaller and noncontiguous area, which was accepted by the Jews and also categorically rejected by the Arab side? Simple - no statehood for the Arabs was preferable to statehood and self-determination for Jews. Not even the tiniest state.
    The fact of the matter is that each time the Arabs rejected these proposals, they escalated the violence against the Jews, and the Irgun, etc, responded in kind.
    Now, having lost a series of wars against Israel, the Palestinians have decided that they do want a state of their own after all.

    It is easy to harp on about ethnic cleansing, but Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries in the wake of Israel's victory in 1948. These Jews have been settled in Israel and not cynically used as pawns for political purposes against their neighbours. Normally when ethnic cleansing takes place, there tends to be a dramatic reduction in the population. Not so with the Palestinians. Their population is in fact increasing. Those pesky Israelis are terrible at this ethnic cleansing thing, aren't they? They never really did get the hang of it. And this whole expansionism thing, too. Kind of defeats the purpose, giving back the entire Sinai peninsula.
    If an independent Palestine were created tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, would you support the removal of Jews from settlements deep inside the West Bank and back into Israel, or is ethnic cleansing only acceptable/unacceptable depending on who is responsible and who is being cleansed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 11:36pm on 07 Feb 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    Nostrano -- your 158 and my 159 must have crossed in the ether. My apologies for any offence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 03:25am on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    162. At 10:19pm on 07 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote

    "Whenever a person dares make a comment, fact or opinion that you happen to disagree with on the Israeli-Arab conflict, you immediately dismiss them as a Zionist propagandist, hired to infiltrate the media and stifle discussion. Are you that insecure in your arguments that you can't accept other people might disagree with yours and have a logical lucid and convincing explanation?"

    Don’t forget, in 2008/9 the whole world saw Israeli IDF thugs attack and slaughter 1,400 Palestinians, many of them children, deliberately shot in the head and the back. So I make no apologies for dismissing Zionist propaganda which attempts to justify their barbaric treatment of the Palestinians hemmed into an open prison. There are thousands of Jews inside and outside of Israel who like me, also see the wickedness and viciousness of the Zionist extremists.

    "Why do you feel then that they rejected the 1937 Peel Commission plans which offered the Arabs a MUCH larger area and the Jews a smaller and noncontiguous area, which was accepted by the Jews and also categorically rejected by the Arab side?"

    You see, this is the type of Zionist propaganda that illustrates my previous point. The Peel proposals were hatched in London with the agreement of Ben-Gurion who wanted them to appear to be ‘British’. He approved them because it was a stepping stone to a greater Israel. However not all Zionists agreed with the proposals, Jabotinsky rejected them outright and went on to plan a violent campaign against the Palestinians and the British. The Arabs would not agree to it because they knew it meant forceful removal from their ancestral homes.

    "It is easy to harp on about ethnic cleansing, but Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries in the wake of Israel's victory in 1948. These Jews have been settled in Israel and not cynically used as pawns for political purposes against their neighbours."

    Of course Jews were expelled from Arab countries and suffered great hardship, especially in Iraq but the Jews who are now being brought into Israel are being housed in ILLEGAL settlements and are indeed being used as pawns to boost and expand the Israeli population to drive out Palestinians.

    Normally when ethnic cleansing takes place, there tends to be a dramatic reduction in the population. Not so with the Palestinians. Their population is in fact increasing.

    ‘Ethnic cleansing’ relates to removal of a people from an area of land and not necessarily to their extermination, this shows the loss of Palestinian land through ethnic cleansing:-
    http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/maps/landloss.html

    "If an independent Palestine were created tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, would you support the removal of Jews from settlements deep inside the West Bank"

    I would support whatever the Palestinians would accept, probably based upon the 1967 borders. However, there will never be an independent Palestine whilst the Zionist extremists are in power. They will never accept a one state nor a two state solution. Their aim is to have permanent conflict in the hope that they will drive the Palestinians out altogether.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 10:38am on 08 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    164. At 03:25am on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    Don’t forget, in 2008/9 the whole world saw Israeli IDF thugs attack and slaughter 1,400 Palestinians, many of them children, deliberately shot in the head and the back. So I make no apologies for dismissing Zionist propaganda which attempts to justify their barbaric treatment of the Palestinians hemmed into an open prison. There are thousands of Jews inside and outside of Israel who like me, also see the wickedness and viciousness of the Zionist extremists.

    ---------------

    I haven't forgotten. I support the Israelis despite that, not because of it. Perhaps in the same way you support the Palestinian side despite the rocket fire that led to Operation Cast Lead, the suicide bombings of the second intifada, aeroplane hijackings (eg: Entebbe), the murders of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich games, riots in the 1920s and 1930s that preceded that waged by the Irgun and Stern Gang, and so on and so forth.

    -----------------------------------

    164. At 03:25am on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    You see, this is the type of Zionist propaganda that illustrates my previous point. The Peel proposals were hatched in London with the agreement of Ben-Gurion who wanted them to appear to be ‘British’. He approved them because it was a stepping stone to a greater Israel. However not all Zionists agreed with the proposals, Jabotinsky rejected them outright and went on to plan a violent campaign against the Palestinians and the British. The Arabs would not agree to it because they knew it meant forceful removal from their ancestral homes.

    -------------------

    In what way is it propaganda? It's well-known that the Jews accepted the plans, albeit reluctantly (some Jews disliked the plans intensely as they felt the land allocated to them was too small, broken up and didn't include Jerusalem, but they eventually accepted it anyway - they wanted a state that much that they were willing to settle for a compromise solution) and the Arabs rejected it categorically. Of course it would have meant transfers from homes, and for both sides, but with the benefit of hindsight, far fewer removals for Arabs compared to later plans proposed, and of course, the outcome of successive wars waged against Israel in which more Arabs had to leave their homes. Can you show us some evidence that suggests that the reasons for the Arab rejection of this plan were wholly due to these proposed transfers and not out of an intense animosity towards the Jews and a refusal to allow the Jews even the smallest possible state and achieve their dreams of statehood and self-determination? Because it does very much appear that the Arab rejection was more out of denying the Jews any bit of self-determination, even if it meant denying their own self-determination in the process.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 10:52am on 08 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (9:35pm on 07 Feb 2011)

    I'm amused by accusations of being a 'Zionist' along with other unnecessary personal remarks. That one even tries to accuse me of 'propaganda' is particularly hilarious.

    The historic fact is that the Arab League categorically refused the UN 1947 partition plan. Because nothing was thus established or even formed as a future base for further negotiations, the issue virtually became a 'free for all'. The invasion of the Arabian States the day of the declaration of independence of Israel in 1948, could be considered to have completely changed whatever rules there were and naturally the entire situation. Do you think for a minute that if the Arabian States had won the wars that they imposed, Israel would still be existing? By right of claims of war, Israel could be a lot larger than it actually is, had this been the Israeli objective.

    I've already acknowledged that I'm aware of the extremist elements also in Israel. No one condones extremism and unnecessary violence and brutality. But I'm also aware of the incessant propaganda on the Palestinian side. There is a wealth of proof on the web regarding this. It's hardly surprising because over the years it has become a way of life for those who rely on world opinion and annual charity to get by. The Palestinian authorities of Gaza have become experts in the matter of propaganda especially regarding the discrediting of Israel.

    This is why it's so refreshing to see normal, Palestinian children of Gaza happily flying kites. It's food for thought, and it shuns all bitterness and hypocrisy, which is also apparent in your comment.

    And one has yet to clarify what the Palestinian cause really is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 10:54am on 08 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (9:35pm on 07 Feb 2011)

    I'm amused by accusations of being a 'Zionist' along with other unnecessary personal remarks. That one even tries to accuse me of 'propaganda' is particularly hilarious.

    The historic fact is that the Arab League categorically refused the UN 1947 partition plan. Because nothing was thus established or even formed as a future base for further negotiations, the issue virtually became a 'free for all'. The invasion of the Arabian States the day after of the declaration of independence of Israel in 1948, could be considered to have completely changed whatever rules there were and naturally the entire situation. Do you think for a minute that if the Arabian States had won the wars that they imposed, Israel would still be existing? By right of claims of war, Israel could be a lot larger than it actually is, had this been the Israeli objective.

    I've already acknowledged that I'm aware of the extremist elements also in Israel. No one condones extremism and unnecessary violence and brutality. But I'm also aware of the incessant propaganda on the Palestinian side. There is a wealth of proof on the web regarding this. It's hardly surprising because over the years it has become a way of life for those who rely on world opinion and annual charity to get by. The Palestinian authorities of Gaza have become experts in the matter of propaganda especially regarding the discrediting of Israel.

    This is why it's so refreshing to see normal, Palestinian children happily flying kites. It's food for thought, and it shuns all bitterness and hypocrisy, which is also apparent in your comment.

    And one has yet to clarify what the Palestinian cause really is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 11:25am on 08 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    For what might be perceived as obvious, the Viewfinder links (Consequences, etc) kindly published earlier, reflect my opinions absolutely. My being accused of 'Zionism' and 'propaganda', etc., is thus particularly absurd, and reveals far more the tendencies of the accusers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 2:52pm on 08 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    Nos wrote: But I'm also aware of the incessant propaganda on the Palestinian side.
    ---------
    There was a large group of people that broke out Egyptian prisoners including a group of Palestinians that said they were going home to their families. When asked why they had been in jail, this particular group of Palestinians told the reporter that they were in jail for attempting to destroy Israel and kill Israelis...and they said now that they were out of jail, they would simply try to do it again...

    Basically, both sides are hostile towards one another...

    Many Palestinians want Israel's land and many Isralis want to live in peace on their land without being attacked...
    ---------
    Nos wrote: This is why it's so refreshing to see normal, Palestinian children happily flying kites.
    ---------
    Yes...it reminds us that kids are just that, kids. However, parents can use thier children to promote thier causes and sadly, some may be teaching their kids to hate, so they just become more of hte same...

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 3:16pm on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    To Nostrano and Herecomesthemirrorman

    When any of the Zionist extremists such as Netanyahu enter ‘peace negotiations’ we can be certain that they are merely using stalling tactics to placate the USA and make it appear as though they are being conciliatory but in truth they have no intention of stopping the illegal settlements from being built.

    Likewise, you can introduce whatever propaganda you wish, to deflect from the basic fact that Israel, run by Zionist extremists, is deliberately and blatantly carrying out ethnic cleansing in Palestine. They are gerrymandering the system by bringing Jews in from Europe and the USA etc., who have no ethnic connection whatsoever with Palestine and are not under threat in their own countries, with the sole purpose of displacing Palestinians and taking over the whole area.

    They are only getting away with it because the USA, to its shame, supports them because of pressure from AIPAC.

    When Palestinians, who are the victims, fight back to defend themselves the Zionist supporters complain but when the Israeli aggressor massacres thousands of Palestinian men women and children, not a word is said against them. You cited the case of corporal Gilad Shalit, a member of the brutal IDF captured by Hamas, whilst conveniently forgetting the thousands of Palestinian men women and children Israel has kidnapped and who are still incarcerated in its jails.

    To use, as you have, the example of traumatised children in Gaza getting some enjoyment out of flying kites, to show that life in Gaza is somehow normal after the Israelis devastated it, betrays a level of extreme callousness and sociopathic indifference to the suffering caused, which is unbelievable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 4:50pm on 08 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (3:16pm on 08 Feb 2011)

    'Traumatised children flying kites'? They certainly don't look like or act like traumatised children to me, or to anyone else from any report.

    I can't consider Netanyahu as an 'estremist' on the same level as any member of Hamas, for example. But in life one makes one's own bed. Had the Israelis not been so systematically provoked by Hamas' bellocose tactics the Israelis might have been less inclined to vote in such a right wing government.
    Actually a lot of what Netanyahu says, I agree with, but I certainly don't regard myself as a 'Zionist' or an extremist. What he says is true and certainly less hateful that any of the declarations of Hassan Nasrallah, for another example.

    On the other hand after so many peace talks that have come to nothing, and still subject to the continual futile aggression of Hamas and their henchmen, would it be surprising that the Israeli authorities might no longer believe in the possibility of the Palestinians ever showing any sincere good will in order to reach a long term agreement with them?

    If any side can be accused of stalling tactics in the 'negotiations', it's certainly the Palestinian side, and this for sixty years.

    When a people choose to be represented by authorities who maintain they are at war with Israel and demonstrate this regularly by blindly lobbing qassam rockets into Israel and importing increasingly sophisticated weaponry from Iran, they shouldn't be too surprised that there will be casualties every time Israel retaliates.

    But the 'quasi' state of war fanned by Hamas, and the pathetic scenes staged by the Flotillas of Peace (as if there's no other more intelligent way of helping the Palestinians, should they need it, via the Israeli authorities themselves) are all programmed according to Iran's interests. The Iranian regime is patiently waiting on the side lines for its golden opportunity, the one that Ahmadinejad convinces himself to be his 'divine destiny', to carry out its famous program:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9ojqd_video-clandestine-sortie-diran-ahma

    Gilad Shalit's crime is that he's an Israeli. He's just a young soldier. The Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, thousands of which could be released just to liberate Shalit, have committed crimes. The only kidnapping that I know of on the Israeli side regards officials of Hamas. God knows why Israel eventually released them, without obtaining anything in return.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 4:50pm on 08 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    170. At 3:16pm on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    "When any of the Zionist extremists such as Netanyahu enter ‘peace negotiations’ we can be certain that they are merely using stalling tactics to placate the USA and make it appear as though they are being conciliatory but in truth they have no intention of stopping the illegal settlements from being built."

    ------------

    I would hasten to add that the Palestinians show no more seriousness in committing to a peace deal than the Israelis leaders have at present.


    "Likewise, you can introduce whatever propaganda you wish, to deflect from the basic fact that Israel, run by Zionist extremists, is deliberately and blatantly carrying out ethnic cleansing in Palestine. They are gerrymandering the system by bringing Jews in from Europe and the USA etc., who have no ethnic connection whatsoever with Palestine and are not under threat in their own countries, with the sole purpose of displacing Palestinians and taking over the whole area."

    ----------

    Ignoring laws of return, etc, a country should be allowed to make its own rules on who it lets or doesn't let in. Is every British/American/European Jew that wishes to emigrate to Israel doing so for the sole purpose of willingly displacing a Palestinian? Or do they perhaps just want to live in Israel? What about Hamas' stated aim of displacing Israel and taking over the whole area?


    "They are only getting away with it because the USA, to its shame, supports them because of pressure from AIPAC."

    ---------

    I would hasten to add that even without pressure from AIPAC or any such lobbying group, the United States would still support Israel as an ally and friend.



    "When Palestinians, who are the victims, fight back to defend themselves the Zionist supporters complain but when the Israeli aggressor massacres thousands of Palestinian men women and children, not a word is said against them. You cited the case of corporal Gilad Shalit, a member of the brutal IDF captured by Hamas, whilst conveniently forgetting the thousands of Palestinian men women and children Israel has kidnapped and who are still incarcerated in its jails."

    ------

    Believe me, plenty was said about Operation Cast Lead and the operation in Lebanon in 2006. Israel was universally condemned.
    What of the prisoners that Israel has freed in the interests of securing peace, eg: Samir Kuntar, a convicted murderer, and considered a hero by some Lebanese and Palestinians?



    "To use, as you have, the example of traumatised children in Gaza getting some enjoyment out of flying kites, to show that life in Gaza is somehow normal after the Israelis devastated it, betrays a level of extreme callousness and sociopathic indifference to the suffering caused, which is unbelievable."

    ------

    Or perhaps, a better way of putting it, Nostrano is merely pointing out that despite everything that has taken place, life does indeed go on, and that Israel and Gaza are not the shrapnel-ridden warzones that the media makes them out to be, especially when propaganda is involved. I fear that your emotions are getting the better of you, especially when you use emotive words such as "brutal," "massacre," etc. Remember that not everybody in Gaza is a poverty-striken and malnourished, hopeless case. Some are, yes, and that is down to the restrictions that Israel has placed due to the blockade, but that is also due in no small part to Hamas rule and their own restrictive interpretation of Islamic law. Nevertheless, if the Gazans and the Israelis can move on from the horrors of war and enjoy themselves, then so too can you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 5:01pm on 08 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    Jack wrote: When Palestinians, who are the victims
    ---------

    What about the ones who are attacking Israel?

    Is a terrorist a 'victim'?

    Only in an ultraliberal's eyes...

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 10:09pm on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    171. At 4:50pm on 08 Feb 2011, Nostrano wrote:

    ”'Traumatised children flying kites'? They certainly don't look like or act like traumatised children to me, or to anyone else from any report.”

    Do you live in splendid isolation somewhere, making sure that the only information you see is that which fits your prejudices? If you’ve the stomach, take a look at these references:-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/30/gaza-samouni
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag2POtdriFk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaZ8NkpHGiE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lVCAUBpG3w&NR=1&feature=fvwp
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2010/02/100201_outlook_gaza_kids.shtml

    And there are literally hundreds more like them.

    ”I can't consider Netanyahu as an 'estremist' on the same level as any member of Hamas,"

    Netanyahu is the USA’s and obviously your acceptable extremist, he was on the scene long before Hamas who, I remind you, was created by Mossad the Israeli secret service to combat the PLO.

    One of Netanyahu’s ‘friendly’ quotes:-

    "Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, when the world's attention was focused on what was happening in that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the Territories. However, to my regret, they did not support that policy that I proposed, and which I still propose should be implemented". Benjamin Netanyahu November 1989 Hotam supplement of Al Hamishmar

    I’ll just deal with one more of your fatuous statements before I move on:

    ”The only kidnapping that I know of on the Israeli side regards officials of Hamas.”

    You really do need to do some honest research instead of cocooning yourself in admiration for thugs and killers. In order to terrorise the Palestinians, Israel has kidnapped thousands of them including children, these are just some of the latest:-
    http://www.israel-palestinenews.org/search?q=kidnapped+by+israel

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 10:39pm on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    172. At 4:50pm on 08 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    ”I would hasten to add that the Palestinians show no more seriousness in committing to a peace deal than the Israelis leaders have at present.”

    You seem to be just as badly informed as Nostrano. The Fatah section of the Palestinians were willing to make massive concessions but Israel turned them down, why? because the Zionists want the whole of Palestine and would rather have conflict until they get it.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/leaked-papers-reveal-palestinian-concessions-in-peace-talks

    ”Ignoring laws of return, etc, a country should be allowed to make its own rules on who it lets or doesn't let in. Is every British/American/European Jew that wishes to emigrate to Israel doing so for the sole purpose of willingly displacing a Palestinian? Or do they perhaps just want to live in Israel? What about Hamas' stated aim of displacing Israel and taking over the whole area?”

    Israel ignores any laws it wishes, it has had more UN sanctions against it than all of the other countries in the world put together. Unless you have been hibernating, you should know that Hamas has accepted the presence of Israel, your ‘facts’ are merely a regurgitation of Zionist propaganda.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5121164.stm

    ”I fear that your emotions are getting the better of you, especially when you use emotive words such as "brutal," "massacre," etc.”

    If you don’t think that the Israeli attack on Gaza was a brutal massacre when hundreds of children were deliberately shot in the head or back then I’m afraid your humanity is questionable to say the least.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 10:49pm on 08 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    173. At 5:01pm on 08 Feb 2011, LucyJ wrote:

    "Jack wrote: When Palestinians, who are the victims
    ---------

    What about the ones who are attacking Israel?

    Is a terrorist a 'victim'?

    Only in an ultraliberal's eyes..."


    Lucy, are you not familiar with the concept of self-defence?

    The Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes and villages by immigrants who have precious little right to be there apart from the Zionists desire for ethnic cleansing. If you were thrown out of your home and it was given to a foreigner, wouldn't you object pretty strongly?

    If you want an honest background to the situation see here:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOiQ0dQAAvs&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr85maLfMlE&feature=related

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 00:27am on 09 Feb 2011, Jackturk wrote:

    As a final contribution to this 'discussion' here is a very apt. quote from someone on YouTube:-

    "its gotta be tough being a Zionist. You always have to keep lying. And if you cant, you just run away from a debate. LOL Zionism will fail."

    and here is a perfect example of that, a Zionist trying to escape from arguing his point with Norman Finklestein, an undoubted expert on the subject with a discursive mind.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x4AmdloPHI

    Be careful, if you're a Zionist, it's painful.


    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 10:55am on 09 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk (10:09pm on 08 Feb 2011)

    Your arguments are too one-sided to be considered as seriously as no doubt you would like them to be.
    It's easy to get all the material one wants on the web in order to illustrate one point of view. One must be wary of this.
    Have a read of Hamas' statute. It has never been modified.

    If the Palestinians of Gaza suffer as much as it appears you would like it to be to make your point, it would be more the status quo imposed by Hamas which gives the movement its reason to exist.
    But the fact remains that despite the movement's obssession to impose constant martyrdom and to indoctriate hate (which never has any future), there are still Palestinians who seem not only to be living a normal life, (even in Gaza) but also enjoying it, and I for one admire them for that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 10:57am on 09 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    172. At 4:50pm on 08 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:

    ”I would hasten to add that the Palestinians show no more seriousness in committing to a peace deal than the Israelis leaders have at present.”

    You seem to be just as badly informed as Nostrano. The Fatah section of the Palestinians were willing to make massive concessions but Israel turned them down, why? because the Zionists want the whole of Palestine and would rather have conflict until they get it.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/leaked-papers-reveal-palestinian-concessions-in-peace-talks

    --------------

    But this has been denied and discredited by Fatah and other Palestinians, and at any rate, the offer, if real, was not dissimilar to an offer made by Israel at Camp David in 2000, and rejected then by Yasser Arafat. Personally, if the aforementioned offer was real, then Israel would have been extremely foolish in the least to have turned it down. But -- would you have been happy with the Palestinians making these huge concessions?
    If Israel was a truly expansionist country, they would not have returned the Sinai, they would not have withdrawn from Southern Lebanon, or the Gaza Strip (yes, I know they control its borders) or parts of the West Bank. Quite frankly, with Israel's firepower and history of capturing large amounts of territory in wars that it won (only to return them), then you would think that if they wanted the whole of Palestine, it would have had it by now. The fact that Israel is still only the size of Wales, compared to the relative sizes of Iran or Saudi Arabia, suggests that Israel is pretty useless on the "expanding" front.
    And what about Hamas wanting the whole of Palestine from the river to the sea and continuing the unrelenting conflict until they have all of it?




    ”Ignoring laws of return, etc, a country should be allowed to make its own rules on who it lets or doesn't let in. Is every British/American/European Jew that wishes to emigrate to Israel doing so for the sole purpose of willingly displacing a Palestinian? Or do they perhaps just want to live in Israel? What about Hamas' stated aim of displacing Israel and taking over the whole area?”

    Israel ignores any laws it wishes, it has had more UN sanctions against it than all of the other countries in the world put together. Unless you have been hibernating, you should know that Hamas has accepted the presence of Israel, your ‘facts’ are merely a regurgitation of Zionist propaganda.

    -----------------

    An "implicit" recognition is not the same as full-blown recognition. They show no convincing signs of backing down on the more extremist elements of their charter and if you think the Israeli blockade of Gaza is cruel, then the level of extremist rule from Hamas allied with other militant factions in Gaza will appall you even more.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23849942-masked-men-attack-un-summer-school-in-gaza.do
    They don't even need Israel to destroy the infrastructure anymore; they seem perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

    As for sanctions and resolutions, again, a well-known fact, yes, fact is that the many Arab and/or Muslim nations constantly unite to submit draft resolutions to the UN against Israel in order to delegitimise it. Fortunately this is usually countered by the US' power of veto, which balances things out, wouldn't you say?





    ”I fear that your emotions are getting the better of you, especially when you use emotive words such as "brutal," "massacre," etc.”

    If you don’t think that the Israeli attack on Gaza was a brutal massacre when hundreds of children were deliberately shot in the head or back then I’m afraid your humanity is questionable to say the least.


    -----------------

    Then in that case, it was no more or less a massacre than the 1972 Munich games, the scores of suicide bombings during the intifadas, the Hadassah medical convoy massacre of 1948, the massacres in Kfar Etzion, in Tiberias, and Jaffa, Hebron and Safed in the 1920s (the last few of which happened long before the Zionists formed their own extremist groups to counter the violence), but you don't appear to condemn these, only the atrocities committed by those "evil, genocidal, ethnic cleansing Zionist extremists that are lurking everywhere, including under my bed and control all the world's media and financial institutions" as you might put it.

    And in response to your early comment that "Zionism is the greatest enemy of the Jews." I would argue that Zionism was the best thing to happen for the Jews of the 20th century. It got them their long-awaited dream of a homeland in which they could live their lives, as Jews, without persecution or being murdered or oppressed simply for being Jewish. Jews can walk the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem wearing their skullcaps and all their other regalia without anybody batting an eyelid. Even now in this supposedly tolerant 21st century Western British and American society, it's still hard for a Jew to walk down the streets of London or New York looking very obviously Jewish, without experiencing some form of abuse. Zionism got the Jews their self-determination and independence and allowed them to flourish as a people, especially in their darkest hour when roughly 1/3 of their people were killed in the Holocaust.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 11:33am on 09 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    To Jackturk

    I appreciate your concern for the Palestinian plight. None of us are insensitive to any suffering whatever the cause. But let's try to be objective and non-partisan regarding this endless conflict.

    There's a great deal of Palestinian footage on the Web that can make one believe that the Israelis are worst than ever the Nazis were, etc. There is also a quite a lot of footage of Israeli analysis of such film showing up the falseness, and revealing the truth. Sometimes the revelations are even amusing. Just type out Palestinian propaganda and you'll see what I'm referring to.

    Israel has never denied the Palestinian right to exist, and would never go to endless lengths in trying to negotiate peace agreements just to look good or appease the USA. To more or less affirm this is as ridiculous as it is insulting. The stalling has always been Palestinian. If the tendency is starting to swing somewhat, it could be because Israel no longer has any faith in its neighbours. It would be understandable.

    The unanswered question I keep asking is relevant, but the point could be made in another, very simple way. If you believe that Israel has the right to exist, in principle you cannot claim to support the Palestinian cause.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 1:20pm on 09 Feb 2011, Mirino wrote:

    By the way Jackturk, the most impressive of the videos, the links of which you also posted, was the one with the little girl describing the horrors that happened to her and her family. Some of the shots are particularly disturbing. Yet one is left with an uneasy feeling that something is wrong. How can a little girl calmly relate such an abomination faultlessly and almost casually, as though she's been asked to tell the story of 'Hansel and Gretel'? Surely she wouldn't have been able to do this so cooly. She would have been completely traumatised and rendered speechless by such an horrendous experience.

    On the other hand we are dealing with war, war Hamas insists on, and unfortunately in war it's more often than not the innocent who are amongst the first victims. I can't believe that the Israelis go about targeting women and children, but I know that such Palestinian families, women and children are often used by the Palestinian militants as shields. There's more than enough visual evidence of this too. Hezbollah used the same tactics during the last Lebanese war. It's classic for such movements to add to their martyr lists and discredit their foes at the same time in the eyes of International opinion.

    Netanyahu made a pertinent observation in one of his last speeches. I don't think it was made as any justification for unnecessary violence. It was made more as food for thought. He referred to the bombing of Dresden. It's probably true that it was unnecessary. But at the time Churchill obviously believed that Germany had to be completely demoralised, brought to her knees in order to end the war. According to Netanyahu there were more victims caused by the Dresden bombing (old people, women and children) than there were caused by the bombing of Hiroshima. But that's ok. No one gets up tight about it because it was the war and that's how it goes. Yet every time Israel dares to retaliate making an incursion in legitimate defence, a right which you also allude to, every one is up in arms and we are flooded with the latest horror pictures gathered and presented by the Hamas horror holiday press team, specially for the occasion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 7:11pm on 09 Feb 2011, McJakome wrote:

    179. At 10:57am on 09 Feb 2011, herecomesthemirrorman wrote:
    “...it's still hard for a Jew to walk down the streets of London or New York looking very obviously Jewish...”

    London I know not, but as to New York City and Boston you are dead wrong. I often wear a fur hat and have a beard, so I have had people say “Shalom” to me, thinking me Jewish [I am not, and took no offence, either, and replied in kind].

    One can see a variety of "Jewish" garb as well, from conservative [Yarmulka/kippe only] through full Hasidic atire.

    I have seen quite a few people dressed in Jewish and even Arab [women only] attire and have never seen or heard about these people being attacked. If, however, you wear NY Yankees gear in Boston, or Red Sox gear in NYC you will, at the very least, learn some negative vocabulary.

    NOTE to moderators the vocabulary used in this reply illustrates a position, and is considered acceptable English usage in New York and Massachusetts. If it is not known in British usage I ask for forbearance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 7:25pm on 09 Feb 2011, Chryses wrote:

    JMM, (#182. At 7:11pm on 09 Feb 2011)

    ”... If, however, you wear NY Yankees gear in Boston, or Red Sox gear in NYC you will, at the very least, learn some negative vocabulary.”
    But of course! We hold these truths to be self-evident.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.