British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
a.spencer3

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 17 jan 2005 15:07:19

"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:epWdnR5TdvLVW3bcRVn-sg@giganews.com...
"a.spencer3" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote in message

In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.

Then where the xxxxx did you go?
Zionism is merely the supporting of the ideal of a Jewish state in
Palestine. Most Israelis support that!!!

That's not how I understand the term. To me Zionists are
ultra-nationalists
who are the folks setting up settlements in Palestinian territory and
trying
to force the government's hand to support them. The folks I visited
were
Ashkenazi Liberals. The two societies don't mix. -the Troll


Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion!
.......
:-))

Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll


Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))


Surreyman

Doug McDonald

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 17 jan 2005 16:03:28

Michael W Cook wrote:


Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.


Mr. Cook, here you show how badly you reason. Consider what happens
if there is a return to the pre-1967 situation.

We ACTUALLY KNOW what happens in the pre-1967 situation,
you know. You want to return to it. What happened is that
the Arab forces decided to start an actual large ground
war with Israel. So we know that a return to the pre-1967
situation is not a guarantee of peace.

The Islamic forces lost that war big-time. That's why they
were occupied. They could have had peace at any time
since then by simply accepting their fate, based on the
stupidity of attempting, in 1967, to destroy Israel.
Jordan and Egypt took the route of peace, though
Jordan did not enforce the peace except eastof
teh Jordan River. The Palestinians west of the Jordan
River did not choose peace.

Recall that there was an explicit peace offer
by the Israelis some years ago that promised
the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. They
did not accept, because the remaining 5% was what they
REALLY want, the total destruction of Israel. This
they will never get.

One must always remember who is right here, and who
is wrong. The Islamic forces tried, in 1967, to destroy
Israel. They are in the wrong. Israel, at all times
since 1967, has defended itself. It is in teh right.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Ginny Wagner

RE: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 17 jan 2005 16:35:16

Bronwen,
Could you please tell me which paper quotes President Bush as asserting that
his election was questionable? No matter what you are convinced of, whoever
and whereever you are, the U.S. remains as free as possible.

I found it most interesting that in a CSPAN broadcast of two supreme court
justices debating the relevance of mentioning foreign case law in their
opinions, Justices Beyer and Scalia {whose oath of office is only to defend
our Constitution) were questioned by the head of some Legal organization who
spoke with a thick French accent and the man who was running the show at the
university had a thick Italian accent - both barely able to speak English.
Hmmm ...

Now, if you want to really worry about the good ole U. S. of A. then you
should worry about the things we Americans worry about - like an Australian
owning Fox (the only television network that even attempts to give news from
a conservative standpoint), the BBC owning NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. CBS, owned
by Viacom has huge ties to only one political party -- in 2000 gave $800,000
to Gore, nothing to Bush; the Democrats, with such powerful members as
Sumner Redstone, Dan Rather, etc. who, besides bashing Bush and creating
documents to try and hurt him also coordinated their attempt to take down
the president with the Democratic party's actions of running ads based on
the created false documents.

And ABC hired, for its only Sunday morning talk show, George Stephanopolous,
who was high up in the regime of Bill Clinton and has no journalism
background. Bill Moyer on our publicly funded network hates Republicans and
conservatives, attacks them vociferously as does MacLaughlin, also on PBS.
NPR is decidedly Democratic party despite the fact it too is on the public
dole, the public who are decidedly conservative but find themselves driven
by idealogically wacked extremists.

So, one wonders, with so much media, none of which are on his side, and none
of which reflect the average American like myself, how did President Bush
get reelected with a total of more votes than ever cast for a candidate in
the history of elections?

I must say your assertion in this thread is, on the face of it, and after
being reflected upon, fatuous.

Ginny

<In today's newspaper Bush asserted that his questionable (my word, not
his) re-election was "all the accountability we need" regarding his
policies in the Middle East. Therefore, no need for investigatory
operations on anything. I'm thoroughly convinced now that the US has
been taken in a coup and is now a dictatorship. Bronwen>

a.spencer3

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 17 jan 2005 16:35:43

"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:39ydnbEyudNmR3bcRVn-uQ@giganews.com...
"a.spencer3" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote in message


Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion!
.......
:-))

Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll


Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))

Don't look now but you do. -the Troll



Wow!

First time it's ever happened to me!

Probably the first time it's ever been said on this newsgroup to anyone!!
:-))

Wow!

Surreyman

Michael W Cook

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 17 jan 2005 18:10:14

On 17/1/05 2:46 am, in article j46dnZsnCp52u3bcRVn-ig@giganews.com, "hippo"
<hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:

"Michael W Cook" wrote in message

in article "hippo" wrote:

There's only one answer to that:

If Israel weren't occupying land illegally, and weren't allowing a
bunch
of
Zioniost religious whackos to live in their illegal settlements, then
they
wouldn't need all those boys to do military service.

Simple.

You are kidding, right? Do you really think that if the settlements were
to
be abandoned Hezbollah, Hamas, and the several Palestinian nationalist
and
fundamentalist organizations are going to abandon their jihad?

Their Jihad is perfectly legitimate, they have a foreign army occupying
their land killing their people and destroying their houses. Their
struggle
is as right as the French Resistance was against the Nazis in WWII.

Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.

No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands they
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our pulling
out of the Gulf.

One crime has led to another, and the totally biased support of the Zionist
State by the US has been one of the primary reasons why we find ourselves in
the position we in at present.

I've no objection to Jews living in Israel at all, what I object to is it
being a Jewish Homeland, they had no right to it whatsoever and it was a
very foolish act in creating it.

If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like
the
leadership of any terrorist organization.

And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?

The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?

The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad as any
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.

Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential
blocks
of flats - is that not terrorism ?

The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is EVER
made
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.

Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.

Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in there.

Then we have the killing of innocent children.

Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on 'Palestinian
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered by
the
IDF will quite shock you.

Or perhaps it won't.

However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.

Shall I go on ?

The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.

Etc etc etc.............

I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice for
Israeli reaction.

It's called a Snowball effect, one leads to another.

If it wasn't for the continued expansion of the illegal Settlements there
would have been no Intifada.

All the while both parties were at Camp David discussing a final peace
settlement, Israeli Bulldozers were still building new settlements unabated,
despite the fact they they were supposed to have stopped as part of the
agreements being discussed.

That was reason enough on it's own for Arafat to walk out.

Israel is not to be trusted.

Ariel Sharon's provocative visit shortly after to the Temple Mount, with his
band of thugs tooled up to the eyeballs complete with dark shades, just
pored petrol on the smouldering grass and turned it into an inferno.

Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of Hamburg and
Dresden.

Here you go again, trying to compare totally different conflicts that have
no similarities whatsoever.

It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical
Islamic
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the population
from
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one
Zionist.

You are joking I hope.

99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.

I, however, do not.

Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who don't
either.

Look it up in a dictionary.

I will accept your apologise and correction to the above.

The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable
future.

Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.

Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the
ongoing
terrorist threat.

That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of them
and
clouded their judgement.

Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of grief.

I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people deserves a
homeland if possible.

OK.

Where do you live ?

Lets say you live in one of the States in the US where there is a sizable
population of Native American Indians.

Suddenly the UN has decreed that a thousand mile radius around your house is
no longer part of the US, but is to become a newly formed Homeland for all
Native American Indians around the world. Because they haven't got a
homeland of their own and they have always been persecuted.

As it happens, the native American Indians probably have a better case for a
Homeland than any Jew had for the formation of the state of Israel.

Anyway, I digress, once the Native Americans start arriving and joining with
those already there, they start to attack the local non-Native Indians,
forcing them off their land by gun-point and murdering several as they go
about their dirty work.

A form of ethnic cleansing if you like on a targeted localised scale.

The people who live there have nobody to help them, and for the next 50
years the most powerful government in the world aids the native Americans
and arms them to the teeth with all the latest weaponry they can muster, to
use against the former people who lived on that land.

Then, after 50 years they decide to build a huge wall to fence all those
local people in who they haven't managed to force off their land, usually
because that land is of no use to the Native Indians anyway.

At all times these former owners of the land are treated as second class
citizens and they have no rights whatsoever. Their children and women are
shot or blown up, but nobody is ever held to account.

Roads are then built for Native Indians only, cutting across land once owned
by the former people who lived on the land with little or no compensation.
Some even have their houses bulldozed to make way for these roads.

The killing goes on, the infrastructure that these local people once had is
totally destroyed, many live in refugee camps, which are in turn sealed off
from time to time and bulldozed by the Native American Indians.

Can you see any parallels yet ?

Would you take up arms and fight against such injustices ?

Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I had no
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was teeming
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.

That is nonsense, throughout history the Muslims have been the better
custodians of the Holy Sites in Middle East than any Christian or Jewish
rulers of that land - FACT.


Snip

MWC

William Black

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av William Black » 17 jan 2005 18:42:24

"Michael W Cook" <nuffspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BE102A6B.A8EC%nuffspam@hotmail.com...

EVERY country in the civilised world has 'Rules of Engagement'.

NONE allows the shooting of children for throwing stones.

The US in Iraq?

They were shooting people for not understanding English at one point...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Glyn Jones

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Glyn Jones » 17 jan 2005 19:11:17

Sorry but there is some evidence that Israel attacked the Arab forces first,
in 1967, and not the other was round. Israeli propanda was good.
(I have no intention of prolonging this.) Additionally, there is no
justification for the formation of the state of Israel. It would mean that
it would be perfectly reasonable for Anglo Saxons to return to their areas
of origin, which is nonsense.
Zionists invaded Palestine, committed acts of terrorism and were condemned
by the UN before the formation of Israel. Whatever the faults of the
Palestinian cause, they have shown great forbearance in being willing to
accept Israel's existence at the 1967 boundaries.
Please remember that, up to 1948, Jews and Arabs lived peacably together.
What would you do if you had been thrown out of your home? Accept it?

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Join the Royal Photographic Society
Remember Tryweryn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?


Michael W Cook wrote:


Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw
All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power,
they
get no sympathy from me.


Mr. Cook, here you show how badly you reason. Consider what happens
if there is a return to the pre-1967 situation.

We ACTUALLY KNOW what happens in the pre-1967 situation,
you know. You want to return to it. What happened is that
the Arab forces decided to start an actual large ground
war with Israel. So we know that a return to the pre-1967
situation is not a guarantee of peace.

The Islamic forces lost that war big-time. That's why they
were occupied. They could have had peace at any time
since then by simply accepting their fate, based on the
stupidity of attempting, in 1967, to destroy Israel.
Jordan and Egypt took the route of peace, though
Jordan did not enforce the peace except eastof
teh Jordan River. The Palestinians west of the Jordan
River did not choose peace.

Recall that there was an explicit peace offer
by the Israelis some years ago that promised
the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. They
did not accept, because the remaining 5% was what they
REALLY want, the total destruction of Israel. This
they will never get.

One must always remember who is right here, and who
is wrong. The Islamic forces tried, in 1967, to destroy
Israel. They are in the wrong. Israel, at all times
since 1967, has defended itself. It is in teh right.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald


hippo

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av hippo » 17 jan 2005 20:20:52

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote in message

Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll


Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))

Don't look now but you do. -the Troll

Wow!

First time it's ever happened to me!

Probably the first time it's ever been said on this newsgroup to anyone!!
:-))

Wow!

Congratulations. :^) -the Troll

JOY ROBBINS

RE: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av JOY ROBBINS » 17 jan 2005 20:22:19

Who convinced you of that Bronwen? It smacks of ignorance and a total lack
of knowledge of what the US was founded on, her ideals and her people. You
need to play with your mind a little more on this one and tell whoever
convinced you of that to go back to school on their history lessons.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginny Wagner [mailto:ginnywagner@austin.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 9:35 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?


Bronwen,
Could you please tell me which paper quotes President Bush as asserting that
his election was questionable? No matter what you are convinced of, whoever
and whereever you are, the U.S. remains as free as possible.

I found it most interesting that in a CSPAN broadcast of two supreme court
justices debating the relevance of mentioning foreign case law in their
opinions, Justices Beyer and Scalia {whose oath of office is only to defend
our Constitution) were questioned by the head of some Legal organization who
spoke with a thick French accent and the man who was running the show at the
university had a thick Italian accent - both barely able to speak English.
Hmmm ...

Now, if you want to really worry about the good ole U. S. of A. then you
should worry about the things we Americans worry about - like an Australian
owning Fox (the only television network that even attempts to give news from
a conservative standpoint), the BBC owning NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. CBS, owned
by Viacom has huge ties to only one political party -- in 2000 gave $800,000
to Gore, nothing to Bush; the Democrats, with such powerful members as
Sumner Redstone, Dan Rather, etc. who, besides bashing Bush and creating
documents to try and hurt him also coordinated their attempt to take down
the president with the Democratic party's actions of running ads based on
the created false documents.

And ABC hired, for its only Sunday morning talk show, George Stephanopolous,
who was high up in the regime of Bill Clinton and has no journalism
background. Bill Moyer on our publicly funded network hates Republicans and
conservatives, attacks them vociferously as does MacLaughlin, also on PBS.
NPR is decidedly Democratic party despite the fact it too is on the public
dole, the public who are decidedly conservative but find themselves driven
by idealogically wacked extremists.

So, one wonders, with so much media, none of which are on his side, and none
of which reflect the average American like myself, how did President Bush
get reelected with a total of more votes than ever cast for a candidate in
the history of elections?

I must say your assertion in this thread is, on the face of it, and after
being reflected upon, fatuous.

Ginny

<In today's newspaper Bush asserted that his questionable (my word, not
his) re-election was "all the accountability we need" regarding his
policies in the Middle East. Therefore, no need for investigatory
operations on anything. I'm thoroughly convinced now that the US has
been taken in a coup and is now a dictatorship. Bronwen>

______________________________

hippo

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av hippo » 17 jan 2005 21:04:01

"Michael W Cook" wrote in message

On 17/1/05 2:46 am, in article "hippo" wrote:
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw
All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for
peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power,
they
get no sympathy from me.

No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands
they
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our
pulling
out of the Gulf.

One crime has led to another, and the totally biased support of the
Zionist
State by the US has been one of the primary reasons why we find ourselves
in
the position we in at present.

I've no objection to Jews living in Israel at all, what I object to is it
being a Jewish Homeland, they had no right to it whatsoever and it was a
very foolish act in creating it.

Very open minded of you. I think they had the right too but the Palestinians
didn't in spite if the fact they have been there for several thousands of
years and long before there was even one Muslim. They saw it through the
eyes of a persecuted people who wanted just one place they'd be safe. That's
OK with me too. The Palestinians who live in Israel are a lot safer and
freer than Jews living in Palestine before 1948 and probably anywhere else
in the Mid East. As with most conflict there is good and bad with both
sides.

If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like
the
leadership of any terrorist organization.

And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?

The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?

The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad as
any
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.

Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential
blocks
of flats - is that not terrorism ?

The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is EVER
made
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.

Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.

Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in there.

Then we have the killing of innocent children.

Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on 'Palestinian
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered
by
the
IDF will quite shock you.

Or perhaps it won't.

However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.

Shall I go on ?

The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.

Etc etc etc.............

I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice
for
Israeli reaction.

It's called a Snowball effect, one leads to another.

If it wasn't for the continued expansion of the illegal Settlements there
would have been no Intifada.

All the while both parties were at Camp David discussing a final peace
settlement, Israeli Bulldozers were still building new settlements
unabated,
despite the fact they they were supposed to have stopped as part of the
agreements being discussed.

That was reason enough on it's own for Arafat to walk out.

Israel is not to be trusted.

Ariel Sharon's provocative visit shortly after to the Temple Mount, with
his
band of thugs tooled up to the eyeballs complete with dark shades, just
pored petrol on the smouldering grass and turned it into an inferno.

Just after Sharon's visit, which he had every right to do just like anyone
else, Muslims began stoning Jews praying at the wailing wall below. Sharon
wasn't trying to hurt anyone, the Muslims were. I saw a distinct difference
in the films of both, and I see a distinct difference in level of guilt if
you don't.

Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of Hamburg
and
Dresden.

Here you go again, trying to compare totally different conflicts that have
no similarities whatsoever.

There are no exact comparisons in history which you know. We do as well as
we can. A government is obliged to protect its people as it's first
responsibility. Most governments in the present situation as the Israeli
would have reacted even more strongly.

It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about
the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical
Islamic
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the
population
from
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one
Zionist.

You are joking I hope.

99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.

I, however, do not.

Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who don't
either.

Look it up in a dictionary.

I will accept your apologise and correction to the above.

This time I specified *radical* Zionists. We do learn from our mistakes.

The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable
future.

Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.

Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the
ongoing
terrorist threat.

That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was
formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of
them
and
clouded their judgement.

Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the
Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared
long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of
grief.

I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people
deserves a
homeland if possible.

OK.

Where do you live ?

Lets say you live in one of the States in the US where there is a sizable
population of Native American Indians.

Suddenly the UN has decreed that a thousand mile radius around your house
is
no longer part of the US, but is to become a newly formed Homeland for all
Native American Indians around the world. Because they haven't got a
homeland of their own and they have always been persecuted.

As it happens, the native American Indians probably have a better case for
a
Homeland than any Jew had for the formation of the state of Israel.

Anyway, I digress, once the Native Americans start arriving and joining
with
those already there, they start to attack the local non-Native Indians,
forcing them off their land by gun-point and murdering several as they go
about their dirty work.

A form of ethnic cleansing if you like on a targeted localised scale.

The people who live there have nobody to help them, and for the next 50
years the most powerful government in the world aids the native Americans
and arms them to the teeth with all the latest weaponry they can muster,
to
use against the former people who lived on that land.

Then, after 50 years they decide to build a huge wall to fence all those
local people in who they haven't managed to force off their land, usually
because that land is of no use to the Native Indians anyway.

At all times these former owners of the land are treated as second class
citizens and they have no rights whatsoever. Their children and women are
shot or blown up, but nobody is ever held to account.

Roads are then built for Native Indians only, cutting across land once
owned
by the former people who lived on the land with little or no compensation.
Some even have their houses bulldozed to make way for these roads.

The killing goes on, the infrastructure that these local people once had
is
totally destroyed, many live in refugee camps, which are in turn sealed
off
from time to time and bulldozed by the Native American Indians.

Can you see any parallels yet ?

Would you take up arms and fight against such injustices ?

And you think my comparisons are nuts. US native populations have their own
internally autonomous tribal lands to which they have a right. They can live
in them or not at their choice.
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.

Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I had
no
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was
teeming
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.

That is nonsense, throughout history the Muslims have been the better
custodians of the Holy Sites in Middle East than any Christian or Jewish
rulers of that land - FACT.

Christians I give you. Muslim access has been irregular over history
depending on the big cheese in Jerusalem at the time. The Israelis have been
consistent except for a few short periods after violent outbreaks
there. -the Troll

Michael W Cook

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 18 jan 2005 00:31:01

On 17/1/05 8:04 pm, in article zcSdnWjcvqmIh3HcRVn-oQ@giganews.com, "hippo"
<hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:

And you think my comparisons are nuts. US native populations have their own
internally autonomous tribal lands to which they have a right. They can live
in them or not at their choice.

I used them as a fictitious example of something closer to your home,
obviously you didn't see the parallels and connection with the development
of the current state of Israel.

Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.

There was no Islamic terrorism against the Jews until they started their
expansionist policies, which began 150 years ago and continue to this day.
The only reason Sharon has decided to pull out of Gaza is because those
settlements are a financial and military drain.

It's classic Jabotinsky preaching - go look him up, along with my namesake,
Chief Rabbi Cook, another early preacher of Ultra Right-wing Zionism.

Settlements which can not be sustained should be abandoned and their
resources diverted to those that prosper.

This was one of Jabotinsky's teachings from over a century ago, along with
his proposal of building a wall to fence the natives out.

Ever wondered where Sharon gets his ideas from ?

Now you know.

But the Zionists still have the cheek to say there is no Jewish expansionist
policy and strongly deny anything of the sort.

Yet since the start of the Oslo process in 1993, the number of illegal
Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories has doubled to over 400,000 and
continues to grow as the settlements expand. Despite a supposed freeze.

Then there's the further land grabbing in the construction of the Wall,
proving that they are liars who are not to be trusted.

If Israel wanted to protect it's citizens from violent Palestinian
resistance, it should abide by countless UN Resolutions and start shipping
these 400.000 people back to Israel, whereby turning the occupation into a
purely military question of security.

But that won't happen because Israel will always want more land, not peace.

MWC

Gjest

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2005 00:47:30

Funny my family has been in Jerusalem since 1492.... most of the
Palestinians can't trace their roots back to WWI

"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:zcSdnWjcvqmIh3HcRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message

On 17/1/05 2:46 am, in article "hippo" wrote:
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and
withdraw
All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for
peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power,
they
get no sympathy from me.

No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands
they
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our
pulling
out of the Gulf.

One crime has led to another, and the totally biased support of the
Zionist
State by the US has been one of the primary reasons why we find
ourselves
in
the position we in at present.

I've no objection to Jews living in Israel at all, what I object to is
it
being a Jewish Homeland, they had no right to it whatsoever and it was a
very foolish act in creating it.

Very open minded of you. I think they had the right too but the
Palestinians
didn't in spite if the fact they have been there for several thousands of
years and long before there was even one Muslim. They saw it through the
eyes of a persecuted people who wanted just one place they'd be safe.
That's
OK with me too. The Palestinians who live in Israel are a lot safer and
freer than Jews living in Palestine before 1948 and probably anywhere else
in the Mid East. As with most conflict there is good and bad with both
sides.

If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just
like
the
leadership of any terrorist organization.

And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?

The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?

The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad
as
any
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.

Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential
blocks
of flats - is that not terrorism ?

The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is
EVER
made
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.

Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.

Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in
there.

Then we have the killing of innocent children.

Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on
'Palestinian
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered
by
the
IDF will quite shock you.

Or perhaps it won't.

However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.

Shall I go on ?

The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.

Etc etc etc.............

I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice
for
Israeli reaction.

It's called a Snowball effect, one leads to another.

If it wasn't for the continued expansion of the illegal Settlements
there
would have been no Intifada.

All the while both parties were at Camp David discussing a final peace
settlement, Israeli Bulldozers were still building new settlements
unabated,
despite the fact they they were supposed to have stopped as part of the
agreements being discussed.

That was reason enough on it's own for Arafat to walk out.

Israel is not to be trusted.

Ariel Sharon's provocative visit shortly after to the Temple Mount, with
his
band of thugs tooled up to the eyeballs complete with dark shades, just
pored petrol on the smouldering grass and turned it into an inferno.

Just after Sharon's visit, which he had every right to do just like anyone
else, Muslims began stoning Jews praying at the wailing wall below. Sharon
wasn't trying to hurt anyone, the Muslims were. I saw a distinct
difference
in the films of both, and I see a distinct difference in level of guilt if
you don't.

Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of
Hamburg
and
Dresden.

Here you go again, trying to compare totally different conflicts that
have
no similarities whatsoever.

There are no exact comparisons in history which you know. We do as well as
we can. A government is obliged to protect its people as it's first
responsibility. Most governments in the present situation as the Israeli
would have reacted even more strongly.

It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about
the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical
Islamic
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the
population
from
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one
Zionist.

You are joking I hope.

99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.

I, however, do not.

Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some
who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who
don't
either.

Look it up in a dictionary.

I will accept your apologise and correction to the above.

This time I specified *radical* Zionists. We do learn from our mistakes.

The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable
future.

Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the
illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.

Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the
ongoing
terrorist threat.

That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was
formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of
them
and
clouded their judgement.

Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the
Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared
long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of
grief.

I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people
deserves a
homeland if possible.

OK.

Where do you live ?

Lets say you live in one of the States in the US where there is a
sizable
population of Native American Indians.

Suddenly the UN has decreed that a thousand mile radius around your
house
is
no longer part of the US, but is to become a newly formed Homeland for
all
Native American Indians around the world. Because they haven't got a
homeland of their own and they have always been persecuted.

As it happens, the native American Indians probably have a better case
for
a
Homeland than any Jew had for the formation of the state of Israel.

Anyway, I digress, once the Native Americans start arriving and joining
with
those already there, they start to attack the local non-Native Indians,
forcing them off their land by gun-point and murdering several as they
go
about their dirty work.

A form of ethnic cleansing if you like on a targeted localised scale.

The people who live there have nobody to help them, and for the next 50
years the most powerful government in the world aids the native
Americans
and arms them to the teeth with all the latest weaponry they can muster,
to
use against the former people who lived on that land.

Then, after 50 years they decide to build a huge wall to fence all those
local people in who they haven't managed to force off their land,
usually
because that land is of no use to the Native Indians anyway.

At all times these former owners of the land are treated as second class
citizens and they have no rights whatsoever. Their children and women
are
shot or blown up, but nobody is ever held to account.

Roads are then built for Native Indians only, cutting across land once
owned
by the former people who lived on the land with little or no
compensation.
Some even have their houses bulldozed to make way for these roads.

The killing goes on, the infrastructure that these local people once had
is
totally destroyed, many live in refugee camps, which are in turn sealed
off
from time to time and bulldozed by the Native American Indians.

Can you see any parallels yet ?

Would you take up arms and fight against such injustices ?

And you think my comparisons are nuts. US native populations have their
own
internally autonomous tribal lands to which they have a right. They can
live
in them or not at their choice.
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.

Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I
had
no
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was
teeming
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.

That is nonsense, throughout history the Muslims have been the better
custodians of the Holy Sites in Middle East than any Christian or Jewish
rulers of that land - FACT.

Christians I give you. Muslim access has been irregular over history
depending on the big cheese in Jerusalem at the time. The Israelis have
been
consistent except for a few short periods after violent outbreaks
there. -the Troll




Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 02:43:04

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?

Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.

Fergie The Slut, Duchess of York -- surely one of the most abysmally
air-headed of them all. See Below.

You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back the
Stuarts?

The current heir seems to be a chap in Liechtenstein

Consider -- this Hanover lot has run into the sands and petered out on
you.

Josef Wenzel v.u. zu Liechtenstein -- take a look at him, Brits -- you
could do MUCH worse with this Hanover lot you've inherited and probably
WILL. JOSEPH I, the Jacobites call him. Joseph is reported to be an
11th great-grandson of Charles I.

He's only NINE years old -- TRAINABLE.

Hell, he also probably speaks better English than your GEORGE I ever
did.

He was your George I as well.

Renia

Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 02:44:19

Remind me. Which Royal of which country was it who murdered most of his
family in recent years?

Renia

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?

Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.

Fergie The Slut, Duchess of York -- surely one of the most abysmally
air-headed of them all. See Below.

You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back the
Stuarts?

The current heir seems to be a chap in Liechtenstein

Consider -- this Hanover lot has run into the sands and petered out on
you.

Josef Wenzel v.u. zu Liechtenstein -- take a look at him, Brits -- you
could do MUCH worse with this Hanover lot you've inherited and probably
WILL. JOSEPH I, the Jacobites call him. Joseph is reported to be an
11th great-grandson of Charles I.

He's only NINE years old -- TRAINABLE.

Hell, he also probably speaks better English than your GEORGE I ever
did.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
-------------------------

'Diana would be proud'
By Stephen Deal, Metro
14 January 2005

"The Duchess of York leapt to the defence of Prince Harry over his Nazi
costume blunder yesterday, saying: 'His mother would be proud of him.'

Hilarious! Fergie The Airheaded prolongs the agony for the Queen,
Prince Philip and Prince Charles -- keeping the story alive. ---- DSH

The prince's aunt said he 'deserved a break' and added: 'I am behind him
100 per cent. OK, he wore a fancy dress costume, he got it wrong. I
hope the world accepts his apology.' ******

"I am behind him 100 per cent." ?????

This woman is as DUMB as they come. ---- DSH

A photo on the front page of yesterday's Sun newspaper showed the
20-year-old Royal enjoying a drink and a cigarette while dressed as a
member of Rommel's Afrika Corps, complete with red swastika armband.

In a statement, Harry said: 'I am very sorry if I caused any offence or
embarrassment to anyone. It was a poor choice of costume and I
apologise.'

"IF I caused any offence or embarrassment to anyone..." !!!!! -- What An
Idiot Prince Harry Is -- still digging a DEEPER HOLE for himself. ----
DSH

The Ministry of Defence insisted the incident would not affect Harry's
place at Sandhurst military academy, which he is expected to take up in
May.

IT WOULD affect the CANDIDACY of any OTHER applicant to SANDHURST. NOW,
the Royal Family has THAT issue, the issue of blatant, Royal FAVORITISM
to deal with. ---- DSH

The Duchess said she sympathised with the prince because she had made
similar errors of judgment in the past.

She told a US TV channel: 'I know what it is like to have bad press - I
had it for quite a long time.

'But Harry is a great boy, he really is. He is first rate. He does so
much to help so many children all over the world.' However, her comments
appeared to do little to calm the controversy.

HILARIOUS! No kidding. She is pouring PETROL on the FIRE! ---- DSH

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, one of the largest international Jewish
human rights organisations, said the prince should attend a ceremony at
Auschwitz later this month to mark the 60th anniversary of the death
camp's liberation by allied troops. In a strongly worded rebuke, the
US-based centre added: 'This was a shameful act, displaying
insensitivity for the victims, not just for those soldiers of his own
country who gave their lives to defeat Nazism but to the Holocaust
victims.'

CORRECT! ---- DSH

Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom described Harry's use of Nazi
symbols as intolerable. 'This can encourage others to think that
perhaps that period was not as bad as we teach the young generation,' he
said.

RIGHT! The teaching of Modern European History in Britain must be in
the toilet. ---- DSH

Prince Charles was reported to have privately berated Harry but told an
aide his son did not need to grovel and apologise further. Charles was
also said to feel Prince William should have stopped his brother from
wearing the costume."
--------------------

WRONG! Prince Harry DOES need to GROVEL FURTHER -- ASAP. He hasn't
even BEGUN to grovel properly.

OF COURSE Prince William should have STOPPED HIM. He's an idiot too.

More fun and games with the British Royals. They exist primarily to
entertain the World.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 02:47:34

Doug McDonald wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?



In the case of a 20 year old probably over-testosteroned guy
with an actual chin, such activities point to something
even stranger ... normality. Such people often do somewhat
dubious things on a whim. I'm sure that both our recent
Presidential candidates did similar stupidities while at
a certain east coast college. Even **I** while at a
more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
reading room.


Do tell. Sounds fascinating!

Renia

Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 02:48:54

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


"Brazilian man threw mother to pit bulls - police"


Hmm. Jackie Stallone comes to mind. Oh, no. Sorry. Jackie is the pit-bull.

Renia

Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 02:50:10

Somehow, I think his mother's influence would have prevented all this,
and some of his other exploits, had she still been alive.

Renia


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

| stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
| reading room.

Not EQUIVALENT ACTS in any way to what Prince Harry, third in line to
succeed to the throne, did..

Harry is NOT just any twenty-year-old British kid. He fails to
understand that.

He has special RESPONSIBILITIES -- and with those responsibilities he
receives special PRIVILEGES -- NOT to be abused.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cs9dtv$f7k$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid
| > [some of them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press
| > that creates these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and
| > Embarrassments -- a combination of the two?
|
|
| In the case of a 20 year old probably over-testosteroned guy
| with an actual chin, such activities point to something
| even stranger ... normality. Such people often do somewhat
| dubious things on a whim. I'm sure that both our recent
| Presidential candidates did similar stupidities while at
| a certain east coast college. Even **I** while at a
| more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
| stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
| reading room.
|
| Doug McDonald

Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 02:51:48

Michael W Cook wrote:


Harry's actions in wearing a Nazi Uniform as Fancy Dress to a private party
can only be described as inappropriate and insensitive for someone of his
position in society.

Nothing more.


For which he has apoligised. As has William, who was also at the party,
and failed to discourage him from wearing the uniform. One of their
friends even dressed up as Granny (HM the Queen). Is she complaining
about that?

Renia

Renia

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Renia » 18 jan 2005 03:17:45

a.spencer3 wrote:

lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105839791.361772.72380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I wasn't going to jump into this but...Harry needs what anyone his age
who does this sort of stupid and thoughtless thing needs: a lesson in
the consequences: the people who died were real, the killers were real,
and real people today are affected.
A trip to the Holocaust Museum might not be a bad holiday for him,
especially if he is allowed to go through it anonymously so he'll have
a chance to actually think about and feel what he sees there. Once he
has seen the consequences of his thoughtlessness and has had a chance
to review the "wisdom" of his action, it needs to be forgotten by
everyone except Harry. I hope that the reaction to what he did will not
outshine what he has been given an opportunity to learn. Bronwen (who
tries to help her sister-in-law do genealogy when most of her recent
ancestors were killed by the Nazis)



Most posters here probably have not been to the Holocaust Museum, and don't
need to, to realise the atrocities etc.
I have been and, frankly, found it far too propogandist for its own good.
Any other visitors' views?


I've been twice, in 1969 and in 1999. It was much as I remembered it but
it had changed. I was impressed by the "new" hoardings which showed
pictures of the view you were looking at during the war, which was
poignant. I didn't find it propagandist either time. The first time, I
was with my grandmother who had not been there before, even though she
lived only a few miles away. She could only walk alongside the railway
track, when she turned back, crying, saying she could go no further. She
had lost too many friends there. She remained in the car for the rest of
the day while we we contininued our visit. A few moments before she
turned back, four young German boys came running down past the railway
track. They were crying their eyes out saying: "We didn't know it was
like this". Granny's first language was German, and she translated.

In 1969, I was 16, and my visit there was life-changing, even though I
was already well aware of Nazi attrocities. My brothers were then 12 and
11 and don't remember it. Indeed, they tell me they stayed in the car
with Granny, because they were thought to be too young for the visit. (I
don't remember this.) I waited until my own sons were adult enough to
remember such a visit. They also found it life-changing. I have always
felt that anyone who visits Poland, particularly the wonderful city of
Cracow, should make a detour to Auschwitz (Oswiemcim in Polish). Never
for pleasure, but just to see whan man can do to man when he has enough
power.

While there the second time, one of the guides told a story regarding a
large photo we were all looking at. She said that a recent visitor had
screamed in pain while looking at the photo. The photo showed her mother.

While there the first time, what we all noticed was the lack of
birdsong. There were no birds in the area. Later, we heard of many
others who said this. In 1999 however, there were birds.

As an aside, anyone who does go to Cracow, should lighten up after a
visit to Oswiemcim, and go to the Wielicka Salt Mine. An absolutely
fascinating place, and, surely, one of the wonders of the world.

Renia

hippo

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av hippo » 18 jan 2005 03:31:08

"Michael W Cook" wrote in message

in article "hippo" wrote:

Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with
Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.

There was no Islamic terrorism against the Jews until they started their
expansionist policies, which began 150 years ago and continue to this day.
The only reason Sharon has decided to pull out of Gaza is because those
settlements are a financial and military drain.

It's classic Jabotinsky preaching - go look him up, along with my
namesake,
Chief Rabbi Cook, another early preacher of Ultra Right-wing Zionism.

Settlements which can not be sustained should be abandoned and their
resources diverted to those that prosper.

This was one of Jabotinsky's teachings from over a century ago, along with
his proposal of building a wall to fence the natives out.

Ever wondered where Sharon gets his ideas from ?

Now you know.

But the Zionists still have the cheek to say there is no Jewish
expansionist
policy and strongly deny anything of the sort.

Yet since the start of the Oslo process in 1993, the number of illegal
Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories has doubled to over 400,000
and
continues to grow as the settlements expand. Despite a supposed freeze.

Then there's the further land grabbing in the construction of the Wall,
proving that they are liars who are not to be trusted.

If Israel wanted to protect it's citizens from violent Palestinian
resistance, it should abide by countless UN Resolutions and start shipping
these 400.000 people back to Israel, whereby turning the occupation into a
purely military question of security.

But that won't happen because Israel will always want more land, not
peace.


There are large numbers of Israeli voters impatient with the settlers
including most recently Sharon himself who, as Prime Ministers, understands
perfectly well the government can't protect the illegal settlements. His
coalition nearly fell over the forced removal of settlements in Gaza. You're
wrong about expansionism. I don't think even a majority of Israelis believe
in that. -the Troll

hippo

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av hippo » 18 jan 2005 03:39:41

<rgoldman wrote in message

Funny my family has been in Jerusalem since 1492.... most of the
Palestinians can't trace their roots back to WWI

Probably from Spain, then.

Most Jews, used as they are to thinking in Diaspora terms, don't understand
there has always been a continuous Jewish population in Palestine. The
largest concentration of which, I seem to remember, was in the Galilee. -the
Troll

Gjest

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2005 03:50:04

Please look at my post again to see that I specifically said the word
"questionable" was mine. I am always amazed at how right-wingers claim
the media are liberal. People like Bill Moyer are among the few who are
a counter-weight against blatantly right-wing fascist media like Fox. I
have a marvelous documentary you should see called "Outfoxed". The
public media is the only place in the US where you can even find a
truly left-oriented position. Corporate ownership is the same thing as
right-wing ownership. I believe that a little investigation will show
that the statistics you cite are inaccurate. You're just wailing the
same old right-wing song that always really boils down to might makes
right. That's why the votes in Ohio (registered on Republican-made
electronic machines) were ratified by the Republican bureaucrat who
also happened to be Bush's campaign manager in Ohio. Except for a few
lines now and then on CNN, the public is largely unaware of the law
suits underway about election fraud in Ohio, New Mexico and other
states, along with the ongoing congressional investigation. The
investigation in Washington turned up quite a bit and now they have a
different governor - the liberal candidate whose votes were
undercounted at first. If there were really so many people in the US
who were in agreement with Bush, why do his people consistently cheat
in the elections and run roughtshod over everything not on their spooky
agenda? Bronwen

Gjest

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2005 03:52:08

Almost 60 years of observation and experience. No person convinced me
of anything. Why don't you email me privately and tell me exactly where
I am incorrect? It is y ou who are ignorant about what this country was
founded upon and why. Bronwen

Tony Hoskins

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 18 jan 2005 05:40:01

Dear Ms. Edwards:

Can you NEVER drop the polemics? Even in this most inappropriate of all
venues?! Good heavens! This is so out of place and offensive to more
people than you might think. Please take it elsewhere. Extremely bad
form; one of the worst cases of bad-loser-ism and sour grapes I have
*ever* encountered. Again, *please* spare us. You seem to be obsessed.

Remember these keywords:

1) medieval
2) genealogy

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln [reminder: another dead white Anglo-Saxon
male, oppressor-of-women-gays-and-anyminoritythatyou
fancycreatingavictim]:

"Whatever differs from medieval genealogy - to the extent of the
difference - is no medieval genealogy."

Thanks.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California



lostcooper@yahoo.com> 01/17/05 06:50PM
Please look at my post again to see that I specifically said the word

"questionable" was mine. I am always amazed at how right-wingers claim
the media are liberal. People like Bill Moyer are among the few who
are
a counter-weight against blatantly right-wing fascist media like Fox.
I
have a marvelous documentary you should see called "Outfoxed". The
public media is the only place in the US where you can even find a
truly left-oriented position. Corporate ownership is the same thing as
right-wing ownership. I believe that a little investigation will show
that the statistics you cite are inaccurate. You're just wailing the
same old right-wing song that always really boils down to might makes
right. That's why the votes in Ohio (registered on Republican-made
electronic machines) were ratified by the Republican bureaucrat who
also happened to be Bush's campaign manager in Ohio. Except for a few
lines now and then on CNN, the public is largely unaware of the law
suits underway about election fraud in Ohio, New Mexico and other
states, along with the ongoing congressional investigation. The
investigation in Washington turned up quite a bit and now they have a
different governor - the liberal candidate whose votes were
undercounted at first. If there were really so many people in the US
who were in agreement with Bush, why do his people consistently cheat
in the elections and run roughtshod over everything not on their
spooky
agenda? Bronwen

Michael W Cook

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 18 jan 2005 13:01:01

On 17/1/05 11:47 pm, in article R6YGd.24249$tF.6380@bignews6.bellsouth.net,
"rgoldman@bellsouth.net" <rgoldman@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Funny my family has been in Jerusalem since 1492.... most of the
Palestinians can't trace their roots back to WWI

I too can say anything that you'd find impossible to prove.

However, the greater majority of Jews in Palestine had no link whatsoever to
the land before 50 years ago, and the greater majority of Israeli Prime
Ministers in the past weren't even born in Israel.

It's a nation of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants and it's entire history
is based on myth, dubious ancient links, conflict, occupation and suffering.

Some nation.

Michael W Cook

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 18 jan 2005 13:10:02

On 18/1/05 2:31 am, in article wOqdnWQEprdQ6XHcRVn-1Q@giganews.com, "hippo"
<hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:

"Michael W Cook" wrote in message

in article "hippo" wrote:

Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with
Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.

There was no Islamic terrorism against the Jews until they started their
expansionist policies, which began 150 years ago and continue to this day.
The only reason Sharon has decided to pull out of Gaza is because those
settlements are a financial and military drain.

It's classic Jabotinsky preaching - go look him up, along with my
namesake,
Chief Rabbi Cook, another early preacher of Ultra Right-wing Zionism.

Settlements which can not be sustained should be abandoned and their
resources diverted to those that prosper.

This was one of Jabotinsky's teachings from over a century ago, along with
his proposal of building a wall to fence the natives out.

Ever wondered where Sharon gets his ideas from ?

Now you know.

But the Zionists still have the cheek to say there is no Jewish
expansionist
policy and strongly deny anything of the sort.

Yet since the start of the Oslo process in 1993, the number of illegal
Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories has doubled to over 400,000
and
continues to grow as the settlements expand. Despite a supposed freeze.

Then there's the further land grabbing in the construction of the Wall,
proving that they are liars who are not to be trusted.

If Israel wanted to protect it's citizens from violent Palestinian
resistance, it should abide by countless UN Resolutions and start shipping
these 400.000 people back to Israel, whereby turning the occupation into a
purely military question of security.

But that won't happen because Israel will always want more land, not
peace.

There are large numbers of Israeli voters impatient with the settlers
including most recently Sharon himself who, as Prime Ministers, understands
perfectly well the government can't protect the illegal settlements. His
coalition nearly fell over the forced removal of settlements in Gaza. You're
wrong about expansionism. I don't think even a majority of Israelis believe
in that. -the Troll

This is yet more of the Zionist bullshit that you've swallowed.

If so many Israelis, as you and others maintain, want rid of the
settlements, how come they keep on voting in people who support them like
Sharon, who has actively expanded them like no other Israeli Prime Minister
before him ?

The evidence is there for all to see, and in the last 10 years the numbers
of people living in the illegal settlements has more than doubled. That
alone proves that Israel is still following a policy of Jewish expansionism.

Add the blatant land-grabbing of the so-called security wall and the case is
closed book, how you or anyone can even try and deny is beyond me.

Believe it or not I used to support Israel, until I opened my eyes and
realised what a bunch of crooks, murderers and liars they are who hide
behind the Holocaust to further the evil that is called Zionism.

MWC

hippo

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av hippo » 18 jan 2005 18:06:18

"Michael W Cook" wrote in message

in article "hippo" wrote:

There are large numbers of Israeli voters impatient with the settlers
including most recently Sharon himself who, as Prime Ministers,
understands
perfectly well the government can't protect the illegal settlements. His
coalition nearly fell over the forced removal of settlements in Gaza.
You're
wrong about expansionism. I don't think even a majority of Israelis
believe
in that. -the Troll

This is yet more of the Zionist bullshit that you've swallowed.

If so many Israelis, as you and others maintain, want rid of the
settlements, how come they keep on voting in people who support them like
Sharon, who has actively expanded them like no other Israeli Prime
Minister
before him ?

Likud has not always been in power as you know. Sharon came in with the
Intifada because security will always be first in the minds of voters.
Preceeding Liberal governments were not able to provide that security,
Sharon has. It's the Palestinian terrorists who have elected Sharon and will
continue to re-elect his party and the strong proactive security measures
Likud advocates. Just like the IRA and other modern terrorist organizations,
the goal of the terrorist policy is always to force the government to
over-react as in the case of Bloody Sunday.

Sharon has publicly advocated the abandonment of some settlements and nearly
lost his coalition majority as a result.

The evidence is there for all to see, and in the last 10 years the numbers
of people living in the illegal settlements has more than doubled. That
alone proves that Israel is still following a policy of Jewish
expansionism.

Add the blatant land-grabbing of the so-called security wall and the case
is
closed book, how you or anyone can even try and deny is beyond me.

Believe it or not I used to support Israel, until I opened my eyes and
realised what a bunch of crooks, murderers and liars they are who hide
behind the Holocaust to further the evil that is called Zionism.

I am completely in favor of the wall. It works just as I said it would on
this group (AHB) a year or two ago. It is passive rather than active and
likely to save lives on both sides. It is also likely to bring Palestinians
to the reality of where their violent element has brought them. I do
disagree where the wall is being built in some cases. Only bi-lateral
agreements should decide the wall's future course which the death of Arafat
now makes at least possible.

You make the same mistake as others in thinking only one side in a conflict
holds all the blame. In this case nationalism, sectarianism, and religious
superstition is setting the adjenda for both sides, motives we all recognize
as unacceptable in a civilized world. The Israelis can and have controlled
this in themselves. Preceding Liberal governments have been forthcoming in
willingness to reach agreement with a *responsible* Palestinian authority or
government. It takes two to negotiate and Palestinian past failures in
controlling their own violent elements have weakened the Liberal Party's
political strength, leaving Likud alone to set the adjenda. This plays
directly into the hands of Palestinian extremists and radical Zionists
alike. -the Troll

Gordon Banks

Re: British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 20 jan 2005 20:25:09

Do you now see the evils of cross-posting? This gets medieval genealogy
drawn into groups where Jews and anti-Semites are sniping at each other.
Thanks a lot!

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 12:04 +0000, William Black wrote:
"The Rev**d" <renniigade@anglicaan.org> wrote in message
news:41e9e4d3.1855628@news.onetel.net.uk...
We, in this country, do not pander to jew sensitivities.

I thought you lived in Texas.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»