Jets Rookie Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, and that type of understanding is a core problem.

The fact is that Israel was declared in Palestine by foreigners. The UN had nothing to do with it.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Jewish People did, under the right of self-determination, Declare Independence, which is what all countries do, the UN was very much involved from the start to the finish.

You may consider them foreigners, but certainly they were not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, and that type of understanding is a core problem.

The fact is that Israel was declared in Palestine by foreigners. The UN had nothing to do with it.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Jewish People did, under the right of self-determination, Declare Independence, which is what all countries do, the UN was very much involved from the start to the finish.

You may consider them foreigners, but certainly they were not.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have yet to provide information showing where foreigners have the right to self determination.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In a true sense, there was no transfer.

The bottom line is that the UN transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states. Like I had previously stated.

(COMMENT)

Originally, there was the recognition of sovereignty in response to the Declaration of Independence, pursuant to Part I, Section F, of the GA Resolution 181(II) of the Partition Plan. The boundaries for the Jewish State were set in Part II, Section B, or the Resolution and Annex A (the Map). So stated in the Declaration notice.

That is how it is done.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In a true sense, there was no transfer.

The bottom line is that the UN transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states. Like I had previously stated.

(COMMENT)

Originally, there was the recognition of sovereignty in response to the Declaration of Independence, pursuant to Part I, Section F, of the GA Resolution 181(II) of the Partition Plan. The boundaries for the Jewish State were set in Part II, Section B, or the Resolution and Annex A (the Map). So stated in the Declaration notice.

That is how it is done.

Most Respectfully,
R

More Israeli say so. Israel lied about accepting the resolution 181 borders but on the ground Israel had already blown past those borders before they declared independence.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Charter does not make that distinction (foreigner/non-foreigners).

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, and that type of understanding is a core problem.

The fact is that Israel was declared in Palestine by foreigners. The UN had nothing to do with it.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Jewish People did, under the right of self-determination, Declare Independence, which is what all countries do, the UN was very much involved from the start to the finish.

You may consider them foreigners, but certainly they were not.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have yet to provide information showing where foreigners have the right to self determination.

(COMMENT)

It says "peoples."

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

SOURCE: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Charter does not make that distinction (foreigner/non-foreigners).

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, and that type of understanding is a core problem.


(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Jewish People did, under the right of self-determination, Declare Independence, which is what all countries do, the UN was very much involved from the start to the finish.

You may consider them foreigners, but certainly they were not.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have yet to provide information showing where foreigners have the right to self determination.

(COMMENT)

It says "peoples."

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

SOURCE: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Most Respectfully,
R

You interpret "peoples" to be anyone from anywhere can go anywhere, kick the people out and claim self determination.

If that is true, who would be the people who are forbidden to have external interference. According to your definition there is no such thing as external interference.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, of course. This is the answer.

In a true sense, there was no transfer.

(COMMENT)

Originally, there was the recognition of sovereignty in response to the Declaration of Independence, pursuant to Part I, Section F, of the GA Resolution 181(II) of the Partition Plan. The boundaries for the Jewish State were set in Part II, Section B, or the Resolution and Annex A (the Map). So stated in the Declaration notice.

That is how it is done.

Most Respectfully,
R

More Israeli say so. Israel lied about accepting the resolution 181 borders but on the ground Israel had already blown past those borders before they declared independence.

(COMMENT)

The "Israelis lied." It couldn't be because their was a Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) uprising. It just couldn't be anything the HoAP did ---- no!

The HoAP shot themselves in the foot and want a to play victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, of course. This is the answer.

In a true sense, there was no transfer.

More Israeli say so. Israel lied about accepting the resolution 181 borders but on the ground Israel had already blown past those borders before they declared independence.

(COMMENT)

The "Israelis lied." It couldn't be because their was a Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) uprising. It just couldn't be anything the HoAP did ---- no!

The HoAP shot themselves in the foot and want a to play victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another Israeli lie. The Zionists stated goal was all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They were merely carrying out their plan by attacking Palestinian civilians with their military. Foreigners cannot claim self defense when they are attacking people who are in their own country.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Jewish People were encouraged to immigrate; first by the Ottoman Empire over several hundred years, and second by the Mandatory with the consent and approval of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Charter does not make that distinction (foreigner/non-foreigners).

You have yet to provide information showing where foreigners have the right to self determination.

(COMMENT)

It says "peoples."

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

SOURCE: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Most Respectfully,
R

You interpret "peoples" to be anyone from anywhere can go anywhere, kick the people out and claim self determination.

If that is true, who would be the people who are forbidden to have external interference. According to your definition there is no such thing as external interference.

(COMMENT)

The intention of the "external interference" terminology is to prevent other countries from interfering in the course of development. In this case, the adjacent Arab Nations, they themselves all products of the very same process, became the "external interference" to partition process.

The phrase "external interference" had nothing to do with the Jewish People who, by mandate, were engaged in the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. This being the original intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Jewish People were encouraged to immigrate; first by the Ottoman Empire over several hundred years, and second by the Mandatory with the consent and approval of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Charter does not make that distinction (foreigner/non-foreigners).


(COMMENT)

It says "peoples."



Most Respectfully,
R

You interpret "peoples" to be anyone from anywhere can go anywhere, kick the people out and claim self determination.

If that is true, who would be the people who are forbidden to have external interference. According to your definition there is no such thing as external interference.

(COMMENT)

The intention of the "external interference" terminology is to prevent other countries from interfering in the course of development. In this case, the adjacent Arab Nations, they themselves all products of the very same process, became the "external interference" to partition process.

The phrase "external interference" had nothing to do with the Jewish People who, by mandate, were engaged in the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. This being the original intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

So external interference is OK if you have the proper excuse. I don't recall seeing exceptions mentioned in the law.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so much non-sense.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, of course. This is the answer.

More Israeli say so. Israel lied about accepting the resolution 181 borders but on the ground Israel had already blown past those borders before they declared independence.

(COMMENT)

The "Israelis lied." It couldn't be because their was a Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) uprising. It just couldn't be anything the HoAP did ---- no!

The HoAP shot themselves in the foot and want a to play victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another Israeli lie. The Zionists stated goal was all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They were merely carrying out their plan by attacking Palestinian civilians with their military.

(COMMENT)

It makes no difference what the original preference was pertaining to the goals of the Zionist. It is what they compromised and accepted. They accepted the UN Partition Plan.

It was the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) that broke the peace; not once, but several times, in order to achieve by force that to which they were not entitled.

Foreigners cannot claim self defense when they are attacking people who are in their own country.

(COMMENT)

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. The Jewish State had the right to defend themselves against the aggression posed by the HoAP. There is no international principle against the right of self-defense. The HoAP, opposed to the Partition Plan, attempted to use force to overturn the UN inspired plan. Failing in that, the HoAP in conjunction with the Arab League, attempted to overturn the UN Partition Plan. Failing that, they attempted twice more. Failing across the board, they know want to claim they have been victimized by the heavily outnumbered Israelis.

The HoAP have not been able to face the consequences of their actions in over six decades. There is yet, no evidence that the HoAP has any intention of changing that behavior pattern and adopting a peaceful resolution. That is why, today, they are "occupied."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

I didn't say that.

P F Tinmore; et al,

The Jewish People were encouraged to immigrate; first by the Ottoman Empire over several hundred years, and second by the Mandatory with the consent and approval of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.

You interpret "peoples" to be anyone from anywhere can go anywhere, kick the people out and claim self determination.

If that is true, who would be the people who are forbidden to have external interference. According to your definition there is no such thing as external interference.

(COMMENT)

The intention of the "external interference" terminology is to prevent other countries from interfering in the course of development. In this case, the adjacent Arab Nations, they themselves all products of the very same process, became the "external interference" to partition process.

The phrase "external interference" had nothing to do with the Jewish People who, by mandate, were engaged in the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. This being the original intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

So external interference is OK if you have the proper excuse. I don't recall seeing exceptions mentioned in the law.

(COMMENT)

I suppose that the UN Security Council could authorize intervention (external interference). But that is not what happened here.

The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate. So the UN had control and oversight. The UN is not an external interference. The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate! That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.

There was no "external interference" until the Arab League got involved and invaded.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate. So the UN had control and oversight. The UN is not an external interference. The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate! That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.

There was no "external interference" until the Arab League got involved and invaded.

So the 'Mandate' wasn't 'external interference'??

Get serious..........

 

[RoccoR]

Sunni Man, et al,

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."

The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate. So the UN had control and oversight. The UN is not an external interference. The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate! That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.

There was no "external interference" until the Arab League got involved and invaded.

So the 'Mandate' wasn't 'external interference'??

Get serious..........

(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian. At the conclusion of WWI, the region ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman/Turkish Empire which formerly governed them. The Mandate merely replaced that which was lost, for the people not yet able to stand by themselves as an independent nation. The 117 thousand square kilometers of Palestine (27,009 square kilometers or 23%) and Transjordan (about 90,000 square kilometers or 77%) region, one of three Type "A" Mandates (the other two being Syria/Lebanon and Mesopotamia) was a Mandate here part of the regional inhabitants (Transjordan) had been identified as having reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized (hence the need for Article 25 in the Mandate for Palestine). The Council of the League of Nations in September 1922, essentially exempted Transjordan from provisions of the Mandate relative to the Jewish national home and the Holy Places. While the British Government expressly accepted full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan and undertook that such provision as might be made for the administration of that territory should conform to those provisions of the Mandate which had not been declared inapplicable, special negotiations were underway to Transjordan toward independence. On 20 February, 1928 the British Government recognized the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan (soon to be known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). Thus, the first partition of the Mandate was effected and an Arab State created; from the Jordan River to the western border of Mesopotamia (also under a separate Type "A" Mandate protection by the UK - in transition to become the Kingdom of Iraq, a fully sovereign country in October, 1932.). The next step of the Mandate was the establishment and reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. This was to prove the more difficult task given that hostile nature of the Arab Palestinian.

Mandate Regimes are not "external interference;" but a charter mechanism by which the peoples, under tutelage, are eventually capable of managing their own affairs - and by which new states are often born. As has been pointed out before, regionally ---> Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, and the Sudan are all products of the process.

Nearly all of these nations have exhibited and inability to maintain peace and tranquility. But in most cases, there was no alternative than to grant them independence. It may have been a mistake to categorize the Type "A" Mandate countries as nearly ready to stand on their own. Clearly it wasn't the case. And today, the Palestinians have pursued conflict for more than six decades. What does that tell us about their ability to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni Man, et al,

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."

The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate. So the UN had control and oversight. The UN is not an external interference. The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate! That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.

There was no "external interference" until the Arab League got involved and invaded.

So the 'Mandate' wasn't 'external interference'??

Get serious..........

(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

 

[RoccoR]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."

So the 'Mandate' wasn't 'external interference'??

Get serious..........

(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."


(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

So if a gang staged a home invasion into your house and took up residence.

And forced your family to live in the garage.

You wouldn't fight back to regain your home and all of your possessions no matter how long it took?

You would just cooperate with the gang and refuse to use any sort of force??

Give me a break........

 

[sealadaigh]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.

sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

you seem to link "enlightened" with support of israel and most of the support of osrael comes from european, and particularly western european, nations or those nations or those nations with european ancestry.

you also have been mentioning UNGA resolution 181.

perhaps racist was a poor choice of words and ethnocentric would have been better but when you say "enlightened" thast is a value word and i get the impression that it is being applied to first world countries.

i don't know. you tell me, but i think most people when they here that term, or terms like "advanced" or "progressive" they are generally applying it to or speaking of white nations and thaat is what springs to mind.

also wandering around in your statements is the UN, as though that somehow is connected to the quality of "enlightenment". the UN needs a massive restructuring to better democratically represent the world's peoples.

i could go on, but that will do for now. i think it was a very bad choice of a word on your part.

i remain unenlightened in solidarity with all the other peoples of the world who reject colonialism and its remnants.

here is the question that no one ever seems to answer. using israel as an model, make a rule that you would be willing to apply to all people and express it in general terms...how about...

practitioners of a religion should be allowed to carve out a sovereign state based upon that religion, displacing the inhabitants of the region currently living in that planned future state in order to maintain political control of that state.

hell, liberia made more sense.

ya know, people call me an anti-semite and all, but i actually look for a way to fit an israel into my mindset in such a way that the concept of such a state can be applied to all other peoples of the world and it just ain't happenin'. i am not going to make an exception for jews anymore than i will make an exception for mormons, muslims, satanists, or whatever (and we are talking about the creation of a new state) etc. the way i figure it, it is the people who treat a group of people as especial people based upon their ethnicity, religion, whatever who are the bigoted ones. why must i allow jewish people special privilege that i am unwilling to allow others.

i can see visions the independent republic of moldova dancing in some young goth's eye at this very moment.

 

[RoccoR]

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't agree with your analogy.

So if a gang staged a home invasion into your house and took up residence.

And forced your family to live in the garage.

You wouldn't fight back to regain your home and all of your possessions no matter how long it took?

You would just cooperate with the gang and refuse to use any sort of force??

Give me a break........

(COMMENT)

This is more analogous to you living in the unincorporated portion of the "county." Along comes the nearby "City" and legally annexes your portion of the "county."

Your property rights are still protected. Little changes except you are now subject to the same laws as other citizens of the incorporated city.

But if you put-up an armed fight against the city, your legal status changes from law abiding citizen to criminal in residence. Criminals are arrested and face a penalty. It you remain peaceful and conduct yourself accordingly, little else changes. If you feel the Annexation was illegal, you have the right to challenge it in court. You do not have the right to start your own little war.

The problem with most Palestinian arguments is they attempt to suggest the Arab Palestinian made no hostile move at all. When in fact,

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire.

SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

“Population — The figures given for the distribution of the settled population in the two proposed States — are approximately as follows: (Page 5, Same Source)
.......................................Jews
.............................................................Arabs
..................................................................................Total
The Jewish State ..........498,000.......... 407,000 ..........905,000
The Arab State ...............10,000.......... 725,000.......... 735,000
City of Jerusalem ..........100,000.......... 105,000 ..........205,000​

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities
immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day,
regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the
Palestinian Arabs.

SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

The HoAP is always trying to portray itself as the defender that was aggressively attacked by this horde of foreign invades that swooped-in and took their land. When in reality, it was the Arabs attacked the newly proclaimed State of Israel. The HoAP opposed the UN Partition Plan and took the position that the plan provided for the dissection, segregation or partition of their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority. They chose to demonstrate their opposition by making an unsuccessful coordinated military assault. In the end, the HoAP lost even more land.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ropey]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.

sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

you seem to link "enlightened" with support of israel and most of the support of osrael comes from european, and particularly western european, nations or those nations or those nations with european ancestry.

you also have been mentioning UNGA resolution 181.

perhaps racist was a poor choice of words and ethnocentric would have been better but when you say "enlightened" thast is a value word and i get the impression that it is being applied to first world countries.

i don't know. you tell me, but i think most people when they here that term, or terms like "advanced" or "progressive" they are generally applying it to or speaking of white nations and thaat is what springs to mind.

also wandering around in your statements is the UN, as though that somehow is connected to the quality of "enlightenment". the UN needs a massive restructuring to better democratically represent the world's peoples.

i could go on, but that will do for now. i think it was a very bad choice of a word on your part.

i remain unenlightened in solidarity with all the other peoples of the world who reject colonialism and its remnants.

here is the question that no one ever seems to answer. using israel as an model, make a rule that you would be willing to apply to all people and express it in general terms...how about...

practitioners of a religion should be allowed to carve out a sovereign state based upon that religion, displacing the inhabitants of the region currently living in that planned future state in order to maintain political control of that state.

hell, liberia made more sense.

ya know, people call me an anti-semite and all, but i actually look for a way to fit an israel into my mindset in such a way that the concept of such a state can be applied to all other peoples of the world and it just ain't happenin'. i am not going to make an exception for jews anymore than i will make an exception for mormons, muslims, satanists, or whatever (and we are talking about the creation of a new state) etc. the way i figure it, it is the people who treat a group of people as especial people based upon their ethnicity, religion, whatever who are the bigoted ones. why must i allow jewish people special privilege that i am unwilling to allow others.

i can see visions the independent republic of moldova dancing in some young goth's eye at this very moment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gsqBEPSrd0]Janis Joplin - Try (just a little bit harder) - YouTube[/ame]