[OllytheBrit]

I have read a paper suggest there were 100,000 Arab immigrants in a decade.

Brit paper.

Who would know - we don't have any border controls! Or at least, the ones we do have are so cursory we may as well not have any.

[LehmanB]

Well they have said they recorded 45,000, but estimate it by 100,000..

BTW, the Brits ruled for almost 3 decades.

So it can be .. three times more? four times more? twice more?

And they do have a birthrate.

So you can reach easily to a third of the population, or half of Arabs, which have immigrated during Brits times. Thats according to Phill's paper, no adding common sense, descriptions, evidense of people etc, just based of the few rare documents on Israel.

And of course, in the 19th entuary there was also immigration, after Ali governed Egypt and made that as a target.

Again, very small cheif of familes claim themselves to have roots.

Some Arabs claim they are directly Egyptians.

The majority just have no say though here. I speak of Arabs.

And yeah, everything is few miles away, to separate the Gallille from Damascus, claimingits all static here, is senile. The borders here are new. There is always mingling and constant movement of Arabs in the region. Though Israel was desolation, it was a crossroad. And today there is also a constant movement of Arabs and that can indicates of the previous social behaviour which I claim to be no static.

BTW, did you noticed that the only state with some natural borders here in the mniddle east is : Israel! The rest are complete colonial design!

[Harmattan]

I very much doubt that the Arab League states would have so readily joined forces with the West if they weren't fearful that eventually (Saddam wouldn't have waged war on them all at once!!) Iraq's million-man military would come after them - especially knowing WMD might be involved if they didn't capitulate tout de suite?

a) They joined for the same reasons that NATO joined: to get their share of the victim's possessions, and because "I rub your back if you rub mine".
b) Congratulations, you're officially the last person on Earth to believe that your country ever thought there could be MWD in Iraq. I am really amazed by your capacity to absorb propaganda, this is an awfully high tolerance rate.

[pugsville]

We have the census information and the the registered births and deaths year by year. This information means there categorically without doubt that there was no massive Arab migration during the mandate period and talk of 100,000 is just ignorant talk by stupid people. The data simply refutes this wild claims of Arab immigration.

[OllytheBrit]

a) They joined for the same reasons that NATO joined: to get their share of the victim's possessions, and because "I rub your back if you rub mine".
b) Congratulations, you're officially the last person on Earth to believe that your country ever thought there could be WMD in Iraq. I am really amazed by [color=#FF0000]your capacity to absorb propaganda, this is an awfully high tolerance rate[/color].

Firstly I didn't say that I believed there was a stockpile of WMD (contrary to your charge of my propensity to 'absorb propaganda' I was probably more sceptical even than you were) - I suggested that until it was proved that there wasn't then the general assumption had to be that there was! From your facetious 'congratulations', it sounds as if you knew there wasn't all along!? And secondly, whilst I was highly sceptical (that Saddam had any WMD), I also considered there's an awful lot of desert in Iraq under which to conceal them, therefore I wouldn't have bet on it. I wonder if you would have?

(why do so many members of this forum need to be so bloody sarcastic?)

[Harmattan]

I also considered there's an awful lot of desert in Iraq under which to conceal them

But it is a very different matter to conceal dozens of thousands of military-grade centrifuges (acceleration between 40k to 200k G !) and the whole industry required to manufacture those and all of their sophisticated components (requiring specific materials and coils) that a fistful of factories in the world can produce . There may be a hell lot of desert in Iraq, but hiding the dozens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars of investments and importations required to create a nuclear industry is still not concealable, especially when your country has been under embargo for the last ten years. And it was pretty funny to hear the US claim that they had a pretty good idea about the Iranian program that spanned over a decade while claiming that Saddam could have hidden nuclear factories in trucks amongst the desert, suddenly assembled during the course of a week-end with duct and tape.

the general assumption had to be that there was!

It was only on the US and UK medias, and maybe a very few of their allies. Other medias in the rest of the world just laughed at the idea given that they could not find any expert that could seriously support it, and given that no informed one from the intelligence services (including the UK and US ones) did believe it.

therefore I wouldn't have bet on it. I wonder if you would have?

I actually did bet there wasn't ones with a foreign co-worker who spent the past years in the UK. But I am more familiar with the nuclear industry than most of people and I was not living in the US or the UK where all of this propaganda intoxicated your minds.

[OllytheBrit]

But it is a very different matter to conceal dozens of thousands of military-grade centrifuges (acceleration between 40k to 200k G !) and the whole industry required to manufacture those and all of their sophisticated components (requiring specific materials and coils) that a fistful of factories in the world can produce . There may be a hell lot of desert in Iraq, but hiding the dozens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars of investments and importations required to create a nuclear industry is still not concealable, especially when your country has been under embargo for the last ten years. And it was pretty funny to hear the US claim that they had a pretty good idea about the Iranian program that spanned over a decade while claiming that Saddam could have hidden nuclear factories in trucks amongst the desert, suddenly assembled during the course of a week-end with duct and tape.

I had in mind already-manufactured chemical and bio-WMDs - those wouldn't have required the kind of infrastructure as you've laid out above. I think I'm right in saying that all of Syria's WMD were stockpiled underground.

[OllytheBrit]

The only reason I can think of that Hamas continues to reject ceasefire proposals by making spurious excuses or impossible conditions, and keeps violating the ‘pauses’, is that the more Gazans who are killed, the more sympathy is engendered for them worldwide, together with a commensurate censure of Israeli brutality and ‘disproportionality’. Hold that thought!

[Harmattan]

I had in mind already-manufactured chemical and bio-WMDs - those wouldn't have required the kind of infrastructure as you've laid out above. I think I'm right in saying that all of Syria's WMD were stockpiled underground.

Afaik such things do not exist.

Chemical weapons such as the ones used by Syria are useful tools for urban fights but they barely harm a few hundreds of people in worst cases, usually less. As for biological weapons (and some chemical weapons mixed with potable water), none of them could cause enough losses to be even remotely significant in a war (they're not in Syria, only the buzz is). They could probably be used for terrorism as some of them (such as the 1918 flu) could outreach a hundreds of deaths toll in a modern country (more in a poor country at war), but again this has nothing to do with war, Iraq or MWD. Welcome to the modern age where detection and containment are a daily reality, where large-scale answer is very fast thanks to communications, where flu vaccines can be quickly manufactured and distributed, where patients have access to a large choiice of drugs to resist until their body can adapt.

Sorry but there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. Neither the first time, nor the second time, neither economically, neither militarily, neither geopolitically. Just as there was no reason for this embargo. Those were all free mass murders, probably for the sake of a few companies close to the Bush's family.

The only reason I can think of that Hamas continues to reject ceasefire proposals by making spurious excuses or impossible conditions, and keeps violating the ‘pauses’, is that the more Gazans who are killed, the more sympathy is engendered for them worldwide, together with a commensurate censure of Israeli brutality and ‘disproportionality’. Hold that thought!

Did you think that maybe the only reason the cease-fire was proposed is to make the Israeli army look "humane"?
Did you think that maybe violence is the only resort left to Palestinians despite its lack of effectiveness, the only alternative being complete submission and de facto cultural extermnation and territorial disappearance? You already claimed that Palestinian submission is the only acceptable way in your opinion but reassessing it will never make it a good argument.

[Buzz62]

It's a natural human instinct to seek out ones own 'brethren' and live amongst them rather than amongst aliens, that's why. You would probably do likewise?

No...I would not.
And in fact No I DID NOT!

In the late 90's I was offered a job over sees.
I took the position, and moved my family, 3 kids and all, to Eastern Europe.
I learned the language and customs, my family did too.
We "fit in" with the local culture and society, and we did this actively.

Immigrants to Canada actively "fit in" with Canadian society. They do this so their children can live well balanced lives in their NEW HOME.

The orientals, who live together often in what we call "China Town", send their kids to Canadian schools, the kids become Canadian.
This too is done with that very intent.

Zionists however, decided before this migration to Palestine ever began, that they were transplanting THEIR culture to an Arab country.
No intent to merge into what is already their. But an intent to change what is already their.

That...is arrogance...and a recipe for violence.

[OllytheBrit]

No...I would not.
And in fact No I DID NOT!

In the late 90's I was offered a job over sees.
I took the position, and moved my family, 3 kids and all, to Eastern Europe.
I learned the language and customs, my family did too.
We "fit in" with the local culture and society, and we did this actively.

Immigrants to Canada actively "fit in" with Canadian society. They do this so their children can live well balanced lives in their NEW HOME.

The orientals, who live together often in what we call "China Town", send their kids to Canadian schools, the kids become Canadian.
This too is done with that very intent.

Zionists however, decided before this migration to Palestine ever began, that they were transplanting THEIR culture to an Arab country.
No intent to merge into what is already their. But an intent to change what is already their.

That...is arrogance...and a recipe for violence.

But bearing in mind that you went to a northern hemisphere country, with shared customs, culture and language, and would readily accept you for those attributes, would you have found it so easy had you emigrated to Nigeria, or South America? Or in that case would you have searched for a diaspora community in which to settle? There's the rub doncha see? In the context, I should have used Afghanistan as one of the examples of culture-shock. I'll bet you'd have looked for some resident Westerners if you'd gone there??

[OllytheBrit]

Afaik such things do not exist.

As far as you know?

Chemical weapons such as the ones used by Syria are useful tools for urban fights but they barely harm a few hundreds of people in worst cases, usually less. [color=#FF0000]As for biological weapons (and some chemical weapons mixed with potable water), none of them could cause enough losses to be even remotely significant in a war [/color](they're not in Syria, only the buzz is). They could probably be used for terrorism as some of them (such as the 1918 flu) could outreach a hundreds of deaths toll in a modern country (more in a poor country at war), but again this has nothing to do with war, Iraq or MWD. Welcome to the modern age where detection and containment are a daily reality, where large-scale answer is very fast thanks to communications, where flu vaccines can be quickly manufactured and distributed, where patients have access to a large choiice of drugs to resist until their body can adapt.

Anthrax?? From what I've heard of anthrax a small phial is enough to wipe out mankind.

Sorry but there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. Neither the first time, nor the second time, neither economically, neither militarily, neither geopolitically. Just as there was no reason for this embargo. Those were all free mass murders, probably for the sake of a few companies close to the Bush's family.

I'm more inclined to believe it was to prevent Saddam's expansionism than a conspiracy on the part of the Bush family.

Did you think that maybe the only reason the cease-fire was proposed is to make the Israeli army look "humane"?
Did you think that maybe violence is the only resort left to Palestinians despite its lack of effectiveness, the only alternative being complete submission and de facto cultural extermination and territorial disappearance? You already claimed that Palestinian submission is the only acceptable way in your opinion but reassessing it will never make it a good argument.

No, because if it wasn't for Hamas' constant rocket attacks the question of a 'humane ceasefire' wouldn't have arisen. I think you have a peculiar outlook on this subject.

[Harmattan]

Anthrax?? From what I've heard of anthrax a small phial is enough to wipe out mankind.

Anthrax ? Oh yeah, that thing that never killed more than a dozens of people while it is naturally present in nature and exists for at least more than than one century? That thing that any physician can quickly spot and diagnose? That thing against which a vaccine is known since decades? That thing that kills too quickly to contaminate a lot of people? That thing that is pretty easy to destroy?

Can it be weaponized provided you do have large-scale and instantaneous diffusion means? Probably. Could it then cause significant damages? Probably. But it would only work once (everyone would be vaccined after this) and would not yield a significant advantage in a war. Good for terrorism, nothing more. And not a WMD.

Afaik, biological and chemical WMD do not exist.

I'm more inclined to believe it was to prevent Saddam's expansionism than a conspiracy on the part of the Bush family.

There was no such thing as Saddam's expansionism. Tell me, who would it have invaded after its status quo against Iran and its high debt, while being perfectly aware of the Western interests in the region and the threats posed by it and its neighbors? It just does not make sense.

No, because if it wasn't for Hamas' constant rocket attacks the question of a 'humane ceasefire' wouldn't have arisen. I think you have a peculiar outlook on this subject.

What would you do if you were Palestinian? Submit?

• You were living in your home and suddenly they came and claimed there was a new property system and that you forgot to register, so now this land belongs to no one and the foreigners took it (under Ottomans/GB).
• You were living in your home and suddenly the US came and said that, being a part of your empire and a landowner, you must send your son to their Vietnam war and provide them twice your yearly income every year. The foreigners nicely offer to buy your house and land for 10k$ (under Ottomans/GB).
• You were living in your home and suddenly the foreigners said the road is theirs and you cannot use it anymore. You explain them that it is a public property, that they cannot do this. They tell you they can and the authorities support them (under Ottomans/GB).
• You were living in your home and suddenly the Israeli soliders came and told you that now it is a settlement for Jews only and they razed your house in front of you (nowadays).
• You worked hard under their rule, you saved money under their rule, and now you want to buy a piece of land. But you're told that only Jews are allowed to buy a land owned by a Jew (nowadays).
• You worked hard to create your knives manufacture but suddenly the foreigners shut your borders down and claimed that importation of steel is prohibited from now on (and likely for years). You must now close your doors and live with debts (nowadays).
• You found a job the neighbor Palestinian town but you must go through Israeli checkpoints to reach it (they clustered Palestine) and sometimes you spend the whole day there. Some days you're not allowed to go and work but your employer is Coca-Coal so they just deal with it. But now the foreigners claim that you're prohibited to pass the border and must quit your job (nowadays).
• You're a young student, you worked so hard, you've been accepted in Oxford and have an English immigration agreement. You ask Israel the permission to go to the airport. Denied. No way out. Stay in your slums and die there (nowadays).
• Suddenly Israel tells you that from now on your taxes will not be given back to your government. And they shut electricity down six hours a day.

What do you do, Olly? Try to imagine those situations applied to a Muslim invasion of your country with the support of the EU and the US. Maybe it will give you some perspective.

[Buzz62]

But bearing in mind that you went to a northern hemisphere country, with shared customs, culture and language, and would readily accept you for those attributes, would you have found it so easy had you emigrated to Nigeria, or South America? Or in that case would you have searched for a diaspora community in which to settle? There's the rub doncha see? In the context, I should have used Afghanistan as one of the examples of culture-shock. I'll bet you'd have looked for some resident Westerners if you'd gone there??

I do see.
And "stupid Zionists" for trying such an insane thing.
"doncha see"?

[OllytheBrit]

Anthrax ? Oh yeah, that thing that never killed more than a dozens of people while it is naturally present in nature and exists for at least more than than one century? That thing that any physician can quickly spot and diagnose? That thing against which a vaccine is known since decades? That thing that kills too quickly to contaminate a lot of people? That thing that is pretty easy to destroy?

Well it obviously isn't as deadly as I thought then; but remember that I was circumspect when mentioning it, and I'm not a bio chemist. On the other hand, I note this on Wiki: "Most forms of the disease are lethal, and it affects both humans and animals." 'most'?

Can it be weaponized provided you do have large-scale and instantaneous diffusion means? Probably. Could it then cause significant damages? Probably. But it would only work once (everyone would be vaccined after this) and would not yield a significant advantage in a war. Good for terrorism, nothing more. And not a WMD.

I don't know enough about this kind of stuff to put up an argument, so I accept your conclusion. But don't under-estimate the intelligence and resourcefulness of Arabs. And worryingly enough, set that off against the abject stupidity and dysfunctionality of the West??

Afaik, biological and chemical WMD do not exist.

"Syria's 'chemical' attack: Distressing footage analysed. There is growing diplomatic pressure to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria where hundreds of people are reported to have been killed. Opposition activists say men, women and children were gassed by government forces near Damascus."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23807730

There was no such thing as Saddam's expansionism. Tell me, who would it have invaded after its status quo against Iran and its high debt, while being perfectly aware of the Western interests in the region and the threats posed by it and its neighbors? It just does not make sense.

Well I distinctly remember Saudi being alarmed. Once a 'blitzkrieg' starts it's difficult to stop it?

What would you do if you were Palestinian? Submit?

Like I've said - the ill-fated Palestinians have no say nor influence whilst Hamas is predominant in the region and rules by fear.

• You were living in your home and suddenly they came and claimed there was a new property system and that you forgot to register, so now this land belongs to no one and the foreigners took it (under Ottomans/GB).
• You were living in your home and suddenly the US came and said that, being a part of your empire and a landowner, you must send your son to their Vietnam war and provide them twice your yearly income every year. The foreigners nicely offer to buy your house and land for 10k$ (under Ottomans/GB).
• You were living in your home and suddenly the foreigners said the road is theirs and you cannot use it anymore. You explain them that it is a public property, that they cannot do this. They tell you they can and the authorities support them (under Ottomans/GB).
• You were living in your home and suddenly the Israeli soliders came and told you that now it is a settlement for Jews only and they razed your house in front of you (nowadays).
• You worked hard under their rule, you saved money under their rule, and now you want to buy a piece of land. But you're told that only Jews are allowed to buy a land owned by a Jew (nowadays).
• You worked hard to create your knives manufacture but suddenly the foreigners shut your borders down and claimed that importation of steel is prohibited from now on (and likely for years). You must now close your doors and live with debts (nowadays).
• You found a job the neighbor Palestinian town but you must go through Israeli checkpoints to reach it (they clustered Palestine) and sometimes you spend the whole day there. Some days you're not allowed to go and work but your employer is Coca-Coal so they just deal with it. But now the foreigners claim that you're prohibited to pass the border and must quit your job (nowadays).
• You're a young student, you worked so hard, you've been accepted in Oxford and have an English immigration agreement. You ask Israel the permission to go to the airport. Denied. No way out. Stay in your slums and die there (nowadays).
• Suddenly Israel tells you that from now on your taxes will not be given back to your government. And they shut electricity down six hours a day.

What do you do, Olly? Try to imagine those situations applied to a Muslim invasion of your country with the support of the EU and the US. Maybe it will give you some perspective.

I can't imagine that the US and the EU would countenance a Muslim occupation of the UK (although some would argue that it has already started), but I fear that the West - and that includes the US and the EU - is soon going to have to work out those dilemmas for themselves when it all kicks off.

[Harmattan]

"Syria's 'chemical' attack: Distressing footage analysed. There is growing diplomatic pressure to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria where hundreds of people are reported to have been killed. Opposition activists say men, women and children were gassed by government forces near Damascus."

Those are not WMD, hundreds of deaths is not mass destruction. Some "surgical strikes" kill more people than this! If you want to see a WMD, look at Hiroshima: 70k immediate deaths, 200k deaths after that, a whole city leveled to the ground and burned to ashes in an instant. This is mass destruction, the rest is just war.

Those chemical weapons are a good weapon for urban warfare. Nothing more. The indignation does come from the fact that they're seen as an inappropriate mean of war by the west since WW1, for reasons we can all sympathize with. But this has absolutely nothing to do with MWD, not even remotely, period.

Afaik there are no such things as biological or chemical MWD.

Well I distinctly remember Saudi being alarmed. Once a 'blitzkrieg' starts it's difficult to stop it?

This is a joke: Saudi Arabia has the fourth or so most powerful army in the world, almost on par with Russia, they host many American bases, and they were so important within the oil market that all military powers would have immediately engaged all possible means to protect it in order to prevent a significant economical crisis. Saudi Arabia had absolutely nothing to fear from Saddam. Maybe they said so, but then it was a blatant lie.

Like I've said - the ill-fated Palestinians have no say nor influence whilst Hamas is predominant in the region and rules by fear.

Really? Because of the Hamas the Palestinians have absolutely no right to resist to what is an obvious invasion, colonization, racial apartheid and ethnic cleansing? And before you contest the term "ethnic cleaning", think about it and what it conveys. It is not a synonym of genocide. The term ethnic cleansing is purely factual as illustrated here

What is the rationale? That they must be held accountable for their leaders? But then let's push this logic: since the UK did participate in mass murders in Iraq and elsewhere (far more severe than anything the Hamas ever did), then you must be held accountable for your country and you have no right to defend against terrorists? And since the Israeli are ruled by Israel who practices ethnic cleansing, apartheid, colonization and invasion, then they have no right to defend against bombings?

This does not make sense, does it?

Let me tell you what your position really is in my opinion: they're Arabs. Isn't it as simple as that?

[OllytheBrit]

Those are not WMD, hundreds of deaths is not mass destruction. Some "surgical strikes" kill more people than this! If you want to see a WMD, look at Hiroshima: 70k immediate deaths, 200k deaths after that, a whole city leveled to the ground and burned to ashes in an instant. This is mass destruction, the rest is just war.

Does it really matter whether 'mass destruction' is instant or prolonged? But I've already admitted that I don't know enough about what bacterial and nerve agents are out there to offer an intelligent argument, but I do know I'd prefer a fast end than a painful and lingering one. To be honest I'm not sure where this line of discussion is taking us?

Those chemical weapons are a good weapon for urban warfare. Nothing more. The indignation does come from the fact that they're seen as an inappropriate mean of war by the west since WW1, for reasons we can all sympathize with. But this has absolutely nothing to do with MWD, not even remotely, period.

The enemy in the next war will have no such qualms or principles I'm afraid. I mean, look at some of the things ISIS/ISIL/IS has been doing? They give no quarter nor expect any. We're in for serious shit.

Afaik there are no such things as biological or chemical MWD.

So you've said. Personally I believe the contrary.

This is a joke: Saudi Arabia has the fourth or so most powerful army in the world, almost on par with Russia, they host many American bases, and they were so important within the oil market that all military powers would have immediately engaged all possible means to protect it in order to prevent a significant economical crisis. Saudi Arabia had absolutely nothing to fear from Saddam. Maybe they said so, but then it was a blatant lie.

Who knows? But if Saddam hadn't been chucked out of Kuwait he'd have been well placed militarily and strategically to carry on into Saudi. Incidentally that's why the West had to act - shame we hung around afterwards!!

Really? Because of the Hamas the Palestinians have absolutely no right to resist to what is an obvious invasion, colonization, racial apartheid and ethnic cleansing? And before you contest the term "ethnic cleaning", think about it and what it conveys. It is not a synonym of genocide. What is the rationale? That they must be held accountable for their leaders?

I don't follow your line there, but I reiterate - the Gazan Palestinians dare not oppose nor speak out against Hamas.

But then let's push this logic: since the UK did participate in mass murders in Iraq and elsewhere (far more severe than anything the Hamas ever did), then you must be held accountable for your country and you have no right to defend against terrorists? And since the Israeli are ruled by Israel who practices ethnic cleansing, apartheid, colonization and invasion, then they have no right to defend against bombings?

No comment - you're diversifying and it's confusing me.

Let me tell you what your position really is in my opinion: they're Arabs. Isn't it as simple as that?

Yes, they're Arabs, and I assure you (because I'm reading between lines here?) I have as much sympathy for Arab civilians as I have for Israeli civilians.

[Buzz62]

Its always interesting to watch Zionists scramble to justify their positions and the Israeli position.

IMO, anyone who actually believed that Saddam Husain had WMD, has little to no capacity to think for themselves.
That goes for Daddy Bush's Iraq adventure as well. FEAR...people...is a TOOL. Its used to "heard" people into a desired coral.
People who live in FEAR...and that would likely be most people unfortunately...become slaves of a sort.

It was FEAR of racism that drove the Zionist Jews of Eastern Europe to migrate to Israel.
Even though their own doctrine forces segregation on them, causing suspicion among the non-Jews.
Today that doctrine is still in place. It forces Israeli Jews to refuse to live WITH the Arab people, and insist on a "Jewish State".

Living in FEAR is stupid and adolescent. It blinds one to the reality of situations, forcing them to believe asinine things in order to supplant their precious FEAR, to which they've become so accustomed and comfy with.

Live without FEAR, and all the sudden things look different. All the sudden there is a clarity that never existed under the fog of FEAR.

Try living without FEAR...Israelis. Try actually "loving thy neighbour".
It's "cool"...it works well...and allot less people suffer.

[OllytheBrit]

Its always interesting to watch Zionists scramble to justify their positions and the Israeli position.

IMO, anyone who actually believed that Saddam Husain had WMD, has little to no capacity to think for themselves.
That goes for Daddy Bush's Iraq adventure as well. FEAR...people...is a TOOL. Its used to "heard" people into a desired coral.
People who live in FEAR...and that would likely be most people unfortunately...become slaves of a sort.

It was FEAR of racism that drove the Zionist Jews of Eastern Europe to migrate to Israel.
Even though their own doctrine forces segregation on them, causing suspicion among the non-Jews.
Today that doctrine is still in place. It forces Israeli Jews to refuse to live WITH the Arab people, and insist on a "Jewish State".

Living in FEAR is stupid and adolescent. It blinds one to the reality of situations, forcing them to believe asinine things in order to supplant their precious FEAR, to which they've become so accustomed and comfy with.

Live without FEAR, and all the sudden things look different. All the sudden there is a clarity that never existed under the fog of FEAR.

Try living without FEAR...Israelis. Try actually "loving thy neighbour".
It's "cool"...it works well...and allot less people suffer.

Tell it to Hamas - it takes two to tango you know!

[Buzz62]

Tell it to Hamas - it takes two to tango you know!

BIG FACE/PALM!!!

This is your argument?
This is the extent of your powers of reason?

Man I'm sure glad you're on the opposite of this discussion...in a pitiful sort of way...