It has officially hit the fan...

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:58 pm

Originally posted by Joint Chiefs of Staff
Yes that's what I've been watching. Revenge to the US and Israel. Is it because we are close allies with Israel?

Yes...and we indirectly fund their military.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:04 pm

Originally posted by Joint Chiefs of Staff
Yes that's what I've been watching. Revenge to the US and Israel. Is it because we are close allies with Israel?

Israel is our only true democratic ally in the middle east...well hopefully iraq too soon..but who knows

Joint Chiefs of Staff · Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:09 pm

I was just watching CNN. The British and French foreign ministry's openly condemned the Israelis assassination of Yassin.

I would expect nothing less of France but I found it odd the British verbally lashed out.

Jamie_R · Post by **Jamie_R** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:59 pm

is there a difference between what Israel did and us targeting Bin Laden?

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:39 pm

If Israel would genuinely wish to end the conflict once and for all, they would withraw from the West Bank and Gaza then impliment a Marshall style plan to build the neighboring Palestinian state into a vital, healthy democracy. This way, no one loses face, terrorism is viewed as unproductive and common good is acheived.

dao

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:35 pm

Originally posted by downhill
Yes...and we indirectly fund their military.

don't we inderectly suport Arab countries miltary as well?

I know we give Egypt billions in aid, what about the other arab countries?

here's some 1998 figures....

"US economic aid for Israel will be reduced by US $120 million to reach US $1.08 billion, and military aid will be increased US $60 million to reach US $1.86 billion.

Economic aid to Egypt was set at US $775 million, down by US $40 million. US military aid to Egypt will remain US $1.3 billion"

but yet the only thing that is brought up is how we help Israel?

how much do we help other arab nations?????????

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:41 pm

"Congress increased aid to Jordan significantly to reach its present levels of $150 million in economic aid and $75 million in military aid. In 1999 and 2000, Congress allocated an additional $200 million in military assistance and $100 million in economic assistance"

"U.S. aid on Syria peace pact expected to top $20 billion"

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:53 pm

Indeed the US gives substantial aid to Arab nations, it donates far more to the state of Israel.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:21 pm

Lurker..of course we send money to other countries....I was responding to a question. That's all, and not an accusation..

David, I agree with your assement...I'm curious, I know that's been suggested since the Carter years. Why do you supoose it's so hard to get accomplished?

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:50 pm

Originally posted by downhill
Lurker..of course we send money to other countries....I was responding to a question. That's all, and not an accusation..

David, I agree with your assement...I'm curious, I know that's been suggested since the Carter years. Why do you suppose it's so hard to get accomplished?

We have not had a president since has understood the complexity and subtleties of world diplomacy. It is painfully clear that our foreign policy is a black and white approach.

In the art of medicine, we learn to listen to the complaints of the patient. Surprisingly, they often tell you what is wrong with them. The language of the Palestinian issues indicates that a belittling approach has been taken, they will not accept any offerings in that manner. Postering can be avoided with sincerity and kindness.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:07 am

Originally posted by downhill
Lurker..of course we send money to other countries....I was responding to a question. That's all, and not an accusation..

oh, no. i wasn't taking it as you accusing, sorry.

just in a round about way pointing out that it's not just the aid to Israel that makes them hate us, it's just us.

they hate our way of life, ect.

I know for a fact that there will never be peace between Israel and Arab countries.

I hate to sound kooky but that is where the end will begin, in the mid east.

messiah · Post by **messiah** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:23 am

didn't see it mentioned in the thread, but one of the prime concerns is the civil service role that Hamas acted. These people potentially have no "hope" in the sense that the PLO is a puppet of the UN (and Satan) and Isreal gets away with anything they want against it's arab population.

Allot of the support and ligitamcy of Yassin was more based on the social services that he provided to the poor communities, and he gave voice to those palastenians frustrated with the PLO's comprimises towards Isreal.

If I was in that situation, I would probally feel like my security and hope was destroyed and I can easily forsee these concerns leading them into terrorist networks that can guarantee such.

survival is nature
pride is selfs position on nature

I dont want to accuse Isreal of wanting to socialize the region and actually take care of the needs of the palastenians, but the fact is Isreal did furnish Yassin and Hamas financially, so has the US, Russia, and other countries because everyone does want some kind of order established in Gaza. Afterall, it's the stage...

Some people have said that the attack on Yassin is a violation of International Law because of his "leader" status and it does throw in a huge wrench to a very "invested in" movement.

I think Sharon fuct this one up personally, but I'm just a Texan reading the news, so..

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:58 am

I think it's naive to believe that appeasing the Palestinians will create a peaceful situation. The anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middleast is irrational. The people who advocate not aggressively fighting terrorists don't seem to appreciate what the end game of that strategy is. It's like being in a cage with a lion that's trying to kill you....... and deciding that, well, if I just put down my gun it'll calm him down and things will work out.

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:41 am

Originally posted by Joint Chiefs of Staff
I would expect nothing less of France but I found it odd the British verbally lashed out.

By definition, Its basically an act of terrorism.

Whats the opposite of terrorism? Law and Order, due process, a fair trial, bringing people to justice. This could be accomplished through a world court. Its not the most effective way, and it can be frustrating and slow. But thats the price you pay for a stable society and world order. You have to apply those same rules to the worst criminal as you would to anyone else.

Israel denounces terrorism and waxes about how these people take law into there own hands and attack others through violent acts and fear...

Then it does precisely the same thing. When palestinians make an attempt on Israel's President, it'll be "terrorism", yet it won't be any more of an act of terrorism than this was, and no less justified.

You can't just indignantly call it "terrorism" only when it happens to you.

Torsten
I think it's naive to believe that appeasing the Palestinians will create a peaceful situation. The anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middleast is irrational.

They just had a religious leader assassinated. You really believe their sentiment of outrage is "unjustified"?

The people who advocate not aggressively fighting terrorists don't seem to appreciate what the end game of that strategy is. It's like being in a cage with a lion that's trying to kill you....... and deciding that, well, if I just put down my gun it'll calm him down and things will work out.

Right...as opposed to deliberately antagonizing them and giving them real reasons for revenge.

Revenge begats revenge begats revenge. If Israel and the nations that back them really have a higher, greater sense of principle, they should be able to be the ones to break the cycle. If they don't they're no better, and have no right to expect others to see them as such.

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:09 am

Update: Bush Admin just flip-flopped, and I mean that in a good way. Net too slow to pull it, but check out AP's report on their new, post-Condoleeza Rice position on this

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:44 am

Originally posted by torsten
I think it's naive to believe that appeasing the Palestinians will create a peaceful situation. The anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middleast is irrational. The people who advocate not aggressively fighting terrorists don't seem to appreciate what the end game of that strategy is. It's like being in a cage with a lion that's trying to kill you....... and deciding that, well, if I just put down my gun it'll calm him down and things will work out.

Totally agree..

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:45 am

Originally posted by jayyy

They just had a religious leader assassinated. You really believe their sentiment of outrage is "unjustified"?

That line is an oxymoron, how can someone be a religious leader and in charge of suicide bombing of innocent people?

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:40 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
That line is an oxymoron, how can someone be a religious leader and in charge of suicide bombing of innocent people?

"What Ghosthunter thinks" is an oxymoron

U.S. criticizes killing of Hamas leader

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Barry Schweid

March 22, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- After initially hesitating, the Bush administration criticized Israel on Monday for killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin, a founder of the militant Palestinian group Hamas. "We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza," the White House spokesman said.

The criticism appeared to reflect both concern for the already troubled U.S. peace effort in the Middle East and a judgment that the Bush administration should reassure European and Arab governments that its support for Israel is not limitless.

Administration officials said they had no advance warning of the killing, which has raised fears of possible retaliation against the United States. Hamas directly threatened the United States -- something it usually does not do -- saying America's backing of Israel made the assassination possible.

In the initial U.S. reaction, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, emphasized that the United States believes Hamas is a terrorist organization. And she stressed on NBC's "Today" show that "Sheik Yassin has himself, personally we believe, been involved in terrorist planning."

A few hours later, the U.S. tone shifted. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the attack was "deeply troubling," would increase tensions in the region and could make it harder to pursue peace in the Middle East.

"I think if you ask the Israelis, you'll find that they take these actions with full knowledge of the United States' positions, including our concern about some of these actions, our position on actions that have been taken in the past, but also knowing that we do not approve of actions like this," Boucher said.

The White House, which had urged restraint but had not directly criticized Israel, also hardened its reaction. "We are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza," spokesman Scott McClellan told The Associated Press after steering clear of criticism in his regular daily briefing earlier.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, amid a long-planned series of meetings with Vice President **** Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rice, drew a parallel between Israel's struggle against extremists and the Bush administration's war on terrorism.

He said Hamas, which Yassin helped found in 1987, and al-Qaida, which the Bush administration accuses of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, share the same ideology.

Shalom said he had offered Cheney intelligence data that Israel had indicating Yassin's direct involvement in suicide bombings and other terror attacks on Israel.

Both U.S. and Israeli officials said, meanwhile, that Israel had not notified Washington in advance that it planned to kill Yassin with a missile after he left a mosque in Gaza.

And even the hardened U.S. position did not approach the European Union foreign ministers' condemnation of Israel's attack.

Noting that Hamas had killed hundreds of Israelis, the ministers said in a statement from Brussels: "Israel is not, however, entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings."

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:44 am

Originally posted by torsten
I think it's naive to believe that appeasing the Palestinians will create a peaceful situation. The anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middleast is irrational. The people who advocate not aggressively fighting terrorists don't seem to appreciate what the end game of that strategy is. It's like being in a cage with a lion that's trying to kill you....... and deciding that, well, if I just put down my gun it'll calm him down and things will work out.

Naive? If you believe that the sentiment is irrational then perhaps you should reexamine the history of the greater region utilizing a native perspective. Lieberman had suggested a Marshall like plan for the whole of the Middle East to quell resentments and create useful trading partners. Not the worst of ideas.
Dehumanizing the enemy is not a path to peace. There was no suggestion that the Israelis should drop their arms, only that they should be be actively moving toward peace. I am certain that there are many old timers on this board who may never have thought that Japan would be a close ally or that China and Vietnam would be important trading partners.
I believe it was Douglas MacArthur that stated, "Either send me butter or bullets" when he was set to president over post-war Japan. Truman was given the choice of crushing the tattered nation militarily, or rebuilding it. The latter was chosen, done in a matter that maintained the dignity of the Emperor and uplifted its people. Did it work? Did it turn a sworn and bitter enemy into a dear friend?

david

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:13 am

Israel to Target Entire Hamas Leadership
43 minutes ago

By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Israel will try to kill the entire leadership of Hamas without waiting for another attack by the militant group, security sources said Tuesday, citing a decision made by Israeli security chiefs following the assassination of Hamas' founder.

The killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin on Monday threatened to escalate three and a half years of Israel-Palestinian fighting. Fearing revenge attacks, Israel beefed up security throughout the country and at its missions abroad.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians thronged the streets of Gaza City for Yassin's funeral procession Monday, and Hamas threatened punishing revenge attacks against Israel. It also hinted for the first time that the United States could become a target for backing Israel.

Hamas, founded by Yassin in 1987, wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday that Hamas killed 377 Israelis and wounded more than 2,000 in hundreds of attacks.

Despite the outpouring of rage, Israeli security chiefs decided during a five-hour meeting Monday to step up targeted attacks, the security sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity. They said officials decided to go after the entire Hamas leadership, without waiting for another attack by the militant group.

A decision in principle on targeting top Hamas officials was first made last week by Israel's Cabinet, in response to a double suicide bombing on an Israeli seaport. In Monday night's session, the security chiefs reaffirmed the direction.

Israel's army chief also suggested Tuesday that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah could eventually be assassinated by Israel.

"I think that their (Arafat's and Nasrallah's) responses yesterday show that they understand that it is nearing them," Yaalon said. "In the long term, I hope that this will be a sign to all those who choose to hurt us that this will be their end," Yaalon said.

Riiigght....They've already vowed revenge and planned more suicide bombings, so killing the first one didn't work. But killing even more- now that'll do the trick!

Any day now this is all gonna pay off! You just wait and see!

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:56 am

Originally posted by jayyy
"What Ghosthunter thinks" is an oxymoron

WTF does that mean??

I like how you avoided my comment...still like to know how someone can be religious and suport hundreds of suicide bombings to kill innocent people.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:59 am

Originally posted by nepenthe
Naive? If you believe that the sentiment is irrational then perhaps you should reexamine the history of the greater region utilizing a native perspective. Lieberman had suggested a Marshall like plan for the whole of the Middle East to quell resentments and create useful trading partners. Not the worst of ideas.
Dehumanizing the enemy is not a path to peace. There was no suggestion that the Israelis should drop their arms, only that they should be be actively moving toward peace. I am certain that there are many old timers on this board who may never have thought that Japan would be a close ally or that China and Vietnam would be important trading partners.
I believe it was Douglas MacArthur that stated, "Either send me butter or bullets" when he was set to president over post-war Japan. Truman was given the choice of crushing the tattered nation militarily, or rebuilding it. The latter was chosen, done in a matter that maintained the dignity of the Emperor and uplifted its people. Did it work? Did it turn a sworn and bitter enemy into a dear friend?

david

How can Isreal continue to work to peace when they keep getting suicide bombings on a routine basis?

Isreal has the right to defend its people and should.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:38 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
How can the Palestinians continue to work to peace when they keep getting attacked with superior weapons on a routine basis?

Palestinians have the right to defend its people and should.

Fixed
It works both ways.

Since Israel has killed far more Palestinians, maybe they should let them catch up a bit. Then start the peace process.
They just don't like the payback, and call it terrorism to justify another attack.
Israel isn't looking for peace, they're looking for control.
(not all Israelis, just those in power)

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:43 am

Originally posted by Norm
Fixed
It works both ways.

Since Israel has killed far more Palestinians, maybe they should let them catch up a bit. Then start the peace process.
They just don't like the payback, and call it terrorism to justify another attack.
Israel isn't looking for peace, they're looking for control.
(not all Israelis, just those in power)

Please show me where they have killed innocent women and children intentionally???

There is a difference

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:53 am

GH....define religion......

Me thinks your keeping it within the confines of the only one you've been exposed to on a daily basis......

There were those in Jonestown who died for their faith....History is littered with examples of such. So would you not agree that other religions could have a very different set of values than what you choose to label them with?

The middle east is on fire with those who would die for their religion.

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:07 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
Please show me where they have killed innocent women and children intentionally???

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:10 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
Please show me where they have killed innocent women and children intentionally???

There is a difference

GH, just about every missile attack, and incursion into 'Palestinian" territory killed innocent civilians (women, and children as well)
Israel knew this would happen, so it was in effect "intentional".

There is NO difference when it's YOUR women and children.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:10 am

Originally posted by downhill
GH....define religion......

Me thinks your keeping it within the confines of the only one you've been exposed to on a daily basis......

There were those in Jonestown who died for their faith....History is littered with examples of such. So would you not agree that other religions could have a very different set of values than what you choose to label them with?

The middle east is on fire with those who would die for their religion.

if people want to kill themselves for their own religion that is fine by me, one less nut in this world, but to take out hundreds of innocent others for their religion then they can careless about religion but use it as a tool to control people.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:11 am

Originally posted by Norm
GH, just about every missile attack, and incursion into 'Palestinian" territory killed innocent civilians (women, and children as well)
Israel knew this would happen, so it was in effect "intentional".

There is NO difference when it's YOUR women and children.

nah difference is they dont want to kill them intentionally but it is a side effect of war.

If they really wanted to kill them they would aim it on purpose to every women and child

big difference with a suicide bomber going on a bus full of innocent people and blowing himself up and a missile incoming to a knwon location for terrorisms and someo innocent get killed by mistake as a casualty of war.

how people cannot see the difference is beyond me.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:15 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
nah difference is they dont want to kill them intentionally but it is a side effect of war.

If they really wanted to kill them they would aim it on purpose to every women and child

big difference with a suicide bomber going on a bus full of innocent people and blowing himself up and a missile incoming to a knwon location for terrorisms and someo innocent get killed by mistake as a casualty of war.

it is a side effect of war.

Tell that to the Palestinians.

Maybe they'll believe you and stop the bombings..

lol

Both sides are going about it wrong, and have been doing so for generations.
Killing isn't the answer. Listening, and compromizing is.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:16 am

Originally posted by Norm
it is a side effect of war.

Tell that to the Palestinians.

Maybe they'll believe you and stop the bombings..

lol

Both sides are going about it wrong, and have been doing so for generations.
Killing isn't the answer. Listening, and compromizing is.

Killing the terrorist leaders is the answer...and I fully suport Isreal and wish Bush would defend isreal, this is one thing I disagree with our policies.

We cannot be saying that Bin Laden is evil but this hamas guy is not, they are one and the same.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:17 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
if people want to kill themselves for their own religion that is fine by me, one less nut in this world, but to take out hundreds of innocent others for their religion then they can careless about religion but use it as a tool to control people.

Oh...so your suggesting that in reality, there is only one faith that would do such a thing?

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:18 am

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
Killing the terrorist leaders is the answer...and I fully suport Isreal and wish Bush would defend isreal, this is one thing I disagree with our policies.

We cannot be saying that Bin Laden is evil but this hamas guy is not, they are one and the same.

Yeah, we all know your position. It hasn't worked for either side and it never will.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:23 am

Originally posted by downhill
Oh...so your suggesting that in reality, there is only one faith that would do such a thing?

no what i am saying is any religion that says killing other innocent is not a religion IMO

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:25 am

Originally posted by Norm
Yeah, we all know your position. It hasn't worked for either side and it never will.

and your way doenst work either...that why i am saying there will never be peace and isreal needs to do whatever possible to defned their people from the terrorists if that means assinating terrorist leaders then so be it.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:19 am

Where do I even begin on this one. Perhaps someone here can educate me because from what I am seeing there seems to be some bigtime inconsistencies on how we as a Gov't do things and how we expect others to do things.

As for Palestine and Israel no doubt it is a messy situation. In most ways I support Israel because it does seem like they are merely responding to acts of terrorism supported by Arafat. Sadly, Im not sure peace will ever be found until Arafat is out of power. To much suspicion exists due to Arafat being in power. He's sorta like the Bud Selig of Palestine.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:22 am

GH, you're wasting your time in this thread defending Israel, I'll support them, but not on SG anymore, it's pointless here.

Think · Post by **Think** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:35 am

It's amazing how a pile of sand dunes can impact popular media for such a long time. I guess those "self-interest" groups are doing a fine job in Washington.

I'm not interested in this ordeal any longer. I'm not a Sharon fan by any stretch of the imagination but I do agree with the building of a security fence, giving back some piles of sand to Palestinians and give them both a kick in the ass for wasting precious t.v. network time.

No sympathy from me on either end of the fence.

Move on.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:35 pm

Originally posted by nepenthe
Naive? If you believe that the sentiment is irrational then perhaps you should reexamine the history of the greater region utilizing a native perspective. Lieberman had suggested a Marshall like plan for the whole of the Middle East to quell resentments and create useful trading partners. Not the worst of ideas.
Dehumanizing the enemy is not a path to peace. There was no suggestion that the Israelis should drop their arms, only that they should be be actively moving toward peace. I am certain that there are many old timers on this board who may never have thought that Japan would be a close ally or that China and Vietnam would be important trading partners.
I believe it was Douglas MacArthur that stated, "Either send me butter or bullets" when he was set to president over post-war Japan. Truman was given the choice of crushing the tattered nation militarily, or rebuilding it. The latter was chosen, done in a matter that maintained the dignity of the Emperor and uplifted its people. Did it work? Did it turn a sworn and bitter enemy into a dear friend?

You're comparing situations that have very little in common when it comes to culture/religion/ideology. I think people forget how many of the opposing forces (that includes supporters, not just combatants) were killed in WWII - how devastated the defeated nations were. Sometimes that has to happen for people to accept defeat. The Palestinians have been offered peace initiatives for decades, always rejecting them and resorting to terrorism. For this they don't deserve more initiatives, they deserve to be smashed. IMO the Palestinians need to get a taste of their own medicine - RANDOM unceasing terror. In spite of the ridiculous contentions here that the Israelis actions are equivalent, they're NOT. Their strikes are in RESPONSE to terror and are typically surgical narrowly targeted attacks on combatants or terror leaders. Anybody that isn't willing to recognize that profound difference obviously has an agenda and can't be taken seriously about that issue.

The sentiment in the region IS irrational. "Native perspective?" You've got to be kidding me. That's exactly what's wrong with the way much of the world responds to such barbarian backward hostility. They appease it, or worse yet, let it emmigrate to their shores. Trying in vain to "understand" just where these theocrats, savages, and thugs are coming from is futile. Thankfully, no one seemed to give Hitler that kind of understanding after 1940. They deserve no more of it than the Nazis did. If they had Hitler's war machine, they'd use it. Instead they steal the weapons from societies with superior cultures (yep, read that right) and reek misery on innocents. I agree with someone earlier who said this IS WWIII. It's time we started treating it like it was.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:38 pm

Originally posted by Prey521
GH, you're wasting your time in this thread defending Israel, I'll support them, but not on SG anymore, it's pointless here.

Unfortunately it can seem that way with the number of people pushing a certain view, but I hope you don't give up on it. You seem to have a more objective understanding of it than many. That view is needed.

Ghosthunter,
You've made some excellent points above in the thread.

SG Broadband Community

It has officially hit the fan...

aid to jordan.....