Discussion:
British Royals -- Uniquely Blunder-Prone?
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2005-01-14 19:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?

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

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

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

The current heir seems to be a chap in Liechtenstein

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

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

He's only NINE years old -- TRAINABLE.

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

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRECT! ---- DSH

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
tiglath
2005-01-14 19:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid
As things are taking a turn for the worse in Iraq, and only habituation
and apathy keeps good Americans from dishing to Republicans and the
Bush administration their just desserts, Mr. Hines becomes s.h.m.'s own
National Enquirer.

Greener Pastures.
What's next Mr. Hines, S.h.m.'s Worst Dressed List?

Go on.
William Black
2005-01-14 19:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.
Oh I don't know, the heir to Japan was all over the papers last month.

Most royal families were so inept that they either got themselves killed
when the population has a fit of indignation (Russia, France) or got the
sack for supporting a war where they got thrashed (Italy, Germany) or even
won (Yugoslavia, Albainia)

Ours has the ability not to offned to the extent that people take shots at
them or put them on trial.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back the
Stuarts?
Ah, now there's a dynasty that had a real ability to piss off the people,
even after being thrown out, not once but twice...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
tiglath
2005-01-14 19:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.
Oh I don't know, the heir to Japan was all over the papers last month.
Hitler is dead. We won.

Taking jokes about him seriously is like resucitating the fear he
inspired. It's morbid.

Reducing him to a joke, to a fancy dress, to a prank is the proper way
to frame the Evil Thousand Year Reich, if we must recall Nazis at all.
All else is an argument from outrage, where anger functions as a
premise and the object is to focus outrage on a easy target. For
example: "After 9/11 we had to do something." Prince Harry is another
easy target for anger that should have been long quenched. Hitler is
dead. Nuremberg is over. I said OVER.

"Lest we forget" is bullshit, as Rwandans know.

Would a Stalin uniform have cause the same uproar? Stalin murdered
MANY more people than Hitler.

How about a Gengis Khan costume?

Neither killed six million Jews, but plenty of other people, each of
whom are, or ought to be, worth as much as a Jew.

Are they?
Julian Richards
2005-01-14 21:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by tiglath
Hitler is dead. We won.
Taking jokes about him seriously is like resucitating the fear he
inspired. It's morbid.
Reducing him to a joke, to a fancy dress, to a prank is the proper way
to frame the Evil Thousand Year Reich, if we must recall Nazis at all.
All else is an argument from outrage, where anger functions as a
premise and the object is to focus outrage on a easy target. For
example: "After 9/11 we had to do something." Prince Harry is another
easy target for anger that should have been long quenched. Hitler is
dead. Nuremberg is over. I said OVER.
"Lest we forget" is bullshit, as Rwandans know.
Would a Stalin uniform have cause the same uproar? Stalin murdered
MANY more people than Hitler.
How about a Gengis Khan costume?
Neither killed six million Jews, but plenty of other people, each of
whom are, or ought to be, worth as much as a Jew.
Are they?
Freddie Starr dressed up as Hitler to play the fool, being one of the
first to change Hitler from a figure of fear to one of ridicule in the
UK. It makes him even less attractive to those who wish to emulate
him.

My late father dressed up as Hitler for the end of a village party to
commemorate the war and the Canadian antiaircraft gun crew that were
based there (God knows why as it was all fields although Bletchley
Park was not too far away). It was in the spirit of the event and he
had been dressed up as Home Guard for the earlier part of the evening.



--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Matthew Harley
2005-01-15 21:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by tiglath
Reducing him to a joke, to a fancy dress, to a prank is the proper way
to frame the Evil Thousand Year Reich, if we must recall Nazis at all.
Funny enough that was my reaction.

When I heard what Harry had done I thought of Charlie
Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" for which Chaplin took some
of the same stick, ironically, it sems, at the time because
some thought Germany would be offended!:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAchaplinC.htm

"A strong opponent of racism, in 1937 Chaplin decided to
make a film on the dangers of fascism. As Chaplin pointed
out in his autobiography, attempts were made to stop the
film being made: "Half-way through making The Great Dictator
I began receiving alarming messages from United Artists.
They had been advised by the Hays Office that I would run
into censorship trouble. Also the English office was very
concerned about an anti-Hitler picture and doubted whether
it could be shown in Britain. But I was determined to go
ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at." However, by the time
The Great Dictator was finished, Britain was at war with
Germany and it was used as propaganda against Hitler."

and Mel Brooks' "Springtime for Hitler!

"
"I was never crazy about Hitler, "says Mel Brooks. Who was?
But even now, more than 50 years after the fall of the Third
Reich, the man who masterminded the extermination of more
than 7 million people is still handled with care, as if the
magnitude of his crime demands no less. Brooks had the guts,
and gall, to realize that the simplest way to demolish
Hitler was to mock him."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/brooks.htm

Thousands of people have been dressing up as Nazis/Hitlers
at fancy-dress parties all over the planet for the last 50
plus years because Hitler needed to be MOCKED!

When people dress up as the devil at fancy parties, does
that mean they are evil?

Or are they just taking the piss!

Tabloid newspapers, get a life!

Matt Harley
tiglath
2005-01-16 01:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Harley
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/brooks.htm
Thousands of people have been dressing up as Nazis/Hitlers
at fancy-dress parties all over the planet for the last 50
plus years because Hitler needed to be MOCKED!
When people dress up as the devil at fancy parties, does
that mean they are evil?
Or are they just taking the piss!
Tabloid newspapers, get a life!
Matt Harley
Tabloid Hines wishes he could.
l***@yahoo.com
2005-01-16 01:43:11 UTC
Permalink
I wasn't going to jump into this but...Harry needs what anyone his age
who does this sort of stupid and thoughtless thing needs: a lesson in
the consequences: the people who died were real, the killers were real,
and real people today are affected.
A trip to the Holocaust Museum might not be a bad holiday for him,
especially if he is allowed to go through it anonymously so he'll have
a chance to actually think about and feel what he sees there. Once he
has seen the consequences of his thoughtlessness and has had a chance
to review the "wisdom" of his action, it needs to be forgotten by
everyone except Harry. I hope that the reaction to what he did will not
outshine what he has been given an opportunity to learn. Bronwen (who
tries to help her sister-in-law do genealogy when most of her recent
ancestors were killed by the Nazis)
The Rev**d
2005-01-16 03:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I wasn't going to jump into this but...Harry needs what anyone his age
who does this sort of stupid and thoughtless thing needs: a lesson in
the consequences: the people who died were real, the killers were real,
and real people today are affected.
A trip to the Holocaust Museum might not be a bad holiday for him,
especially if he is allowed to go through it anonymously so he'll have
a chance to actually think about and feel what he sees there. Once he
has seen the consequences of his thoughtlessness and has had a chance
to review the "wisdom" of his action, it needs to be forgotten by
everyone except Harry. I hope that the reaction to what he did will not
outshine what he has been given an opportunity to learn. Bronwen (who
tries to help her sister-in-law do genealogy when most of her recent
ancestors were killed by the Nazis)
We, in this country, do not pander to jew sensitivities.

HTH
HAND
William Black
2005-01-16 12:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rev**d
We, in this country, do not pander to jew sensitivities.
I thought you lived in Texas.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
a.spencer3
2005-01-16 10:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I wasn't going to jump into this but...Harry needs what anyone his age
who does this sort of stupid and thoughtless thing needs: a lesson in
the consequences: the people who died were real, the killers were real,
and real people today are affected.
A trip to the Holocaust Museum might not be a bad holiday for him,
especially if he is allowed to go through it anonymously so he'll have
a chance to actually think about and feel what he sees there. Once he
has seen the consequences of his thoughtlessness and has had a chance
to review the "wisdom" of his action, it needs to be forgotten by
everyone except Harry. I hope that the reaction to what he did will not
outshine what he has been given an opportunity to learn. Bronwen (who
tries to help her sister-in-law do genealogy when most of her recent
ancestors were killed by the Nazis)
Most posters here probably have not been to the Holocaust Museum, and don't
need to, to realise the atrocities etc.
I have been and, frankly, found it far too propogandist for its own good.
Any other visitors' views?

Surreyman

Surreyman
Renia
2005-01-18 02:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I wasn't going to jump into this but...Harry needs what anyone his age
who does this sort of stupid and thoughtless thing needs: a lesson in
the consequences: the people who died were real, the killers were real,
and real people today are affected.
A trip to the Holocaust Museum might not be a bad holiday for him,
especially if he is allowed to go through it anonymously so he'll have
a chance to actually think about and feel what he sees there. Once he
has seen the consequences of his thoughtlessness and has had a chance
to review the "wisdom" of his action, it needs to be forgotten by
everyone except Harry. I hope that the reaction to what he did will not
outshine what he has been given an opportunity to learn. Bronwen (who
tries to help her sister-in-law do genealogy when most of her recent
ancestors were killed by the Nazis)
Most posters here probably have not been to the Holocaust Museum, and don't
need to, to realise the atrocities etc.
I have been and, frankly, found it far too propogandist for its own good.
Any other visitors' views?
I've been twice, in 1969 and in 1999. It was much as I remembered it but
it had changed. I was impressed by the "new" hoardings which showed
pictures of the view you were looking at during the war, which was
poignant. I didn't find it propagandist either time. The first time, I
was with my grandmother who had not been there before, even though she
lived only a few miles away. She could only walk alongside the railway
track, when she turned back, crying, saying she could go no further. She
had lost too many friends there. She remained in the car for the rest of
the day while we we contininued our visit. A few moments before she
turned back, four young German boys came running down past the railway
track. They were crying their eyes out saying: "We didn't know it was
like this". Granny's first language was German, and she translated.

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

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

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

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

Renia
D. Spencer Hines
2005-01-14 19:53:44 UTC
Permalink
"Harry 'Out Of Control'"

And the beat goes on....

"HOORAY IDIOTS", Aye....

DSH
---------------------

"Harry 'out of control'"

By Robert Jobson, Evening Standard, Royal Correspondent
14 January 2005

"Close friends of Prince Harry fear he is "out of control". They say he
is surrounded by a group of "hooray idiots" who are encouraging his
increasingly reckless behaviour.

Their concern comes as Prince Charles today refused to make Harry
apologise in public for wearing a Nazi swastika and German uniform at a
fancy-dress party. The Prince of Wales says he will not force Harry to
visit Auschwitz or to say sorry on TV. Charles feels his son is being
pilloried for a silly prank.

PRINCE CHARLES IS IN DENIAL. ---- DSH

But in an unprecedented intervention, one of Harry's closest friends
says it was only the latest in a long line of ill-advised stunts, most
of which have remained out of the public eye. Today the friend says:
"Those of us who know him best are worried that he is behaving like an
idiot.

LISTEN to this fellow, CHARLES, or you are as stupid as your SON. ----
DSH

"The problem is he is surrounded by people who are in awe of him and do
not question his behaviour. Some of them certainly encourage him to
carry out more and more ridiculous stunts.

"He is always the first one to misbehave at a party, always the first to
be falling down drunk. If there is a fountain at a party, you know he
will be the first in it."

Harry's name has become a byword for outrageous behaviour among his
public school peers, and some friends believe he now feels compelled to
"act up" to this role.

OF COURSE. ---- DSH

The friend added: "He is not a bright chap. You have to be seriously
academically challenged to come away from Eton with one A-level. That
lack of intelligence is manifesting itself in the decisions he is making
now."

HILARIOUS! ---- DSH

"He needs to distance himself from certain people around him and
question why they are egging him on."

The Evening Standard source is one of Harry's longest-standing friends
and a family friend of Prince Charles. ******

The source went on: "He is not a bad lad, but he is getting wilder and
wilder. This was not malicious, but it was foolish. He needs to get a
grip. He has to realise the reality of his position."

The outrage over 20-year-old Harry's stunt continues to reverberate
around the world. But after meeting senior officials, Charles made it
clear that he would refuse to bow to political pressure from senior
politicians, including Tory leader Michael Howard, who are demanding
that Harry make a personal apology.

Charles told senior advisers he will not allow his son to be "hung out
to dry". One senior official told the Standard: "As far as the Prince
is concerned Harry has apologised for his mistake. That is the end of
the matter."

It has been decided that after Clarence House's contrite statement
yesterday nothing more would be added and there will be no gesture such
as a public trip by Harry to the Auschwitz concentration camp.

A bland STATEMENT from Clarence House is NOT a proper apology from Harry
himself -- directly from his lips. ---- DSH

Harry's gaffe was compounded by the timing, which coincides with the
60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz where more than one
million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.

This is to be commemorated later this month in a ceremony attended by
representatives from around the world.

Britain will be sending European minister Denis MacShane. The royal
family will be represented by Prince Edward.

Harry, due to start his military training at Sandhurst in May, is said
to be "deeply upset" over the reaction. A senior source said: "There is
a feeling that although it was a genuine error and certainly ill-advised
he now feels under siege.

"With the benefit of hindsight he knows he was wrong to wear the uniform
and the swastika armband but some among his friends feel it has been
taken out of all proportion. While the Prince of Wales is
understandably disappointed with Harry and has made his feelings very
clear, he is equally adamant that his son should not be hung out to
dry." It is understood that the Queen has rallied behind her grandson
despite the condemnation.

"The Queen will always back her family and is supporting Prince Charles
on whatever course of action he decides is appropriate," said the
source.

Since the death of Diana in 1997, Charles has doted on his younger son.

He has turned to the advice of former Guards officer Mark Dyer to help
steer Harry into adulthood. A source said: "There is now a feeling in
the Prince of Wales's camp that Harry needs a firmer hand to guide him
and the sooner he joins the Army the better."

It is still possible that the royal family may decide to send Harry to
Auschwitz on a private visit should the weight of worldwide criticism
prove too much to ignore. In Israel, the country's top daily newspaper
was flooded with readers' comments accusing the prince of being stupid
and acting in bad taste.

In the US, the New York Post ran the picture of Harry with the headline
Royal Nazi while the Washington Post declared: "Consensus on Prince
Harry's Gaffe: He Knows Nothing."

It emerged that Harry hired his costume at a shop close to Highgrove,
Maud's Cotswold Costumes, popular with the young royals and their set.

Among the other outfits which were said to have caught the prince's eye
was the uniform of an SS officer." ******
----------------------

He's an uneducated idiot.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
tiglath
2005-01-14 20:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Harry 'Out Of Control'"
And the beat goes on....
"HOORAY IDIOTS", Aye....
DSH
---------------------
"Harry 'out of control'"
By Robert Jobson, Evening Standard, Royal Correspondent
14 January 2005
"Close friends of Prince Harry fear he is "out of control". They say he
is surrounded by a group of "hooray idiots" who are encouraging his
increasingly reckless behaviour.
Their concern comes as Prince Charles today refused to make Harry
apologise in public for wearing a Nazi swastika and German uniform at a
fancy-dress party. The Prince of Wales says he will not force Harry to
visit Auschwitz or to say sorry on TV. Charles feels his son is being
pilloried for a silly prank.
PRINCE CHARLES IS IN DENIAL. ---- DSH
Mr. Hines is so old and decrepit that he can't recall anymore what is
like to be twenty years old.

Prince Harry may have offended sensitivities that should not be so
sensitive any longer, but no harm came of it. Compared that with the
judgement of a grown man like Tony Blair who remains "absolutely
convinced" that there are WMD in Iraq and that they will be found some
day (or does he still?). And on that belief he took his reluctant
country to war at a great cost in money and lives.

Mr. Hines is working overtime to condemn a youngster's prank when the
big elephant of Iraq is sitting next to him, pouring with blood.
As they say in England, penny wise, pound foolish.
tiglath
2005-01-14 20:04:44 UTC
Permalink
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
oung royals and their set.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Among the other outfits which were said to have caught the prince's eye
was the uniform of an SS officer." ******
Alexander the Great wore the clothes of the peoples he vanquished. Why
is it so wrong for a Brit to wear a Nazi uniform in jest, you idiot?
tiglath
2005-01-14 20:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
He's an uneducated idiot.
Why go to England looking for idiots when we have them aplenty at home?


Take U.S. Army Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., who beat and abused
powerless prisoners in Iraq, now on trial.

He is such an unmitigated idiot that he sent emails home and to friends
with photographs of his evil deeds with humorous captions. Like:

"Try doing this at home, and they'll lock you up if you don't have some
type of license,"

And

"Not only was I the healer, I was the hurter. O well life goes on."

And more.

A perfect audit trail for the prosecutor. I would like to know what
this disgraceful man's defense attorney told him about the emails. How
do you defend against that?

Now THAT's an IDIOT. A dangerous one.

Let us see what American justice does about him.

The jury is composed of veteran soldiers, all male.

Here is a good chance for them to show that soldiering is a profession
with standards of conduct that need to be upheld.

Why write so much about some idiot abroad, Mr. Hines, when they grow on
trees at home?
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 00:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Harry 'Out Of Control'"
And the beat goes on....
"HOORAY IDIOTS", Aye....
DSH
---------------------
"Harry 'out of control'"
By Robert Jobson, Evening Standard, Royal Correspondent
14 January 2005
"Close friends of Prince Harry fear he is "out of control". They say he
is surrounded by a group of "hooray idiots" who are encouraging his
increasingly reckless behaviour.
Their concern comes as Prince Charles today refused to make Harry
apologise in public for wearing a Nazi swastika and German uniform at a
fancy-dress party. The Prince of Wales says he will not force Harry to
visit Auschwitz or to say sorry on TV. Charles feels his son is being
pilloried for a silly prank.
PRINCE CHARLES IS IN DENIAL. ---- DSH
Bollocks.

Price Charles realises that wearing a Nazi uniform as a joke fancy dress has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jews or the Holocaust.

Why the hell should be be sent to visit Auschwitz ?

Anyone would think that it was only Jews who died in WWII, none of the other
millions of victims get a mention these days and everyone has to tread on
egg-shells for fear of offending them.

It wasn't the Gays, Gypsies, Poles, Czechs, Scandinavians or Russians that
Harry offended, or the people of London who had their city bombed to rubble
around them by the Nazis, oh no, it was the Jews, only the Jews he offended.

Of course the media plays along by falling over themselves to get a quote
from a professional 'Jew', who will inevitably tell us how offended ALL Jews
will be and then bang on about Auschwitz for a few minutes.

Job done.

Jewish/Zionist groups have turned the Holocaust into an industry, and their
relatives who died under the Nazis would turn in their graves if they could
see how their memory is used and abused by these groups today.

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

Nothing more.

MWC
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 00:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Typical of Cook to Goose step in where normal people wouldn't. Got your Doc
Martins on ass clown?
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Harry 'Out Of Control'"
And the beat goes on....
"HOORAY IDIOTS", Aye....
DSH
---------------------
"Harry 'out of control'"
By Robert Jobson, Evening Standard, Royal Correspondent
14 January 2005
"Close friends of Prince Harry fear he is "out of control". They say he
is surrounded by a group of "hooray idiots" who are encouraging his
increasingly reckless behaviour.
Their concern comes as Prince Charles today refused to make Harry
apologise in public for wearing a Nazi swastika and German uniform at a
fancy-dress party. The Prince of Wales says he will not force Harry to
visit Auschwitz or to say sorry on TV. Charles feels his son is being
pilloried for a silly prank.
PRINCE CHARLES IS IN DENIAL. ---- DSH
Bollocks.
Price Charles realises that wearing a Nazi uniform as a joke fancy dress has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jews or the Holocaust.
Why the hell should be be sent to visit Auschwitz ?
Anyone would think that it was only Jews who died in WWII, none of the other
millions of victims get a mention these days and everyone has to tread on
egg-shells for fear of offending them.
It wasn't the Gays, Gypsies, Poles, Czechs, Scandinavians or Russians that
Harry offended, or the people of London who had their city bombed to rubble
around them by the Nazis, oh no, it was the Jews, only the Jews he offended.
Of course the media plays along by falling over themselves to get a quote
from a professional 'Jew', who will inevitably tell us how offended ALL Jews
will be and then bang on about Auschwitz for a few minutes.
Job done.
Jewish/Zionist groups have turned the Holocaust into an industry, and their
relatives who died under the Nazis would turn in their graves if they could
see how their memory is used and abused by these groups today.
Harry's actions in wearing a Nazi Uniform as Fancy Dress to a private party
can only be described as inappropriate and insensitive for someone of his
position in society.
Nothing more.
MWC
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 02:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Typical of Cook to Goose step in where normal people wouldn't. Got your Doc
Martins on ass clown?
Me, Goose Step ?

Ladies and Gentlemen

This is OJ Goldman, a Redneck from the set of 'Deliverance' who travels to
Israel, dons an IDF uniform and fights for a country that is not the nation
of his birth.

He's a mercenary in other words.

Some would call him a traitor.

Even when he was a small boy Goldman's Rabbi could see what a little prick
he was, so when he was circumcised he chopped off a little too much so it
matched his character.

Poor OJ.

Now all he has left is a stump, and there isn't a Jewish woman on earth who
would piss on him if he was on fire.

Hilarious.

MWC
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 02:45:37 UTC
Permalink
ROFLOL look up the word Mercenary..
look it up , you don't even know the meaning of the word you so freely tag
me with you nazi cum stain
On 15/1/05 12:22 am, in article
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Typical of Cook to Goose step in where normal people wouldn't. Got your Doc
Martins on ass clown?
Me, Goose Step ?
Ladies and Gentlemen
This is OJ Goldman, a Redneck from the set of 'Deliverance' who travels to
Israel, dons an IDF uniform and fights for a country that is not the nation
of his birth.
He's a mercenary in other words.
Some would call him a traitor.
Even when he was a small boy Goldman's Rabbi could see what a little prick
he was, so when he was circumcised he chopped off a little too much so it
matched his character.
Poor OJ.
Now all he has left is a stump, and there isn't a Jewish woman on earth who
would piss on him if he was on fire.
Hilarious.
MWC
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 11:24:39 UTC
Permalink
mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1.. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2.. Hired for service in a foreign army.
That's you alright - Born in America, yet you fight for Israel, a foreign
power and NOT the country of your birth.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1.. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2.. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
You again, Israel was NOT the country of your birth.

You're a hireling alright - You're nothing but Canon-Fodder.

Expendable.

No use to man or beast.

A Loser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English mercenarie, a mercenary, from Old French mercenaire,
from Latin mercnnrius, from mercs, wages, price.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
merce·nari·ly adv.
merce·nari·ness n.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
mercenary
adj 1: marked by materialism [syn: materialistic, worldly-minded] 2: used of
soldiers hired by a foreign army [syn: mercenary(a), freelance(a)] 3: profit
oriented; "a commercial book"; "preached a mercantile and militant
patriotism"- John Buchan; "a mercenary enterprise"; "a moneymaking business"
[syn: mercantile, moneymaking(a)] n : a person hired to fight for another
country than their own [syn: soldier of fortune]
You again, quite why you deny it is beyond me.


MWC
hippo
2005-01-15 16:47:29 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1.. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2.. Hired for service in a foreign army.
That's you alright - Born in America, yet you fight for Israel, a foreign
power and NOT the country of your birth.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1.. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2.. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
You again, Israel was NOT the country of your birth.
So what. No one would choose to fight in the IDF for money. The US army pays
much better, is better set up and comfortable, and not nearly as risky. Many
Jews in the US have dual US-Israeli citizenship. The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 17:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Hippo .. the Yanks in the RAF were not Jews... now you see the dif?
as for serving in the IDF as a Merc! ROFLOL I'd have done better in Africa
if I was a hired gun
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1.. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2.. Hired for service in a foreign army.
That's you alright - Born in America, yet you fight for Israel, a foreign
power and NOT the country of your birth.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1.. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2.. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
You again, Israel was NOT the country of your birth.
So what. No one would choose to fight in the IDF for money. The US army pays
much better, is better set up and comfortable, and not nearly as risky. Many
Jews in the US have dual US-Israeli citizenship. The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 19:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Hippo .. the Yanks in the RAF were not Jews... now you see the dif?
as for serving in the IDF as a Merc! ROFLOL I'd have done better in Africa
if I was a hired gun
OJ a 'Hired Gun' ?

Now THAT is hilarious.

No professional outfit would hire him to wash the dishes, the IDF only do
because they are desperate and use him as cannon-fodder.

MWC
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 19:42:49 UTC
Permalink
contradicting yourself as usual. one second I'm a merc the next a
dishwasher?

aren't you the same ass clown that wished I got horribly wounded on my last
tour of reserves?
yup same turd
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Hippo .. the Yanks in the RAF were not Jews... now you see the dif?
as for serving in the IDF as a Merc! ROFLOL I'd have done better in Africa
if I was a hired gun
OJ a 'Hired Gun' ?
Now THAT is hilarious.
No professional outfit would hire him to wash the dishes, the IDF only do
because they are desperate and use him as cannon-fodder.
MWC
hippo
2005-01-15 23:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Hippo .. the Yanks in the RAF were not Jews... now you see the dif?
as for serving in the IDF as a Merc! ROFLOL I'd have done better in Africa
if I was a hired gun
Some may have been. I don't know and don't think the Brits or Canadians were
in a position or disposition to ask. You could have made more money waiting
tables. I, for one, take my hat off to you, sir. -the Troll
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-16 00:44:31 UTC
Permalink
No need to take off your hat just for little old me.;-)
But thank you . honestly thank you . some of these folks don't get it.
but I'm glad you did
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Hippo .. the Yanks in the RAF were not Jews... now you see the dif?
as for serving in the IDF as a Merc! ROFLOL I'd have done better in
Africa
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
if I was a hired gun
Some may have been. I don't know and don't think the Brits or Canadians were
in a position or disposition to ask. You could have made more money waiting
tables. I, for one, take my hat off to you, sir. -the Troll
William Black
2005-01-16 12:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Hippo .. the Yanks in the RAF were not Jews...
At least one that I know of was...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 19:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1.. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2.. Hired for service in a foreign army.
That's you alright - Born in America, yet you fight for Israel, a foreign
power and NOT the country of your birth.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1.. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2.. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
You again, Israel was NOT the country of your birth.
So what. No one would choose to fight in the IDF for money.
OJ did, and also for the promise of an Israeli passport.
Post by hippo
The US army pays
much better, is better set up and comfortable, and not nearly as risky.
Oj's too thick to realise that.

Besides, he was in the US Navy, but they'd had enough of him and got rid of
him. In fact, most people OJ meets soon dump him, including his ex-wife.
On the Israeli and Palestinian groups where he posts, most of his fellow
Zionists disown him and want nothing to do with him.

He's an ignorant arsehole who can barely string a sentence together - that
earlier post of his you read was only long because he copied it.
Post by hippo
Many
Jews in the US have dual US-Israeli citizenship.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the illegal settlers in the West
Bank speak with an American accent and also have duel US/Israeli
citizenship, they are also one of the main causes of the conflict.
Post by hippo
The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
They were fighting a common enemy at the time, OJ isn't.

MWC
hippo
2005-01-15 23:20:22 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the illegal settlers in the West
Bank speak with an American accent and also have duel US/Israeli
citizenship, they are also one of the main causes of the conflict.
Post by hippo
The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
They were fighting a common enemy at the time, OJ isn't.
I don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction. I met a father in Israel who's eldest son was about to be
inducted into the army. The man's face was gray with concern and with good
reason. The weak in spirit are going the other way. -the Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-16 00:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the illegal settlers in the West
Bank speak with an American accent and also have duel US/Israeli
citizenship, they are also one of the main causes of the conflict.
Post by hippo
The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
They were fighting a common enemy at the time, OJ isn't.
I don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction. I met a father in Israel who's eldest son was about to be
inducted into the army. The man's face was gray with concern and with good
reason. The weak in spirit are going the other way. -the Troll
There's only one answer to that:

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

Simple.

MWC
hippo
2005-01-16 17:51:46 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the illegal settlers in the West
Bank speak with an American accent and also have duel US/Israeli
citizenship, they are also one of the main causes of the conflict.
Post by hippo
The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
They were fighting a common enemy at the time, OJ isn't.
I don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction. I met a father in Israel who's eldest son was about to be
inducted into the army. The man's face was gray with concern and with good
reason. The weak in spirit are going the other way. -the Troll
If Israel weren't occupying land illegally, and weren't allowing a bunch of
Zioniost religious whackos to live in their illegal settlements, then they
wouldn't need all those boys to do military service.
Simple.
You are kidding, right? Do you really think that if the settlements were to
be abandoned Hezbollah, Hamas, and the several Palestinian nationalist and
fundamentalist organizations are going to abandon their jihad? If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like the
leadership of any terrorist organization. It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical Islamic
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the population from
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.

The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable future.
Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the ongoing
terrorist threat.

Your original post called a poster a mercenary for serving in the IDF which
is simply wrong regardless of the legality of Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territory. You may disagree with him and dislike him, but he
ain't a mercenary any more than the US pilots who served with the RAF before
the US entered the war. -the Troll
a.spencer3
2005-01-16 18:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.
Then where the xxxxx did you go?
Zionism is merely the supporting of the ideal of a Jewish state in
Palestine. Most Israelis support that!!!

Surreyman
hippo
2005-01-17 02:16:11 UTC
Permalink
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by hippo
In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.
Then where the xxxxx did you go?
Zionism is merely the supporting of the ideal of a Jewish state in
Palestine. Most Israelis support that!!!
That's not how I understand the term. To me Zionists are ultra-nationalists
who are the folks setting up settlements in Palestinian territory and trying
to force the government's hand to support them. The folks I visited were
Ashkenazi Liberals. The two societies don't mix. -the Troll
a.spencer3
2005-01-17 09:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by hippo
In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.
Then where the xxxxx did you go?
Zionism is merely the supporting of the ideal of a Jewish state in
Palestine. Most Israelis support that!!!
That's not how I understand the term. To me Zionists are
ultra-nationalists
Post by hippo
who are the folks setting up settlements in Palestinian territory and trying
to force the government's hand to support them. The folks I visited were
Ashkenazi Liberals. The two societies don't mix. -the Troll
Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion! .......
:-))

Surreyman
hippo
2005-01-17 14:06:27 UTC
Permalink
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by hippo
Post by a.spencer3
Post by hippo
In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.
Then where the xxxxx did you go?
Zionism is merely the supporting of the ideal of a Jewish state in
Palestine. Most Israelis support that!!!
That's not how I understand the term. To me Zionists are
ultra-nationalists
Post by hippo
who are the folks setting up settlements in Palestinian territory and
trying
Post by hippo
to force the government's hand to support them. The folks I visited were
Ashkenazi Liberals. The two societies don't mix. -the Troll
Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion! .......
:-))
Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll
a.spencer3
2005-01-17 14:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by hippo
Post by a.spencer3
Post by hippo
In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.
Then where the xxxxx did you go?
Zionism is merely the supporting of the ideal of a Jewish state in
Palestine. Most Israelis support that!!!
That's not how I understand the term. To me Zionists are
ultra-nationalists
Post by hippo
who are the folks setting up settlements in Palestinian territory and
trying
Post by hippo
to force the government's hand to support them. The folks I visited were
Ashkenazi Liberals. The two societies don't mix. -the Troll
Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion!
.......
:-))
Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll
Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))

Surreyman
hippo
2005-01-17 15:34:46 UTC
Permalink
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by a.spencer3
Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion!
.......
Post by a.spencer3
:-))
Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll
Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))
Don't look now but you do. -the Troll
a.spencer3
2005-01-17 15:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by a.spencer3
Then look in a dictionary before you continue with this discussion!
.......
Post by a.spencer3
:-))
Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll
Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))
Don't look now but you do. -the Troll
Wow!

First time it's ever happened to me!

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

Wow!

Surreyman
hippo
2005-01-17 19:20:52 UTC
Permalink
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
Post by hippo
Post by a.spencer3
Post by hippo
Don't have to, I know you are right. -the Troll
Wow! Can I have that in writing! :-))
Don't look now but you do. -the Troll
Wow!
First time it's ever happened to me!
Probably the first time it's ever been said on this newsgroup to anyone!!
:-))
Wow!
Congratulations. :^) -the Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-17 01:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
I don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction. I met a father in Israel who's eldest son was about to be
inducted into the army. The man's face was gray with concern and with
good
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
reason. The weak in spirit are going the other way. -the Troll
If Israel weren't occupying land illegally, and weren't allowing a bunch
of
Post by Michael W Cook
Zioniost religious whackos to live in their illegal settlements, then they
wouldn't need all those boys to do military service.
Simple.
You are kidding, right? Do you really think that if the settlements were to
be abandoned Hezbollah, Hamas, and the several Palestinian nationalist and
fundamentalist organizations are going to abandon their jihad?
Their Jihad is perfectly legitimate, they have a foreign army occupying
their land killing their people and destroying their houses. Their struggle
is as right as the French Resistance was against the Nazis in WWII.

Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.
Post by hippo
If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like the
leadership of any terrorist organization.
And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?

The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?

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

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

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

Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.

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

Then we have the killing of innocent children.

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

Or perhaps it won't.

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

Shall I go on ?

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

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

99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.

I, however, do not.
Post by hippo
The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable future.
Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.
Post by hippo
Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the ongoing
terrorist threat.
That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of them and
clouded their judgement.

Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of grief.
Post by hippo
Your original post called a poster a mercenary for serving in the IDF which
is simply wrong regardless of the legality of Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territory.
He was born an American, lives in America and holds an American passport,
yet he fights for Israel and receives reward for his services. The fact he
now has an Israeli passport in lieu of his mercenary service is neither here
nor there - he's a mercenary and an arsehole to boot.
Post by hippo
You may disagree with him and dislike him, but he
ain't a mercenary any more than the US pilots who served with the RAF before
the US entered the war. -the Troll
Totally different scenario, just about all of Europe was at war with Nazi
Germany and many of those who flew in the RAF or RCAF had relatives who were
British or Canadian, or were on legitimate postings from their parent units.

MWC
hippo
2005-01-17 02:46:26 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
If Israel weren't occupying land illegally, and weren't allowing a bunch
of
Post by Michael W Cook
Zioniost religious whackos to live in their illegal settlements, then they
wouldn't need all those boys to do military service.
Simple.
You are kidding, right? Do you really think that if the settlements were to
be abandoned Hezbollah, Hamas, and the several Palestinian nationalist and
fundamentalist organizations are going to abandon their jihad?
Their Jihad is perfectly legitimate, they have a foreign army occupying
their land killing their people and destroying their houses. Their struggle
is as right as the French Resistance was against the Nazis in WWII.
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.
No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands they
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our pulling
out of the Gulf.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like the
leadership of any terrorist organization.
And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?
The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?
The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad as any
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.
Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential blocks
of flats - is that not terrorism ?
The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is EVER made
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.
Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.
Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in there.
Then we have the killing of innocent children.
Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on 'Palestinian
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered by the
IDF will quite shock you.
Or perhaps it won't.
However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.
Shall I go on ?
The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.
Etc etc etc.............
I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice for
Israeli reaction. Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of Hamburg and
Dresden.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical Islamic
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the population from
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one Zionist.
You are joking I hope.
99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.
I, however, do not.
Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who don't
either.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable future.
Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.
Post by hippo
Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the ongoing
terrorist threat.
That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of them and
clouded their judgement.
Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of grief.
I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people deserves a
homeland if possible. Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I had no
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was teeming
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Your original post called a poster a mercenary for serving in the IDF which
is simply wrong regardless of the legality of Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territory.
He was born an American, lives in America and holds an American passport,
yet he fights for Israel and receives reward for his services. The fact he
now has an Israeli passport in lieu of his mercenary service is neither here
nor there - he's a mercenary and an arsehole to boot.
Arsehole he may be, I wouldn't know, but he doesn't fit even the minimum
definition of a mercenary.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
You may disagree with him and dislike him, but he
ain't a mercenary any more than the US pilots who served with the RAF before
the US entered the war. -the Troll
Totally different scenario, just about all of Europe was at war with Nazi
Germany and many of those who flew in the RAF or RCAF had relatives who were
British or Canadian, or were on legitimate postings from their parent units.
The fact remains they were foreign nationals serving in another country's
military and getting paid. There is no legal difference. -the Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-17 16:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
If Israel weren't occupying land illegally, and weren't allowing a
bunch
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
of
Post by Michael W Cook
Zioniost religious whackos to live in their illegal settlements, then
they
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
wouldn't need all those boys to do military service.
Simple.
You are kidding, right? Do you really think that if the settlements were
to
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
be abandoned Hezbollah, Hamas, and the several Palestinian nationalist
and
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
fundamentalist organizations are going to abandon their jihad?
Their Jihad is perfectly legitimate, they have a foreign army occupying
their land killing their people and destroying their houses. Their
struggle
Post by Michael W Cook
is as right as the French Resistance was against the Nazis in WWII.
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.
No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands they
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our pulling
out of the Gulf.
One crime has led to another, and the totally biased support of the Zionist
State by the US has been one of the primary reasons why we find ourselves in
the position we in at present.

I've no objection to Jews living in Israel at all, what I object to is it
being a Jewish Homeland, they had no right to it whatsoever and it was a
very foolish act in creating it.
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like
the
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
leadership of any terrorist organization.
And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?
The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?
The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad as any
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.
Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential
blocks
Post by Michael W Cook
of flats - is that not terrorism ?
The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is EVER
made
Post by Michael W Cook
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.
Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.
Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in there.
Then we have the killing of innocent children.
Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on 'Palestinian
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered by
the
Post by Michael W Cook
IDF will quite shock you.
Or perhaps it won't.
However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.
Shall I go on ?
The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.
Etc etc etc.............
I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice for
Israeli reaction.
It's called a Snowball effect, one leads to another.

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

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

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

Israel is not to be trusted.

Ariel Sharon's provocative visit shortly after to the Temple Mount, with his
band of thugs tooled up to the eyeballs complete with dark shades, just
pored petrol on the smouldering grass and turned it into an inferno.
Post by hippo
Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of Hamburg and
Dresden.
Here you go again, trying to compare totally different conflicts that have
no similarities whatsoever.
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical
Islamic
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the population
from
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one
Zionist.
Post by Michael W Cook
You are joking I hope.
99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.
I, however, do not.
Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who don't
either.
Look it up in a dictionary.

I will accept your apologise and correction to the above.
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable
future.
Post by Michael W Cook
Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.
Post by hippo
Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the
ongoing
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
terrorist threat.
That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of them
and
Post by Michael W Cook
clouded their judgement.
Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of grief.
I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people deserves a
homeland if possible.
OK.

Where do you live ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you see any parallels yet ?

Would you take up arms and fight against such injustices ?
Post by hippo
Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I had no
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was teeming
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.
That is nonsense, throughout history the Muslims have been the better
custodians of the Holy Sites in Middle East than any Christian or Jewish
rulers of that land - FACT.


Snip

MWC
hippo
2005-01-17 20:04:01 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.
No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands they
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our pulling
out of the Gulf.
One crime has led to another, and the totally biased support of the Zionist
State by the US has been one of the primary reasons why we find ourselves in
the position we in at present.
I've no objection to Jews living in Israel at all, what I object to is it
being a Jewish Homeland, they had no right to it whatsoever and it was a
very foolish act in creating it.
Very open minded of you. I think they had the right too but the Palestinians
didn't in spite if the fact they have been there for several thousands of
years and long before there was even one Muslim. They saw it through the
eyes of a persecuted people who wanted just one place they'd be safe. That's
OK with me too. The Palestinians who live in Israel are a lot safer and
freer than Jews living in Palestine before 1948 and probably anywhere else
in the Mid East. As with most conflict there is good and bad with both
sides.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like
the
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
leadership of any terrorist organization.
And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?
The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?
The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad as any
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.
Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential
blocks
Post by Michael W Cook
of flats - is that not terrorism ?
The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is EVER
made
Post by Michael W Cook
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.
Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.
Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in there.
Then we have the killing of innocent children.
Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on 'Palestinian
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered by
the
Post by Michael W Cook
IDF will quite shock you.
Or perhaps it won't.
However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.
Shall I go on ?
The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.
Etc etc etc.............
I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice for
Israeli reaction.
It's called a Snowball effect, one leads to another.
If it wasn't for the continued expansion of the illegal Settlements there
would have been no Intifada.
All the while both parties were at Camp David discussing a final peace
settlement, Israeli Bulldozers were still building new settlements unabated,
despite the fact they they were supposed to have stopped as part of the
agreements being discussed.
That was reason enough on it's own for Arafat to walk out.
Israel is not to be trusted.
Ariel Sharon's provocative visit shortly after to the Temple Mount, with his
band of thugs tooled up to the eyeballs complete with dark shades, just
pored petrol on the smouldering grass and turned it into an inferno.
Just after Sharon's visit, which he had every right to do just like anyone
else, Muslims began stoning Jews praying at the wailing wall below. Sharon
wasn't trying to hurt anyone, the Muslims were. I saw a distinct difference
in the films of both, and I see a distinct difference in level of guilt if
you don't.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of Hamburg and
Dresden.
Here you go again, trying to compare totally different conflicts that have
no similarities whatsoever.
There are no exact comparisons in history which you know. We do as well as
we can. A government is obliged to protect its people as it's first
responsibility. Most governments in the present situation as the Israeli
would have reacted even more strongly.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about the
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical
Islamic
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the population
from
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one
Zionist.
Post by Michael W Cook
You are joking I hope.
99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.
I, however, do not.
Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who don't
either.
Look it up in a dictionary.
I will accept your apologise and correction to the above.
This time I specified *radical* Zionists. We do learn from our mistakes.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable
future.
Post by Michael W Cook
Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.
Post by hippo
Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the
ongoing
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
terrorist threat.
That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was formed,
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of them
and
Post by Michael W Cook
clouded their judgement.
Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the Jews,
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared long
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of grief.
I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people deserves a
homeland if possible.
OK.
Where do you live ?
Lets say you live in one of the States in the US where there is a sizable
population of Native American Indians.
Suddenly the UN has decreed that a thousand mile radius around your house is
no longer part of the US, but is to become a newly formed Homeland for all
Native American Indians around the world. Because they haven't got a
homeland of their own and they have always been persecuted.
As it happens, the native American Indians probably have a better case for a
Homeland than any Jew had for the formation of the state of Israel.
Anyway, I digress, once the Native Americans start arriving and joining with
those already there, they start to attack the local non-Native Indians,
forcing them off their land by gun-point and murdering several as they go
about their dirty work.
A form of ethnic cleansing if you like on a targeted localised scale.
The people who live there have nobody to help them, and for the next 50
years the most powerful government in the world aids the native Americans
and arms them to the teeth with all the latest weaponry they can muster, to
use against the former people who lived on that land.
Then, after 50 years they decide to build a huge wall to fence all those
local people in who they haven't managed to force off their land, usually
because that land is of no use to the Native Indians anyway.
At all times these former owners of the land are treated as second class
citizens and they have no rights whatsoever. Their children and women are
shot or blown up, but nobody is ever held to account.
Roads are then built for Native Indians only, cutting across land once owned
by the former people who lived on the land with little or no compensation.
Some even have their houses bulldozed to make way for these roads.
The killing goes on, the infrastructure that these local people once had is
totally destroyed, many live in refugee camps, which are in turn sealed off
from time to time and bulldozed by the Native American Indians.
Can you see any parallels yet ?
Would you take up arms and fight against such injustices ?
And you think my comparisons are nuts. US native populations have their own
internally autonomous tribal lands to which they have a right. They can live
in them or not at their choice.
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I had no
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was teeming
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.
That is nonsense, throughout history the Muslims have been the better
custodians of the Holy Sites in Middle East than any Christian or Jewish
rulers of that land - FACT.
Christians I give you. Muslim access has been irregular over history
depending on the big cheese in Jerusalem at the time. The Israelis have been
consistent except for a few short periods after violent outbreaks
there. -the Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-17 23:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
And you think my comparisons are nuts. US native populations have their own
internally autonomous tribal lands to which they have a right. They can live
in them or not at their choice.
I used them as a fictitious example of something closer to your home,
obviously you didn't see the parallels and connection with the development
of the current state of Israel.
Post by hippo
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.
There was no Islamic terrorism against the Jews until they started their
expansionist policies, which began 150 years ago and continue to this day.
The only reason Sharon has decided to pull out of Gaza is because those
settlements are a financial and military drain.

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

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

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

Ever wondered where Sharon gets his ideas from ?

Now you know.

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

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

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

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

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

MWC
hippo
2005-01-18 02:31:08 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.
There was no Islamic terrorism against the Jews until they started their
expansionist policies, which began 150 years ago and continue to this day.
The only reason Sharon has decided to pull out of Gaza is because those
settlements are a financial and military drain.
It's classic Jabotinsky preaching - go look him up, along with my namesake,
Chief Rabbi Cook, another early preacher of Ultra Right-wing Zionism.
Settlements which can not be sustained should be abandoned and their
resources diverted to those that prosper.
This was one of Jabotinsky's teachings from over a century ago, along with
his proposal of building a wall to fence the natives out.
Ever wondered where Sharon gets his ideas from ?
Now you know.
But the Zionists still have the cheek to say there is no Jewish expansionist
policy and strongly deny anything of the sort.
Yet since the start of the Oslo process in 1993, the number of illegal
Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories has doubled to over 400,000 and
continues to grow as the settlements expand. Despite a supposed freeze.
Then there's the further land grabbing in the construction of the Wall,
proving that they are liars who are not to be trusted.
If Israel wanted to protect it's citizens from violent Palestinian
resistance, it should abide by countless UN Resolutions and start shipping
these 400.000 people back to Israel, whereby turning the occupation into a
purely military question of security.
But that won't happen because Israel will always want more land, not peace.
There are large numbers of Israeli voters impatient with the settlers
including most recently Sharon himself who, as Prime Ministers, understands
perfectly well the government can't protect the illegal settlements. His
coalition nearly fell over the forced removal of settlements in Gaza. You're
wrong about expansionism. I don't think even a majority of Israelis believe
in that. -the Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-18 12:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with
Arab
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.
There was no Islamic terrorism against the Jews until they started their
expansionist policies, which began 150 years ago and continue to this day.
The only reason Sharon has decided to pull out of Gaza is because those
settlements are a financial and military drain.
It's classic Jabotinsky preaching - go look him up, along with my
namesake,
Post by Michael W Cook
Chief Rabbi Cook, another early preacher of Ultra Right-wing Zionism.
Settlements which can not be sustained should be abandoned and their
resources diverted to those that prosper.
This was one of Jabotinsky's teachings from over a century ago, along with
his proposal of building a wall to fence the natives out.
Ever wondered where Sharon gets his ideas from ?
Now you know.
But the Zionists still have the cheek to say there is no Jewish
expansionist
Post by Michael W Cook
policy and strongly deny anything of the sort.
Yet since the start of the Oslo process in 1993, the number of illegal
Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories has doubled to over 400,000
and
Post by Michael W Cook
continues to grow as the settlements expand. Despite a supposed freeze.
Then there's the further land grabbing in the construction of the Wall,
proving that they are liars who are not to be trusted.
If Israel wanted to protect it's citizens from violent Palestinian
resistance, it should abide by countless UN Resolutions and start shipping
these 400.000 people back to Israel, whereby turning the occupation into a
purely military question of security.
But that won't happen because Israel will always want more land, not
peace.
There are large numbers of Israeli voters impatient with the settlers
including most recently Sharon himself who, as Prime Ministers, understands
perfectly well the government can't protect the illegal settlements. His
coalition nearly fell over the forced removal of settlements in Gaza. You're
wrong about expansionism. I don't think even a majority of Israelis believe
in that. -the Troll
This is yet more of the Zionist bullshit that you've swallowed.

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

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

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

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

MWC
hippo
2005-01-18 17:06:18 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
There are large numbers of Israeli voters impatient with the settlers
including most recently Sharon himself who, as Prime Ministers, understands
perfectly well the government can't protect the illegal settlements. His
coalition nearly fell over the forced removal of settlements in Gaza. You're
wrong about expansionism. I don't think even a majority of Israelis believe
in that. -the Troll
This is yet more of the Zionist bullshit that you've swallowed.
If so many Israelis, as you and others maintain, want rid of the
settlements, how come they keep on voting in people who support them like
Sharon, who has actively expanded them like no other Israeli Prime Minister
before him ?
Likud has not always been in power as you know. Sharon came in with the
Intifada because security will always be first in the minds of voters.
Preceeding Liberal governments were not able to provide that security,
Sharon has. It's the Palestinian terrorists who have elected Sharon and will
continue to re-elect his party and the strong proactive security measures
Likud advocates. Just like the IRA and other modern terrorist organizations,
the goal of the terrorist policy is always to force the government to
over-react as in the case of Bloody Sunday.

Sharon has publicly advocated the abandonment of some settlements and nearly
lost his coalition majority as a result.
Post by Michael W Cook
The evidence is there for all to see, and in the last 10 years the numbers
of people living in the illegal settlements has more than doubled. That
alone proves that Israel is still following a policy of Jewish
expansionism.
Post by Michael W Cook
Add the blatant land-grabbing of the so-called security wall and the case is
closed book, how you or anyone can even try and deny is beyond me.
Believe it or not I used to support Israel, until I opened my eyes and
realised what a bunch of crooks, murderers and liars they are who hide
behind the Holocaust to further the evil that is called Zionism.
I am completely in favor of the wall. It works just as I said it would on
this group (AHB) a year or two ago. It is passive rather than active and
likely to save lives on both sides. It is also likely to bring Palestinians
to the reality of where their violent element has brought them. I do
disagree where the wall is being built in some cases. Only bi-lateral
agreements should decide the wall's future course which the death of Arafat
now makes at least possible.

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

r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-17 23:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Funny my family has been in Jerusalem since 1492.... most of the
Palestinians can't trace their roots back to WWI
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and
withdraw
Post by hippo
All
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for
peace.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power,
they
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
get no sympathy from me.
No, from your past posts I didn't suspect they would. I agree illegal
settlements should be abandoned and money spent developing the lands
they
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
did win by '67. That won't stop the jihad, though, any more than our
pulling
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
out of the Gulf.
One crime has led to another, and the totally biased support of the
Zionist
Post by Michael W Cook
State by the US has been one of the primary reasons why we find
ourselves
Post by hippo
in
Post by Michael W Cook
the position we in at present.
I've no objection to Jews living in Israel at all, what I object to is it
being a Jewish Homeland, they had no right to it whatsoever and it was a
very foolish act in creating it.
Very open minded of you. I think they had the right too but the Palestinians
didn't in spite if the fact they have been there for several thousands of
years and long before there was even one Muslim. They saw it through the
eyes of a persecuted people who wanted just one place they'd be safe. That's
OK with me too. The Palestinians who live in Israel are a lot safer and
freer than Jews living in Palestine before 1948 and probably anywhere else
in the Mid East. As with most conflict there is good and bad with both
sides.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
If you do you
are sadly mistaken. They exist for perpetuating the conflict just like
the
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
leadership of any terrorist organization.
And what of the lunatic settlers armed to the teeth ?
The roads built on Arab land for Jews only ?
The people who occupy these settlements are as fanatical and as mad
as
Post by hippo
any
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Nazi or Islamic Fundamentalist.
Then of course we have Israel dropping 1000IB bombs onto residential
blocks
Post by Michael W Cook
of flats - is that not terrorism ?
The illegal assassination of 'Suspect' terrorists - no attempt is EVER
made
Post by Michael W Cook
to arrest them and put them on trial for these alleged activities.
Suspect - Shoot them - Just like the Nazis.
Crowded Market Place - Suspect - Send a missile or tank shell in there.
Then we have the killing of innocent children.
Go to Amnesty International's web site and do a search on
'Palestinian
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Children' the accounts of the hundreds of kids who have been murdered
by
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
the
Post by Michael W Cook
IDF will quite shock you.
Or perhaps it won't.
However, nobody is ever charged or held to account for these murders.
Shall I go on ?
The destruction of Palestinian Businesses, Crops, Orchards.
The Bulldozing of houses as a form of 'Collective' punishment.
Suspects held without trial. The torturing of these suspects.
Etc etc etc.............
I agree but given the realities since the intifada I see little choice
for
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Israeli reaction.
It's called a Snowball effect, one leads to another.
If it wasn't for the continued expansion of the illegal Settlements there
would have been no Intifada.
All the while both parties were at Camp David discussing a final peace
settlement, Israeli Bulldozers were still building new settlements
unabated,
Post by Michael W Cook
despite the fact they they were supposed to have stopped as part of the
agreements being discussed.
That was reason enough on it's own for Arafat to walk out.
Israel is not to be trusted.
Ariel Sharon's provocative visit shortly after to the Temple Mount, with
his
Post by Michael W Cook
band of thugs tooled up to the eyeballs complete with dark shades, just
pored petrol on the smouldering grass and turned it into an inferno.
Just after Sharon's visit, which he had every right to do just like anyone
else, Muslims began stoning Jews praying at the wailing wall below. Sharon
wasn't trying to hurt anyone, the Muslims were. I saw a distinct difference
in the films of both, and I see a distinct difference in level of guilt if
you don't.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Britain would do the same under the same level of threat,
any country with a population to protect would. I remind you of
Hamburg
Post by hippo
and
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Dresden.
Here you go again, trying to compare totally different conflicts that have
no similarities whatsoever.
There are no exact comparisons in history which you know. We do as well as
we can. A government is obliged to protect its people as it's first
responsibility. Most governments in the present situation as the Israeli
would have reacted even more strongly.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
It is their life purpose and
access for their leadership to power and money. While we agree about
the
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
disruptive acts of radical Zionists, they have nothing on radical
Islamic
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
jihadists and they represent a far smaller percentage of the
population
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
from
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
which they come. In several weeks in Israel I never met even one
Zionist.
Post by Michael W Cook
You are joking I hope.
99.9% of Jews in the world support Zionism.
I, however, do not.
Zionists are radical nationalists and are not supported by even some who
live in Israel. There are many more who live outside the place who don't
either.
Look it up in a dictionary.
I will accept your apologise and correction to the above.
This time I specified *radical* Zionists. We do learn from our mistakes.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
The IDF at present strengths will be necessary for the foreseeable
future.
Post by Michael W Cook
Best they pull out of the Occupied Territories and bulldoze the illegal
settlements, then they wouldn't need so many of them.
Post by hippo
Israel will never truly be safe because of the unpredictable future
attitudes of politically unstable neighboring states as well as the
ongoing
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
terrorist threat.
That was a fact recognised by everyone when the Zionist State was
formed,
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
but the guilt of the Western powers after the war got the better of
them
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
and
Post by Michael W Cook
clouded their judgement.
Israel should never have been allowed to exist as a homeland for the
Jews,
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
and if it wasn't for the US propping it up it would have disappeared
long
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
ago, and that would have saved the whole world a hell of a lot of
grief.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
I'll accept that responsibility gladly and proudly. Every people
deserves a
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
homeland if possible.
OK.
Where do you live ?
Lets say you live in one of the States in the US where there is a sizable
population of Native American Indians.
Suddenly the UN has decreed that a thousand mile radius around your
house
Post by hippo
is
Post by Michael W Cook
no longer part of the US, but is to become a newly formed Homeland for all
Native American Indians around the world. Because they haven't got a
homeland of their own and they have always been persecuted.
As it happens, the native American Indians probably have a better case
for
Post by hippo
a
Post by Michael W Cook
Homeland than any Jew had for the formation of the state of Israel.
Anyway, I digress, once the Native Americans start arriving and joining
with
Post by Michael W Cook
those already there, they start to attack the local non-Native Indians,
forcing them off their land by gun-point and murdering several as they go
about their dirty work.
A form of ethnic cleansing if you like on a targeted localised scale.
The people who live there have nobody to help them, and for the next 50
years the most powerful government in the world aids the native Americans
and arms them to the teeth with all the latest weaponry they can muster,
to
Post by Michael W Cook
use against the former people who lived on that land.
Then, after 50 years they decide to build a huge wall to fence all those
local people in who they haven't managed to force off their land, usually
because that land is of no use to the Native Indians anyway.
At all times these former owners of the land are treated as second class
citizens and they have no rights whatsoever. Their children and women are
shot or blown up, but nobody is ever held to account.
Roads are then built for Native Indians only, cutting across land once
owned
Post by Michael W Cook
by the former people who lived on the land with little or no
compensation.
Post by hippo
Post by Michael W Cook
Some even have their houses bulldozed to make way for these roads.
The killing goes on, the infrastructure that these local people once had
is
Post by Michael W Cook
totally destroyed, many live in refugee camps, which are in turn sealed
off
Post by Michael W Cook
from time to time and bulldozed by the Native American Indians.
Can you see any parallels yet ?
Would you take up arms and fight against such injustices ?
And you think my comparisons are nuts. US native populations have their own
internally autonomous tribal lands to which they have a right. They can live
in them or not at their choice.
Both Palestinian and Jew were shooting at one another before '48 with Arab
nations all around supporting the Palestinians with weapons and
'volunteers'. US support, almost entirely private, hardly redressed the
balance in quantity and quantity.
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
Fact is there is far greater free access to everyone's
holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule than under Palestinian. I
had
Post by hippo
no
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
problems visiting Christian sites there and the Dome of the Rock was
teeming
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
with Moslem worshipers with not a soldier in sight.
That is nonsense, throughout history the Muslims have been the better
custodians of the Holy Sites in Middle East than any Christian or Jewish
rulers of that land - FACT.
Christians I give you. Muslim access has been irregular over history
depending on the big cheese in Jerusalem at the time. The Israelis have been
consistent except for a few short periods after violent outbreaks
there. -the Troll
hippo
2005-01-18 02:39:41 UTC
Permalink
<rgoldman wrote in message
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Funny my family has been in Jerusalem since 1492.... most of the
Palestinians can't trace their roots back to WWI
Probably from Spain, then.

Most Jews, used as they are to thinking in Diaspora terms, don't understand
there has always been a continuous Jewish population in Palestine. The
largest concentration of which, I seem to remember, was in the Galilee. -the
Troll
Michael W Cook
2005-01-18 11:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Funny my family has been in Jerusalem since 1492.... most of the
Palestinians can't trace their roots back to WWI
I too can say anything that you'd find impossible to prove.

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

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

Some nation.
Doug McDonald
2005-01-17 15:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
Now if Israel were to remove ALL the illegal settlements, and withdraw All
troops to the pre-67 borders, then there would be a grounding for peace.
Until then, let them reap the rewards as an illegal occupying power, they
get no sympathy from me.
Mr. Cook, here you show how badly you reason. Consider what happens
if there is a return to the pre-1967 situation.

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

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

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

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

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald
Michael W Cook
2005-01-16 00:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by hippo
don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction.
Not at all:

It takes guts to join in the military and serve in combat for your country.

But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.

MWC
William Black
2005-01-16 12:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.
There's one easy way to stop that.

Kids shouldn't throw stones at soldiers...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Frances Kemmish
2005-01-16 13:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Michael W Cook
But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.
There's one easy way to stop that.
Kids shouldn't throw stones at soldiers...
I guess kids shouldn't harvest strawberries either
Michael W Cook
2005-01-16 14:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frances Kemmish
Post by William Black
Post by Michael W Cook
But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.
There's one easy way to stop that.
Kids shouldn't throw stones at soldiers...
I guess kids shouldn't harvest strawberries either
http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng


"Killings of Palestinian children"

"The majority of Palestinian children have been killed in the Occupied
Territories when members of the IDF responded to demonstrations and stone
throwing incidents with unlawful and excessive use of lethal force. Eighty
Palestinian children were killed by the IDF in the first three months of the
intifada alone."

MWC
Michael W Cook
2005-01-16 14:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Michael W Cook
But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.
There's one easy way to stop that.
Kids shouldn't throw stones at soldiers...
EVERY country in the civilised world has 'Rules of Engagement'.

NONE allows the shooting of children for throwing stones.

MWC
William Black
2005-01-17 17:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
EVERY country in the civilised world has 'Rules of Engagement'.
NONE allows the shooting of children for throwing stones.
The US in Iraq?

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

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Matthew Harley
2005-01-16 22:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Michael W Cook
But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.
There's one easy way to stop that.
Kids shouldn't throw stones at soldiers...
here is the concept of proportionate force in human rights
law. Do you believe that shooting stone-throwing kids is a
use of "proportionate force"?

"Amnesty Warns Of Israeli War Crimes

"He urged both sides to react to attacks with proportionate
force, saying Israeli troops had appeared to move from
firing tear gas to live rounds too quickly. "If a kid is
throwing stones at you, but is not putting any lives at
risk, then you do not shoot him," he said.""
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/110200-01.htm

I have noted that you seem to be a leftist person with
liberal views which dry up when Israeli excesses are
criticised.

You may be a Jewish left-wing person who can't see through
Israeli propaganda.

If true, that's unusual because Jewish left-leaning people
have been among the most vociferous critics of fascist
Sharon!

Would you please explain yourself.


Matt Harley
hippo
2005-01-16 17:59:52 UTC
Permalink
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by hippo
don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction.
It takes guts to join in the military and serve in combat for your country.
But it takes a coward like Goldman to shoot kids who throw stones.
The likelihood of combat for the IDF is ever present. Just look at their
casualty figures. I don't think it is ever the purpose of the IDF to shoot
children throwing stones and neither does any reasonable person. Molotov
cocktails and RPGs are quite different. The IDF does considerable training
to prevent the accidental shooting of the innocent (non threatening) but as
long as it remains necessary for IDF forces to enter populous areas it is
going to happen. -the Troll
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-16 00:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Cook calls me OJ . the Name is R.J.,,,, he must think it is a Dig on me
since OJ killed a Goldman and is now living in Florida, Cook thinks he can
rankle me. but hell I've seen far worse then this idiot cook can bring on !
Post by hippo
"Michael W Cook" wrote in message
Post by Michael W Cook
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the illegal settlers in the West
Bank speak with an American accent and also have duel US/Israeli
citizenship, they are also one of the main causes of the conflict.
Post by hippo
The US pilots who fought in
the RAF and RCAF in WWII, and the Lafayette Escadrille in the first war,
certainly were not in it for money. -the Troll
They were fighting a common enemy at the time, OJ isn't.
I don't know your OJ but it takes guts to serve in the IDF and no sane
person would do it for either money or a passport or anything but
conviction. I met a father in Israel who's eldest son was about to be
inducted into the army. The man's face was gray with concern and with good
reason. The weak in spirit are going the other way. -the Troll
hippo
2005-01-16 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
<wrote in message
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Cook calls me OJ . the Name is R.J.,,,, he must think it is a Dig on me
since OJ killed a Goldman and is now living in Florida, Cook thinks he can
rankle me. but hell I've seen far worse then this idiot cook can bring on !
It seems you guys have set up a pretty bitter personal feud. That's your
business but this sort of thing is unfortunate and unproductive for Usenet
which is best used for the dispassionate exchange of ideas (although all of
us slip now and again). -the Troll

Posted from AHB.
Michael W Cook
2005-01-16 23:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
Cook calls me OJ . the Name is R.J.,,,, he must think it is a Dig on me
since OJ killed a Goldman and is now living in Florida, Cook thinks he can
rankle me. but hell I've seen far worse then this idiot cook can bring on
"Cook thinks he can rankle me" ?

Hilarious.

I don't think, I know, it's like taking candy from a kid.

The problem is, you are so stupid it's a no-contest each and every time.
I only have to blink and you swallow the bait and fall into line, because
you're an arsehole, Goldman, and always will be.

MWC
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 17:33:45 UTC
Permalink
sorry ass clown I'm a citizen of Israel///
you lose again
piss off bog boy
Post by Michael W Cook
mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1.. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2.. Hired for service in a foreign army.
That's you alright - Born in America, yet you fight for Israel, a foreign
power and NOT the country of your birth.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1.. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2.. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
You again, Israel was NOT the country of your birth.
You're a hireling alright - You're nothing but Canon-Fodder.
Expendable.
No use to man or beast.
A Loser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English mercenarie, a mercenary, from Old French mercenaire,
from Latin mercnnrius, from mercs, wages, price.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
merce·nari·ly adv.
merce·nari·ness n.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
mercenary
adj 1: marked by materialism [syn: materialistic, worldly-minded] 2: used of
soldiers hired by a foreign army [syn: mercenary(a), freelance(a)] 3: profit
oriented; "a commercial book"; "preached a mercantile and militant
patriotism"- John Buchan; "a mercenary enterprise"; "a moneymaking business"
[syn: mercantile, moneymaking(a)] n : a person hired to fight for another
country than their own [syn: soldier of fortune]
You again, quite why you deny it is beyond me.
MWC
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 18:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
sorry ass clown I'm a citizen of Israel///
you lose again
piss off bog boy
You were an American Citizen, then you became an Israeli citizen after doing
your mercenary service with the IDF.

OJ took the Zionist Shilling......TRAITOR.
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 19:41:14 UTC
Permalink
looks like you can't read a definition at all you moronic old poofter!
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by r***@bellsouth.net
sorry ass clown I'm a citizen of Israel///
you lose again
piss off bog boy
You were an American Citizen, then you became an Israeli citizen after doing
your mercenary service with the IDF.
OJ took the Zionist Shilling......TRAITOR.
Michael W Cook
2005-01-15 11:28:56 UTC
Permalink
trai·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trtr)
n.
One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one
who commits treason,
You again, OJ.

You served in the US military and now you serve for the Israeli military,
and you've no doubt passed on classified information to the Zionists.

You're a Traitor, no two ways about it.

Now go away and look up WANKER, because you are one of those as well.

MWC
r***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-15 17:35:14 UTC
Permalink
what's classified about riding in a chopper shooting things?
and anyway I have principals,,,,, something you know little of
so back to your mothers basement you miscreant
Post by Michael W Cook
trai·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trtr)
n.
One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one
who commits treason,
You again, OJ.
You served in the US military and now you serve for the Israeli military,
and you've no doubt passed on classified information to the Zionists.
You're a Traitor, no two ways about it.
Now go away and look up WANKER, because you are one of those as well.
MWC
John Cartmell
2005-01-15 01:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
Harry's actions in wearing a Nazi Uniform as Fancy Dress to a private
party can only be described as inappropriate and insensitive for someone
of his position in society.
Nothing more.
It should make people question his judgement. As a twenty year old that's
OK; he's not yet mature. It makes me question a decision to put him on a
high-flyers officer course where he will be amongst the very youngest and
'matched' with more mature graduates. I wouldn't trust him to make the
decisions an Army officer needs to make and, if he's not to do the job for
real, I want to ask what the hell the Royal Family and the Army are playing
at.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Renia
2005-01-18 01:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
Harry's actions in wearing a Nazi Uniform as Fancy Dress to a private party
can only be described as inappropriate and insensitive for someone of his
position in society.
Nothing more.
For which he has apoligised. As has William, who was also at the party,
and failed to discourage him from wearing the uniform. One of their
friends even dressed up as Granny (HM the Queen). Is she complaining
about that?

Renia
Deborah Sharavi
2005-01-15 00:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Close friends of Prince Harry fear he is "out of control". They say he
is surrounded by a group of "hooray idiots" who are encouraging his
increasingly reckless behaviour.
Oh, crap. He's 19.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Their concern comes as Prince Charles today refused to make Harry
apologise in public for wearing a Nazi swastika and German uniform at a
fancy-dress party. The Prince of Wales says he will not force Harry to
visit Auschwitz or to say sorry on TV. Charles feels his son is being
pilloried for a silly prank.
I wouldn't make the kid apologize either. Nothing to apologize for.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PRINCE CHARLES IS IN DENIAL. ---- DSH
Not about the kid's costume, though.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
But in an unprecedented intervention, one of Harry's closest friends
says it was only the latest in a long line of ill-advised stunts, most
"Those of us who know him best are worried that he is behaving like an
idiot.
I think the same thing about my teenaged son at least five times a
week.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
In the US, the New York Post ran the picture of Harry with the
headline
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Royal Nazi while the Washington Post declared: "Consensus on Prince
Harry's Gaffe: He Knows Nothing."
That's not what they said when he visited AIDs victims in Africa. Leave
the kid alone.

Deborah
D. Spencer Hines
2005-01-14 20:09:48 UTC
Permalink
"Coming soon ... film showing 'gentle' Hitler"

14 January 2005

"A taboo-breaking German film that portrays Hitler as a gentle, kindly
character is to be released in cinemas across Britain.

_The Downfall_ divided German opinion and broke box office records when
it opened there last year. Now the £9 million film is to be shown
here, at the beginning of April.

It follows Hitler during his last days, holed up in his Berlin bunker as
the Russians advanced on the city, and culminates with his suicide
alongside Eva Braun on 30 April, 1945.

This is the first German film in which the Nazi leader, played by Bruno
Ganz, is the central character.

But rather than a bellowing, mass-murdering maniac, it portrays a human,
sometimes gentle Hitler.

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel said: "We are trying to give Hitler a
three-dimensional portrait because we know from all accounts that Hitler
was a very charming man - a man who managed to seduce a whole people
into barbarism."
-------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Will this be the "Prince Harry Defence."?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
William Black
2005-01-15 13:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Coming soon ... film showing 'gentle' Hitler"
14 January 2005
"A taboo-breaking German film that portrays Hitler as a gentle, kindly
character is to be released in cinemas across Britain.
Very late news.

A film 'called 'Uncle Adolf' was shown on TV here last week and covered much
the same ground.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Julian Richards
2005-01-14 21:21:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:14:46 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?
Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.
Fergie The Slut, Duchess of York -- surely one of the most abysmally
air-headed of them all. See Below.
You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back the
Stuarts?
The current heir seems to be a chap in Liechtenstein
Consider -- this Hanover lot has run into the sands and petered out on
you.
Josef Wenzel v.u. zu Liechtenstein -- take a look at him, Brits -- you
could do MUCH worse with this Hanover lot you've inherited and probably
WILL. JOSEPH I, the Jacobites call him. Joseph is reported to be an
11th great-grandson of Charles I.
He's only NINE years old -- TRAINABLE.
Hell, he also probably speaks better English than your GEORGE I ever
did.
I nominate myself as King of the UK. I am quite willing to take on the
present monarch in combat by sword. I have two sons to found the
dynasty and two daughters to marry off (eventually) to seal peace
treaties. I could do with the extra house space too.


--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Doug McDonald
2005-01-14 21:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?
In the case of a 20 year old probably over-testosteroned guy
with an actual chin, such activities point to something
even stranger ... normality. Such people often do somewhat
dubious things on a whim. I'm sure that both our recent
Presidential candidates did similar stupidities while at
a certain east coast college. Even **I** while at a
more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
reading room.

Doug McDonald
D. Spencer Hines
2005-01-14 22:06:26 UTC
Permalink
| stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
| reading room.

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

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

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

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

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

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid
| > [some of them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press
| > that creates these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and
| > Embarrassments -- a combination of the two?
| >
|
| In the case of a 20 year old probably over-testosteroned guy
| with an actual chin, such activities point to something
| even stranger ... normality. Such people often do somewhat
| dubious things on a whim. I'm sure that both our recent
| Presidential candidates did similar stupidities while at
| a certain east coast college. Even **I** while at a
| more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
| stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
| reading room.
|
| Doug McDonald
Renia
2005-01-18 01:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Somehow, I think his mother's influence would have prevented all this,
and some of his other exploits, had she still been alive.

Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
| stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
| reading room.
Not EQUIVALENT ACTS in any way to what Prince Harry, third in line to
succeed to the throne, did..
Harry is NOT just any twenty-year-old British kid. He fails to
understand that.
He has special RESPONSIBILITIES -- and with those responsibilities he
receives special PRIVILEGES -- NOT to be abused.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
|
| > Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid
| > [some of them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press
| > that creates these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and
| > Embarrassments -- a combination of the two?
| >
|
| In the case of a 20 year old probably over-testosteroned guy
| with an actual chin, such activities point to something
| even stranger ... normality. Such people often do somewhat
| dubious things on a whim. I'm sure that both our recent
| Presidential candidates did similar stupidities while at
| a certain east coast college. Even **I** while at a
| more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
| stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
| reading room.
|
| Doug McDonald
tiglath
2005-01-14 23:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Even **I** while at a
more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
reading room.
Hmmm.

Tell us more.
Renia
2005-01-18 01:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?
In the case of a 20 year old probably over-testosteroned guy
with an actual chin, such activities point to something
even stranger ... normality. Such people often do somewhat
dubious things on a whim. I'm sure that both our recent
Presidential candidates did similar stupidities while at
a certain east coast college. Even **I** while at a
more staid Southern school was party to a couple of
stunts, involving an alligator and a greased piglet and a library
reading room.
Do tell. Sounds fascinating!

Renia
D. Spencer Hines
2005-01-14 21:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Hmmmmmm...

"British Grandmother Threw Grandson To Pit Bulls - Scotland Yard" would
be an Elegant Variation on this one.

DSH
--------------------

"Brazilian man threw mother to pit bulls - police"

14 Jan 2005 18:49:45 GMT

Source: Reuters

"SAO PAULO, Brazil, Jan 14 (Reuters) - A Brazilian man arguing with his
88-year-old mother threw her into a neighbors' yard where two pit bulls
mauled her to death, police said on Friday.

Painter Luiz Polidoro, 48, picked up his mother Maria and pitched her
over the yard wall during an argument on Thursday afternoon at her
house. Two pit bulls tied up in the neighboring yard then savaged her
and she died later in hospital, a police spokesman said.

"He is an alcoholic. He was robbing his mother's pension money so he
could drink," the dogs' owner, Helder Bento Rodrigues, told O Estado de
Sao Paulo newspaper.

Polidoro told police his mother had jumped over the wall on her own.

The newspaper said he had tried to rescue her. When police arrived, he
was cradling the blood-soaked woman.

Polidoro has been jailed in Sao Paulo and charged with murder."
-----------------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Renia
2005-01-18 01:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Brazilian man threw mother to pit bulls - police"
Hmm. Jackie Stallone comes to mind. Oh, no. Sorry. Jackie is the pit-bull.

Renia
D. Spencer Hines
2005-01-15 01:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Hmmmmmm...

Is Prince Charles, who has blundered badly himself, now beginning a
crawl-back -- a back and fill?

A royal spokesman has allegedly DENIED reports that Prince Charles, has
ordered both Harry, 20, and his elder brother, Prince William, to travel
to the site of the former concentration camp in Auschwitz in order to
learn more about the past.

The Sun, as Reuters reports, thinks differently. Vide infra.

Curiouser & Curiouser....

The key sticking point may be the word "ORDERED" them to go to
Auschwitz -- rather than "STRONGLY ENCOURAGED"....

A fig leaf of VERY small dimensions.

Hilarious!

DSH
-----------------------

"Charles sends Harry to Auschwitz"
15 January 2005

"Prince Charles has ordered son Harry to visit Auschwitz concentration
camp after he caused outrage around the world by wearing a Nazi uniform
to a party.

The Sun newspaper said Charles was "incandescent with rage" with the
20-year-old grandson of the Queen and wants him to make a private trip
to Auschwitz to learn more about the Holocaust.

Jewish groups had demanded Harry go to the camp in southwest Poland to
make amends for wearing a swastika armband and an army shirt with Nazi
regalia at a costume party at the weekend.

The Sun quoted a royal source as saying that Charles told his older son,
William, to travel with Harry to Auschwitz.

"There will be no publicity and they will go with a Jewish charity," the
source said. "Their father has visited Auschwitz himself and believes
Harry and William would both benefit by grasping a greater understanding
of the horrors by actually visiting."

The tabloid said William, 22, accepted part of the blame because he was
present when Harry picked the Nazi costume in a fancy-dress shop before
the private party in southwest England.

Harry's behaviour drew protests from around the world, with the 60th
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on January 27. The Nazis
murdered six million Jews.

Harry, son of the late Princess Diana and third in line to the throne,
said he was sorry if he had caused any offence. "It was a poor choice
of costume and I apologise," he said.

His apology failed to take the heat out of the row. The voice of the
establishment, The Times, dismissed his apology as "feeble" and said he
had fallen in with "a dubious group of self-indulgent young men who are
apparently content with a life of pointless privilege." -- Reuters"
-------------------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Tommy
2005-01-15 01:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmmm...
Is Prince Charles, who has blundered badly himself, now beginning a
crawl-back -- a back and fill?
A royal spokesman has allegedly DENIED reports that Prince Charles, has
ordered both Harry, 20, and his elder brother, Prince William, to travel
to the site of the former concentration camp in Auschwitz in order to
learn more about the past.
He's not going to Auschwitz..He's not going to be told what to do by a bunch
of Zionazi's.
----------------------
Prince Harry Rules Out Auschwitz Visit
11:28 am PST, 13 January 2005

Prince Harry won't go to Auschwitz as atonement for wearing a Nazi uniform
at a party, Reuters reports.

The 60th anniversary of the death camp's liberation is in two weeks.

Jewish groups demanded the 20-year-old grandson of Queen Elizabeth make the
symbolic gesture as a way of apologising for wearing a swastika armband and
an army shirt with Nazi regalia at a costume party on Saturday.

The prince has apologised for his "mistake" but Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of
the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he should accompany the British
delegation on January 27 to Auschwitz.

A royal official said there were no plans for the prince to attend any of
the ceremonies at Auschwitz.  

http://7am.com/cgi-bin/wires02.cgi?1000_2005011301.htm
Gab
2005-01-15 02:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmmm...
Is Prince Charles, who has blundered badly himself, now beginning a
crawl-back -- a back and fill?
A royal spokesman has allegedly DENIED reports that Prince Charles, has
ordered both Harry, 20, and his elder brother, Prince William, to travel
to the site of the former concentration camp in Auschwitz in order to
learn more about the past.
He's not going to Auschwitz..He's not going to be told what to do by a bunch
of Zionazi's. NO! HE WILL DO WHAT THE REL NAZIS TELL HIM TO DO.
----------------------
Prince Harry Rules Out Auschwitz Visit
11:28 am PST, 13 January 2005
Prince Harry won't go to Auschwitz as atonement for wearing a Nazi uniform
at a party, Reuters reports.
The 60th anniversary of the death camp's liberation is in two weeks.
Jewish groups demanded the 20-year-old grandson of Queen Elizabeth make the
symbolic gesture as a way of apologising for wearing a swastika armband and
an army shirt with Nazi regalia at a costume party on Saturday.
The prince has apologised for his "mistake" but Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of
the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he should accompany the British
delegation on January 27 to Auschwitz.
A royal official said there were no plans for the prince to attend any of
the ceremonies at Auschwitz.
http://7am.com/cgi-bin/wires02.cgi?1000_2005011301.htm
adamadamant
2005-01-15 04:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid
[some of them] or is it just the far more aggressive British
Press that creates these hilarious British Royal Blunders,
SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a combination of the two?
Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly
foolish and fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.
But neither are they hounded by a tabloid press of the likes of
that which exists in the UK.

I'd have a lot more sympathy with the outrage shown by the media
and anybody thay can doorstep (from Joaquin Soler to Israeli
politicians), if they showed the same level to a musical comedy
currently very popular in London's West End: Mel Brooks' The
Producers.

However that is artistic and sophisticatedly comedic bad taste, and
in the name of freedom of expression it must be defended to the
hilt, because who knows what might be next: the media? Oh- and
btw, it wouldn't sell newspapers either.

Much easier to descend on a young man with typically juvenile bad
taste and with little practical freedom to reply- and that is what
I find is truly the nasty part of all this: the exploitation of
vulnerabilty for financial gain and the need of a cut-throat,
competive media to ensure that no-one is left out of a feeding
frenzy.

I suspect that is what Harry's Old Man is really pissed off about:
not anything intrinsic to wearing a nazi uniform (just like any
other Brit can- he went out and hired it), but that he hasn't
apparently learned anything yet about risks, however privately
undertaken, of exposing himself to the UK media.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Fergie The Slut, Duchess of York -- surely one of the most
abysmally air-headed of them all. See Below.
You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back
the Stuarts?
Yes, I might just return permanently to old Albion if a Charles II
character came back singing 'Happy Times Are Here Again'- but not,
of course, if he were in any sort of period costume.

Andy.
Renia
2005-01-18 01:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?
Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.
Fergie The Slut, Duchess of York -- surely one of the most abysmally
air-headed of them all. See Below.
You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back the
Stuarts?
The current heir seems to be a chap in Liechtenstein
Consider -- this Hanover lot has run into the sands and petered out on
you.
Josef Wenzel v.u. zu Liechtenstein -- take a look at him, Brits -- you
could do MUCH worse with this Hanover lot you've inherited and probably
WILL. JOSEPH I, the Jacobites call him. Joseph is reported to be an
11th great-grandson of Charles I.
He's only NINE years old -- TRAINABLE.
Hell, he also probably speaks better English than your GEORGE I ever
did.
He was your George I as well.

Renia
Renia
2005-01-18 01:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Remind me. Which Royal of which country was it who murdered most of his
family in recent years?

Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are British Royals uniquely blunder-prone and abnormally stupid [some of
them] or is it just the far more aggressive British Press that creates
these hilarious British Royal Blunders, SNAFU's and Embarrassments -- a
combination of the two?
Other Nations' Royals do not seem to be as pig-ignorantly foolish and
fanatically self-destructive as the British Royals.
Fergie The Slut, Duchess of York -- surely one of the most abysmally
air-headed of them all. See Below.
You Brits might just want to replace this bad lot -- bring back the
Stuarts?
The current heir seems to be a chap in Liechtenstein
Consider -- this Hanover lot has run into the sands and petered out on
you.
Josef Wenzel v.u. zu Liechtenstein -- take a look at him, Brits -- you
could do MUCH worse with this Hanover lot you've inherited and probably
WILL. JOSEPH I, the Jacobites call him. Joseph is reported to be an
11th great-grandson of Charles I.
He's only NINE years old -- TRAINABLE.
Hell, he also probably speaks better English than your GEORGE I ever
did.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-------------------------
'Diana would be proud'
By Stephen Deal, Metro
14 January 2005
"The Duchess of York leapt to the defence of Prince Harry over his Nazi
costume blunder yesterday, saying: 'His mother would be proud of him.'
Hilarious! Fergie The Airheaded prolongs the agony for the Queen,
Prince Philip and Prince Charles -- keeping the story alive. ---- DSH
The prince's aunt said he 'deserved a break' and added: 'I am behind him
100 per cent. OK, he wore a fancy dress costume, he got it wrong. I
hope the world accepts his apology.' ******
"I am behind him 100 per cent." ?????
This woman is as DUMB as they come. ---- DSH
A photo on the front page of yesterday's Sun newspaper showed the
20-year-old Royal enjoying a drink and a cigarette while dressed as a
member of Rommel's Afrika Corps, complete with red swastika armband.
In a statement, Harry said: 'I am very sorry if I caused any offence or
embarrassment to anyone. It was a poor choice of costume and I
apologise.'
"IF I caused any offence or embarrassment to anyone..." !!!!! -- What An
Idiot Prince Harry Is -- still digging a DEEPER HOLE for himself. ----
DSH
The Ministry of Defence insisted the incident would not affect Harry's
place at Sandhurst military academy, which he is expected to take up in
May.
IT WOULD affect the CANDIDACY of any OTHER applicant to SANDHURST. NOW,
the Royal Family has THAT issue, the issue of blatant, Royal FAVORITISM
to deal with. ---- DSH
The Duchess said she sympathised with the prince because she had made
similar errors of judgment in the past.
She told a US TV channel: 'I know what it is like to have bad press - I
had it for quite a long time.
'But Harry is a great boy, he really is. He is first rate. He does so
much to help so many children all over the world.' However, her comments
appeared to do little to calm the controversy.
HILARIOUS! No kidding. She is pouring PETROL on the FIRE! ---- DSH
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, one of the largest international Jewish
human rights organisations, said the prince should attend a ceremony at
Auschwitz later this month to mark the 60th anniversary of the death
camp's liberation by allied troops. In a strongly worded rebuke, the
US-based centre added: 'This was a shameful act, displaying
insensitivity for the victims, not just for those soldiers of his own
country who gave their lives to defeat Nazism but to the Holocaust
victims.'
CORRECT! ---- DSH
Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom described Harry's use of Nazi
symbols as intolerable. 'This can encourage others to think that
perhaps that period was not as bad as we teach the young generation,' he
said.
RIGHT! The teaching of Modern European History in Britain must be in
the toilet. ---- DSH
Prince Charles was reported to have privately berated Harry but told an
aide his son did not need to grovel and apologise further. Charles was
also said to feel Prince William should have stopped his brother from
wearing the costume."
--------------------
WRONG! Prince Harry DOES need to GROVEL FURTHER -- ASAP. He hasn't
even BEGUN to grovel properly.
OF COURSE Prince William should have STOPPED HIM. He's an idiot too.
More fun and games with the British Royals. They exist primarily to
entertain the World.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Loading...