Cardshark-

No, the Israelis are not Nazis. They have not undertaken the genocidal extermination of an entire people like the Nazis. One could argue that Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, the Hutus in Rwanda and others are like the Nazis but not Israelis by any objective standard.

OTOH, the Israelis do engage, routinely and systematically in Nazi practices. Dispossession and settlement of occupied territory are war crimes criminalized in the Fourth Geneva Convention because they were Nazi practices. Every Israeli settlement is a war crime and every Israeli settler is a war criminal. Israel is the premier ethnic cleanser on the planet today.

Then, there is routine and systematic torture, colective punishment (also a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention) and others.

Unless and until the supporters of Israel address the issue of ethnic cleansing, we will no have no basis for rational discussion.

Ah Jeffrey, the Goebbels approach to argument: tell a big lie, tell it often and hope the world eventually accepts it as fact.

Israel had total control of all access to Sabra and Shatila. Also, from its positions in the hills, Israeli soldiers could look down into the camps. Israel let the Phalange in, watched them murder a 1000 or so, fed the killers lunch when they took a break, watched them kill another 1000 or so and then let them go. Deliberate mass murder planned and executed by Israel through its surrogate.

Just because the Nazis had the Latvians kill most of the German Jews shipped to Riga doesn't mean that the Nazis weren't responsible. Same thing.

Tyler-

Interesting that you move the debate to guns.

I am a far left Democrat, but I can read the Second Amendment. You do have the right to bear arms. In fact, the Second Amendment guarantees that you have the right to have one gun of some kind. It does not guarantee you the right to have two guns or handguns or automatic weapons, etc. If you have one gun, then your right to bear arms has not been infringed. Reading anything else into the Second Amendment is just as wrong and evil as claiming that it does not give people the right to bear arms.

My personal preference is for a law that allows you to have an unlimited number of single-shot long weapons with no registration of any kind. If we can agree that that comports with the requirements of the Second Amendment, then there is common ground to be explored. If not, we fight about guns forever.

BTW, there is NO right to hunt. I don't support prohibiting hunting, but it is a point worth making.

Jeffrey-

Hate filled? You don't know anything about me. The day you hold a single standard for terrorism, I will stop writing. If you're willing to declare all Israeli settlers as terrorists, then I'm willing to agree that these suicide bombers in the making are terrorists. If not, then you are stuck with your classic double standard. Dispossession and settlement of occupied terrotory are war crimes - check out the Fourth Geneva Convention. BTW, I guess you would agree that the French Resistance were also terrorists since they killed thousands of German civilians.

KRD-

I don't really disagree with you. I reject the notion that Palestinians killing Israelis is terrorism, but it is certainly murder and doesn't lead to peace. BUT, RT's story is inherently racist. What other choices do Palestinian women have? They can resist or they can roll over and spread their cheeks for Israeli occupation filth. Why is it OK for Israeli settler women to make their choices? I believe that RT is an all-out supporter of Israel and doesn't even realize that her article is racist - but it is.

So, Rebecca, it's OK for Israeli women to ethnically cleanse Palestinian land, steal Palestinian water, steal and destroy Palestinian crops and murder Palestinian children, but it's not OK for Palestinian women to resist. You disgusting racist.

A better way to say it is 'The Plagiarist formerly kinown as Ann Coulter'. The un-Prince as it were.

Had the American press been doing its job during WWI, the U.S. might not even have entered the war. The U.S. was routinely and flagrantly violating its neutrality by the end of 1914 by trading war materiel with only one side of a belligerency. Eventually, this violation led to unrestricted German submarine warfare against U.S. merchant ships - justly in this case. Had the public known of this violation, we might have backed off our support for just one side.

Also, one of the prime causes of the rise of Nazi Germany was the Treaty of Versailles. Its ridiculous attribution of fault to Germany and its grotesque restrictions on Germany, especially its military, were the basis of profound resentment in Germany. Hitler tapped into this resentment and manipulated it for his own purposes.

Pro choice is good, but Susan Collins is unabashedly pro choice, and she's a Republican. Warner has never called for an end to the war in Iraq - indeed, he's very wishy-washy about that. It's very simple, if you don't support ending the war, then you support continuing it. If you don't support repeal of the Patriot Act, then you support it. If you praise some of Bush's extreme environmental positions - changes to Endangered Species Act, support for Clear Skies, support for forest 'thinning', etc. - then you can't claim to be an environmentalist. In 1970, Warner would actually have been called what he is - country club Republican.