MEANS that the arabs would rather the jews suffer than they(the arabs) prosper.

They told the Germans the same thing when people asked how the Jews, who appeared in the main to be poor and powerless, could be the people who had stabbed Germany in the back,and made their own (the Jews) situation worse in the process.

From a not-quite-clear memory of something I read, I think there is an inversion of Sugarman's sentence to that meaning

in Mein Kampf LWM could find it, if it's there, if he's got the stomach for it.

instead 'anonymust' should have read the latest posts. not that it matters. i won't change baldie's deep-seated bigotry nor will i be able to understand derbig's tolerance of folks like him. what is really the point of this?

particularly the roman catholics (like McEagle)

Good night.

Unsigned Article, Friday, at The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/
/apr/25/israelandthepalestinians.usa

[...] The new pictures do strengthen the impression that a reactor was being built before the Israeli air raid last September, but there remain questions about the provenance of the pictures and the timing of their publication, with the experience of Iraq in mind. Analysts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, question why there is no sign of security measures around the site, and say the building does not seem high enough for a reactor.

[...] If the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor, would that be a breach of international law?

Yes. Under the terms of Syria's safeguards agreement with the IAEA under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, they would have to inform the IAEA as soon as they started planning a nuclear reactor.

- - The Guardian

Scott Ritter replied that the Friday article misinterpreted the treaty.

Scott Ritter, Saturday, at The Guardian:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/
/scott_ritter/2008/04/evidencebased_bombing.html

It looks as if Israel may, in fact, have had reason to believe that Syria was constructing, with the aid and assistance of North Korea, a facility capable of housing a nuclear reactor.

[...] Largely overlooked in the wake of the US revelations is the fact that, even if the US intelligence is accurate [...], Syria had committed no crime, and Israel had no legal justification to carry out its attack. Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and under the provisions of the comprehensive safeguards agreement, is required to provide information on the construction of any facility involved in nuclear activity "as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced to a new facility". There is no evidence that Syria had made any effort to introduce nuclear material to the facility under construction.

[...] While vexing, the Syrian position is totally in keeping with its treaty obligations, and so it is Syria, not Israel, that was in full conformity with international law at the time of Israel's September 6 2007 attack.

[...]

- - Scott Ritter

"landslide Presidential losers. Take the belt and shoe laces." and you could be right. who knows what PTSD can cause - even decades later. (from your lips to god's ears - and this time, the greek gods, (Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad))

so it's not only the palestinian "holocaust" but now the sugarman "mein kampf"? had enough. detest you. bye. see you at the polls.

what is really the point of this?

Oh, you know good and goddam well what the point is, sugarlips.

All you do is take every post to show Zionism as a reasoned, logical, and responsible world performer, actuated only by the highest motives, that of happiness for all mankind. By cleverly and carefully smoothing off all the rough edges of Zionism, and showing the Zionist man as the polished, urbane and sophisticated diplomat (and diviner of the "world's genders") you spend all your time trying to convince people of how nice you are. And you do a great job, damn it, Sugarman. This blog reaches a wide audience and I'm sure many of them will go to bed tonight dreaming of a better, finer, purer Zionism, allcause from your efforts. Why, I wouldn't be surprised to see a big jump in Aliyah due to you.

I sort of feel like a Yiddishe Bruce Lee "Him, I can't fight already. His...hasbara...is..too..power...ful! Oy Gevalt The Evil Eye!"

You have aquitted yourself well, sugarman. I on the other hand, stand condemned, a nudnick and a hoodnik a shonda on a Honda. Oh well, I least I didn't

"roll my own".

nor will i be able to understand derbig's tolerance of folks like him.

I've always had that tolerance problem. Plagued me all my life.

I'm sure you're not afflicted with it.

There is one thing I would really like to clear up. They do have motorcycles in Israel, right? I mean, is it really a bad thing to do? Wait a minute, they must have scooters, I know they have scooters.

You know, there was a Moslem MotoGP rider featured in Cycle World this month. Does Israel have MotoGP?

in any territory available. do you see any?

Gee, considering how much all these people hate us, do you think it is wise for the Jewish State to be so dependent on the Goyim of America for support? Seems like a bad bet.

And gosh, if they hate us so much, do you think it's wise to throw it in their faces like that? You must be awful brave, sugar, to stand up to them like that.

That's how Russell Kirk saw it almost 20 years ago:

Russell Kirk was one the the leading post-war conservative intellectuals and was at best lukewarm about the neo-conservatives. Here's one indictment from a lecture he gave at the Heritage Foundation(1):

"And not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.."

(1)December 15, 1988

The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species

by Kirk, Russell

Heritage Lecture #178

I'm a fourth generation Zionist and the last thing I'd want is a U.S. president who was Hamas's worst nightmare. What I want is a U.S. president who will make it clear that he is not writing a blank check to the worst Likudnik excesses and that policy that operates on the lowest common denominator for the most radical settlers in the West Bank is unacceptable. The vast majority of Israelis would like nothing more than to rid themselves of the responsibility for administering land they know they shouldn't occupy. Peace is a fearful step but after last year's Lebanon war it is far better than any alternative.

As to McCain, frankly I think he's falling into a trap. The Democrats have yet to play the strongest card against him, which is exactly what Glenn points out: he is at best Bushism with a human face. Other than his opposition to torture (which we get no matter who is elected), there appears to be no substantial policy difference between him and the Current Occupant. The MSM can complain all they want about the vacuity of Obama's calls for change, but ultimately McCain is calling for more of the same, and an educated and informed electorate should have none of it.