muff528

Agreement here. One of them primary reasons for relocation of European Jews to the region, and for the later formation of Israel after WW2, was the fact that none of the Western nations wanted them there (including the US.) Ships full of refugees were turned away from the US after the war. The UN just thought they could ship them off to "palestine" and wash their hands of the whole matter. "The Jewish Problem" finally solved. The new problem is that the Jewish people, once again, find themselves in an existential conflict.

Yep, a rational look at the situation shows that there is no "path to peace" for Israel ...only a necessity to keep a strong defensive stance, even while the UN weenies (and now the US) are applying pressure for them to just lay down an take what they got coming.

There is no evidence to suggest that Israel has its sights on any Arab land that has not already been forfeited in the 1967 war, and in fact has returned the Sinai to Egypt (even after denying Israel access to the Suez Canal). And Israel would be foolish to give up strategic areas such as Golan Hts. which their avowed enemies have already used against them. Neither is there any evidence that Israel will threaten genocide (as their enemies have done) for its Arab inhabitants/citizens. Yes, the lines on the map throughout the Arab world are rather meaningless to the populations at large and were drawn without regard to existing tribal or cultural differences. Much like the way the Balkans were divided. Lots of problems caused that way. But, that is the result of losing wars. Still, the dividers could have used some common sense in drawing lines.

You are absolutely right in that a "single-state solution" with a government that represents all citizens is the only option. What you don't seem to get is that the only solution that will be accepted/allowed by the rest of the Islamic world is a one-state solution that subjugates non-muslims to an Islamic state government that treats them as 2nd-class citizens (they will get to keep their heads as long as they pay their protection money and obey the modesty police). evidence: all other muslim countries. "The rest of the Islamic world" is not really relevant to the discussion. The people of the territory of Israel/Palestine will eventually rise up and demand their freedom and I wouldn't want to be one of the people that was standing in their way. Just to follow up on this... "The rest of the Islamic world" have poisoned Israel's relationship with the existing Arab and Bedouin populations from the very first day of Israel's independence. They are most responsible for the current, largely self-imposed condition of these peoples (who are considered citizens of Israel by the Israeli government and who have voting rights and other rights of citizenship.) By "self-imposed" I only mean that they have (maybe unwittingly) allowed external influences to direct their relationship with the new country of Israel. I think that the idea of some imagined Israeli "fear" of being voted into oblivion by the "brown people" is nothing more than race-baiting intended to deflect attention from the real problems. My opinion, of course. And from Wiki (and other sources cited in the article): "According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population of Israel in 2010 is estimated at 1,573,000, representing 20.4% of the population. The majority of these identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship. Many have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as to Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Negev Bedouins tend to identify more as Israelis than other Arab citizens of Israel. Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967, were offered Israeli citizenship, but refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty. They became permanent residents. They are entitled to municipal services and have voting rights." Note that even the Arabs living in the "occupied territories" that have refused Israeli citizenship are entitled to the above-mentioned services an rights. External interference by the surrounding Islamic world has never allowed a normal relationship to develop between an independent Israel and it's non-Jewish population ...from the very beginning. I wonder what Israel would look like now if not for that interference and aggression.

your racism is showing... No, my presence in the Middle East and direct observation are showing. Please name one Arab democracy (the puppet government of Iraq doesn't count, because it is not indigenous [imo]). Go ahead, I'll wait. mh . Turkey, that was easy..... But I wouldn't count them. They are more of a mediterainian country than middle eastern...... Not Arabs, either.

You are absolutely right in that a "single-state solution" with a government that represents all citizens is the only option. What you don't seem to get is that the only solution that will be accepted/allowed by the rest of the Islamic world is a one-state solution that subjugates non-muslims to an Islamic state government that treats them as 2nd-class citizens (they will get to keep their heads as long as they pay their protection money and obey the modesty police). evidence: all other muslim countries. "The rest of the Islamic world" is not really relevant to the discussion. The people of the territory of Israel/Palestine will eventually rise up and demand their freedom and I wouldn't want to be one of the people that was standing in their way. "The rest of the Islamic world" is the reason we are even talking about pre-1967 borders. The"occupied territories" are pre-1967 parts of Syria, Jordan and Egypt (not the mythical "Palestine") and would still be that way if not for the aggressive military buildup against Israel leading up to the 6-day war. also ...how does Obama propose to join together the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into a single, contiguous country which will separate Israel from Syria, Jordan and Egypt? Where will that land come from?

An inept carpenter: "He hammers like lightning ...never strikes twice in the same place."

Your Youtube link implies the the answer is "Alex Trebek" but everyone knows that "Dick Clark" is the real thing that has never changed and never will.

You are absolutely right in that a "single-state solution" with a government that represents all citizens is the only option. What you don't seem to get is that the only solution that will be accepted/allowed by the rest of the Islamic world is a one-state solution that subjugates non-muslims to an Islamic state government that treats them as 2nd-class citizens (they will get to keep their heads as long as they pay their protection money and obey the modesty police). evidence: all other muslim countries.

BINGO!! ...and "peace" is not the goal anyway. The only "path to peace" (as far as it relates to Israel and the Jews) in the ME was passed by when the Jews did not follow Gandhi's advice and acquiesce to the Holocaust. After Israel and the Jews are gone the various Islamic factions in the Middle East can get back to their usual internal squabbles, stonings and head removals.

the consensus is that palestine is where the 1967 borders used to be... So the "consensus" is that once the Palestinians are "returned" to Golan, WB and Gaza (and the Israelis abandon "illegal" settlements) then peace will "return" to the region? BTW- the Palestinians have never needed Iran. But Iran, Syria, etc...etc. DO need the Palestinians. (edit for punct.)

Do you honestly think that will be the end of it? I don't. I think that since Hamas is supported by Iran and their stated goal is to wipe Israel off the map, that they will simply use the gain of the land as a way to further shrink Israel and allow them to more effectively continue their campaign of terrorists attacks. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/950500.htm If Israel agreed to return to the 1967 borders they will also return to the "peace" that existed for them prior to 1967. There would be some other excuse to send rockets into Israel while claiming victimhood. The West Bank and the Golan Hts. would return to whom? Jordan and Syria? Where's "Palestine"? It has never been about the plight of the Palestinian people. They are sadly being used as a political football in an effort by the surrounding Islamic states to exterminate Israel. Iran couldn't care less about the Palestinians other than providing Hamas with such great "human shields".

'She could suck a golf ball through a garden hose!' Chuck "She could suck-start a Harley!"

Can you provide an example of it's use? Does that mean quick? The implication is not so much "quickly" but more like "with certainty". Maybe some combination of both. example: Billybob stayed on the nitrous button a little too long and the blower came off like a prom dress. Generally, the expression does not reflect reality so much as it reflects the imaginations of old farts remembering things that really didn't happen. (I know, there are exceptions)

Don't forget the thermos! You put something hot in it and it stays hot. You put something cold in it and it stays cold. ...How does it know!?

Gator poachers down here use .22's. They don't make too much noise.

This Letter to the Editor appeared in a local newspaper on May 12. ...for your review and comment.

Do you really think that is fair? She is, after all, a woman ...and she did regain partial sight in one eye for a short time. He will be unjustly and permanently blinded in both eyes even though his eyes have twice the value of hers. Maybe it would be fair for him to choose which eye is to be blinded and she is allowed to drop acid in the other one! It's comforting to know that the Human Rights Activists are on it though. They have "expressed alarm" and have "warned against an 'inhumane' sentence" ... from afar, of course. Well, they are restricting the acid to his eyes. When he threw acid on her he covered her face, neck and hands while she was fully conscious. And it's not like there is doubt about his guilt. She identified him, he turned himself in and confessed. True, true ...That makes sense! Only his eyes will be damaged and he will not have all that other damage. And, yes, he will be unconscious. Sounds fair and equitable when you explain it like that. No need for strong words from the Human Rights folks after all. I love a happy ending.

Do you really think that is fair? She is, after all, a woman ...and she did regain partial sight in one eye for a short time. He will be unjustly and permanently blinded in both eyes even though his eyes have twice the value of hers. Maybe it would be fair for him to choose which eye is to be blinded and she is allowed to drop acid in the other one! It's comforting to know that the Human Rights Activists are on it though. They have "expressed alarm" and have "warned against an 'inhumane' sentence" ... from afar, of course.

story It seems that there is a conflict here. "An eye for an eye" in Iranian law would require each blinded eye to be avenged. But since the eyes belong to a woman do her eyes have only half of the value of the male's eyes? Maybe they could blind half of each of the man's eyes. Maybe pour just enough acid into his eyes until he needs glasses. Kinda zen. I wonder how the rational Iranian court will resolve this dilemma.

Most combat rifles have a muzzle velocity of between 2500 and 3200 fps. Since we're only guesstimating, that's not a wide enough range to make much of a drastic difference. How fast the bullets decelerate once they leave the barrel depends upon bullet design and bullet weight, and distance. To clarify for our readers: It will take the bullet about one second to cover that distance. But meanwhile, the sound of the gunshot from the gun is plodding along at only 1,000 fps, and thus will be heard two seconds later. So, the bullet arrives in one second, and the sound in two seconds, for a delay between the bullet and the gunshot sound of one second. And to complicate things further - the velocity of the bullet degrades at a non-linear rate, but the velocity of the sound from the gunshot is constant. Right, but when looking for an enemy shooter, it gives you a rough idea of their distance. Then you scan the terrain at that range for places where he might be hiding. It ain't perfect, but it's better than having no clue at all. My .308 rounds go from about 2,800 fps at the muzzle to about 1500 fps at 1,000 yards. And that's at the extreme end of the range of what anyone shoots a .308. At more normal distances, the deceleration isn't anywhere close to that. And once you've heard the variance between bullet crack and gunshot boom at different distances, your ears get attuned to it, and can tell the difference. I have them figured out for 200, 300, 600 and 1,000 yards because of my match shooting. You can't tell much difference between 200 & 300, but between 300, 600 and 1,000 is easily noticeable. Yes, to all that. In a roundabout way I was only trying to point out that the differences in "time delays" between bullet sound and gunshot sound are only fractions of seconds for significant differences in distances between the observer and the shooter. Degradation of the bullet speed will only make the time delays "tighter" as the constant speed wave front is "outrun" decreasingly by the bullet. All that has to be calculated in your head while being shot at. My guess is you are not doing the math in your mind, but rather instinctively guessing the distances based on experience. Kinda like a quarterback is not actually doing calculus in his head when throwing a pass downfield to the wide receiver. Bad analogy but all I got at 6:45 am.

...Hence, my first sentence and my last sentence.

I disagree with defining it as a political assassination. Killing Castro, for example, would have been a political assassination. Rather, I see it as the targeting of a command-and-control leader of an active enemy force in the field. By way of historical example, I'd liken it more to the shooting-down of General Yamamoto during WWII. That's probably a good analogy but even the killing of Yamamoto was characterized by some as an assassination (rather than a combat casualty) simply because he was personally targeted. But even though OBL was involved in strategic planning (and no doubt provided some tactical input) I envisioned him as more of a visionary, big picture, ideological leader while Zawahiri is more the command-and-control operational leader. (I certainly don't want to imply that I think of OBL as a political leader such as Prime Minister, President, etc.) But my main point and question - Does the killing of a political leader (by an enemy) during wartime equate with a political assassination? Just considering the impending assassination of Qaddafi.

You first have to know the velocity of the bullet (and assume that the speed is constant). You may have some idea of the muzzle velocity if you know your enemy's weapons. If the muzzle velocity is at the speed of sound, the bullet and the report from the gun will arrive simultaneously no matter what your distance from the shooter (if you are in range). If the bullet speed is Mach 2 (say 2000 fps) and you are 2000 ft. from the shooter then you will count only 1 second after the bullet goes by before you hear the gunshot. You better be ready with the stopwatch to get an accurate distance assessment. Compensating for the deceleration of the bullet complicates things further.

The best way to handle the Uganda anti-homosexual law is to sic "Human Rights Watch" on them. The group has experience in the region having done such a great job "watching" the Rwandan genocide.