The amount of violence Israel endures in order to hold the holy land would scare the average American out of his Superbowl tickets and his Dale Earnhardt beer mug (full).

...The agreement means that Hamas and Fatah, the two largest political groups in the occupied territories, have adopted a common stand, calling for a viable Palestinian state on all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The two groups also agreed that the question of Palestinian refugees be settled in accordance with UN Resolution 194, which calls for repatriation and indemnification of an estimated 4.5 million refugees, now dispersed to the four corners of the globe.

Predictably, while the agreement was greeted with satisfaction among Palestinians at home and the Diaspora, Israel dismissed it as a "non- starter" and an "internal Palestinian affair".

Hardly surprising given that the Prisoners' Document calls for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pursuant to the rules of international law and in accordance with UN resolutions, which view the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as occupied territories that should be returned to the rightful owners.

Israel, however, views these territories as "disputed" and insists on annexing large swathes of occupied land, especially in the Jerusalem area.

In short, Israel wants a "peace" settlement based not on human rights and international law, but rather on the balance of power. It insists that Palestinians be content with whatever Israel gives them and demand nothing more.

The inter-Palestinian agreement, which contains an implicit recognition of Israel within the 4 June 1967 borders, is not, then, going to lead to any breakthrough in the overall situation, not as long as Israel remains absolutely determined to hang on to the spoils of the 1967 War.

Actually, my reference to the 10's of thousands who couldn't speak had nothing to do with the PKK. I was referring to all those killed in retaliation to the Kudish attempts at independence from 1920 to 1938 (40,000 in '37/'38 alone).

Unless, of course, you have learned to manage the 'optics' of your actions from years of denials in order to maintain your necessary alliances and support a bid to join the E.U.

And as far as the Kurds go, I can think of enough people to make up close to 20% of the Turkish population that will disagree with you.

You really need to look up the principles of logic. What you are suggesting is ludicrous and displays absolutely NO logic.

But you are right about one thing. The Armenians have a better agent than the Kurds.

I do applaud the progress Turkey has accomplished since WWI(ie. democracy and reform) but the fact remains Turkish-Armenians were murdered.

That should be enough evidence for anyone...except the Turkish government

Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.

Since the Turkish perspective is attempting to undo nearly ninety years (and well beyond) of the unopposed one-sided view that has permeated Western minds, also having to contend with charges of "revisionism" and "denial"... defensiveness unfairly becomes part of the picture. While the aim of this site is to present mostly impartial views to get people to question what they have unthinkingly accepted, what this entails is that the Turks are put in the uncomfortable position of having to prove a negative — a difficult, if not impossible task... on the order of attempting to prove God does not exist. The issues are whether there was a state directed policy of extermination (that is, genocide... with the provision that there must be intent — backed up by tangible, no-buts-about-it evidence — as defined by the 1948 United Nations rule... and also whether Armenians constituted a political group, unprotected by another article from the U.N. Convention on Genocide)... and whether the Armenians and other minorities were the sole victims of massacres.

But where the heck are all the GOOD GUYS ??

In your opinion, what would a good friendship consist of?

We don't have real freedom because we are bound to materials things..


we are a society of more more more.. we recieve more yet get less in other forms.

I don't need the biggest, the best, etc. I am certainly not isolating myself from the world by living simply. In my book, isolation would be working 70-80 hrs/wk to pay for things I simply have no need or desire for, all the while neglecting family and friends

We have made our lives so much harder than they have to be. Give me a small cabin in the mountains, a car that runs and a job that pays enough to survive on and I don't need to compete with anyone.

"It is fascinating. In the West, you have bigger homes, yet smaller families; you have endless conveniences - yet you never seem to have any time. You can travel anywhere in the world, yet you don't bother to cross the road to meet your neighbours," he said.

"I don't think people have become more selfish, but their lives have become easier and that has spoilt them. They have less resilience, they expect more, they constantly complete themselves to others and they have too much choice - which brings no real freedom."

You ladies ask yourself this question: What incentive could anyone of you have that would intice a man who falls into that 3% range to ever abandon the life of bliss he already has? Not one thing! He'd just soon throw you to the curb and go home get on the PC and line up 10 more new dates within an hour. You mean nothing to him and never will...

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death.

Hamidullah warned that if the government frees Rahman, "there will be an uprising" like one against Soviet occupying forces in the 1980s.

"The government will lose the support of the people," he said. "What sort of democracy would it be if the government ignored the will of all the people."

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman's freedom.

Or anyone belonging to a majority that are negatively impacted by a minority...

If some of you want to consider the actions of the Extremists as a reflection on 1.2 Billion people who happen to share their religion, so be it. If you want to believe that not protesting something indicates support, so be it.

And you can't know if they are not protesting, or if they are not, why they are not protesting. I'm not arguing that there are supporters. Of course there are. I just don't think you can label someone a supporter simply because they don't protest.

I'm not arguing that there are supporters. Of course there are.

Then my opinion of that REGION would be affected. Again, not my opinion of the ENTIRE RELIGION AND ALL THOSE THAT FOLLOW IT. And again, the Middle East does not represent the entirety of Islam...

I gave you two articles, both from Reuters...

I hold in my hand a rock. I tell you that this rock keeps tigers away. You look around and there are no tigers. Does that mean the rock is responsible? That's specious reasoning (look the word up). The same as "They didn't protest, so they must support."

Why do you continually use the Middle East as your only point of contention with Islam? The Middle East is not the only place where Islam is practiced...

Does every Muslim support the Extremists? If the Answer is no then no it does reflect on Muslims in general.

I do not believe, and have seen no proof, that they make up a large percentage of the 1.2 Billion followers of Islam.

My point exactly. You willingly state that there are more violent protests than peaceful ones without ever doing the research to see if it's true.

I just can't support you in your notion that the few reflect the many and you can't seem to prove that the ones we see are not indeed the few.

How do those peaceful Muslims make sure that the West sees what they're doing?

your saying that they can't figure that out...that they would rather live with the reputation that muslims are mainly terrorists??

No, it doesn't. It would dramatically affect my opinion of the person or persons responsible. Not the religion they happened to belong too.

I'm white. Does this mean the actions of the KKK should reflect on me personally?

Violent protests of muslims outnumbering peaceful ones effects your opinion of muslims in general.

At least 50 people were killed in violent protests against the cartoons in Asia and the Middle East, Danish embassies were attacked and many Muslims boycotted Danish goods.

Protests by Muslims in West Africa have generally been peaceful, except those held in Nigeria

And Ace, you can't disprove my point by saying I'd care less if I was nuked... Not really logic there is it? Although it is a good dance step.