'Bankers also don't push pencils through screens "just to see what would happen".'

Of course, they are too busy crashing the economy and see who'll pick up the pieces.

"Tightly integrating malware protection into the OS is something MS are trying to do"

I read that as "Tightly integrating malware into the OS", which is something MS has been doing since forever.

@Chet Mannly

As long as Australia stays a faithful poodle to the US then there is little chance of being on the receiving end of sanctions.

@Naughtyhorse

"The word is _entirely_ subjective and malleable, that's why they love to use it so often."

The word has been abused so much by the Israelis that real, god fearing terrorists wouldn't be seen dead associating with the likes that Israel calls "terrorists".

The abuse of the word has reached new depths when after the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of upgrading the State of Palestine's status to non-member state, a former Israeli FM called it a "strategic terror attack".

without this our clients just won't be interested in that market full stop

They can probably fine tune this, eg only affect local domestic broadband connections, plus other refinements for business or hotel based connections etc.

Well that gives a pointer to where the attack came from!

Surely you're not implying his holeyness the Dalai Lama?

@ A Cowards

"And how do you know Stuxnet was a USA creation?"

The US govt did nothing to deny the NY Times report, and in fact took credit for it.

"Iran which only wants to enrich uranium for innocent "research purposes" - the research being "how big a bomb can we build?"

If you have definite proof that Iran is making a "bomb", then show it to the US and the IAEA, because so far they don't have proof.

"when the **** hits the fan, who do you think everyone is going to be trying to hide behind in order to have their butts saved? Iran or the USA?"

When the shit comes from the US as is most likely the case, don't look to them to save you.

"Just look at 20th century history in China to decide if you really want them to be the world's superpower."

Since WW2 China has only been involved in 2 major wars involving other countries, Korean and Vietnam. The former as a result of US led invasion of N Korea, and the latter as a result of US led attempts to conquer N Vietnam.

It has also been involved in one or two minor border skirmishes with India, Vietnam and the USSR/Russia.

Since the death of Chairman Mao and the subsequent opening up of the economy, China hasn't been involved in any wars or lent support to whatever communist "insurgencies" that remain in around the world.

In contrast the US has invaded or tried to invade or has unleashed major military action on:

- N Korea (and threatened to use nuclear weapons on China for daring to support the North)

- Cuba

- Dominican Republic (on the side of a military regime which deposed a democratically elected leader)

- Vietnam

- Cambodia

- Laos (between 1964 and 1973, US bombers dropped more ordnance on Laos in this period than was dropped during the whole of the WW2. This is in a country just over half the size of California.)

- Grenada

- Panama

- Iraq

- Afghanistan

- Iraq (again)

And the US has a shameful record of covertly or otherwise of deposing democratically elected or popular leaders who are "too independent" (ie doesn't do what the US tells them to do) and replacing them with often brutal military dictatorships or despots:

Iran 1953

Guatemala 1954

Iraq 1963

Brazil 1964

Chile 1973

Turkey 1980

Nicaragua 1980s, trafficking arms to Iran and using proceeds to fund the Sandinista terrorists, trafficking drugs via Manuel Noriega (dictator of Panama, subsequently abducted by the US and convicted for drugs trafficking) and using proceeds to fund the Sandinista terrorists who wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government.

Venezuela 2002

Libya 2011

Syria 2011-?

Dictatorships or authoritarian regimes that even China doesn't support are eagerly propped up by the US:

South America, all the right-wing military dictatorships

Africa, all the resource-rich regimes, plus Egypt before the overthrow of Mubarak

Middle East, all the oil-rich authoritarian monarchies

Central Asia, all the oil-rich dictatorships

Asia - Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, S Korea all had military dictatorships fully supported by the US until popular action replaced them with more or less functioning democracies.

With China you get what it says on the packet - they will not interfere in other countries internal affairs and they don't.

With the US they say they're fully committed to freedom of speech, self-determination, human rights, rule of law etc, except when they're not, which from the above list of examples is a lot of the time.

It seems the app allows you to keep a diary of the shape and colour of your turds as well. Someone must find this handy.

@Evil Auditor

The interface seems to allow you to control the aim on at least 1 axis (front-rear).

"Luckily I have several other fake named accounts to use."

I think you meant to say "Unfortunately I have several other fake named accounts to use."

"The radio spectrum surrounding us belongs to us. Governments selling it to Telcos who increase their charges to pay for it is simply a substantial stealth tax on mobile communications."

I'm sure if the government gave out free licences to the telcos you would also be complaining that the government had been negligent for not extracting the maximum value from our public resources.

"Apple have taken some flak but then again they are +500m a year (and more as they sell more devices)."

You seem to think that's a good thing. It might be if you're a shareholder, and only if Apple thinks it should share the savings with the shareholders and continue to issue dividends.

But if you're an isheep then those savings are not passed onto you in the form of lower device prices.

Motorola is not being generous at all with their cap of $100-125M. Assuming $500 per device, then 2.25% yields $11.25. MS will have to sell over 10M devices to reach the cap, which we all know is not going to happen.

It's clear the "key powers" don't want to allow the rest of the world to do "officially" what the "key powers" already do themselves.

At least the "world powers" are upfront about it this time. Normally they make the rules that they intend to break.

Apple is a bit late. Chinese companies already released iphone 5s last year. Now they're probably onto iphone 6s or 7s.

I see from your tone that you don't believe the Palestinians. Do you believe the UK govt then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/uk-ready-to-back-palestine-statehood

"Whitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.

Abbas is also being asked to commit to an immediate resumption of peace talks "without preconditions" with Israel. The third condition is that the general assembly's resolution does not require the UN security council to follow suit."

It's obvious that the UK/US/France are also trying to cover their own arses - in the event that Israel is brought before one of the two courts, the actions of the three in supporting Israel's criminal actions will be severely called into question. Sales of arms to a regime knowing full well they would be used to kill civilians would be one of the charges levelled against at least one of the trio.

Again, since Israel claims to be the perpetual victim of terrorists attacks, why doesn't it relish the chance to bring the perpetrators to justice?

"Nobody anywhere had ever thought about it before you mentioned it."

It's not so much that nobody has thought about it, it's just that for a lot of people thinking about it is as far as it gets. Instead of actually /doing/ it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/palestinians-un-statehood-bid-hamas

The US/EU/Israel is forever branding the Palestinians as terrorists and perpetrators of untold war crimes. However when push comes to shove it's obvious who is more worried about being judged in a court of law.

"But the US and Britain are attempting to weaken the impact of a UN vote in support of statehood by putting considerable pressure on the Palestinian leadership to offer guarantees that it will not take advantage of the new status to accuse Israel of war crimes at the international criminal court (ICC) or seek territorial rulings at the international court of justice.

Palestinian officials said Britain and the US had pressed Abbas to sign a confidential side letter, which would not be presented to the UN general assembly, committing the Palestinian Authoritity not to accede to the ICC.

France has been pressuring the Palestinians to amend the resolution before statehood is recognised to make it clear that Israel could not be taken to the ICC for its actions. Israeli officials are particularly concerned over an investigation of its assault on Gaza four years ago, Operation Cast Lead, which was widely condemned as a war crime because of the scale of Palestinian deaths and the level of destruction."

'... as one European official put it, "taking Israel to the court is a real red line"'

Yeah, a red line drawn with the blood of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are ready to be judged for their alleged crimes, is Israel ready for the same?

"Your attempts to equate a redundant Jewish splinter group with mainstream Fakeistinian politics is simply laughable."

You haven't addressed the fact that a leader of a terrorist group, Yitzhak Shamir, was eventually made a leader of Israel. And Israel awards members of the terrorist group to which Shamir belonged with military honours.

Iran not only regularly directly threatens the destruction of Israel ...

"Instead go argue directly with Ban Ki Moon"

He is a spineless US poodle. His only commendable act so far is to attend this year NAM summit despite US pressure.

"Ban Ki-Moon condemns threats against Israel"

"EU's Ashton condemns "hateful" Iran remarks on Israel"

I missed the part where Iran called on the Palestinians (or even just Hamas) to destroy Israel. Please point it out.

"And then we're off into some fantasy land regarding Iran's nuke activities!"

Please point to any credible source which says there is conclusive evidence that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program, and is currently intent on making nuclear weapons.

"Iran has a tiny medical reactor that alerady has a stock of fuel to last it decades."

Yeah the last (only?) batch of fuel sold to Iran by Argentina in 1992 is estimated to last 10-20 depending on what capacity Iran operated the reactor at. So 2 decades on from 1992, brings us to the present, which is about time the fuel runs out. So you seem to be right for once, except you meant decades from now, in which case you are obviously wrong. Hence Iran's need for more fuel to feed this reactor and the 5 others that they're building. This will allow them to be near self-sufficient in medical isotopes.

Considering that US sold Iran that original medical reactor which used HEU fuel, and since then has refused to sell them the fuel or to even deliver fuel apparently already paid for, forcing Iran to turn to Argentina to get the reactor converted to use 20% enriched fuel, and even then the US has pressured other countries to stop selling any fuel to Iran, it is only rational for Iran to make sure they don't get shafted by the US anymore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/10/AR2009101002295.html

http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2492/a-primer-on-irans-medical-reactor

"In a letter dated 19 February 2010, Iran informed the IAEA that it was still seeking to purchase the required fuel for the TRR on the international market and would be willing to exchange LEU for fuel assemblies "simultaneously or in one package inside the territory of Iran." Iran requested that the IAEA convey this message to the P5+1 but the sides were not able to restart negotiations. [54] The breakdown of talks was followed by a new nuclear fuel swap proposal brokered by Brazil and Turkey. On 17 May 2010, Brazil, Turkey and Iran issued a joint statement in which Iran agreed to export half of its LEU stock (1,200kg) to Turkey as a confidence-building measure, in return for 120kg of 20% enriched uranium for use in its medical research reactor.[55] The deal, however, was not accepted by Western countries, who saw Iran's agreement to the removal of only 1,200kg of LEU from its territory as too little, too late."

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/nuclear/

"But, as I showed with the simple example of Silwan and East Jerusalem, you can't state all of the West Bank is unquestioningly their land. It is a double-standard to insist Israel has a building freeze unless the Fakeistinians do also"

East Jerusalem has been illegally annexed by Israel, not recognised by any other UN member, and it is under the full control of Israel, any building works going on there can only proceed with Israel's say so. So what is your point again?

"but Israel agreed to it for ten months becasue they wanted talks."

I've already pointed out the timeline of events in that so-called 10 months freeze. Netanyahu deliberately humiliated Biden and rubbed Obama's nose it by announcing the new settlements during Biden's visit to Israel.

"Return of those areas to Fakeistinian control was conditional on there being an improvement in security, i.e. no terror attacks. That didn't happen"

Israel also has a duty to stop its violence as well, during the period 1993-2000, as a result of violence on both sides, over 300 were killed on the Israeli side, and over 700 killed on the Palestinian side. And don't you whine that "they started it".

"indeed until the Barrier went up the suicide bombers were being sent to kill Israeli civillians with almost clockwork regularity."

Said barrier of which an estimated 10% is built on stolen Palestinian land.

"Even after the Barrier violent attacks against Israeli settlements in the West Bank continued, in breach of the Oslo Accord terms."

And there are just as frequent, if not more, attacks by settlers on Palestinians. When Palestinians attack settlers, they are automatically labelled terrorists and are often killed outright with no right to a trial, and have their family homes demolished as a matter of course as punishment on the remaining family members. When settlers attacks Palestinians, the Israeli authorities say they will investigate and more often than not no charges are pressed, and in the rare cases where settlers are charged and prosecuted and found guilty they are given a token sentence, their families are not punished, their homes are not demolished. Is that fair?

"but now Hamas is the elected representatives of the Fakeistinians, and they reject the Accord outright because their only solution is the eradication of Israel."

The negotiations towards a final settlement is with the President of the PA, who currently is Abbas. He has been given the authority to negotiate with Israel. There are hardline, fundamentalist Jewish parties who flit in and out of Israel's governing coalition all the time, and who oppose any kind of peace with the Palestinians. And Lieberman's raving, foaming at the mouth racist attitudes is as ugly as anything the Palestinians has to offer. So what was your point again?

"Please provide proof of collaboration between Fatah and Israel or I'll simply put that statement in the "blindly ranting" bin."

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/98-squaring-the-circle-palestinian-security-reform-under-occupation.aspx

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/fatah-asked-israel-to-help-attack-hamas-during-gaza-coup-wikileaks-cable-shows-1.331654

"Really? Please do provide proof of this, actual concrete actions to disrupt any reconcilliation."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the authority must decide whether it wants "peace with Israel or peace with Hamas."

Sounds like an explicit threat. Coupled with the "leaked" plans to topple Abbas it shows just how lawless and depraved Netanyahu and friends is.

"Partial compliance is not compliance. Still, despite the Fakeistinians not living up to their full commitments, Israel has returned areas of the West Bank to PNA control as a measure of good faith."

Up to the Second Intifida, 7 years after Oslo an area of less than one fifth of the West Bank is under nominal full PA control. Despite the PA's efforts, continued Israeli actions such as denying permits for Palestinians to build new homes; continual building of settlements; arbitrary and humiliating searches, beatings & detentions; turning a blind eye to destruction of property and violence by settlers; forcing Palestinians to go through dozens of checkpoints to get from X to Y within the West Bank; no guaranteed safe passage from West Bank to the Gaza Strip; etc can only fuel Palestinian resentment and result in eventual violence.

Again, Netanyahu shows the worth of Israel's good faith:

"They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]," he said. "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/netanyahu-in-2001-america_n_649427.html

It's small wonder that Sarkozy and Obama have no love for that guy.

"Isn't it a first step to identify the killers, THEN proceed to try them? You cannot prove who the killers were, indeed your own source mentions Afghan government forces, not US ones."

Here's another report on that same incident:

"Western Troops Accused of Executing 10 Afghan Civilians, Including Children"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article6971638.ece

“First the foreign troops entered the guest room and shot two of them. Then they entered another room and handcuffed the seven students. Then they killed them. Abdul Khaliq [the farmer] heard shooting and came outside. When they saw him they shot him as well. He was outside. That’s why his wife wasn’t killed.”

"Great, so it must be really easy for you to supply some links to back up your claims, right? Oh, you don't. This is my surprised face, honest!"

Search for: night raids afghanistan

And you will get all the links you need.

And here's a few quotes from Afghan president Hamid Karzai:

"Similarly, going into the Afghan homes – searching Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government – is something that should stop now."

"No coalition forces should go into Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government."

"Civilian deaths and arbitrary decisions to search people’s houses have reached an unacceptable level and Afghans cannot put up with it any longer."

"Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such."

"Part of that list was that they shouldn't, on their own, enter the houses of our people and bombard our villages and detain our people."

"Which has nothing to do with modern war crimes commited by Hamas or Fatah. Trying to excuse the massive and continued practice of war crimes by refering back to a previous event is self-delusion."

Are you stupid or are you really stupid. Lehi (Stern Gang) used terrorism to fight for an Israeli state. This Israeli state directly resulted in the Palestinian problem, giving rise to the PLO and later Hamas who are using largely the same tactics as what the Stern Gang used, to fight for a Palestinian state. Now say it again that there is no connection.

'You didn't even manage to accuse Yitzhak Shamir of any crimes, just said "he was in this group, it had an ideology, therefore it justifies war crimes."'

1) Shamir was one Chief of Operations of the Stern Gang. He never denied being a member, and seemed to have reveled in the fact, and defended its policies.

2) It is not a matter of debate that the gang has carried out numerous terrorists activities. Even Israel acknowledged that when it declared it a terrorist organisation and arrested its members (but subsequently gave them a state pardon).

Hence Yitzhak Shamir was a leader of a terrorist organisation. Israel requires less proof than that to deem the killing of what they say are Palestinian militants (and any collateral damage civilians), as righteous in the name of "self defence".

This is the headline in the Daily Telegraph's obituary of Shamir:

"Yitzhak Shamir, who has died aged 96, was a former terrorist who, a little to his own surprise, found himself Prime Minister of Israel in 1983."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9367470/Yitzhak-Shamir.html

"Israel was founded by an act of the UN Security Council, unanimously approved."

UN General Assembly Resolution 181: For: 33 Abs: 10 Against: 13

"Maybe you forgot to mention it seeing as it is part of the basis of the Oslo Accord which the Fakeistinians signed up to but have not adhered to. The second of the key principles of 242 is as follows ..."

Arafat and Abbas have largely adhered to the Oslo Accords.

To link the Oslo Accords with the actions or inactions of the other Arab states in your manner:

"Now, consider that of the Arab states directly involved in that War - Syria, Egypt and Jordan - Syria has not signed a peace treaty with Israel"

is meaningless. If Israel wants peace with those other Arab nations then reach "Oslo Accords" with them as well, because the Oslo Accords is an agreement concering Israel and the Palestinians, only.

Until Israel returns the illegally annexed Golan Heights to Syria then Syria will not sign a peace treaty - not whilst Assad is in power. Of course, if the US manages to install a puppet government in Syria then there is a good chance that the Golan Heights will be ceded in return for US "aid". "Aid", because these days, US "aid" is largely in the form of arms sales, and the training of the police to suppress dissent, and training of the military to "counter insurgents".

"they have a habit of siding with losers, just like when Haj Amin al-Husseini (Arafat's uncle) sided with Hitler. Gee, I wonder which one of Hitler's policies appealed to the Muslims that joined the SS?"

If true it looks like a page straight out of the Stern Gang's playbook, when they tried to ally with the Nazis to fight against the hated British. Gee, I wonder which of Hitler's policies appealed to the terrorist gang?

"Iran supports Hamas and calls for the destruction of Israel. I suppose you will try and weasel out by claiming Iran is Persian and not Arab."

Following Hamas' denunciation of Assad (Iran's ally) and the relocation of their offices to Qatar, Iran's support for Hamas is questionable. In any case can you point to any instance in which Iran called on the Palestinians (or even just Hamas) to destroy Israel?

Ever since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the "West" has been calling for Iran's destruction, and this was translated into action with the less than covert support for Iraq's invasion of Iran. So what does that prove?

I don't know of any other country that can make explicit threats of war against another country without getting at least a rap on the knuckles from the UN. But Israel can, and continues to make bellicose and belligerent threats against Iran on the basis of unproven claims that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

".... the Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves....." How is the Fakeistinians shooting rockets out of Gaza at Israeli civillians a defensive act? ..."

In exactly the same manner as Israel is defending itself by killing civilians, women and children alike in its operations to kill militants.

"If Hamas and Fatah had both refrained from attacking Israel out of Gaza the blockade would have been long gone."

And you fail to ask why the Palestinians are attacking Israel. As long as their land is being occupied and they aren't able to lead normal lives and Israel has no intention of resuming the so called peace process then Palestinians are justified in using any means at their disposal to fight against it.

"like when Iran is trying to hide news of their upping their uranium refinement efforts"

My oh my, I don't know where you get your news from. Maybe from the point of view of living under a stone all news is "hidden". Any time there is a ramping up of Iran's nuclear activities, they are pleased to announce it to the world with glee. It is both a way to telling the US that Iran will continue to exercise it's RIGHT to enrichment unless the US can come to the negotiating table with sensible offers, and as a way to show the Iranian people that they are making progress on nuclear technology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/04/iran-suspend-uranium-enrichment

Note how Iran denied that they suspended enrichment.

More importantly, what most western media fails to highlight is the fact that whenever Iran's supply of 20% enriched uranium reaches a certain amount, they convert the "surplus" into fuel for their medical reactor. This conversion renders the material unsuitable for weaponisation. To Fox's credit they do have a report:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/06/iran-shifts-enriched-uranium-to-reactor-fuel-stock-in-confidence-show-for-west/

And the sham of the P5+1 "talks", which is nothing more than modern day gunboat diplomacy - Iran, stop your ALL enrichment even though you are entitled to it, or we will bomb you back to the Stone Age (all options on the table).

Reasonable alternatives were put forward by countries such as Russia, Turkey and Brazil. These were initially welcomed by the US, but behind the scenes arm twisting of the US by Israel, led to the rejection of all of them. So now the only offer on the table for Iran is stop all enrichment, or ELSE.

"idiots like you that think they can win through violence."

When Israel can show they can maintain their occupation of the West Bank and their blockade of the Gaza Strip without the use of violence then the Palestinians would have lost the moral right to violent resistance.

"As already pointed out, not only is this a stupidly biased idea when there are no pre-reqs on the Fakeistinians to do likewise,"

Aside from the fact that Palestinians have the innate right to build on their own land, why would Israel need to pre-req the Palestinians not to build in the West Bank? Israel controls who can and cannot build in the West Bank - any, illegal in Israeli law, buildings by Palestinians can and are demolished.

"but Abbas also moves the goalposts every time he needs to. Meanwhile he has completely failed to implement the pre-reqs of the Oslo Accord"

He and Arafat before him, have implemented them as best they could.

As for completely failed, the failure of the Barak and previous Netanyahu governments to return Area B & Area C to the Palestinians would count as such. This failure to implement the Oslo Accords on the part of Israel is in large part responsible for the Second Intifada

"including holding free and fair elections (he has usurped Hamas, the elected government party, overstayed his term as President, and eliminated his political opponents in the West Bank)."

It's all very well saying that. Elections were held once, the "international" community didn't like the results. The political opponents eliminated were mostly either requested by Israel, or those Israel would've liked to see eliminated anyway. Given the state of affairs between Hamas and Fatah right now and elections held will be less than free and fair. Anytime there are attempts at reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, Israel is there ready to oppose and disrupt. Israel knows full well a reconciled Palestinian side will have a stronger mandate to demand a resumption of peace talks, something Israel is not willing to oblige.

"Yet Israel doesn't ask for pre-reqs to every round of talks, because Israel is willing to negotiate."

Since Israel holds all the cards it's hard to see what they can pre-req from the PNA, the main ones, renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel, was already done years ago. The fact that Abbas has done "all that he was required to do", the lack of pre-reqs from Israel is no surprise. More recently, as a result of the UN bids by the PNA, the resulting vociferous threats from the US and Israel is pre-req enough.

"You also seem to have skated over the fact this was a JOINT-operation, so it could have been Afghan forces doing any killings, even if you did prove they were civillians which you have not."

Isn't it up the killers to prove that the killed were militants? Did you miss the executive summary? Why did Nato claimed militants were killed then denied operation took place? If did Nato were so sure the killed were militants then why say the operation didn't take place?

As has been reported in the media, these night raids cause massive disruptions in villagers lives and the killing of civilians is giving the militants fresh recruits. In the meantime Nato deludes itself into thinking it is winning because every person killed is a militant, until the villagers prove otherwise, in which case Nato will try to whitewash the operation in question, or open an "investigation", which invariably leads nowhere.

If a Scotsman named his daughter Apple Macintosh would Apple sue?

Re: Windows to make own phone

Windows Phoney Phone

"crayon-up-his-nose likes to molest goats"

goats don't have enough meat, pigs are better.

"Compare that to the supporters of the Fakeistinians that call for the destruction of Israel."

No Arab states are currently (or as policy) calling for the destruction of Israel. As for non-state supporters, I'm sure there are plenty of private citizens and loony rabbis in Israel who call for the destruction of the Palestinians and the establishment of a "Greater Israel" along the lines of the "promised land" rubbish.

Regardless, no friend of Israel seems prepared to admit that the Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves.

"Nicely cherrypicked, ignoring that rockets have been fired DAILY into Israel from Gaza since they withdrew in 2005."

They withdrew from Gaza because they had hoped to pass the problem onto Egypt, but Egypt didn't play ball. And the withdrawal is an empty gesture, given that there is a total sea and air blockade, and near total land blockade.

'The "current incident" was a response to the CONSTANT rocket attacks from Gaza.'

And as long as Gaza is blockaded and the West Bank is occupied there will always be the threat of rockets. Did any Israeli seriously think that the Palestinian problem could be solved by turning Gaza into the world's biggest prison?

'".....If any other country had used weapons of war...." What do you expect them to use, waterpistols?'

No civilised country is expected to use deadly military force in response to civil disturbances. When China used deadly military force to end the Tiananmen Square protests, there was worldwide condemnation and the EU and US implemented a ban on the sales of arms to China, which to date is still in force.

"During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under."

"Trying to pretend the brave jihadis are fighting the Israelis with slings is beyond self-deulsion."

The rise of Hamas' military wing is largely owing to the brutal methods used by Israel to put down the First Intifada.

"Because Israel freezed it for ten months and the Fakeistinians made no effort at real talks."

When? You mean from Dec 2009, when "the Israeli government announced a 10-month lull in permits for new settlement homes in the West Bank", but which "works in progress" continued unabated. And when a few months later in Mar 2010, Israel tells Joe Biden that they will build some more new homes in East Jerusalem?

Abbas wants Israel to commit to a total stop to the building of settlements. Not a "freeze" which implies it could unfreeze at any time of Israel's choosing to further its aims. Just like Arafat was obliged to renounce violence so that threats of violence from the Palestinian side could not be used as a negotiating tactic.

"Bibi was smarter than Abbas, he called Abbas's bluff"

Since Israel never stopped settlement building, even official settlements, much less the illegal (in Israeli law) settlements, there was no bluff to be called.

"And your proof of this is what?"

Here is just one of many:

"Afghan Leader Says Attack Killed Civilians, but NATO Says the Victims Were Taliban"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805EED71339F93AA15751C1A96F9C8B63&scp=2&sq=Narang%20night%20raid&st=cse

Excerpts from that article shows how Nato statements are wildly contradictory:

"A senior NATO official with knowledge of the operation said that the raid had been carried out by a joint Afghan-American force and that its target was a group of men who were known Taliban members and smugglers of homemade bombs, which the American and NATO forces call improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. According to the NATO official, nine men were killed."

When the Afghan side insisted that those killed were civilians:

"but that elders in the district and a delegation sent to the remote area had found that ''10 people were killed and all of them were civilians.'' "

Nato backpedals and denies responsibility:

"A NATO spokesman had no comment on the killings and said that no NATO forces were operating in the area."

Executive summary: NATO announces the killing of a number of insurgents, subsequent events proved otherwise, NATO denies operation took place.

Here is another incident:

Afghans: U.S. Troops "Covered-Up" Civilian Deaths

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20001722-503543.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Executive summary: NATO operation kills 5 civilians, including two pregnant women, and a teenage girl. US troops removed evidence implicating that they killed them, then reports back to base that the women were already dead when they arrived at the scene. Later NATO admits that they indeed did kill those 3 women. US Special Forces commander offers a sheep in compensation.

There are many more reports of these kinds of incidents if you care to look for news beyond what Fox offers. And these are just the reported incidents, $deity knows how many more NATO/US has successfully covered up.

"Wow! What a twisted way of justifying random murder attempts!"

"Neither Islamic ethics nor Islamic tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."

No, sorry that's wrong: replace Islamic with Jewish and you'll have the ideology of Lehi (aka the Stern Gang), of which Yitzhak Shamir was a member. This member of a self-professed terrorist organisation went on to become an Israeli prime minister, not once, but twice.

In 1975 Israel gave two members of that terrorist organisation a state funeral.

In 1980 Israel started to reward former members of that terrorist group with the Lehi Ribbon in recognition of "security engagements up till the establishment of the State in 1948"

To call other freedom fighters terrorists when Israel was founded on terrorism is kettle meets pot.

"pounding Gaza for over a week in what it claimed was a bid to target terror groups in the region that had been firing rockets at civilian targets within Israel ..."

... in retaliation for Israeli airstrikes that killed and injured Palestinian civilians ... ad nauseum

Deputy PM must have used obvious passwords, something along the lines of "jewsaretherightfulownersoftheprimosedlandandallpalestiniansareterrorists"

'Obambi's and several previous Prezs have been anything but blind supporters of Israel.'

Please learn to spell.

What was the harshest critical comment that the US has made of Israel? Seriously, I am curious to know, if you know please tell.

Every time the conflict flares up the first thing the US says is "we fully support the right of Israel to self defence" and most invariably followed by "we call on the Palestinians to stop the rockets/bombs/violence". Regardless of who/how/why the current incident in question started.

If any other country had used weapons of war (tanks, artillery, cluster bombs, missiles, mortar shells, fighter jets, helicopter gunships, white phosphorous) against civilians with the regularity and intensity that Israel has, then the US would have at the very least stopped selling them weapons and most likely would have campaigned to get a prosecution in the ICC (even though the US itself is too scared to be a member).

If any other country had ignored UN Resolutions with the frequency that Israel has the US would have regime changed them already.

As for Obama, when he tried to "step out of line" over the settlement issue, Netanyahu showed him who is boss. The Whitehouse no longer insists on a settlement freeze as a pre-condition to "peace talks".

Clinton famously said "who the fuck is the superpower here?" in frustration when he found out that he cannot not fully support Israel.

"It was very predictable that as soon as Hamas ran out of rockets that the US would put pressure on Israel to accept a truce rather than mount a ground operation."

Israel knows full well a ground operation would seriously put the Camp David Accords at risk. The truce is a welcome face-saving move for both Israel and Hamas.

'If the US was blindly supporting Israel then Clinton would not have been calling for " a proportionate response"'

If the US was not blindly supporting Israel they would've called for and worked for regime change as they're doing in Syria right now. Somehow the US deems the Syrian people have a right to self determination but the Palestinians do not. Israel has a continuous right to kill Palestinians but Assad doesn't have the same right to kill Syrians.

You know full well that Clinton's call for "a proportionate response" is for the consumption of the parts of the world not usually regarded by the western media as the "international community".

Israel knows full well even if their actions are grossly disproportionate the US will turn a blind eye and probably applaud them in private, such is their support for Israel and distaste for the Palestinians.

"What army? There is no Taleban army, it does not put on a uniform and follow the rules of war."

It's certainly less embarrassing for the US military to admit they are beaten by an "army" than a "bunch of whatever you want to call them".

Like Israel, flouting the rules of war is part of the US military's modus operandi. Some of the atrocities include nightly raids on villages, breaking into homes, deliberately provoking a reaction from the villagers, shooting dead those who dare to protect their dignity and honour, then label them as insurgents.

Let me make this clear before you jump to one of your many assumptions. War is a dirty business, all sides commits atrocities. My objections are that some sides think that they are morally superior to the others.

"If you think the Taleban are so wonderful please explain their shooting of schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai?"

There you go again jumping to conclusions. FYI I think the shooting was a cowardly and disgusting act. The bigger tragedy is that despite initial outpouring of outrage across most of Pakistani society it lost the momentum to lead to a nationwide will to purge the extremists elements in Pakistan.

"Almost as brave as the Hamas ones that shoot rockets as Israeli schools and then hide behind women and kids."

No braver than using weapons of war against stone throwing children.

No braver than slamming a missile into a building where you think a militant /might/ be hiding, but where you know full well that there are civilians as well.

"There is no occupation of Gaza and there was no slaughter in Gaza."

'Nuff said, if you had it your way you would probably wish there was no Gaza.

"Hamas is uspet by targeted killings because it threatens the Hamas leadership, they couldn't give a damn about "martyrs" amongst their civillians!"

To say that they don't give a damn is disingenuous. You ought to know that much of their popular support comes from their charity and social work. Oh, and their courage to stand up to the Israeli occupation counts in their favour too.

'And what "collective punishment"?'

The blockade of Gaza. On the pretense of preventing Hamas from acquiring weapons Israel is: denying the people of the Gaza Strip the right to export goods; limiting the amount and types of goods that can be imported; denying the freedom of travel; among other measures.

As the just concluded conflict shows, the blackade has not succeeded in preventing Hamas acquire long range rockets. The only beneficiaries of the blockade are the tunnel operators and Hamas, whilst the rest of the people suffers. In a few years Hamas would have replenished their supplies of rockets, Israel would be nearing an election and will again kill some more Palestinians.

"Israel is not randomly shooting or bombing."

That means the killing of civilians is deliberate.

"However, every Hamas rocket is a war crime as they are deliberately and randomly targeted at civillians."

The rockets are primitive and highly inaccurate, their target is the State of Israel. Since Israeli logic dictates that the whole of Gaza must suffer for Hamas' actions then by extension the whole Israel can also suffer for the Israeli military's actions.

".....Seeing as most Israelis have to serve in the army, these civilians are temporarily out of uniform military...." So Israeli kids on the way to school are FUTURE soldiers too, yes?

First of all I was referring to the "civilians" who have already served and are still eligible to serve. Israeli logic deems that kids are threats. During the intifadas, Israeli soldiers routinely kill kids whether "armed" with stones or not. And the Israelis defended their policy of shooting kids by asserting that "stones can kill" (it's that fairy tale book again with that David and Goliath thing), and "they may be throwing stones now but when they grow up they may be throwing bombs".

FYI I don't care whether the Palestinians exterminate the Israelis or vice versa. All sides have committed atrocities and are terrorists. I'm just peeved at the one-sided reporting by most mainstream western media and the blatant unconditional support of Israel by the US when if the actions committed by Israel had been done by any other country it would have been bombed back to the Stone Age by the US already (twice in the case of Iraq).

"which states peace must be negotiated, and not imposed by Fakeistinian demands backed up by rockets and suicide bombers."

Since the PNA has renounced violence and in the absence of a partner for peace from the Israeli side, it is pursuing its aims in an entirely peaceful but different "from what the US and Israel wants" manner. It is trying to prove that once again the actions of Israel and the US are against world opinion. And again the threats from the US and Israel have started flying. This time Israel has gone further and deliberately leaked that it plans to dispose of Abbas if he goes through with his UN plans.

'It was a Jewish city long before the Fakeistinians started calling themselves "Palestinians".'

Same old argument - "thousands of years ago it was occupied by ...".

The state of Israel was brought into existence by the UN Partition Plan in 1947, so any disputes/legalities/illegalities with regards to the territories covered by that plan begins there. Not from some book proclaiming a promised land.

Anyway UN Security Council Resolution 476 states:

'Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;'

"....- refugees have the right of return...." Which ones?

All, on both sides.

"The Jewish ones that were forced to leave Arab lands to go to Israel? I don't think they'd want to be ethnicly cleansed again."

If they don't want to return, then under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, they have the right to fair compensation for their properties/land/etc.

"The right to return is just an attempt to breed Israel into demographic destruction."

And the creation of Israel did not have a devastating demographic effect on the Arabs already living there? Why should they be made to suffer for the crimes of the Europeans?

"But the crux of the problem is too many Fakeistinians want to eradicate Israel."

Stop changing the argument, the "wants" I listed are perfectly reasonable and consistent with UN resolutions, and did not include "eradicate Israel".

"And why is it all about just what the Fakeistinians want, doesn't anyone else's opinion matter?"

It seems not. Israel and its poodle the US and in turn its poodles the EU always harp on about the right of Israel to "self defence", it doesn't matter that it's the Palestinians who are being occupied, detained, beaten, tortured, killed on a daily basis. They don't deserve the right to self defence, they are expected to take what's given to them, smile and stay quiet.

"If land for peace swaps are to be made then in theory chunks of what the Fakeistinians say is theirs and they are building on now could in theory end up as Israeli territory, which means any Fakeistinian building on them would constitute exactly the illegal settlement activity you said applied to Israel."

Let me reiterate, they are occupied lands not disputed lands. The fact that the Palestinians are willing to accept the Clinton Parameters and do land swaps as part of a final settlement (no pun intended) does not suddenly make the land disputed. It shows that the Palestinians are flexible and pragmatic and not the fanatics that most western media makes them out to be.

"Darn, doesn't it suck when your own arguments get used against you?"

It would, only if the counter argument was based on facts and not opinions.

"Authorities all over the World require you to get permits to build. It's called bureaucracy,"

When permits are freely given to settlers and indeed encouraged to build through grants, tax relief, infrastructure, and routinely denied to Palestinians it's called apartheid. Palestinian buildings constructed without permits are promptly demolished. Illegal settlements (yes illegal even in the opinion of the Israeli government) are overwhelmingly left alone and even provided with supporting infrastructure. Yes, there may be a token demolition of illegal settlements once in a while but the pace of illegal (ie no permit) settlement building far exceeds the token demolitions.

'Lovely language! I can see you're all for reconciliation and living in peace when you describe Jews as "cancer"!'

I haven't insulted you (yet) so please don't insult me. Read and understand what I wrote. Settlements != Jews.

The bits that Israel wants to keep in the West Bank effectively cuts it up into 2 or more physically separate chunks. Passage from one chunk to another would rely on Israeli goodwill. Water, being the precious resource that it is in the middle east, Israel wants "temporary" control of all the West Bank territory adjacent to the River Jordan as a "security" zone.

So the "two states living in peace side by side", would be in reality more like several Palestinian states surrounded by Israel. And yet the Palestinians assenting to it, in theory - so what more concessions does Israel want to wring out of them?

"So you're pro-Hamas then. So you also agree with their charter, including the destruction of Israel?"

Please stick to facts and do not assume.

"Abbas has commitments to reducing terrorism under the Roadmap."

And under the same Roadmap, Israel has a commitment to freeze settlement expansion (no "natural outgrowth", no nothing). So while Abbas has been trying to clamp down on the violence, Israel is busy building new settlements, and each time it announces new building works the violence spikes and Abbas has to kill some more Palestinians - it's a win win situation for Israel.

"Israel wants peaceful relations with all its neighbours"

If Israel was serious about peace then all it has to do is stop settlement activity as Abbas has requested and then peace talks can resume immediately. Abbas has made that point many times.

Israel has come to the conclusion that with unconditional US support the pros of keeping the occupied territories far outweighs the cons. That is why any time there is a danger of the resumption of the "peace process" Israel will engineer some provocation to derail it.

"whereas the Fakeistinians are under no military threat should they accept Israel's,"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Once upon a time they actually used ground troops and armour to wade into Palestinian areas to arrest or kill whoever they deemed required arresting or killing. But this involved risking their soldiers lives because despite what Israel would have you believe, Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves.

Nowadays Israel just use fighter jets and helicopter gunships to bomb and destroy targets in Gaza and the West Bank with total impunity. Why should Israel sue for peace when they can just bomb anybody who objects to the occupation?

"The reason the US and EU placed sanctions on Hamas was because they are a designated terrorist group."

Said the colonial powers who used terror to obtain their colonies, used terror to rule their colonies, and used terror in desperate attempts to keep their colonies. I don't care what the US or EU do with their "aid", but given their own atrocious record, to label Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but to those that matters, is considered a resistance movement, is just hypocritical in the extreme.

"Which International Law?"

The Geneva Conventions to which Israel is a signatory. It forbids many things which Israel is guilty of, some of which includes:

1) The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

* The illegal settlements in the West Bank

2) Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions makes that even more specific, however out of the signatories to the Geneva Conventions there are a few rogue nations who have not signed or ratified Protocol II, including: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, United States.

* Palestinians who have carried out attacks against Israel/Israelis can be certain that their homes would be demolished.

* The whole population of the Gaza Strip is being punished by Israel's blockade which prohibits the free movement of people and goods.

3) Prohibits the taking of hostages

* Palestinians detained without charge is state sponsored hostage taking

"If that were true then Israel would already have been taken to an international court by the massive number of apologist lawfare activists."

I'm glad you asked. To bring a case to the World Court (International Court of Justice), you need:

1) both parties need to be a UN member state

Surely that can't be the reason why the US (and to a lesser extent it's poodles in the EU), and Israel are vehemently opposed to Abbas' bids for more recognition in the UN?

2) for most practical purposes both parties would have to consent.

I don't think Israel would consent anytime soon.

Furthermore any judgement would require the losing party to "voluntary" enforce, else the Security Council would, in theory, be obliged to step in. But with one guaranteed veto (USA) and two near certain vetoes (UK, France) the chances of forcing Israel to comply, in the event a verdict should go against them, is zero.

As for the International Criminal Court, although the Palestinian National Authority has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the court, ICC itself is not able to determine whether the PNA qualifies as a state for the purpose of the ICC. In any case this avenue of justice has been closed to the Palestinians because although Israel signed up to the ICC it has not ratified it and has since declared that it will not ratify it and hence no longer party to the ICC. Two other rogue countries which have signed but not ratified and declared they will not ratify and hence no longer party to the ICC is the USA and Sudan, so Israel is in good company.

"if they convince/bribe enough countries to vote with them then it gets passed. Big whoop."

And you think the friends of Israel are not doing their utmost to turn the votes in favour of Israel? If richest and most powerful nations of the world (US, EU and sundry others) cannot bully enough of the small and poor nations to vote in favour of Israel, what does that tell you?

The US is forever threatening to withhold funding from the UN if it doesn't get their way.

"The dozens of resolutions passed against Israel by the Muslim-dominated Non-Alligned group (almost all despotic dictatorships with shocking civil rights abuses) sullies the name of the UN."

What sullies the name of the UN Security Council is mandatory use of their veto by the US, and to a lesser extent the UK and France, on any resolution which is, in any way, critical of Israel.

As a democracy Israel should know that however a vote turns out the losers should accept the result gracefully. The UN isn't perfect by any means but it's the only thing in town. The fact Israel has not renounced its membership must mean that it believes it's better to be in than out.

It is thanks to these "despotic dictatorships" in the Middle East that Israel is able to enjoy relative peace. And that's why the US keeps propping up these despots (the cheap oil doesn't hurt either). Let's see what happens in Egypt now that they've overthrown their "despotic dictatorship". And if the Wahhabis overthrow their despotic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia there would be even bloodshed in the middle east.

"But it is also a predictable whine from the pro-Fakeistinians, easily debunkable."

Any report, vote, ruling, finding which is unfavourable to Israel is always dismissed with contempt by Israel as "biased". How predictable.

"In practical terms it means nothing, it does not have any legal backing, and no enforceable powers. The ONLY resolutions out of the UN that do are those from the Security Council."

Even an idiot knows that that's not going to happen so long as the US has a veto. That's why as a general consensus of *world* opinion GA Resolutions are for more representative. Western media have for too long corrupted the meaning of "international", which to them means "some of North America, most of Western Europe, sometimes Japan, and sometimes a little of Australasia.

"For international law to apply, there would have to be a country that Israel was infringing upon. Seeing as the greedy Arabs turned down the UN Partition Plan in 1947, which would have the Palestinian Arab state, there is no such state, therefore the territory is not covered by the international laws you want to apply."

No country, not even the US poodle, has recognised Israel's annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. The international laws with regards to the treatment of people as set out in the Geneva Conventions certainly do apply. As for a Palestinian state, since the PLO's declaration of independence, 131 countries out of the 193 in the UN have recognised the State of Palestine. Unsurprisingly, it is mainly the "international" community, aka the old colonial powers, that have not yet extended recognition.

Anyway, UN Security Council Resolution 465 states:

'that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East'

Seems quite clear to me. And a Security Council Resolution no less, passed unanimously to boot - although "the Carter administration later explained that it had intended to abstain and that its “yes” vote was due to a “breakdown in communication” between the White House and the U.S. mission to the UN." - hilarious!

"This is the reason for the Fakeistinians' attempts to get themselves declared a state in the UN. Just so you may finally get it, there is no such state as Palestine, there never has been,"

They already are a state, and have recognition from the majority of UN members. However they are a state without a land, because Israel is occupying it. What they are trying achieve in the UN is to ideally become a member state (which is not the same as "get themselves declared a state in the UN"), but as you quite rightly point out ...

"and without the UN Security Council's agreement"

their application for full membership will not pass the bully boy vetoes of the US/UK/France and hence they are going for a more limited "non-member state" status.

Another earlier article said that MacAfee claimed he had already written 1 years worth of blog so even if he disappears the blog will continue to be updated.

'The third concern surrounds accountability, as it's hard to apply humanitarian law to a robot or its programmer. Existing laws and remedies would therefore struggle to deliver “meaningful retributive justice”.'

Simple, the leader(s) of whichever organisation/government that deployed said robot would be held accountable.

Unfortunately, in practice, only leaders of African countries will ever have "retributive justice" meted on them.

For those still looking for Luton: assuming HERE works in a similar fashion to Symbian Nokia Maps then, it orders results based on your current map view (not your current location).

"For example, Sheung Wan Station becomes Shang Huan Zhan", yeah that sucks. But as a consolation searches using romanised Cantonese, pinyin, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese all work.

"The article could be clearer, but it seems to me that the problem is probably caused by mifi use above ground in areas of 3G reception - otherwise there's no backhaul."

Metro systems in China are relatively modern and are mobile friendly, even in tunnels.

"if you want peace, you must prepare for war"

Unfortunately the US has subverted this to "if you want peace, you must wage a global and continuous war"

"Cheap drone warfare will be an advantage for the underdog (guerillas / terrorsists). There's no military advantage to any western power to do this."

Tell that to Obama, he can kill whomever he wants (if he can find them) and not risk US military personnel returning home in body bags.

Put simply, with drone warfare, the people who have grown up playing video games can continue doing so while "serving" their country expect that the people they're killing halfway around the world are real, with families, loved ones, hopes and aspirations, just like most people across the world.

@Matt Bryant

"In the 2000 Camp David Summit the Israelis made an offer that amounted to 95% of the PLO's claims and shared Jerusalem, an offer so unexpected even Bill Clinton was shocked (he described it as Barak commiting political suicide in return for peace). Arafat didn't even bother with a counter offer, he didn't negotiate, he just walked out and started the intifada."

Under international law and numerous UN resolutions:

- the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel

- furthermore the settlements in the West Bank are illegal

- Jerusalem (the whole of) belongs to the Palestinians

- refugees have the right of return

What Israel offered was far short of what international law requires and what Palestinians wanted, and indeed entitled to:

- Israel wanted to keep major settlements and obviously the requisite roads to link them back to Israel, meaning the settlements will remain a cancer in the West Bank

- Israel wanted to keep half of Jerusalem

- Israel denied the right of ALL refugees to return, instead proposed that some will be allowed to return, not to their place of origin as is their right, but to some place of Israel's choosing.

Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben who was involved in the Camp David talks puts in his book "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy", "if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well"

'The latest example was Abbas walking out of talks claiming Israel was making "settlement expansion", despite Israel having frozen expansion for the period of the talks.'

Abbas wanted all settlement building to be stopped, period. Under international moving settlers into occupied land is illegal, period. Obama via Clinton made that position clear to Netanyahu.

But just before the talks were due to resume, in a gesture to show that the Jewish lobby in the US is stronger the President of the United States, Netanyahu announces more settlement building.

"No-one insisted on the Fakeistininas not building in contested lands in the West Bank."

They are not contested lands, they are occupied lands. The occupied should have every right to build on their own land, except that the Israelis require them to apply for permits which they regularly deny, furthermore they regularly demolish building which they say did not have the requisite permits

"The simple fact is neither of the current Fakeistinian factions want peace,"

Abbas has been acting as Israel's henchman in the West Bank, clamping down on militants and arresting people at Israel's behest, in the hope that this shows he is serious about keeping the peace and resume the "peace process". For this, he is rewarded with the scorn of his people and the derision of the Israelis who continue to build illegal settlements and continue to grab land in building their separation barrier.

"Abbas deliberately picks so-called discussion topics he already knows Israel cannot agree to so he can avoid real talks."

If it's suicide for the Israeli side return illegally occupied territories then how much more suicidal would it be for the Palestinian side to accept that Israel can keep the illegally occupied territories?

"Even if Abbas was really willing to talk peace he has no mandate as the Fakeistinians elected Hamas"

Abbas was elected president by all the people in the Gaza Strip AND the West Bank, although his mandate has long since run out because overdue elections were not held. It is the local elections in which Hamas won the majority in the Gaza Strip - which promptly resulted in a tightening of sanctions by Israel and the US because they did not like the result of an election in which Hamas won fair and square.

"Whilst the rest of the World cluelessly bankrolls Hamas and Fatah there is no reason for them to make even a pretence of wanting peace."

Whilst the US blindly supports Israel - shielding it from political, economic and military repercussions of its heinous actions in the occupied Palestinian territories - there is no reason for them to make even a pretence of wanting peace.

"The majority of Afghanistan is peaceful, it is largely the border area with Pakistan that is violent."

The world's only superpower, spending almost as much as the rest of the world put together on war, cannot beat a rag-tag army armed with kalashnikovs and primitive explosives. Maybe if they stopped killing so many civilians then their "hearts and minds" campaign might work out better.

"Indeed, the annual rate of murders in Afghanistan as a whole is less than the US's"

If indeed those figures are true then it probably says more about the US itself than the success of the US military in Afghanistan. However, given the situation in Afghanistan I would take those figures with a bucketful of salt. In any case those figures would not include those civilians killed as "collateral damage" - or worse, those civilians killed as "collateral damage" but labelled as "insurgents" (because it looks better on the reports and for future career prospects).

"If the majority of Israelis ever get tired of the war then they can vote in an appeasist government that will surrender to the Fakeistinian claims."

That implies the Israelis voted in these governments of occupation and hence are responsible for the slaughter in Gaza.

"The Fakeistinians and Lebanese have no choice - neither Hamas or Hezbollah will allow true debate and Fatah are fast becoming an irrellevance. If Arabs disagree with the stance of their rulers they usually end up dying."

If they have no choice then that implies they're not responsible, so why is Israel imposing collective punishment in Gaza? (again, illegal in international law, but again, unsurprisingly Israel flouts it)

"Which bit are you arguing with - that the Fakeistinians shoot rockets out of Gaza into Israel? That they do so at random? That they do so with the express intention of killing ISraeli civillians?"

Seeing as most Israelis have to serve in the army, these civilians are temporarily out of uniform military personnel. Israel doesn't have any qualms bombing the houses where Hamas members are living with their families knowing full well that there will be civilian casualties.

"This is more amusing seeing as the Mulsims Arabs arrived in the area with the drive of Mohammed's cult out of the Saudi peninsula long after his death, and thousands of years after Jews and Christians (and other faiths) had been living in the area."

If you believe in fairy tales then the Book of Numbers says that the land of Canaan was populated by giants and the Jews coming from the Sinai were initially afraid and refused to enter Canaan. Does it mean these giants have a stronger claim to Israel/West Bank/Gaza Strip?

"Yeah, I so don't understand why people would not want fanatical murderers moving in next door! Oh, wait a sec, could it be becasue they're fanatical murderers? D'uh!"

They could be fanatical murderers, or they might not be. Do *you* know? If the US had any *credible* evidence, not obtained using torture, then they would have tried them, long ago. The fact that they haven't been tried speaks for itself. And please do not rationalise the illegal torture and illegal detention without trial with the "the ends justifies the means" argument.

"China in particular has refused to take any of the Urghars captured in Afghanistan."

On the contrary, China would love to take them back so they could learn from them about "US style enhanced interrogation techniques" by applying some "enhanced interrogation techniques with Chinese characteristics".

"That's bad news (no pun intended), because in war-torn Afghanistan, targeted attacks on journalists are commonplace."

So the implication is that these journalists should watch their backs because now they're on the Afghan and US hitlist for aiding and abetting terrorists?

"Yet they claim that those who purchase a minority product are sheep."

Sheep being a herd animal tend to follow other sheep. This tendency to follow other sheep does not depend on the sheep being in a majority.

@diadomraz: You're probably looking at their english-language website which has a copyright notice dated 2008-2010 (which probably suggests it hasn't been updated since 2010) and interestingly is hosted on a dot cn domain. Their chinese-language website (hosted on a dot com domain) lists android based models, and they've future proofed it by having a copyright notice dated 2012-2020.

Be thankful

that they're not forcing the rest of the world to block google. Unlike when the US doesn't like something (eg Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program) it tries to force the rest of the world to follow US policy.