>The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <reneg...@anglican.org> wrote in message
>news:3ca68946.2883955@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:37:23 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> <black_will...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >I'll take that as an: 'I was lying,  I'm very sorry'

>> >> You take it any way you like.  If you support 'Israel' you are
>> >> anti-Arab.  There is no fence to sit on.

>> >I didn't know that the Arabs were unified.

>> They are unified in their opposition to 'Israel' if nothing else.

>> >Which particular bunch am I supposed to be against?

>> Let's start with the Palestinians.  Can you deny that?

>And when did they have 'free and fair' elections?

>> >Being against Saddam or the loony in Libya isn't difficult.

>> >Actually being against the Gulf sultans or the degenerates running Saudi
>> >isn't that difficult either.

>> >Being against the bloody handed psycho running Syria isn't that hard
>either.

>> In all these cases you're railing against the individuals that run
>> these countries.  Is Sharon any better?

>Sharon is a nasty piece of work.  But he is also demonstrably the leader of
>an elected government.

>> >Egypt and Jordan seem to have decent governments,  but as they didn't
>turn
>> >up for the Arab summit last week they can't be Arabs, can they?

>> >And you're still a Nazi swine who needs shooting.

>> More jew hysteria.   One would have thought that jews would have
>> learnt something from World War II.  Some of their current day tactics
>> would have done credit to the Nazis.

>Jew takes a capital letter.

> >> Let's start with the Palestinians.  Can you deny that?

> >And when did they have 'free and fair' elections?

> What does that have to do with anything?  Are you for them or against
> them?

> Oh, that's all right then.

> >Jew takes a capital letter.

> Jew tries to take everything.

>The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <reneg...@anglican.org> wrote in message
>news:3ca71800.2643468@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:44:44 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> <black_will...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >Which particular bunch am I supposed to be against?

>> >> Let's start with the Palestinians.  Can you deny that?

>> >And when did they have 'free and fair' elections?

>> What does that have to do with anything?  Are you for them or against
>> them?

>When they decide what they are for I'll decide if I support them.

>> >Sharon is a nasty piece of work.  But he is also demonstrably the leader
>of
>> >an elected government.

>> Oh, that's all right then.

>Yes

>You obviously have a problem with the concept of democracy.

>I don't

>> >> More jew hysteria.   One would have thought that jews would have
>> >> learnt something from World War II.  Some of their current day tactics
>> >> would have done credit to the Nazis.

>> >Jew takes a capital letter.

>> Jew tries to take everything.

>Condemned from your own mouth.

>The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <reneg...@anglican.org> wrote in message
>news:3ca75147.17308914@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:25:30 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> <black_will...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> You appear to have already sided with the 'Israelis'.  You can't have
>> it both ways.  There is no fence.

>True.  between Democracy and Tyrany there is a huge difference.

>All the Arab leaders seem to be tyrants

>You mean like Macmillan sending back the Cossacks and then being elected UK
>Prime Minister?

>You're not very good at this are you...

> >The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <reneg...@anglican.org> wrote in message
> >news:3ca75147.17308914@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:25:30 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> >> <black_will...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >True.  between Democracy and Tyrany there is a huge difference.

> >All the Arab leaders seem to be tyrants

> Right.  Now what about the Arab people?  There is no tradition of
> democracy in the region;  the Eastern European jews who colonised it
> after World War II brought it with them.

> >You mean like Macmillan sending back the Cossacks and then being elected
UK
> >Prime Minister?

> I thought it was Churchill.  It certainly qualified as a war crime.

> And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

> There is a court action under way in the Belgian courts.

> > > Thirteen reasons why Islam is a disgusting religion.

> > I see you've never read the Bible, it agrees on most of the points you
have
> > raised and adds a few of its own...

> Something leads me to believe that you havn't read the Bible.

>       Bin Laden purchased anthrax a few years ago.  His #2 man,
> Dr.Zawahiri, whose home tested positive for anthrax, had a list of 100
> targets in the US and Israel to use it against.

>       Leahy is head of the Senate appropriations panel in charge of
> aid to
> Egypt and Israel, which is the main beef of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad
>  (and now al Qaeda). (That aid constitutes 42% of all foreign aid, I
> think, and so it's no small motivation).

> An article discussing the purchase of anthrax, list of targets, is
> at:

> The FBI's profile seems on the mark and permits a range of
> motivations, including one based on sympathy with al Qaeda's goals
> (whether
> by someone complicit with Dr. Zawahiri or William Pierce).

> "Roger Perkins" <rogerp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:hK%n8.135656$q2.13799@sccrnsc01...
> > Oh, did I forget to point out?  You initially said Vietnam wasn't a
member
> > of the UN based on the website you gave out.

> No I didn't, but if you think so, quote the exact text I used to say that.
> You said
> "How does the conquest of the independent government of South Viet Nam by
> the independent government of North Viet Nam - both holding seats in the
> UN - have anything to do with colonialism?"
> To which I replied
> "The UN doesn't seem to have any evidence of membership
> for South Viet Nam and North Viet Nam."
> I made no claim about the current status of Vietnam because
> that has no bearing on your statement.

> >  Now you say it is. So which is it, sonny?

> I have never made any claim that contradicted the website I cited.

> > You can't seem to keep your stories straight, can you?

> Why do you say that? The evidence shows otherwise. The only
> place where things aren't straight is in your mind.

> > You say it's out, you say it's in.

> South Vietnam and North Vietnam were never in as you claim.
> Vietnam has been a member since 1977 as the UN web site states
> and I have never claimed otherwise.

> > Obviously you were wrong with your initial post
> > and now are trying to dodge the issue.

> What was wrong in my initial post where I stated
> "The UN doesn't seem to have any evidence of membership
> for South Viet Nam and North Viet Nam."

> > Are you admitting your original post was wrong?

> You have a reading comprehension problem. I stand by
> my original post.

> >  That the UN site isn't correct?

> I've never claimed that dummy. Quote what I have written to
> indicate that.

> > Maybe you should point that out to them, huh?

> Point what out to them?

> > What's the matter, Petie?  Too hard to keep up with your various
stories?

> What are these various stories you are concocting? Despite your attempts
> at diversion let's return to the original issue - you've had nearly two
> weeks to find
> evidence that South Vietnam and North Vietnam were members of the UN
> when North conquered the South - put up or shut up.