Well said. I cheated and skimed the first link. The judge rejected the plea of insanity. The boy planned his revenge for weeks and did it in cold blood. I didn't find the quote from the judge but I think the "things" the judge had in mind were the "consequences" of his lame plot and subsequent defense, such as the one you mentioned, which given the overall maturity of his motive probably started to sink in when he was de-liced at the remand center.
I like it! Even though I defend Dawkins I'm not in total agreement, I think religion, politics, etc, focus and direct an existing and very deep "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy that EVERYONE uses just to get out of bed in the morning.
"Yes, someone made the bath water too hot, so nobody should ever take baths again."
You make some excellent points regarding my anti-subsidy rant that triggered the thread. I agree tarrifs/subsidies are like all regulations, a tool. I also think that over the last 30-40yrs national governments have been struggling to use those tools on globalised bussiness and globalised problems. I certainly don't have any answers but I'm pretty sure global bussiness isn't going away and think one of the questions should be: How to globalise your Florida example.
"I don't have any good answers, but I hope someone does. Unfortunately, bad answers are easy to come up with."
Ditto. The tradition answer to your point is actually a question, ie: what do we do with our lesiure time? Of course that pre-supposes the benifits of a fully automated economy would be distributed.
"It was as close to a religious experience as I have ever had."
My lady friend is a moderate Christian and was in her late thirties when I met her. Although she had occasionally been under them she had never looked up at a dark sky, she also belived I could not "know" the feeling of religious awe because...well...I am not religions. When I showed her a dark sky and described our physical place in the milky way she was gob-smacked and she knew that I knew. We were also lucky enough to spot about a dozen leonoids over a few hours.
There were a few dozen people on the beach in 2007 but she is the only person I know in Melbourne who saw McNaught that night. Some of my friends/family saw a much dimmer version about a week later but most people belive it was "another over-hyped dissapointment" (as the OP puts it).
"P.S., I've read many of the works of both Dawkins and Sagan."
And yet you missed the point, science does not prove anything nor does it claim certainty.
"you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound"
There is evidence that a tree falling over makes a sound, ie: it can be observed. The only leap of faith required to belive a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is listening is that the real world continues to exist when nobody is watching it. In other words sticking ones head in the sand and pretending the real world does not exist will not save ones arse no matter how stong their faith is.
"[Dawkins is] a dimwit with too much backing."
Yea right, and an over rated zen riddle about trees is EVIDENCE for that./sarcasm
"I am a Muslim."
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
"Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?"
That bit of twisted logic is known as the "god of the gaps". Not knowing the answer to everything is not evidence that there exists "a higher power" that does.
"Why is the belief in a higher power any more or less "religious" than the belief in a big bang?"
Science does not prove anything, it provides the best explaination for observations. The observable expansion of the visable universe is EVIDENCE to support the big bang. Science does not claim that god didn't light the fuse, it claims there is no EVIDENCE of a fuse. There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
"They can't entertain ideas they don't support. It is truly dogmatic."
Emmm no, they can't entertain assertions that there is no evidence for, and yes that is a kind of "dogma" if you want to be a pedant.
"A belief in the existence of a higher power, whether it is the alpha male, or a mathematical equation or whatever, does not automatically imply religion."
It automatically implies faith, not BLIND faith. All faith is not equal, the single "leap of faith" that science requires of it's practioners is that the "real world" exists. I can demonstrate mathematical equations exist in the "real world", I cannot demonstrate an alpha male in the sky exists and neither can anyone else - see the difference - EVIDENCE.
"In my experience so far, atheists are more dogmatic, more aggressive and less rational than the average person of religion."
Perhaps you have experienced dickheads so lets take a look at a famous Atheist. Dawkins points out ALL religious people are also Atheists, they just went one god too far. ie: They don't belive in Thor, the FSM, etc, but they do belive in an alpha male in the sky using only blind faith as evidence.
"If life were replicated in a test tube would that disprove the existence of God? Please explain how, as I don't see any logical path of reasoning that leads to that conclusion."
No but it certainly pins the tail on the creationists donkeys. Dawkins entire point is that religion promotes "unthinking as a virtue" and that this permeates into politics and the rest of society. He does not claim he can prove god doesn't exist he claims that there is no evidence and therefore the RATIONAL course of action is to assume he doesn't.
Dawkins has the same fears as Sagan did, and yeah, he's more agressive about it. I suggest you read Dawkins and Sagan's books and think about what they are saying, after all "doubting Thomas" was Jesus' favorite deciple.
As someone who worked in so called "mindless jobs" from the mid-seventies to the early nineties I think your entire post is the most obnoxious pile of elitist claptrap I have heard in a long time.
BTW: Japan automated their factories and that is why they kicked the crap out of the UK & US car industry while maintaining a high standard of living.
I've been looking at the sky for comets since around the time of the moon landings, Hayley's comet was a big dissapointment even though I was living in the bush at the time and had near perfect skies. However a couple of years ago when a I got break in a week of cloudy sky I saw Comet McNaght at it's peak brightness looking very much like this to (an old fart's) naked eye, from a beachside suburb in the glow of a major city! After 40yrs of looking at the sky I finally saw a comet in all it's awsome glory, but by that time comets were no longer the reason I habitually enjoyed "sticking my head out at night".
This kind of thing damages the scientific credibility as a whole and turns people off the idea of beleiving scientists: "remember that comet they told us about - what a bust that was, I guess name of global catastrophe is the same - waste of time".
Slightly offtopic but I don't agree, the only reason to belive scientists has got nothing to do with the scientists theselves. How many posts do we see on slashdot following the religious right's "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy when it comes to a political rant against the IPCC, they ranters fail to even read, let alone falsify the assertions contained within it's reports. And to add insult to injury these type of anti-science rants are often modded insightfull by what is supposed to be a bunch of nerds. I agree with Dawkins and Sagan that the "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy is our worst enemy but scientists are the last group of people I would blame for it's popularity.
"This is why America is rapidly becommin a service industry with no manufacturing. Manufacturing is moving elsewhere in a rapid fashion."
Manufacturing moved elsewhere 20yrs ago. IIRC Reagan and Thatcher spent most of the 80's crushing unions and telling everyone it would be a GoodThing(TM). Not that I think the removal of tarrifs and perpetual subsidies is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but you need more than that to "level the playing field". You also need to take into account the reglatory regime under which the manafacturing was performed. To do otherwise is simply exporting the labour/environmental problems to nations that don't/can't give a fuck about either. Before you know what's happening everything is made elsewhere, it's dirt cheap and has a high probability of serious defects and toxic contaminants (reminicent of pre-seventies "jap-crap"). IMHO the corect term for the labour side of this is "cheap labour capitalisim", I don't know if there is an equivalent for the environmental side
Note: Rant maybe but not an anti-conservative one, just some observations and an onion-belt story. And even though I think it's a half-assed idea, I will readily admit the "service economy" has been generous to me personally.
The US (and EU for that matter) spend huge amounts of money on farm subsidies much to the disgust of Aussie farmers who get very few subsidies, not to mention the third world farmers who are pushed out of the market alltogether. Protectionisim (in all it's forms) stiffles trade, kills competition and creates mountains of unwanted food in one place while others starve in another place.
It may sound tempting and may even have the potential to make a nation self sufficient, but in practice what happens is that wealthy countries mirror each other tarrifs "tit for tat" style. The consumer and the third world farmer are the biggest losers, in effect the taxpayer is paying the government to kill the competition (quite literally in some cases). There is however a more subtle loss of efficientcy in the country weathy enough to provide the subsidy.
"when we engaged in mild protectionism this wasn't an issue. We used to charge tariffs on imports from nations without proper human and labor rights."
I would call that a sanction, it's a different and more legitimate practice but it's open to abuse and still triggers tit for tat reactions.
While I agree that everything has a cost I don't think ALL the nuts are of the eco variety. As a "greenie" I would be happy to see the nuts at the other end of the spectrum recognise pollution is a cost that they are dropping into the laps of everyone else. I don't belive "the tradgedy of the commons" is an intractable problem when you ignore the nuts from BOTH sides of the political equation and simply get people to clean up their own mess in a reasonable manner. The most reasonable manner I can think of is to make pollution a cost to the hip pocket of the polluter.
I haven't RTFA so I don't know if the motivation for writing such mindless crap is because the author is an eco-nut or because he is an opposing nut whose aim is to trivialise a real issue. Either way they are not being helpfull.
I do belive you, not because of the link but because I remeber it quite well, I don't think it makes my statement "patently false" but it does demonstrate that the history can not be summarised with an offhand quip.
I agree that Arafat was a stubborn fool, he cocked-up a rare opportunity and paid the price for the rest of his life. I also agree that even though Hamas is democratically elected it still must recognise Israel before a solution is possible.
I agree Ehud Barak has every moral right to insist on that and continue to attack those individuals who fire apon Israel.
I don't agree with is the GP's myopic comment about borders.
I don't agree with Ehud Barak's current tactic of temporarily stopping violence by using a lot more of it.
I think the most pragmatic carrot that Israel could offer Hamas is to step back and allow the UN to control the borders from the outside, the only pragmatic defense Hamas has from Israel is to recognise them and disown those amoungst them who won't. As Tony Blair is so fond of pointing out, dismantling the IRA was a political process not a military one. It started with each side formally recognising the other had a right to exist and ended with the die hard IRA dregs robbing a bank. I remeber the IRA bombs going off like popcorn in the seventies and early eighties, back then the history and violence centered around N. Ireland looked just as unresolvable as Gazza is today.
A US senator was the honest broker who got Ireland's orange and green to recognise each other's basic human rights. I believe Clinton was also an honest broker between Arafat and E. Barak, and was genuinely pissed off when Arafat left Ehud standing at the alter. I don't think Bush has been honest in anything much at all and simply sees Israel as a faithfull deputy in the region. However I am glad to see the US are now abstaining in the security council rather than using their veto to neuter them.
"PS it's not a slur against the disabled, get your head out of that victim-as-hero nonsense. Gimp means...well...how shall I say this? Do you know Mr. Slave from Southpark? A gimp is a leather-wearing gay S&M freak."
Mind that generation gap, in my day a "gimp" was the same thing as a "cripple" and a "leather-wearing gay S&M freak" was either a member of parliment or in a padded cell. I was also under the impression Mr Slave was a parody of the pulp fiction character and that the pulp fiction character was called gimp because he was metaphorically crippled.
"Israel has every right in the world to not open it's borders to any other nation if it so chooses."
Of course it does and it also has a "right to exist". OTOH the Gazzans have a right to be pissed off when Isreal's borders are their prison walls. What right (other than might) does Israel have to preserve it's current voting demographic by surrounding and imprisoning 1.5 million people in a small area? Isreal has always used the stick and it's still not working, how big does the stick need to be before Israel puts it down and starts offering a few carrots?
"What gets me is that Hamas goes to the not inconsiderable effort of digging tunnels into Egypt to smuggle stuff in. Does it use these tunnels to ease the conditions for Palestinian people of Gaza or to bring in rockets to lob into Israel?"
Why do you think it's impossible for smugglers to do both? Israel controls all borders with an iron fist and is the main reason Gazza peridoically runs out of medicine, food, fuel, etc, they are the ones with the power to "ease the conditions for the Palestinian people of Gaza", a bunch of well organised smugglers digging tunnels cannot supply 1.5 million people and Israel wouldn't allow them to even if they could.
"I would point out that Israel is a small country, something like 50 miles wide at it's widest. So getting everything out the range of a rocket with a 20 mile range is utterly impractical."
Yes, and Gazza is not quite small enough to be a secure outdoor prison. For most of the inmates getting outside their 140sq mile prison is utterly impractical.
Disclaimer: Both sides want peace, and both sides think terror is the way to get it.
Slashdot Mirror
+5 insightful just makes it more humorous.
Well said. I cheated and skimed the first link. The judge rejected the plea of insanity. The boy planned his revenge for weeks and did it in cold blood. I didn't find the quote from the judge but I think the "things" the judge had in mind were the "consequences" of his lame plot and subsequent defense, such as the one you mentioned, which given the overall maturity of his motive probably started to sink in when he was de-liced at the remand center.
graspingatstrawslaw
Yep, lots of legends have a
grain of truth.
"the internet is not exactly the most kid-safe place" [my emph.]
Might not be friendly, might not be appropriate, but it's safe.
"The non thinking Atheist"
I like it! Even though I defend Dawkins I'm not in total agreement, I think religion, politics, etc, focus and direct an existing and very deep "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy that EVERYONE uses just to get out of bed in the morning.
Me: Ducks into server room and puts on wig and silks.
IANAL. May I see your search warrant!
"Yes, someone made the bath water too hot, so nobody should ever take baths again."
You make some excellent points regarding my anti-subsidy rant that triggered the thread. I agree tarrifs/subsidies are like all regulations, a tool. I also think that over the last 30-40yrs national governments have been struggling to use those tools on globalised bussiness and globalised problems. I certainly don't have any answers but I'm pretty sure global bussiness isn't going away and think one of the questions should be: How to globalise your Florida example.
"I don't have any good answers, but I hope someone does. Unfortunately, bad answers are easy to come up with."
Ditto. The tradition answer to your point is actually a question, ie: what do we do with our lesiure time? Of course that pre-supposes the benifits of a fully automated economy would be distributed.
"It was as close to a religious experience as I have ever had."
My lady friend is a moderate Christian and was in her late thirties when I met her. Although she had occasionally been under them she had never looked up at a dark sky, she also belived I could not "know" the feeling of religious awe because...well...I am not religions. When I showed her a dark sky and described our physical place in the milky way she was gob-smacked and she knew that I knew. We were also lucky enough to spot about a dozen leonoids over a few hours.
There were a few dozen people on the beach in 2007 but she is the only person I know in Melbourne who saw McNaught that night. Some of my friends/family saw a much dimmer version about a week later but most people belive it was "another over-hyped dissapointment" (as the OP puts it).
"P.S., I've read many of the works of both Dawkins and Sagan."
/sarcasm
And yet you missed the point, science does not prove anything nor does it claim certainty.
"you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound"
There is evidence that a tree falling over makes a sound, ie: it can be observed. The only leap of faith required to belive a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is listening is that the real world continues to exist when nobody is watching it. In other words sticking ones head in the sand and pretending the real world does not exist will not save ones arse no matter how stong their faith is.
"[Dawkins is] a dimwit with too much backing."
Yea right, and an over rated zen riddle about trees is EVIDENCE for that.
"I am a Muslim."
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
"Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?"
That bit of twisted logic is known as the "god of the gaps". Not knowing the answer to everything is not evidence that there exists "a higher power" that does.
"Why is the belief in a higher power any more or less "religious" than the belief in a big bang?"
Science does not prove anything, it provides the best explaination for observations. The observable expansion of the visable universe is EVIDENCE to support the big bang. Science does not claim that god didn't light the fuse, it claims there is no EVIDENCE of a fuse. There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
"They can't entertain ideas they don't support. It is truly dogmatic."
Emmm no, they can't entertain assertions that there is no evidence for, and yes that is a kind of "dogma" if you want to be a pedant.
"A belief in the existence of a higher power, whether it is the alpha male, or a mathematical equation or whatever, does not automatically imply religion."
It automatically implies faith, not BLIND faith. All faith is not equal, the single "leap of faith" that science requires of it's practioners is that the "real world" exists. I can demonstrate mathematical equations exist in the "real world", I cannot demonstrate an alpha male in the sky exists and neither can anyone else - see the difference - EVIDENCE.
"In my experience so far, atheists are more dogmatic, more aggressive and less rational than the average person of religion."
Perhaps you have experienced dickheads so lets take a look at a famous Atheist. Dawkins points out ALL religious people are also Atheists, they just went one god too far. ie: They don't belive in Thor, the FSM, etc, but they do belive in an alpha male in the sky using only blind faith as evidence.
"If life were replicated in a test tube would that disprove the existence of God? Please explain how, as I don't see any logical path of reasoning that leads to that conclusion."
No but it certainly pins the tail on the creationists donkeys. Dawkins entire point is that religion promotes "unthinking as a virtue" and that this permeates into politics and the rest of society. He does not claim he can prove god doesn't exist he claims that there is no evidence and therefore the RATIONAL course of action is to assume he doesn't.
Dawkins has the same fears as Sagan did, and yeah, he's more agressive about it. I suggest you read Dawkins and Sagan's books and think about what they are saying, after all "doubting Thomas" was Jesus' favorite deciple.
As someone who worked in so called "mindless jobs" from the mid-seventies to the early nineties I think your entire post is the most obnoxious pile of elitist claptrap I have heard in a long time.
BTW: Japan automated their factories and that is why they kicked the crap out of the UK & US car industry while maintaining a high standard of living.
"economics is a tool, much like physics or chemistry, which should be used to enrich our lives and solve problems."
I agree. The problem with your whole post is that you are defining "our" in the above quote as a subset of mankind.
"[Comets] almost never live up to the hype"
I've been looking at the sky for comets since around the time of the moon landings, Hayley's comet was a big dissapointment even though I was living in the bush at the time and had near perfect skies. However a couple of years ago when a I got break in a week of cloudy sky I saw Comet McNaght at it's peak brightness looking very much like this to (an old fart's) naked eye, from a beachside suburb in the glow of a major city! After 40yrs of looking at the sky I finally saw a comet in all it's awsome glory, but by that time comets were no longer the reason I habitually enjoyed "sticking my head out at night".
This kind of thing damages the scientific credibility as a whole and turns people off the idea of beleiving scientists: "remember that comet they told us about - what a bust that was, I guess name of global catastrophe is the same - waste of time".
Slightly offtopic but I don't agree, the only reason to belive scientists has got nothing to do with the scientists theselves. How many posts do we see on slashdot following the religious right's "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy when it comes to a political rant against the IPCC, they ranters fail to even read, let alone falsify the assertions contained within it's reports. And to add insult to injury these type of anti-science rants are often modded insightfull by what is supposed to be a bunch of nerds. I agree with Dawkins and Sagan that the "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy is our worst enemy but scientists are the last group of people I would blame for it's popularity.
"This is why America is rapidly becommin a service industry with no manufacturing. Manufacturing is moving elsewhere in a rapid fashion."
Manufacturing moved elsewhere 20yrs ago. IIRC Reagan and Thatcher spent most of the 80's crushing unions and telling everyone it would be a GoodThing(TM). Not that I think the removal of tarrifs and perpetual subsidies is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but you need more than that to "level the playing field". You also need to take into account the reglatory regime under which the manafacturing was performed. To do otherwise is simply exporting the labour/environmental problems to nations that don't/can't give a fuck about either. Before you know what's happening everything is made elsewhere, it's dirt cheap and has a high probability of serious defects and toxic contaminants (reminicent of pre-seventies "jap-crap"). IMHO the corect term for the labour side of this is "cheap labour capitalisim", I don't know if there is an equivalent for the environmental side
Note: Rant maybe but not an anti-conservative one, just some observations and an onion-belt story. And even though I think it's a half-assed idea, I will readily admit the "service economy" has been generous to me personally.
The US (and EU for that matter) spend huge amounts of money on farm subsidies much to the disgust of Aussie farmers who get very few subsidies, not to mention the third world farmers who are pushed out of the market alltogether. Protectionisim (in all it's forms) stiffles trade, kills competition and creates mountains of unwanted food in one place while others starve in another place.
It may sound tempting and may even have the potential to make a nation self sufficient, but in practice what happens is that wealthy countries mirror each other tarrifs "tit for tat" style. The consumer and the third world farmer are the biggest losers, in effect the taxpayer is paying the government to kill the competition (quite literally in some cases). There is however a more subtle loss of efficientcy in the country weathy enough to provide the subsidy.
"when we engaged in mild protectionism this wasn't an issue. We used to charge tariffs on imports from nations without proper human and labor rights."
I would call that a sanction, it's a different and more legitimate practice but it's open to abuse and still triggers tit for tat reactions.
While I agree that everything has a cost I don't think ALL the nuts are of the eco variety. As a "greenie" I would be happy to see the nuts at the other end of the spectrum recognise pollution is a cost that they are dropping into the laps of everyone else. I don't belive "the tradgedy of the commons" is an intractable problem when you ignore the nuts from BOTH sides of the political equation and simply get people to clean up their own mess in a reasonable manner. The most reasonable manner I can think of is to make pollution a cost to the hip pocket of the polluter.
I haven't RTFA so I don't know if the motivation for writing such mindless crap is because the author is an eco-nut or because he is an opposing nut whose aim is to trivialise a real issue. Either way they are not being helpfull.
"Your point about a possible UN force safekeeping Gaza borders is valid, but somewhat impractical."
Probably, I'm old enough to realise I don't have any answers, just suggestions and observations.
UNIFIL - I remeber seeing their commander interviewed before the war, I can't remeber what he said but I do remeber he was a very frustrated man!
I do belive you, not because of the link but because I remeber it quite well, I don't think it makes my statement "patently false" but it does demonstrate that the history can not be summarised with an offhand quip.
I agree that Arafat was a stubborn fool, he cocked-up a rare opportunity and paid the price for the rest of his life. I also agree that even though Hamas is democratically elected it still must recognise Israel before a solution is possible.
I agree Ehud Barak has every moral right to insist on that and continue to attack those individuals who fire apon Israel.
I don't agree with is the GP's myopic comment about borders.
I don't agree with Ehud Barak's current tactic of temporarily stopping violence by using a lot more of it.
I think the most pragmatic carrot that Israel could offer Hamas is to step back and allow the UN to control the borders from the outside, the only pragmatic defense Hamas has from Israel is to recognise them and disown those amoungst them who won't. As Tony Blair is so fond of pointing out, dismantling the IRA was a political process not a military one. It started with each side formally recognising the other had a right to exist and ended with the die hard IRA dregs robbing a bank. I remeber the IRA bombs going off like popcorn in the seventies and early eighties, back then the history and violence centered around N. Ireland looked just as unresolvable as Gazza is today.
A US senator was the honest broker who got Ireland's orange and green to recognise each other's basic human rights. I believe Clinton was also an honest broker between Arafat and E. Barak, and was genuinely pissed off when Arafat left Ehud standing at the alter. I don't think Bush has been honest in anything much at all and simply sees Israel as a faithfull deputy in the region. However I am glad to see the US are now abstaining in the security council rather than using their veto to neuter them.
"PS it's not a slur against the disabled, get your head out of that victim-as-hero nonsense. Gimp means...well...how shall I say this? Do you know Mr. Slave from Southpark? A gimp is a leather-wearing gay S&M freak."
Mind that generation gap, in my day a "gimp" was the same thing as a "cripple" and a "leather-wearing gay S&M freak" was either a member of parliment or in a padded cell. I was also under the impression Mr Slave was a parody of the pulp fiction character and that the pulp fiction character was called gimp because he was metaphorically crippled.
"Israel has every right in the world to not open it's borders to any other nation if it so chooses."
Of course it does and it also has a "right to exist". OTOH the Gazzans have a right to be pissed off when Isreal's borders are their prison walls. What right (other than might) does Israel have to preserve it's current voting demographic by surrounding and imprisoning 1.5 million people in a small area? Isreal has always used the stick and it's still not working, how big does the stick need to be before Israel puts it down and starts offering a few carrots?
"What gets me is that Hamas goes to the not inconsiderable effort of digging tunnels into Egypt to smuggle stuff in. Does it use these tunnels to ease the conditions for Palestinian people of Gaza or to bring in rockets to lob into Israel?"
Why do you think it's impossible for smugglers to do both? Israel controls all borders with an iron fist and is the main reason Gazza peridoically runs out of medicine, food, fuel, etc, they are the ones with the power to "ease the conditions for the Palestinian people of Gaza", a bunch of well organised smugglers digging tunnels cannot supply 1.5 million people and Israel wouldn't allow them to even if they could.
"I would point out that Israel is a small country, something like 50 miles wide at it's widest. So getting everything out the range of a rocket with a 20 mile range is utterly impractical."
Yes, and Gazza is not quite small enough to be a secure outdoor prison. For most of the inmates getting outside their 140sq mile prison is utterly impractical.
Disclaimer: Both sides want peace, and both sides think terror is the way to get it.
NP, I like your sig!