Less awesome was the hearty applause he received repeatedly. Columbia students never cease to unimpress.

It also took a bit of gumption for Ahmadinejad to chastise Pres. Bollinger for going over his "alloted time."

Oh, and in case you haven't heard, there are no homosexuals in Iran

Yeah like this lovely picture *puke*

Sorry, Karol, you've lost me. Are you saying that gays are good or bad. I ask because, during one of those interminable debates with Rep hopefuls, it was either one or none who would have any truck with homosexuality. Aren't the hardcore of your party dead set against gays?
By all means criticise Iran for the stuff it does badly or wrong, but do avoid subjects you (plurally meant) agree on. Same goes for human rights abuses (after all extraordinary rendition is from the USA).

And also, didn't he get called a tin-pot dictator to his face, din't he also come accross as something of a dickhead?
His deflection of the holocaust as "needing more research" seemed to come out of the ID Vs Evolution, and also climate change/greenhouse gases not being a problem playbooks.
Perhaps his appearance in NY has made people see him for the Mr. Bean type that he is, and weakens some hawks case for invasion.

Are you suggesting that Republicans are for terminating gays?

To be honest, I thought his opening statement was good. I would have gave him a standing O for his remarks. You don't invite someone to come to your house then attack them. It was very much a lack of class on the Presidents behalf.

As for the holocaust...sad event that happend but does that justify the US (well the UN which is basically the US) to lead an invasion to kill and displace so many people to give the Jews a homeland? I know it is not a popular view to take but nobody wants to admit to the removal of the Palistine people from their homes.

As for Columbia Students...I think that there was clapping on both sides to be honest. Not to mention that they all started to laugh on the no gays remark. So I'm not sure what you are all in a tiff about. Maybe you are jealous of Ivy League kids...I'm not...I think it is great they worked hard to get where they are and I hold nothign against them....hey, where did you get that Hater-Aid at?

>

Yes, "sad event," that Holocaust. You do know that plans for Israel began in the late 1800s, right? And I don't remember the UN "invading" the Middle East to pave the way for Israel. I *do* remember Israel being attacked on all sides in 1948.

As for Ahmadinejad, I was against him speaking at Columbia. I still don't think he deserved the tacit endorsement of an Ivy League school. But he didn't quite find the fawning crowds he expected, even if a bunch of ignorant Columbia students did applaud him. And you could practically hear young minds opening with his "no gays in Iran" nonsense.

Too funny. There are tons of gay kids on Columbia's campus and I'm sure most people will say they have gay friends. Poor-Poor Mike knows no better of what he speaks. As a matter of fact on the Lib. at Columbia they have tons of names of gays on the facade of the building. Too funny...I'm sitting here laughing.

Even if the plans began in the 1800's why didn't they move on it quicker? 100+ years to put something into action...haha! The UN gave the O.K. the whole Israel formation...or was that not approved and backed by the UN...which we can all basically agree is an arm of the US government.

Maybe you are jealous of Ivy League kids

I went to the University of Texas. They're jealous of me.

which we can all basically agree is an arm of the US government.

Yes, totally. Rememeber how we got the UN's unconditional support to invade Iraq?

bryan, there's a difference between believing immorality is immoral/evil (which I do) and believing it's ok to kill homosexuals just because they are.

And joaquin, I guess you'd have applauded Hitler at the Munich talks too? You'd have said it was unfair for Hitler's critics to assail him, since he had been "invited"? Madman Mahmoud was not invited for a social visit. He was invited to speak with a followup Q&A, knowing he could and would be criticized. There was nothing unexpected about it.

Are you so delusional to think jealousy is the basis of the criticism? So, tell us, the Columbia students who criticize Madman Mahmoud are jealous...of themselves? Gotcha, that makes sense. Yeah.

The plain truth is that until you blathered your absurdity, no one had an inkling of thought that it was about "jealousy." Actually, liberals like you should decry Ivy League educations, not praise the kids for "working hard" to get there, since if your parent is an alumnus and wealthy enough, a child can almost always get in. Doesn't that go against liberals' cry for "equal opportunity"?

Now, your obvious delusion is one of history. The simple fact is that Arabs, for centuries, had let what is now Israel and Palestine become arid. What was truly "a land of milk and honey" became a desert through human neglect. So when Jews started returning in the 19th century and settled in the worst parts, Arabs didn't really care. Arabs and Jews lived quite harmoniously for those first several decades, and in fact, Arabs had lived quite peacefully with the few Jews who had remained in Palestine after most of the tribes had been scattered. Then, curiously enough, once the Jews restored and cultivated the land, Arabs suddenly wanted the Jews gone and the land back.

Second, how did the UN lead an "invasion" to displace Palestinians? Do you know *anything* about the Balfour Mandate, you revoltingly ignorant twit, and how Israel was attacked immediately after its creation? There was hardly an "invasion," unlike the warped reality you cling to. Do you know that Palestinians still break into Israeli settlements, shooting people -- women and children too -- as they sleep?

Or are you saying that U.S. action in Iraq is "to kill and displace so many people to give the Jews a homeland"?

There's an old joke about when Menachim Begin and Yasser Arafat sat down for talks. Words were exchanged, and Begin said, "You Palestinians have been thieves and thugs ever since we first encountered you! Why, when we bathed in the Jordan River before crossing, we went back to the banks to find that Palestinians had stolen our clothes!"

"What?" Arafat said. "That could not have happened. There were no Palestinians there at the time."

"Ah, well," Begin replied, "Now that we have that matter cleared up..."

Oil for Food, by far, is the greatest of the Rovian plots.

Bryan -

Karol agrees with the policy of executing homosexuals? That's odd, because I'm gay. And when I lived in the city, I hung out with Karol on a number of occassions.

Not once did she so much as even pull a knife on me.

Notice we are the only country that goes around the UN and there are no ramifications to it...so yes, you are correct in pointing that one out to us...thanks Carol...I totally forgot that one.

Not once did she so much as even pull a knife on me.

Well, there was that one time. But I don't think I knew you were gay then. ;-)

And Joaquin, I can accept a lot of things, spelling my name with a "C" in not among them. Oh, but seriously, can you tell me what kind of "ramifications" there are for ANY country from the UN?

Shawn and Chad: please show me where I claimed the USA or republicans were for the killing of gays, otherwise I might think you are just making stuff up.
What I thought I said is that the heart of the republican movement has absolutely no truck with homosexuality. I go further to say that, if you were to visit certain areas of the USA as a gay man, you would come to some harm. I've seen this sentiment in the UK also. One particular time a buddy of mine and me chased off 5 men giving a 5ft 2inch girl a kicking on the ground for coming out of a gay club. They must've felt very brave that night.
Perry, two comments/rhetorical questions.
Isn't it true that, at the time of Hitler's Munich rallies (to which I feel your comparison is weak) the USA was Germany's biggest financial backer?
Also, didn't the Israelis (including Begin who you mentioned) use terror as a weapon to further their cause? Blowing up hotels and schoolkids?

Shawn and Chad: please show me where I claimed the USA or republicans were for the killing of gays, otherwise I might think you are just making stuff up.

I didn't claim anything. I actually asked the question so that you could clarify your position.

In fact, bryan, my reference to Munich was the peace talks from which Neville returned.

My replies are actually serious. Tell us, bryan, when Muslim terrorists launch rockets from hiding places in hotels and among schoolchildren, do you expect the Israeli military to refrain from firing? Actually, the Israelis often do. The difference is that when they do kill civilians, it's not intentional.

There are thousands of examples where Muslims have targetted Israeli civilians, but show us one, just one, where the Israelis deliberately targetted civilians as a matter of "terror." What hotel did they deliberately blow up? What schoolchildren?

Now, it's simply untrue that "the USA was Germany's biggest financial backer." Individuals may have assisted -- for example, Henry Ford was known to admire Hitler, and native Germans like Fritz Thyssen had extensive financial contacts in the U.S. -- but the United States federal government was not. Maybe you fell for that ridiculous Guardian claim about Prescott Bush being a Nazi backer? What the hell kind of revisionist claptrap do they teach you on the other side of the pond? Oh, wait...

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-british-are-teaching-their.html

Careful, bryan. You're digging yourself deeper each time. You really, really picked the wrong person to argue with, and it's better you just stay quiet.

By the way, you're welcome for Lend-Lease and that you're still speaking English.

Perry, I'm Jewish and I think you don't know of what you speak. Both Muslims and Jew were attacked...you are such a dweeb. Serious, you think that Jews didn't attack Muslims? Dear God.

Dear God.

You keep saying that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Oh, and if you're Jewish, why are you spelling out the name of God completely? Thought that was verboten.

Perry, I'm Jewish and I think

Joaquin, it's a problem when you need to lie to make your point.

Two differences between you and me is that I'm genuinely one-quarter Jewish, and I don't have to make a big deal about it.

"Serious, you think that Jews didn't attack Muslims?"

I never said they didn't. Just show me where Israelis attacked Palestinians or other Muslims as a matter of "terror." Just one example will do.

My Mom is Jewish, Karol. There are Jews in Mexico city...or don't you know that?

Yes, I do know that, but you're not among them so stop it.

I am Jewish...is there something wrong with that? There is a whole group of us from Mexico City that reside here in NYC. I don't practice but I am a Jew.

I'm not disputing the existence of Jews in Mexico. I'm just saying that you, specifically, are not a Jew. I'd bet the house.

Shawn, I hope you have had the clarification you need.
Perry, (sigh) King David Hotel 22nd July 1946, bombed by Irgun (led by Begin). 91 dead of which 17 were Jews. Ok? My uncle served in Palestine before and after this attack, and it was from him I got the story of the bomb they found planted in the bins (dumpster?) of the school the servicemens' kids went to. I have struggled to find it on a search engine. Irgun, Stern and others did plant plenty of bombs, kill many unarmed men and civilians during this period. Perhaps you have never heard of this (it'll be that revisionist education you mentioned).
btw, we finished paying you back for WW2 last winter, so I think your magnamous 'gift' was well bought and paid for. Not to mention the fact that the USA bled the British economy white for the privilege of Lend-lease.
Do I expect the Israelis to stop firing? you ask. I can't think where this question came from, because I don't believe I made any comment on this matter.
Your historical knowledge seems no different than what you claim mine to be. US backing of Nazi Germany does not mean US Government backing specifically, and I feel you are being disingenuous. These companies you mentioned were heavy investors, and USA COMPANIES and CITIZENS formed the largest group of investors in Nazi Germany plc (not a real company, just in case you have your irony chip turned off). The fact is that, post the publication of "Mein Kampf", people thought Germany a good place to invest.

His deflection of the holocaust as "needing more research" seemed to come out of the ID Vs Evolution, and also climate change/greenhouse gases not being a problem playbooks

Jesus (and I do mean the son of God) that's some Hurculean powered stupid. Snide and stupidly you compared Nazi Holocaust deniers with people of the correct faith, as those of us wise enough to not bite into Al Gore's steaming shit sandwich.

Momma drank her lead paint straight from the can when the goat got it up the wrong hole and knocked her up with you, eh? Somebody should have told her not to feed you her yeast infection.

Do the 12 Gauge Toe Tap™ and fast. Stop wasting us sentient, and useful, beings oxygen.

How much is your apt. worth? I have a big apt that is probably worth about 850G. If yours is equal we can put tht bet and if not you can make up the difference in cash. Is it on?

Taking things literally or trying to be clever? You be the judge.

I rent. And anyway, my mom would claim she was Nepalese if it got me 800 grand.

bryan, we're talking about completely different things. Begin ordered that bombing as the head of a private fighting group, not as a direct arm of the Israeli government. On the other hand, there is a clear difference when Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, commit acts upon Israeli civilians, as those *are* state-sponsored terrorist groups.

But even the supposed "terrorism" was a fight for independence, and it was not to deliberately attack civilians. The attack on the King David Hotel was an attack on the British government stationed there, not an indiscriminate attack on civilians.

Oh, I should also add that I've yet to hear of Palestinians give advance warnings when they're about to do a terrorist act.

Well, by your standard, the United States should have declared war Saudi Arabia, since 17 of the hijackers were Saudi. Or should England have declared war on the U.S. because some Americans had financial dealings with Nazi Germany? Even so, your intimation that the U.S. is financially responsible is laughable at best. These individual American citizens and corporations weren't the only ones compared to European banks that also lent money. And, after all, war hadn't yet been declared.

Ah, I know, we should have declared war on your country because some of your politicians received Oil For Food kickbacks.

Don't be so idiotic to believe that governments can prevent or otherwise control the actions of private individuals. You also need more precision in your terminology. "The United States" or "The USA" implies either the government of the United States or the country as a whole, depending on context. What you really should have used was "Americans" or "citizens of the United States."

And another thing you said: "My uncle served..."

Are you familiar with the word "hearsay"? What evidence was there of this bomb, or did your uncle merely believe what someone said since, after all, the attack was on an arm of the British government?

"btw, we finished paying you back for WW2 last winter,"

You sound just like my cousin's brother, a former British soldier who's quite puffed up about the few things you've been doing over there. Sorry, bub, but a few operations in Afghanistan (I believe that's what you're referring to) doesn't cover saving your bottoms. Lend-Lease was only the beginning, you know, which is why I said you can thank us that you're still speaking English.

"so I think your magnamous 'gift' was well bought and paid for. Not to mention the fact that the USA bled the British economy white for the privilege of Lend-lease."

Note that I never said it was a "gift." So you'd rather have *not* paid us money for all the equipment? What are you saying, we should have bled *our* economy white instead?

So we can now presume that you wish your country had declined Lend-Lease, and risk being conquered for lack of equipment? Gotcha.

"Do I expect the Israelis to stop firing? you ask. I can't think where this question came from, because I don't believe I made any comment on this matter."

You were talking about Israelis bombing hotels and killing schoolchildren. Actually I thought you meant the usual propaganda about Israeli forces attacking Palestinian civilians, and Palestinians *do* frequently fire from civilian locations, and among schoolchildren, in an effort to dissuade Israeli counterattacks. However, I won't retract the question and will restate it. I'm curious to see your answer: does Israel have a right to defending itself against Palestinian terrorism?

Careful, bryan. The facts are not strong with you.

joaquin, a word of advice: la boca cerrada no gana moscas. You're as Jewish as my uncircumcised cock.

Perry, you used he dicho wrong...but I give you credit for trying.

Like I said, you can do the difference in cash if you wish.

Perry, the USA loaned the UK government money after WW2 to cover lend-lease not paid for, which took until last December to pay back (ie 60 years). This was the price of 'friendship'. I made no reference to any military actions at all.
My uncle was in the RAF. The people deployed there made regular sweeps and uncovered many explosive devices that did not go off, due to the discovery being made. I admit it won't stand up in a court and I am quite willing to retract.
The Begin/ private individual thing you claim seems to be weak when the 60th anniversary of the hotel bombing was celebrated in Israel, and that stamps with the faces of those who perpetrated acts of terrorism were issued at other times. A Swedish diplomat the US deployed (via the UN) was also killed.
Any nation has the right to defend itself from terrorism, but bulldozing women and children in refugee camps seems excessive to me. I know, I'm the victim of spin and lies, but did you ever consider you might be as well?
There has been a strong argument that Britain could have sought (and got) peace with Nazi Germany in 1941 after winning the Battle of Britain. All my family (even that uncle were safe in Neutral land (Eire) at this time, so I'm not sure how things would have turned out if that had happened.
Reactionary Dullard, sorry, Radical redneck. Your people of the correct faith will just have to forgive me like your supposed saviour taught them to. I wonder to you blow your daddy with that potty mouth?

Perry,

I like the maturity talking about your cock and all. But just in case you were interested...sorry I'm straight. Ask Karol...she knows. But in all seriousness, if you want to get a hold of me to question my Jewishness and want to talk shit to my face just get a hold of me...no problem what so ever.

Ah, well, I was thinking you were talking about the military ops that my cousin's husband keeps bragging about. Anyway, it took you that long to pay us back? (And I'll admit I didn't know you were still paying it back after all those decades.) Even so, don't you think that was worth it, rather than fighting alone?

Whether or not Israelis celebrated the King David bombing anniversary is irrelevant. My point all along is that there is a clear difference between individuals and private groups conducting such actions, and a government sponsoring them. But I'll add that you have anti-Semitic, pro-jihad schmucks like George Galloway, who say there's no difference between what Israelis did then and what Hezbollah does today. I'll simply say that I've never heard of jihadis giving advance warning, one minute or 25 minutes, that they're about to blow people up. I'll also add that the Islamic terrorists love to target civilians, instead of military or government targets.

I have a friend who thinks similarly as you do, believing the U.S. should have sought peaceful relations with Nazi Germany. Either or both the U.S. and Great Britain would have eventually been conquered if they did so. Here's why:

As Nazi Germany solidified control of Europe and northern Africa, it would have spread to the whole of Africa and the Middle East, and then South America. A peace treaty might have allowed it to go as far north as Mexico with violating anything, maybe with a provision for the Panama Canal remaining under U.S. control. The Nazis would have eventually discovered the Middle East's oil deposits, and combined with similar exploiting of Africa's and the Americas' vast mineral wealth, it could have built up its war machine at a furious pace never imagined before.

This peace treaty would have allowed Germany to focus on and eventually defeat the Soviet Union. Germany wouldn't have had to control the whole of the land, just crush the major cities (leaving no coherent government in place) and leave enough of the country in ruins so it would no longer pose a threat. The U.S. and Great Britain would have sat back, mopping their brows in relief that the same wasn't happening to them. But evil men being what they are, Germany would eventually break the treaty -- suddenly launching atomic weapons via V2 rockets at London, and invading the U.S. from the southwest.

What would guarantee the fall of the U.S. and Britain is that their economies would be devastated. History has proved time and time again that countries prosper with free trade, and countries strangle themselves trying to produce everything they consume. Germans knew this then, having witnessed what the Hawley-Smoot Tariff and retaliatory tariffs did around the world, and would have cut off American and British trade with countries falling under German control. So not only would the U.S. and Great Britain lose trade with Europe, they'd eventually lose trade with the Pacific. Japan wouldn't need to conquer all of the Pacific; it would only need to control shipping lanes, by posing enough of a threat to merchant ships.

There's today's dose of alternate history.

Oh, regarding what Israel does. Do you understand that when Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes, it's in response to a suicide bombing? There's plenty of advance warning, hardly your imaginary scenario of heavy equipment suddenly showing up and destroying a structure. So whoever dies are getting what they deserve for leaving themselves in harm's way, like that American girl who stood in front of the Caterpillar.

Israel has no other recourse to discourage the bombings, and think about how many suicide bombings there already are by young men who know their families will lose their home. Summary execution of suicide bomber's families is impossible, of course, but I would support razing entire villages if a suicide bomber is known to be from there. Then let the village take it out on the family that reared the person who invited the destruction.

If Palestinians want to get their economy going, they'll need to stop the bombing. But what happens every time Israel opens the borders a little "so the Palestianians can go to work"? That's right, another suicide bomber gets through, destroying opportunities for everyone else.

One more thing, I decided to do a little reading and came upon a surprising mention: Operation Agatha, 29 June 1946. Was the King David Hotel bombing merely...retaliation?

I personally know of the bombing only superficially and don't know what statements were made about why, but this is an interesting claim nonetheless.

"joaquin," you really are a delusional cabrón. Where did you get the idea I was implying anything of what you're thinking of? Chingada...

Now why would I want to waste my time meeting you? My time is limited enough already with personas quien digan la verdad. Your orientation isn't in question, just the fact that, oh, you're suddenly Jewish. It didn't work for George Allen (not that I thought he was really trying to use it as a tactic), and it won't work for you here.

Oh, and for everyone else, my grammar was correct. "joaquin" is probably thinking of the more traditional form, "En boca cerrada no entran moscas," but I used another grammatically correct form that's more South American. Sounds like "joaquin" is just a wannabe mojado.

Perry, Three posts!
Your alternate history is quite feasable, but I also think that there were plenty enough Nazi sympathisers in the British Empire and the USA to 'Nazify' the rest of the world without a war, especially if the USSR had been quelled. I would say that by 1947 along these lines, whatever jews were left in German hands would be gone, and those who lived outside would continue to be victimised.
As to George Galloway; he is a pompous, preening turd, but most of the accusations levied against him date back to when he was a member of the party which is now in power. The term anti-semite is thrown around by the Israeli government at anyone who dares to criticise them in any way. In fact they said it of one guy who is Jewish (and very proud of it!). I've never heard Galloway say anything pro-Jihad. That's not to say he hasn't, but I take with a grain of salt everything the lazy hacks in journalism try to make me believe, especially when it come to lauding somebody or writing them off completely.
Israels action to defend it's state, and also your view of the Hotel bombing harken me back to a previous thread about Che Guevara. The people who say he's a hero (Che), may feel the same way as you seem to about Begin, or others about Robin Hood, but the legend covers up actual fact.
One could say, for example, that General Custer took an heroic 'last stand' at Little Bighorn, but archaeological evidence finds that an out-numbered and out-gunned body of soldiery were mown down, and that the last to die were fleeing the fight. The legend is far more acceptable isn't it? Especially if it appeals to how you feel about the issue they have been grafted onto to champion. I like to see Ireland and England do well at Football (soccer to you), but I don't take umbridge with the dodginess of some of their activities (Irelands lax recruitment policy (did your granny eat Irish stew? You're in!). Michael Owen likes to dive to try to get penalties).
I know in the USA there is a constant talk about the liberal media (moslty by people on the conservative media, I suppose), and this is where facts and news suffer IMO.
The fact is Begin did it, but this act helped him get a state. Most of the rest of it is then open to interpretation.

I'm not sure there was enough support for Nazi Germany, at least in the U.S. My father was half German and accepted a couple of invites to "Deutschland Uber Alles" rallies, which he found ridiculous. But my point was that a peace treaty would have still resulted in a Nazi victory either way, because a loss of international trade is a guaranteed way to impoverish a country.

Charges of anti-Semitism are routinely thrown around, but that's not to say they're not genuine. Some Anti-Defamation League members and others will cry "anti-Semitism" anytime a Jew is accused, much like many American blacks claim "racism" when they don't get a job, are fired, or are prosecuted for a crime. It does become like the boy who cried wolf, but like the old saying about paranoia: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I can respect an honest belief that Jews have no right to the land, that it's displacing modern Palestinians and making them pay for the sins of their ancestors and Europeans. But there are a lot of people, non-Muslims I should emphasize, who are anti-Israel simply because they hate Jews. They hate Jews simply because of the religious conflict, or because the Jews came back in the 19th century, settled in the worst parts of Palestine, then made the land flourish again.

Speaking of which, I'm quite pleased to hear you say that about Galloway. It's not just him, but a lot of Reform from what I've read, that tries to mask its anti-Jewish bias. Galloway in particular has said a number of things as evidence of his anti-Semitism, but he's very careful with his words that he can say later, like in his libel case against the Daily Telegraph, "Oh but I never said 'Jewish'!" The sentiment is clear, you see, but he chooses his words so that he can be excused on semantics and technicalities. And he sides with Muslim dictators, such as "saluting" Saddam for having "strength" in the face of UN sanctions. Galloway claimed later that he was saluting the Iraqi people, but he in fact said "sir," leaving no doubt about the object of his adoration.

There are hacks on both sides, so it comes down to absorbing as much information as you can, then decide for yourself if you can. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I've read too many of Galloway's statements and seen him side with evil men. Anyone who praises Saddam in the least automatically earns my contempt.

So back to the bombing. You still haven't addressed my point. I've yet to hear of any Muslim terrorists who gave any advance warning to a suicide bombing or hijacking. I would have certainly criticized Begin's operation had it indiscriminately attacked civilians with no advance warning, but this was a focused attack on a government target -- quite a far cry from Palestinians bombing an Israeli bus or shooting Israeli settlers in their sleep.

Che, on the other hand, was simply a murderer, and an ally of other Latin American murderers who used him as an executioner. He's a "freedom fighter" to some in the same way that Muslims idolize Osama and Arafat.

Robin Hood, at least the legend, has been seen by a lot of libertarians as a thief: he stole the lawful property of "the rich" and gave it to the poor. I myself see it as taking back money that "the rich" stole from the poor via high taxation and an oppresive government.

Custer is generally agreed to have been a pompous ass. He just didn't have the temperament worthy of a true general, which is why he could never keep his wartime commissions. It was simply his arrogance that led him to maneuver into a mismatched fight, no matter how heroically he or his battalions fought.

Perry,

Do you know what the saying means? Do you even know what Mojado means? Poor-Poor kid gets one friend from South America and thinks he knows it all. But none the less, like I said, if you want to put up 800K on it or your apt. I'm more than willing. Didn't think so. Take care tough guy and I'm sure we will run into one another at one of Karol's blogger events.

Perry, I have no knowledge of warnings given by Palestinians about bombings. I will say about warnings that the IRA always seemed used to phone them in, but they always seemed to be done in order to maximise human damage and to cause panic.
Robin Hood, you are probably aware, became a beacon for the anti-McCarthy faction in the late 1950's as he was a hero who fought a bad government. a lot of blacklisted writers had their scripts fronted onto this show by others. If such a person existed (i.e a Saxon baron in Norman occupied/integrating England), he probably would have been fighting for his fellow barons and not 'the people', most of whom were serfs to one lord or another.
George Galloway's new party is not Reform, but more nauseating than that, Respect.

Err, yeah, Respect. I mistyped because I was also thinking of Ross Perot's equally ridiculous third party, Reform.

I'm unfamiliar with the IRA's tactics, but the Palestinians (and Muslim terrorists period) have never called in a bombing. There was a warning at the King David Hotel, so even the rare instance of alleged "Israeli terrorism" pales in comparison to your run-of-the-mill Intifada youth who will blow up a cafe or bus at the drop of a keffiyeh.

A Robin Hood would have necessarily fought for his fellow noblemen. History shows that some have given up or declined power and wealth for the sake of what is right. Locksley, at least what the legend grew to be in popular culture, was a noble spirit who realized the oppression instilled by a corrupt government. In some variations, he felt it his duty to defend the throne of the absent Richard, and to defend the people on Richard's behalf from the corrupt government.