Blaming Israel for carnage

Blaming Israel for carnage

There are 121873 comments on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram story from Jul 22, 2006, titled Blaming Israel for carnage. In it, Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that:

Most media outlets aren't providing news of Israel's barbaric air raids on Lebanon with fairness and integrity.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Zioni

Israel

#114132 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Don' tell me what I have and haven't done Zioni. The fact that you haven't read any of my posts were I condemn them is your problem not mine. I came on this forum to discuss why I think Israel is at the heart of the current problem. If I wanted to discuss what the Palestinians have done I would do that on a different forum
As usual you change the subject instead of condeming Abbas and Co who are terrorist leaders responsible for hundreds of murders of Jewish civilians for just being Jewish.

The same leadership who said:
If they had nukes they would use them on Israel.
No Jews allowed in Palestinian State.
Refugees will not be given Palestinian citizenship as they will be used to finish off Israel (Read PLO Phased Plan).
Abbas funded the Munich massacre amongst others and incites violence and hatred towards Jews and Israel on a regular basis.

So are you refusing to condemn them here???
Hypocrite.

So you consider Israel at the heart of the problem when the fact is its about Jews. If Palestine was Muslim there would be no issue.

You don't want to discuss but want to tell.

You never commented on the fact that the Palestinian lie on a regular basis about attrocities. Why do you ignore the Jenin "massacre" where your Jewish Global Media, so called Human Rights orgs called a small battle a massacre by Israel? It never happened but you don't like to admit that the Palestinians get caught making things up on a regular basis to incite hatred towards Israel; this is perpetuated by people such as yourself, HRorgs, Media governments and so on.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114133 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
I am working so have other things to do but I generally try to research as much as I can unlike you who seems to have no problem continuously posting Opinion pieces.

...and yet I post and you are instantly here.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114134 Jan 8, 2014
I must away as I need to do some grocery shopping before we move on on Friday
Zioni

Israel

#114135 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
..and yet it was those terrible British who allowed the Jews to make a homeland in Palestine. The Jews were the ones who created the hostilities by taking land that was not their to take. The British could see the effect that the Jews were having on the indigenous population and that is why the curtailed further immigration by the Jews. This pissed the Jews off who retaliated by attacking the British.
Back to basics.

The British did everything they could to stop Jews from having a viable homeland in W.Palestine.
First they created Jordan on the majority of Palestine.
They gave land meant for Jews to Arab immigrants.
They restricted Jewish immigration from 1921, and refused entry for Jews escaping from the Holocaust.
They did nothing to stop numerous Arab massacres against Jews on the land, even supporting them in some cases.
They went against the Mandate according to League of Nations officials at the end of the 1920's.

Can you name anything the British did to allow the Jews a homeland in W.Palestine (not including Balfour)? Since you claim they did so much, shouldn't be hard to prove.

If according to you the Jews retaliated when the Brits curtailed Jewish immigration why did it take a decade for this retaliation??

You really like to create your own reality. I have already proven that it was the Arabs who started the violence before all of the above.

Since I have been here you have never shown any evidence of Jewish theft of Arab land which led to the Arabs starting hostilities.
Zioni

Israel

#114136 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed my point which was that nearly 1/5th of the Israeli population attended his funeral plus or minus a few visitors. I don't call that an extremist person in the eyes of the Israeli people. From my point of view the fact that he harassed Christians in the way that he did makes him no hero of mine
When it comes to religion I find many in Israel extreme, even the non-practicing.

Many Israeli ridicule his words but when it comes to the Sephardi religious community in Israel he was their leader.
Zioni

Israel

#114137 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
...and yet I post and you are instantly here.
I only usually have the time during the night so if you check I only comment at a certain time of day. I also disappear for days here and there. I also only comment on the Israel forum so not as much to look at.

I wouldn't have the time if I continued this for a few months.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114138 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to basics.
If there had been no Balfour declaration there would have been no Israel in the land of Palestine, end of story, so don't dismiss it so lightly.

The reason that the immigration was restricted was because an agreement had been made in section two of the white paper of 1939 that stated:

Section 11: Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate was to be limited to 75,000 over the next five years, after which it would depend on ARAB consent:
'His Majesty's Government DO NOT [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH NATIONAL HOME IN PALESTINE CANNOT BE EFFECTED UNLESS IMMIGRATION IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY . If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.' WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED

Section III. Land: Previously no restriction had been imposed on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews, while now the White Paper stated:
"The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land.'
Maybe just maybe the above points were just some of the reasons for the Arabs being upset at the Jews
The British had no right to give any land away neither to the Jews or for Trans Jordon. It was up to the indigenous people of the land to make that decision. A mandate implies that it will be held in trust until the people of the land are capable of self government. The Arabs were the overwhelming majority of the people in the land

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114139 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to religion I find many in Israel extreme, even the non-practicing.
Many Israeli ridicule his words but when it comes to the Sephardi religious community in Israel he was their leader.
It is not a democracy that's a simple fact. Others who were not Sephardi also paid their respects to this man so are they all extremists too? It sounds like Israel sure has a lot of extremists and self hating Jews based on your posts

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114140 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
I only usually have the time during the night so if you check I only comment at a certain time of day. I also disappear for days here and there. I also only comment on the Israel forum so not as much to look at.
I wouldn't have the time if I continued this for a few months

.
Then we can agree to call it a coincidence
Zioni

Israel

#114141 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
...and yet I post and you are instantly here.
really is that why it took 15 hours for me to reply from post 114090-114110.
Nice try to deflect from the subject again and try to portray me as a paid activist instead of refuting what i say.
Zioni

Israel

#114142 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
If there had been no Balfour declaration there would have been no Israel in the land of Palestine, end of story, so don't dismiss it so lightly.
The reason that the immigration was restricted was because an agreement had been made in section two of the white paper of 1939 that stated:
.....
Maybe just maybe the above points were just some of the reasons for the Arabs being upset at the Jews
The British had no right to give any land away neither to the Jews or for Trans Jordon. It was up to the indigenous people of the land to make that decision. A mandate implies that it will be held in trust until the people of the land are capable of self government. The Arabs were the overwhelming majority of the people in the land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1...
Without Balfour there may still have been Israel, you are making assumptions again.
52 countries of the LoN agreed to the Mandate.

Again you seem ignore the 1920-30's. The immigration restrictions for Jews began in the early 1920's. So your claims are false.

Its section 2 not 11.

The Mandate clearly states that there will be a Jewish homeland, and there is specifically no mention of political rights in the document unlike the other Mandate documents which speak of political rights for the locals.

I never said it was necessarily fair.

Not saying the Arabs had no reason to be upset. Basically the Arabs of W.Palestine got the short end of the stick while their brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins in the surrounding lands got everything while the other groups in the region got nothing.

The Brits didn't give away land and until the 1940 war Jews bought the land they used.

Britain actually according to the Mandate were required to encourage Jewish settlement on public lands. Most of this arable public land was given to Arabs often new immigrants themselves.

The Mandate allowed Britain to cut off 80% of Palestine (Trans-Jordan) from the land.

It was the Jews spoken about in the Mandate and the Mandate also speaks of helping the Jews set up the institutions necessary for self government.

So why than did the Arab attacks on Jewish civilians start 2 decades before the time you speak?
Zioni

Israel

#114143 Jan 8, 2014
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a democracy that's a simple fact. Others who were not Sephardi also paid their respects to this man so are they all extremists too? It sounds like Israel sure has a lot of extremists and self hating Jews based on your posts
You keep saying simple fact but Israel is still a democracy with equal rights. Whatever some Rabbi said doesn't change that. Palestine Arabs can sit in Parliament and call for the destruction of Israel, go on the Maamara which was illegal as they were trying to break a legal blockade, and nothing happens to them. Even according to the UN Palmer Report.
We don't have political correctness BS in this country and unless you are inciting violence its a free for all. If you are inciting violence you will get targeted more if you are right wing than left probably cos' the media is left.

More assumptions. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was a great scholar of Judaism and was respected by many in the country. The large majority of people who didn't go to the funeral either don't agree or laugh at him. I know though that most of the people I know who were at the funeral would never agree with the extreme comments he made but respected him for his other side.

You will find that most religious leaders are bigoted or prejudice whether they say it to the world, community or family. That is religion as it automatically discriminates against others.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114144 Jan 8, 2014
British White Paper of June 1922

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

to be continued

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114145 Jan 8, 2014
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.

It is necessary also to ensure that persons who are politically undesirable be excluded from Palestine, and every precaution has been and will be taken by the Administration to that end.
Mandate are not being fulfilled by the Government of Palestine.

To be continued

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114146 Jan 8, 2014
It is intended that a special committee should be established in Palestine, consisting entirely of members of the new Legislative Council elected by the people, to confer with the administration upon matters relating to the regulation of immigration. Should any difference of opinion arise between this committee and the Administration, the matter will be referred to His Majesty's Government, who will give it special consideration. In addition, under Article 81 of the draft Palestine Order in Council, any religious community or considerable section of the population of Palestine will have a general right to appeal, through the High Commissioner and the Secretary of State, to the League of Nations on any matter on which they may consider that the terms of the Mandate are not being fulfilled by the Government of Palestine.

With reference to the Constitution which it is now intended to establish in Palestine, the draft of which has already been published, it is desirable to make certain points clear. In the first place, it is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge.

to be continued

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114147 Jan 8, 2014
Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty's overnment to foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine. But they are of the opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages and not suddenly. The first step was taken when, on the institution of a Civil Administration, the nominated Advisory Council, which now exists, was established. It was stated at the time by the High Commissioner that this was the first step in the development of self governing institutions, and it is now proposed to take a second step by the establishment of a Legislative Council containing a large proportion of members elected on a wide franchise. It was proposed in the published draft that three of the members of this Council should be non official persons nominated by the High Commissioner, but representations having been made in opposition to this provision, based on cogent considerations, the Secretary of State is prepared to omit it. The legislative Council would then consist of the High Commissioner as President and twelve elected and ten official members. The Secretary of State is of the opinion that before a further measure of self government is extended to Palestine and the Assembly placed in control over the Executive, it would be wise to allow some time to elapse. During this period the institutions of the country will have become well established; its financial credit will be based on firm foundations, and the Palestinian officials will have been enabled to gain experience of sound methods of government. After a few years the situation will be again reviewed, and if the experience of the working of the constitution now to be established so warranted, a larger share of authority would then be extended to the elected representatives of the people.

The Secretary of State would point out that already the present administration has transferred to a Supreme Council elected by the Moslem community of Palestine the entire control of Moslem Religious endowments (Waqfs), and of the Moslem religious Courts. To this Council the Administration has also voluntarily restored considerable revenues derived from ancient endowments which have been sequestrated by the Turkish Government. The Education Department is also advised by a committee representative of all sections of the population, and the Department of Commerce and Industry has the benefit of the co operation of the Chambers of Commerce which have been established in the principal centres. It is the intention of the Administration to associate in an increased degree similar representative committees with the various Deparments of the Government.

The Secretary of State believes that a policy upon these lines, coupled with the maintenance of the fullest religious liberty in Palestine and with scrupulous regard for the rights of each community with reference to its Holy Places, cannot but commend itself to the various sections of the population, and that upon this basis may be built up that a spirit of cooperation upon which the future progress and prosperity of the Holy Land must largely depend.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114148 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
Without Balfour there may still have been Israel, you are making assumptions again.
A: Now who is making assumptions by stating may have been?

52 countries of the LoN agreed to the Mandate

A:Yes and of them six were coerced; into changing their vote and how many abstentions were there again? Why did they need to extend the time for the voting???

Again you seem ignore the 1920-30's. The immigration restrictions for Jews began in the early 1920's. So your claims are false.

A:Where have I ignored the 1920's I mentioned the restrictions documented in the white papers which were written and available in 1922

Its section 2 not 11.
A: Yes I know, you clearly don't recognize Roman numerals

The Mandate clearly states that there will be a Jewish homeland, and there is specifically no mention of political rights in the document unlike the other Mandate documents which speak of political rights for the locals.

A; It didn't need to mention them as they were already living there, the Jews weren't

I never said it was necessarily fair.
Not saying the Arabs had no reason to be upset. Basically the Arabs of W.Palestine got the short end of the stick while their brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins in the surrounding lands got everything while the other groups in the region got nothing

A; You're dam right it wasn't fair

The Brits didn't give away land and until the 1940 war Jews bought the land they used.
Britain actually according to the Mandate were required to encourage Jewish settlement on public lands. Most of this arable public land was given to Arabs often new immigrants themselves.

A: It doesn't matter they had no right to give it away at all

The Mandate allowed Britain to cut off 80% of Palestine (Trans-Jordan) from the land.
A; Which was also wrong

It was the Jews spoken about in the Mandate and the Mandate also speaks of helping the Jews set up the institutions necessary for self government.

A: So why does that mean that the mandate didn't apply to the indigenous Arabs who lived there
So why than did the Arab attacks on Jewish civilians start 2 decades before the time you
speak of
A I have already explained that and you continue to ignore it. The white paper which was written in 1922

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114149 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying simple fact but Israel is still a democracy with equal rights. Whatever some Rabbi said doesn't change that. Palestine Arabs can sit in Parliament and call for the destruction of Israel, go on the Maamara which was illegal as they were trying to break a legal blockade, and nothing happens to them. Even according to the UN Palmer Report.
We don't have political correctness BS in this country and unless you are inciting violence its a free for all. If you are inciting violence you will get targeted more if you are right wing than left probably cos' the media is left.
More assumptions. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was a great scholar of Judaism and was respected by many in the country. The large majority of people who didn't go to the funeral either don't agree or laugh at him. I know though that most of the people I know who were at the funeral would never agree with the extreme comments he made but respected him for his other side.
You will find that most religious leaders are bigoted or prejudice whether they say it to the world, community or family. That is religion as it automatically discriminates against others.
Where is your evidence and who is it that you are claiming states this??

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114150 Jan 8, 2014
Zioni wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about today and the current Palestinian leadership who call for the extermination of Israelis, end of Israel, supply arms funds and training for terrorism against Israeli civilians.
You refuse to condemn the current Palestinian leadership, and refuse to accept that these people are not interested in peace and admit to being terrorists.
The same British who labeled Begin a terrorist, supported numerous Arab massacres against Jews on the land during the Mandate.
The same British who labeled Begin a terrorist are paying the salaries of mass murderers being released by Israel on good will, they also pay for the hatred in Palestinian schools, and fund numerous organizations who advocate the destruction of Israel. So not the best example.
So don't be the one to throw the first stone or it will come right back at you.
I have never denied that Zionists carried out terrorist attacks, they even carried out attacks against their own. You are the one who denies it was the Arabs who began the attrocities on the land against the indigneous Jews.
Nope you are, not me, we are talking about terrorists full stop and how Israel let them back onto the streets and prior Israeli terrorists. You have yet to get back to me on the two examples that I gave you. They don't need to be bes,t just your common home grown terrorists Also you have yet to get back to me re the 1977 anti proselytizing law that was introduced into a democratic country in 1977. You continue to deflect just like you accuse me of doing so go figure. BTW try and use your own quotes instead of mine

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#114151 Jan 8, 2014
What cowards some on here are, hiding behind anonymity. They don't have the balls to express their points of view for all to see but they judge me. They are craven cowards who are to be pitied

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Selden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Heroin Overdosed Centereach High School (Jan '09) 11 hr Relic 36
News Petition drive underway to reopen Roberto Cleme... Sat why angie 5
News After officer's wake, cops nab drug suspect (Mar '09) Aug 26 Go Blue Forever 212
As we can C Newark NJ Hells angels just cowar... (Apr '13) Aug 26 Ends in a vowel 13
News Islip ex-commish Joe Montuori Jr., aide plead g... Aug 25 make them pay 2
News 3rd suspect in murder of 2 men found dismembered (Aug '08) Aug 24 Dindu Nuffin 181
News Horseshoe crab sting (Jul '07) Aug 24 11951Ratdog 86

Selden Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Selden Mortgages