pappajacks

I've been trying to find it for a few days now, but unsuccessful so far. remember when the nWo appeared on Raw (could have been for the first time ever) and destroyed The Rock. is that video on Youtube?

a work?

It would be insane to try to edit out every moment Benoit had on television. how will they be able to edit one of Ric Flair's greatest promo ever (benoit is right behind him the entire time): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Et7KRoFs-F8 to think these 2 women are dead already: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mJ2IfmzBGo

I still have a tough time believing that warrior is still alive and healthy while others have dropped like flies. And he seems well spoken on top of that.

how many promos did SOH do besides his views on drugs and religion? Youtube only has those 2.

It's interesting to read that Benoit was thinking for months that someone was out to get him. Do you guys think he purposely gave that impression to friends (by not allowing Nancy and his kid leave the house, by changing the route he takes from the airport to the house) so that his friends would think it ended up being a triple murder instead of a doublemurder/suicide?

Wrestlers are different type of co-workers because they travel, train, drink, share hotel rooms together 300 days a year. It's more like family than anything else. In your type of work, you probably go home at the end of the day. These guys see each other more than their own families.

In Benoit's head he may of thought he had few real friends. Booker T., Jericho are guys he got along with, but never considered them to be friends. How many people have more than a few real friends? Even with the recent deaths of friends, it seemed to me Benoit still had more real friends than the average person. He wasn't a loner.

I have a lot of trouble believing the statement that Benoit had few friends. If anything, he seemed like he had a lot of good people who considered themselves as his great friends, such as Jericho, Hart, Booker T, Chavo, Dean, and at least a half dozen others. If he had few friends, then what to say about 95% of the population?

You never know with Vince. He has a sick mind, just think about some of the storylines throughout the years. I wouldn't be surprised that a little part of Vince would have loved Benoit to not commit suicide and to somehow avoid any prison sentence (or minimal sentence) so he could hire him again and turn him into the biggest heel in the company's history. "Hire him" under the excuse that a man is allowed to make a living. If that scenario was at all possible (which is not because Benoit would have been in prison for the rest of his days), there's no doubt in my mind Vince would have considered it.

how long till we can view the jericho interview with nancy grace on youtube?

By the way, Jacques Rougeau was on many different shows here in Montreal since Monday. He slammed the WWE bigtime and basically blamed roids for what happened. Said that the majority of the guys took them in the 80s and 90s but he never did. He also said the WWE offered him good $$$ to show up to a few shows but he refused because of the direction that the company has taken the last 10 years, which are against his values. Rougeau runs his own fed in Montreal (a family oriented promotion where chairs or any other weapon is not permitted and where alcohol is not allowed to be sold during the event). He also makes regular appearances in schools to speak out against steroids and violence.

Probably keeping the doors open.

That might explain why he murdered his son. With his mom dead and Benoit in prison or dead, there was no one to take care of the kid.

It doesnt seem like Benoit was any kind of a family man, not only for doing what he did last weekend, BUT ALSO the extent of his relationship with his 2 children from his previous marriage. He didnt even leave them a message before committing suicide? Did he even have any kind of social contact with them, his own fleshing blood?

Benoit killed his son because he didnt want his son to remember him as a murderer? what about his other two children from the previous marriage?

his new book in stores now: “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” his interview in the "jewish daily": Carter Discusses New Book on Israel and the Middle East Jennifer Siegel | Thu. Nov 16, 2006 President Jimmy Carter’s new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” (Simon & Schuster), hits the shelves this week. In an interview Wednesday with the Forward, the former president discussed the work and his views on the Middle East. Q: In your book, you often take care to mention that the Palestinians include both Muslims and Christians. Do you have particular concerns about the situation of the Christians in the territories? A: There has been a tremendous exodus of the Christians from the West Bank and Gaza as a percentage and also in their totality, and this has been a disappointment to me to see that. One of my major commitments in public life for almost 30 years has been to bring peace to Israel, and with its existence accepted by all nations, and, of course, one major step there was to evolve a peace treaty between Israel and its most formidable adversary, Egypt, and I think that this premise has been for Israel to exist within its own legal borders as defined by the United Nations resolutions, by the Oslo agreement, by the Camp David accords, and even by the quartet’s recent road map, and to let the Palestinians, and the Syrians, and the Lebanese have their own territory. Q: In your book, you argue that ‘because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned.’ Can you explain that more fully? A: I’ve been all over the Holy Land, I’ll call it, just for a kind of a shorthand description, since the 1970s — the last 30 or 40 years — from Lebanon down to the Sinai. And I’ve been up into the Golan Heights three times, and I’ve conducted three elections there — and I’ve seen the coverage given to Israel’s activities in Europe and in Israel itself — a highly contentious debate over [israel]. There is no such debate in the United States. There’s not any debate in the Congress. There’s not any debate in the White House, at least since George Bush Sr. and I were there, and in the news media of the United States there is very rarely any editorial comment that would criticize some of the practices of Israel which I consider to be deplorable — and that is the persecution of the Palestinians, and the occupation and confiscation and the colonization of Palestinian land. So there’s no open debate in this country if it involves any criticism of the policies of the Israeli government, even though many people in Israel debate and condemn some of the policies of the right-wing governments under Sharon and Netanyahu and others. Q: Lately there has been a lot of discussion about the role of the ‘Israel lobby.’ Can you say a little bit about how that impacted you as president? Has it changed over time? A: Well, I think the Israel Lobby — so-called to use your phrase, that’s not my phrase — is much stronger now and much more effective now than it was when I was in office. I felt, for instance, that we should sell F-16 airplanes to Saudi Arabia so Saudis could defend themselves against threats from Iran, and Aipac and others were adamantly against it, but we finally prevailed. And I called within three months of when I went into office for a Palestinian homeland. And I worked for the Camp David accords, which called for Israel’s political and military withdrawal from the occupied territories, and so forth, and I think that that kind of independence was also exhibited by George Bush Sr., who condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank and even withheld funds from Israel, which I never did, by the way.… That’s almost an impossibility now in the present political environment of America. Q: In response to Republican claims that the Democratic Party is weakening in its support for Israel, Democratic leaders — most prominently Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean — have recently issued statements saying that you do not represent the Democratic Party on Israel. What is your response? A: They are right. I don’t speak for the Democratic Party. In fact, I don’t think anybody speaks for the Democratic Party, including Howard Dean or Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. The Democratic Party is an umbrella under which multiple voices exist. I would just refer to my own record as a president — I was the one who negotiated a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, not a word of which has ever been violated, and I worked throughout the entire four years to bring peace to Israel within its own borders. I don’t have to explain my credentials in terms of bringing peace to Israel. Q: Do you think that most Democrats agree with your views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? A: If you talk about members of the Congress, I would say no, because the Congress members are almost universally silent as far as any criticism of anything that the Israeli government does. But I think that’s an anomaly among Democrats in the entire country, and, in fact, among Americans all over. I think there’s a tremendous concern that Israel has refused to accept the premise that Israel can have peace if it’s willing to define its borders along the official internationally recognized line — that is, the Green Line — modified, if necessary, and I think it would be necessary, by good faith negotiations with the Palestinians on a swap basis. But Israel has not been willing to do that, and I think if Israel doesn’t do it, I don’t see any possibility that Israel will ever know peace, certainly not in my lifetime, if they insist on confiscation and occupation of Arab land. Q: Have Democrats in Congress become less willing to criticize Israel since your administration? A: I think when I was in office, there was a lot of flexibility among Democratic members of the House, and Senate. I had great help from strong Jewish senators, like Senator Jacob Javits, and from Hubert Humphrey, who was a champion of Israel’s, and so they all supported me as I went through the process of inducing Israel to withdraw from Egyptian land, that is the Sinai, and of accepting the commitment that Menachem Begin made and the Knesset approved, of Israel’s withdrawing its political and military forces from the West Bank, and giving the Palestinians full autonomy, with the right to choose their own government. And so all of that is in the Camp David agreement, which Democrats approved both publicly and privately. Q: We’ve talked a lot about criticism of Israel, but you have described the country’s existence as ‘a moral principle.’ How does your faith inform your commitment to the Jewish state? A: You have to be careful of the so-called Christian evangelicals because the ones who are most vocal support the so-called “left behind” theories — which call for the final days to come, and the Armageddon, and the premise there, which I think is completely erroneous, by the way, is that in order for Christ to come again, to return, the entire Holy Land has to be swept clean of Muslims and others. But the ultimate stage, according to their beliefs, is that all Jews have to be killed or become Christians. But they do support Israel’s occupation of the West Bank…. I think that’s a completely stupid and ridiculous premise on which to base foreign policy or on which to base support for Israel. My support for Israel is proven and deeply ingrained in my own soul, but I don’t think Israel will ever have peace unless they are willing, as I’ve said earlier, to live within their borders that are reconfirmed even recently with the international quartet’s so-called road map, and that says that United Nations Resolution 242 must be implemented and Israel must withdraw from occupied territory. Q: When you say support for Israel is ingrained in your soul, what does that mean? A: I’ve been teaching the Bible since I was 18 years old, and half of each year I teach in the Jewish scriptures, in what we call the Old Testament. The other half of the year I teach in the New Testament, and for the last three months, I’ve been teaching about God’s covenants, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, and then with Joshua, and then in the times with the judges, and then going into King David, and Saul and Solomon and so forth. This Sunday, I taught about Josiah. So I’ve been teaching the Bible and my belief is that God ordained that the Jews should have a homeland there, and I think that international law beginning in 1948 says the same exact thing, and that’s what I believe. Q: For people who don’t have a Christian faith, or don’t come from that religious background, why should they support Israel? A: Because it’s international law, and because it’s been accepted almost unanimously by the whole world. As you know, the Arab League, in 2002, expressed their common belief that Israel should be recognized as a permanent entity in the Middle East, to live in peace within its own borders — that is the Green Line, the 1967 borders — and I believe that that’s the only avenue to peace. Q: What should be our current approach to dealing with Iran? A: I hope that the strong effort by the European countries, backed up at a distance by the United States, will be successful, and my hope is that China and Russia will join in with that effort and put both pressure on Iran and some enticements on Iran so that perhaps Russia could handle the treatment of nuclear fuels that is now being contemplated by Iran. So I think this is a very important thing. My own belief is that in the future we should reach out and try to negotiate with both Syria and Iran, and get them involved in an overall peace effort in the Middle East and Gulf region. Q: Some on the right have said that we need to keep all options on the table, including the use of force, and that we have to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. What do you say to that? A: I think it would be an ill-advised sort of thing. You’ve seen the results of an unwarranted and unnecessary use of force. In Iraq it’s turned into a terrible tragedy and a debacle, and of course, Iran has a much more formidable military capability than Iraq ever did. So I don’t think the United States military is at all prepared to make a move against Iran. Q: Do you have anything to add? A: I think that my book, which I’m going to promote pretty widely, at least lets people look at the issues and lets people look at what I consider to be the only avenue that I can envision for Israel to have permanent peace recognized by all the other nations in the world, and that’s what I tried to describe in the book, and the main purpose is to stimulate that debate and try to bring that into reality.

Last I checked, Carter presided over the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. It's only the right that calls him the worst president ever, just like the left calls George W the worst ever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1858758,00.html US investigates whether Israel violated deal on cluster bombs Julian Borger in Washington Saturday August 26, 2006 The Guardian The US is investigating whether Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon violated an agreement that the weapons not be used in populated areas, officials said yesterday. Unexploded "bomblets" from cluster munitions have emerged as the most lethal obstacle to the return of refugees to southern Lebanon after the month-long war between Israel and Hizbullah. The UN said the fist-sized bombs had been found in nearly 300 locations and about two-thirds were American-made. "We've heard the allegations that these munitions were used in Lebanon and we're looking into it," a state department spokesman said yesterday. Another official confirmed that the sale of cluster bombs was conditional on Israel using them only against military targets in the open, away from civilian areas. Details of that undertaking - dating back to the first sales of cluster munitions in the 1970s - are classified, but they are reported to include a pledge only to use them against organised armies and clearly defined military targets. During the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict, the state department was reported to have sought to suspend delivery of M-26 anti-personnel cluster rockets because of fears about how they would be used. It was unclear yesterday whether they were delivered over its objections. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has previously bought M-26 rockets and US-made cluster artillery shells, and CBU-26 aerial bombs. Bomblets from all three have been found by UN investigators in southern Lebanon. A spokesman for the Israeli embassy was not available for comment yesterday. He told the New York Times that the embassy had not been told of the enquiry but would be "happy to respond". Israel has maintained it avoided using cluster bombs against populated areas and argued that Hizbullah bears primary responsibility for civilian deaths by triggering the war with a cross-border raid on July 12 and launching rockets from inside Lebanese villages. Cluster bombs are highly controversial because they spray large numbers of smaller bombs over a wide area, many of which fail to explode and pose a serious danger to civilians returning to an area once fighting has stopped. Bombs of this kind dropped during the Vietnam war are still killing and maiming people today. Israel's use of cluster bombs in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon provoked a congressional enquiry, which concluded Israel had broken the conditions on their sale. Ronald Reagan's administration then imposed a six-year ban on deliveries of the munitions to Israel.

Olmert has been severely criticized during the last week in Israel. They thought it would be a lot easier and probably underestimated Hizbollah's resistance. These organizations have learned that you cannot beat israel army against army because Israel is armed to the teeth. A conventional war with israel would be impossible to win so guerilla style warfare seems to be the way to go....and if the last month means anything...I would expect it to be even more popular among groups that challenge powerhouse armies. The invincible israeli army all of a sudden looked vulnerable. What was the difference in numbers between israeli and Hizbollah soldiers killed?

israel already holds thousands of lebanese and palestinians in their prisons...a number of them never charged with a crime nor put on trial.

The US does not encourage democracy in the region. They support the dictatorships in Egypt and Jordan to the tone of 10 billion a year....and they ignore democratically elected Hamas in palestine. If there was free elections in Egypt, the "Muslim Brothers" party will win in a landslide and would end the peace treaty with Israel signed in 1977. That's why the US supports dictators in the region and I bet you they would rather have a dictator in Palestine than the Hamas. A truly democratic middle east would be a nightmare. The ironic thing of all this is that Lebanon has arguably the most moderate government in the region....which will change in the next election as i believe lebanon will radicalize itself....I even heard several Christians (which are 30-40% of the population) say they would vote for the Hizbollah next time around.

looking at the numbers, it seems like the opposite. "self-defense" does not allow you to have a free pass and be free from criticism. then there's this tidbit from the jerusalem post: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull " high-ranking IAF officer caused a storm on Monday in an off-record briefing during which he told reporters that IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz had ordered the military to destroy 10 buildings in Beirut in retaliation to every Katyusha rocket strike on Haifa. The officer said that the equation was created by Halutz and that every rocket strike on Haifa would be answered by IAF missile strikes on 10 12-story buildings in the Beirut neighborhood of Dahiya, a Hizbullah stronghold. Since the beginning of Operation Change of Direction, launched on July 12 following the abduction of two soldiers during a Hizbullah cross-border attack, over 80 buildings in the neighborhood have been destroyed." Ten buildings levelled in residential neighbourhoods for every missile fired by Hezbollah. That sounds like a campaign to terrorize civilians.

they have killed 10-15 civilians for every hizbollah militant. not a ratio to be proud of. You know Hizbollah does everything they can to make sure that if Israel tries to hit them then they take a bunch of civilians with them...right? You know hizbollah has tunnels and supplies hidden deep underground...right? they might be terrorists but they arent idiots.

they have killed 10-15 civilians for every hizbollah militant. not a ratio to be proud of.