Zappa.com

Tomorrow nite, Jan. 22nd PBS will be airing a program called, POV at 9 PM Eastern time (US). The program is called,<br>The Two Cities Of Jasper. It's about the dragging death of a Texas city's black citizen. Very, very interesting. It's from the p.o.v. of a black reporter and also a white one.

_________________
GuacamoleQueenGuacamoleQueenGuacamoleQueen

i recall that incident - nasty. <br>and anybody in manchester, uk can get their very own signed copy of - "leadership" by rudolph giuilani , hes in waterstones bookshop from 1.30 pm signen em , 22/01/03 .<br><br>mungo

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance

[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#2 date=01/21/03 at 14:57:00]<br>And last night (MONDAY) on PBS, there was a documentary about the killing of Emmet Till, who was a 14 year old black kid who whistled at a white woman. I haven't seen it yet, but taped it. I can only imagine it's gut wrenching.<br><br>And still, our beloved President thinks there's no reason for the U.S. to have hate crimes on the books. What a fucking idiot.[/quote]<br><br>The notion of hate crimes necessitates brain police, anathema to any Zappa fan.<br><br>

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!

whats a hate crime, and what  offences would extra laws cover that arnt already crimes ?<br><br>i mean , the white trash that killed that old man where caught and convicted for murder and i hope they fried for it. a murder is a murder the fact that they went out lookin for a black man dont make it any worse than if they did the same thing to a white aquaintance who they took a disliking to - or does it ?<br><br>such laws are dumb as they lead to censorship - in germany they can lock you up for " holocaust denial " - its against the law to argue that the ww2 holocausts didnt happen or where not as bad as is commonly believed , or to attempt to justify mitigate / justify the holocaust. thats in germany, but in the uk / usa we deal with it in other ways :<br><br>an example is that british historian who claimed in several books that the extent of the holocaust had been exaggerated , amongst other things. some woman ( sorry i forget the names - this is quite recent ) refuted his argument and topped it off with a few insults - clever academic ones. he sued for slander etc... and lost the case in a us court , his reputation was shredded as was his academic credentials , he was showan up to be the creep he was and became a laughing stock. he also had to pay costs - millions.<br>thats the way to deal with these things i recon, much more satisfying  - also the extreemists cant claim they are gagged martyrs / victims.<br><br>let these people say what they want, its better we hear it, see it and deal with it that drive em underground . thats why the uk lets mullar omar - the one with the hook - stay in the country - lets have all these nuts where we can see them, and let em say just what they like .we tried censoring the ira / sinn fein in the uk - it didnt stop em killing people or anything, or getting their statements to the media. sometimes you have to hear shit you dont like , thats life. <br><br>mungo

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance

mungo,<br><br>My problem with the notion of "hate crimes" is twofold and interrelated:<br><br>1) In the United States it isn't against the law to hate anyone, any group or anything. I repeat: In the U.S., hating is not a crime. In the U.S., as elsewhere, there is freedom of thought.<br><br>Therefore, to add extra proportionings to existing sentences for recognized crimes due to a mindset of hate residing within the criminal is not only unwise, unfair and straining constitutionality to the breaking point, but<br><br>2) It requires brain police at every stage of the legal process.<br><br>The prosecutors have to attempt to determine what a criminal was thinking prior to and during the commission of his crime; the D.A. has to agree with his prosecutors regarding the mindset of the criminal; and, for a guilty verdict, the jury has to find that the criminal not only committed the crime but was in the throes of "hating" his victim while committing it...and they have to determine this beyond a reasonable doubt.<br><br>How on earth does one do that?<br><br>Allowing the government to police our thoughts when our thoughts, being our own, are sacrosanct, is without a doubt one of the stupidest ideas ever implemented by any government anywhere on earth.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!

[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#6 date=01/21/03 at 19:56:20]<br><br>Hate crimes legislation would be, one would assume, designed to serve as a deterrant for out-of-control racists. [/quote]<br><br>There are laws serving as deterrents for out-of-control racists; the same laws serve as deterrents for out-of-control non-racists. In some states killing someone can earn murderers the death penalty. In other states, life imprisonment is an option.<br><br>Anyone killing another person intentionally should get the maximum sentence under the law. However, being a racist isn't a crime in America. You can't be arrested in America for simply "being a racist." Therefore, being a racist shouldn't add a day to any criminal's sentence. A new class of laws shouldn't be created out of whole cloth in order to elevate the sentencing of criminals due to mindsets.<br><br>It's brain policing, like it or not. Hate crimes are not about actions; the laws proscribing murder, assault and other heinous crimes are already on the books. "Hate crimes" law is about adding punishments to sentences on the basis of non-criminal thought.<br><br>Now: anyone violating the civil rights of another person can and should be charged with violating civil rights laws, but this isn't what we're discussing.<br><br>No murder is "worse" or "less heinous" than another based solely on the mindset of the perp or the race of the victim.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!

And that nice young man Matthew--left to die strung up on a fence like a scarecrow--his killers were as white as he was. What was their reasoning? Just did'nt like him? Ah, yes, they killed him because he was gay.Yes, they were convicted...but hey, perhaps we should'nt be too harsh on them--one less queer, right?

_________________
One two, buckle my shoe!

[quote author=dove_grey link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#8 date=01/22/03 at 04:51:50]Yes, they were convicted...but hey, perhaps we should'nt be too harsh on them--one less queer, right?[/quote]<br><br>It's disturbing to find out that people actually feel the way you do, but to each his own.<br>

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!

[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#9 date=01/22/03 at 06:24:18]It's always shocking to me the vehemence with which many white people defend race killings and race crimes as "just another crime," as if there is no qualitative difference there at all. As if there is no connection to overall racial picture in America. We wouldn't want to effect any social change, now would we? We wouldn't want to raise anyone's consciousness. How many more minority people should die before we actually change something? Puke.[/quote]<br><br>Ronny's_Noomies, there's no reason to throw up over a difference of opinion. <br><br>I think that white people who murder black people because they're black should get the death penalty, just as I believe that black people who murder white people because they're white should get the death penalty. I also believe that blacks who murder blacks should get the death penalty and whites who murder whites should get the death penalty.<br><br>Oh, you don't like the death penalty? Then make it life imprisonment. Whatever is the harshest punishment available.<br><br>

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!

[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#7 date=01/21/03 at 21:07:58]<br>However, being a racist isn't a crime in America. You can't be arrested in America for simply "being a racist." Therefore, being a racist shouldn't add a day to any criminal's sentence. It's brain policing, like it or not. [/quote]<br>You can indeed simply be a racist, in your mind, no 'crime' in that. But if you 'utter' this racism, you are voilating other peoples rights, e.g. that of dignity, fair threatment, equal threatment, etc.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#7 date=01/21/03 at 21:07:58]No murder is "worse" or "less heinous" than another based solely on the mindset of the perp or the race of the victim.[/quote]<br>I beg to differ. *MOTIVE* always is a factor to consider when judging other peoples actions. Every person does that in his every day life, when dealing with friends, lovers, family, neighbours, collegues, etc. <br>Moreover, every court does it. Also in the USA. So you are wrong in at least some degree.<br><br>I tend to believe that some motives are worse than others - and a rascist motive is totally reprehensible, more reprehensible e.g. than murdering someone when that guy is robbing you. A rascist killer, murders someone for what he IS, not for what he DOES. The victim of the rascist crime therefor can in no way be held responsible for the crime he is subjected to.<br><br>In most moral issues and ethics, intention is a factor to consider when judging the validity of someones actions. It's easy and rethoric to dismiss such a way of thinking as belonging to 'the brain police', on a Zappa-forum where Zappa-quotes always give more cachet to a post... <br>The argument of the brain police in fact is a non-argument in this particular discussion, but nobody in here seems to see that. <br>Why? 'Cause there is a big difference between the brain police and the judge who also takes 'intention' into account.

_________________
bananarama

ronnys - i recon a plain murder charge covers this stuff, still....<br><br> what is the qualititive difference, and lets take the most extreem senarios for the sake of the argument,  between a white kkk member murdering a black man simply cause the colour of his skin and a black homophobe gangster rapper murdering a homosexual cause he is gay ? please tell me , cause i really do not know.<br><br>also, we are talkin murder in cold blood here , the law recognises manslaughter and diminished responsibility - lets ignore those for this one.<br><br>also, i know these proposed laws would not reduce such murders, as those who committ them do not weigh up the odds. why should a hate law be any more of a deterrent than the death penalty ? - which i am for , for all murders regardless of race ( though ironically not for women killers , thats my soft spot see ).<br><br>intent  - what we here call the hate crime , but really the motive , is already a  neccessary prerequesit to the vast majority of convictions , so we already have what you want - going from the above.<br><br>in fact wes all talkin fruit again  - i just realised. so what we want is to stop people killing others because of their skin colour , sexual pref. of other basic part of ones identity / makeup . well, i dont recon any law will do that as the phenomona is too rare in western world any more than an extra law above the ones we have for murder can stop mr.x killing mr. y over their mutual love for miss. z.<br>i recon you can increase police resources to catch the killers but not eliminate this type of killing - and hey , lets see all these sickos in the chair - im just wary of dumb legislation ( which costs the govt. far less than extra police ). its easy to make a law to appease our conscionces and it may make us feel good - just dont expect it to work - pessemistic , well sorry.<br><br>i dont really know how much of a prob. hate murders are and i would like some stats on typical murder senarios - a % for the followingv - <br><br>1  - man kills wife in kitchen in fit of rage.<br><br>2  - wife gets lover to kill husband for insurance money.<br><br>3 -  all armed robberies<br><br>4  - terriorist acts ( inc. 9/11 & oklahoma )<br><br>5 -  woman kills child - cant cope.<br><br>6 - child abduction killings.<br><br>7 - racially motivated murder - all breakdowns and combinations please white on black , black on white etc..<br><br>8 - gang related killings inc. inter ethic feuds , mafia feuds , triad feuds , yardi feuds , russian mafia feuds. all internal and external stats please.<br><br>9 - family kills old relatives in secret - too expensive / too much bother<br><br>10 - one off whacko celebrity killings / assassinations.<br><br>id like stats for these , are there any ? cause without em we have no perspective as to how big a prob the hate murder is . <br><br>i have a 5 year old , and child abduction / killing is the big thing in the uk rite now , no ammount of laws will stop it. i wish there was a way , but lets get real here. the other thing is these far out, rare events make great copy for the media they seem bigger probs than they really are they. <br><br>please dont say im glossin over the question ronnys , im not man - i dont like people who do the stuff you describe much - theres just more than one way to skin a cat - der hate laws aint it i believe. <br><br>mungo. <br>      <br><br>

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance

actually, dove_grey was askin a question there not expressing an opinion , you can tell as there is a ? mark at the end.<br>lets not be too quick to see the bad side all the time.<br><br>mungo

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance

[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#14 date=01/22/03 at 12:59:47]The real issue is race, and this particular way it plays out in the U.S., and possibly elsewhere. I guess my point is that race is very complex, and I think it needs to be perceived as such in order for progress to be made. Simplifying it often seems to be either a way to avoid the issue, or to dismiss it completely.[/quote]<br>Indeed! That is what disturbed me in some posts above, as if a racist murder is "just like any other murder". Of course not! Its causes are somewhere in society&history and in the fact that most people are afraid of things they don't know. Just dismissing them as plain murder (as one does when saying all murderers should get the death penalty) is, indeed, simplifying a complex social issue.  <br><br>But then again, all people are born with equal opportunities, so skin color doesn't determin in any way ones future... - wasn't that what Them implied elsewhere?<br><br>

_________________
bananarama

<br>in the uk we have an law - " incitement to racial hatered " , i dont know what its all about cause i think it gets used -  well, cant think of last time or any time it got used - in practice it doesnt work.<br>also the EU wants to have this xenophobia law - its a proposal and seems to be really loosely worded. this is the one that scares the shit out of me - bb could potentially have me locked up cause of the things i have said against belgiums ( despite the fact that what i said was 100% - ha ) .<br>this is plain dumb as if yer cant abuse a dude cause of the place he comes from there is no point in nothing - its a national pastime in the uk & i know the aussies are the worst in this regard - a good ribbing never did no one no harm - provided you can take it yourself that is.<br>these sort of things always get used selectivly and for political ends by guys with adgendas and i just know they are designed for that use - not stopping prejudice.<br>anyway thats a different question, the nationality one.<br><br>i just think there is something fishy bout the law selectivly legislating for this group or that group save the division for boys and gals - that is a fundamental difference with people, i dont think the colour of your skin is. these things end up being more divisive than the problems they where supposed to cure. <br><br>i really dont know, anyway hope the sickos fried .<br><br>mungo<br><br><br><br><br>

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance

I would say an altogether sad thread, but it makes for lively discourse--which I'm all for. Mungo, although I don't  agree with you on most of your points, thank you for pointing out that I did not mean I was for killing gays and lesbians.When I wrote "one less 'queer'", I was using the mind-set of those who feel that way--to show  their true colors, not mine. Them, I'm sorry you thought I think that--I most definately do NOT. Did anyone else think that? I figured most would get my point.Forget I mentioned it. Rise for the flag salute.

_________________
One two, buckle my shoe!

[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br>You can indeed simply be a racist, in your mind, no 'crime' in that. But if you 'utter' this racism, you are voilating other peoples rights, e.g. that of dignity, fair threatment, equal threatment, etc.[/quote]<br><br>Are you referring to the kind of "utterance" that FZ "uttered" halfway through "You Are What You Is"? Or are you speaking more abstractly?<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br><br>I beg to differ. *MOTIVE* always is a factor to consider when judging other peoples actions. Every person does that in his every day life, when dealing with friends, lovers, family, neighbours, collegues, etc. [/quote]<br><br>True, but not pertinent to this discussion.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br><br>Moreover, every court does it. Also in the USA. So you are wrong in at least some degree.[/quote]<br><br>Incorrect. The notion of motive in court goes to evidence.<br>It is frequently necessary to establish motive in order to build a circumstantial case against the accused. Motive isn't used in court to add charges or seek subsequent additional penalties for the accused on the basis of non-crimes.<br><br>If a man takes out a million-dollar life insurance policy on his wife and kills her to collect it, he isn't charged with taking out a million-dollar life insurance policy on his wife. He is charged with murder. Taking out the million-dollar life insurance policy is the motive, and it isn't a crime. He isn't charged with the motive. Nor should he be.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br><br>I tend to believe that some motives are worse than others - and a rascist motive is totally reprehensible, more reprehensible e.g. than murdering someone when that guy is robbing you. [/quote]<br><br>Killing someone who is in the process of robbing you isn't murder in the United States. It's self-defense.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br><br><br>A rascist killer, murders someone for what he IS, not for what he DOES. [/quote]<br><br>Some murderers kill people for who they are; some kill people for what they own; some are serial killers who kill indiscriminately; some kill out of a sense of vengeance; some kill for hire. <br><br>I'd like to see these people executed. How about you?<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br>The victim of the rascist crime therefor can in no way be held responsible for the crime he is subjected to.[/quote]<br><br>Neither can the victims of sexist crimes; neither can the victims of homophobic crimes; neither can the victims of religious crimes; neither can the victims of xenophobic crimes. To how many classes of victims do you want to extend hate crime legislation? And if the answer is "one," why is that? <br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br><br>In most moral issues and ethics, intention is a factor to consider when judging the validity of someones actions. [/quote]<br><br>I think you'll find that everyone here agrees that it is good and proper to have good morals and to practice sound ethics.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br><br>It's easy and rethoric to dismiss such a way of thinking as belonging to 'the brain police', on a Zappa-forum where Zappa-quotes always give more cachet to a post...[/quote]<br><br>Actually, it's far easier to attempt to dismiss a well-considered notion by claiming that one believes that one's opponent is sloganeering than it is to grapple with real concepts.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=0#12 date=01/22/03 at 08:23:14]<br>The argument of the brain police in fact is a non-argument in this particular discussion, but nobody in here seems to see that. [/Why? 'Cause there is a big difference between the brain police and the judge who also takes 'intention' into account.[/quote]<br><br>Again, the "judge" (jury) takes intention into account when attempting to find an accused person guilty or innocent of crimes for which the "intent" provides mere evidence (see the life insurance scenario provided earlier).<br><br>"Brain police" attempt to determine the mindset of the accused in order to tack on extra charges or add additional weight to the original charges in order to mete out harsher punishments on the basis of legal thought.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!

[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]Are you referring to the kind of "utterance" that FZ "uttered" halfway through "You Are What You Is"? Or are you speaking more abstractly?[/quote]<br>just rethoric abuse of zappa. what is your point? you didn't comment the content of the quote.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]True, but not pertinent to this discussion.[/quote]<br>Then why do you go one with it, even dismissing it to some degree in the next part I quote?<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]Incorrect. The notion of motive in court goes to evidence.<br>It is frequently necessary to establish motive in order to build a circumstantial case against the accused. Motive isn't used in court to add charges or seek subsequent additional penalties for the accused on the basis of non-crimes.[/quote]<br>Motive, and for sure with a peoples jury, *does* influence the courts discission in e.g. the harshness of the sentence, etc. It is of course true that the motive must be proven, that there must be 'evidence' for it. That goes without saying, thank you. your remarks about evidence don't dismiss the roll of motive.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]If a man takes out a million-dollar life insurance policy on his wife and kills her to collect it, he isn't charged with taking out a million-dollar life insurance policy on his wife. He is charged with murder. Taking out the million-dollar life insurance policy is the motive, and it isn't a crime. He isn't charged with the motive. Nor should he be.[/quote]<br>I didn't say he or others are charged with their motive, I said the motive is taken in consideration when judging the crime. you're example is rethoric and is putting words in my mouth.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]Killing someone who is in the process of robbing you isn't murder in the United States. It's self-defense.[/quote]True. But my point wasn't about the technical term 'murder'. In Dutch we also make the distinction between 'moord' en 'doodslag' in technical terms, but the word 'moord' in regular, non-justical Dutch also simply means 'any case of killing', I thought  (and still do, correct me if I am wrong) that this is the same in english, so that the verb 'to murder' is a synonym for 'to kill' in everyday English. Sorry for leaving this possibility of misunderstanding in my text. <br>My whole post is about 'killing' in general. Racist killing, weather it is judged 'murder' in court or not. <br>Your remark is pertinent, but a bit caviling in the light of the bigger discussion.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]I'd like to see these people executed. How about you?[/quote]<br>I am pro-death penalty in some cases, but not all. Motive, circumstances, etc, should be taken into account, and every case should be looked at seperatly. The law states general principles, the practice of law applies them in specific cases, with a specific outcome. Other courses of action often lead to totalitarianism.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]<br>Neither can the victims of sexist crimes; neither can the victims of homophobic crimes; neither can the victims of religious crimes; neither can the victims of xenophobic crimes. [/quote]True. I never claimed anything else. Hence rethoric. You don't dismiss what I say, nor take the argument in account.

_________________
bananarama

[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]Actually, it's far easier to attempt to dismiss a well-considered notion by claiming that one believes that one's opponent is sloganeering than it is to grapple with real concepts.[/quote]<br><br>I'll first quote the passage I refered to:<br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/22/03 at 04:16:40]<br>2) It requires brain police at every stage of the legal process. <br><br>The prosecutors have to attempt to determine what a criminal was thinking prior to and during the commission of his crime; the D.A. has to agree with his prosecutors regarding the mindset of the criminal; and, for a guilty verdict, the jury has to find that the criminal not only committed the crime but was in the throes of "hating" his victim while committing it...and they have to determine this beyond a reasonable doubt. <br><br>How on earth does one do that? <br> <br>Allowing the government to police our thoughts when our thoughts, being our own, are sacrosanct, is without a doubt one of the stupidest ideas ever implemented by any government anywhere on earth.[/quote]<br>Reread the last passage here. If you agree that motive should be taken into account, and that intention is a factor to be considered in ethics, you contradict yourself at least in some degree with what you previously said. You used the notice of 'brain police' to dismiss the notice of motive, for you say is not possible on this earth to determin that hate is a motive. I say you, it is possible at least in some cases (e.g. the KKK), and it should be tried. I'll give another example a bit later.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1043188694;start=15#20 date=01/23/03 at 01:10:40]The "judge" (jury) takes intention into account when attempting to find an accused person guilty or innocent of crimes for which the "intent" provides mere evidence.<br><br>"Brain police" attempt to determine the mindset of the accused in order to tack on extra charges or add additional weight to the original charges in order to mete out harsher punishments on the basis of legal thought.[/quote]Now I get an adequate discription of how you see the difference, there's some definitions to hold on to... First remark: the devision you make isn't that clear cut. It is not black and white, as I'll prove in the example later on.<br>Second remark: the term 'brain police' still is a rethoric, negative notion, wich should be replaced by a more neutral one. <br><br>Having said that, I beg to differ. IMHO, intent IS a factor to be considered in the process of determing the punishment, and is not only mere evidence. Why? Because the intent is the direct reason the crime happened, so it is, to say the least, a very important factor to judge. <br><br>Example 2: if someone kills out of self-defence, as you said, it is not considered 'murder' technically, but 'manslaughter', hence less punishment. The intention of this kill is different from e.g. a kill out of hate. So your own example proves that intention IS taken in account. <br>Now, would this judge who takes the intention into account for the degree of punishment (given to manslaughter) be labeled with the negative term 'Brain Police'? No. <br>Hence, you use different scales in this discussion as it suits you rethorically.<br><br>Did I hear you say "a well-considered notion" in the first bit I quoted in this post?<br>I hope you see I wasn't merely rethoric, nor taking the easy way out...

_________________
bananarama

we have a case in the uk today of a guy charged with inciement to murder .<br>abdullah el- faisal ( born william forest and ex. salvation army ) urged the men in his mosque to " kill all jews , hindus ,americans and all unbelievers " suggesting that their bodies be used to fule power stations. hwen arrested he claimed justification in the koran telling police that to put him on trial would be like putting the koran on trial. the prosecution refutes this connection claiming his words - 12 hours of em taped , saying his words propogated racial hatered and encouraged murder. abdullah made tapes / videos of his sermons and sold em titles include - them and us , no peace with the jews , jewish traits , jihad and them vs us. the jury has been purged of jews and hindus , for obvious reasons.<br>abdullah denys 5 charges of soliciting or encouraging persons unknown  to murder another person or persons who do not believe in the islamic faith , useing threatning , abusive or  insulting behavior designed to stirr up racial hatered and distributing same sort of tapes.<br>the trial continues at the old bailey , london.<br><br>mungo. <br>  

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance