Unfortunately some Western women can be very naive when dealing with Arab men. Sad to say .

Van - two thoughts. On the basis of the so-shocking-I need-to-sit-down quotation from Susan Bendhiaoui, isn't she simply doing what, as a parole officer, is her job? Because, strange as it may seem, parole officers work with (shhh, don't say it too loud) CRIMINALS. Real live guilty as hell criminals, whom they treat as human beings (real, live, guilty as hell human beings). She certainly doesn't deny that he's a cold-blooded killer, or suggest that he's "a member of the vanguard for revolutionary justice". or any other kind of justice. In case you didn't spot it, she's one of the people who got him banged up in the first place. But, you know, parole officers are paid to think about the unlikely possibility that guys like Hindawi might be turned into something that could be let out without causing the collapse of civilisation as we know it. You do still have parole officers in the States, right?

And the "nagging doubts" that led an El Al agent to keep checking her bag until he found the false bottom? Why didn't he just ask the Mossad agent who had given her the explosive in the first place (having replaced the real terrorist as part of a sting operation), and been seen to do so by a second Mossad agent? According to the article she was detained by security after that transfer was witnessed, so it doesn't take dogged persistence on the part of baggage checkers to work out that there's going to be explosive in the bag. Duh. I don't understand why you felt the need to embroider that. (El Al agent in omigod-if-I-can't-find-this-bomb-I'm-so-unemployed shock.) It was an impressive piece of surveillance in any case

Maybe Bendhiaoui will have some sense slapped into her by Hindawi after he gets out of prison, as so many Arab men do to their wives and girlfriends.

chsw

"parole officers are paid to think about the unlikely possibility that guys like Hindawi might be turned into something that could be let out without causing the collapse of civilisation as we know it. You do still have parole officers in the States, right?"

As for the bleeding heart of Ms. Susan Parole Officer . . . I don't know what parole officers are like in the UK, but in the US their job is as much to determine whether someone stay in, as whether they should get out. If Bendhiaoui has any sense or any understanding of her real job, she would see that this is one guy who should never be let out of prison.

Look Rob, he wasn't just trying to kill his pregnant girlfriend, he was trying to kill an entire airplane full of people. You know, like the people whose body parts rained down on a town in your country several decades ago.

Can you say with a straight face that someone like that should be let out? If people like that are allowed to leave prison, yes, I think that would lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it.

No wonder you're such a Palestinian sympathizer - you'll tolerate and be "understanding" of anything. And if it's too awful to fit into your worldview - well, blame it on the Mossad. Hey, it's not like Palestinian terrorists haven't done this plenty of times. But no, they must all be innocent victims, so blame all of them on the Mossad. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor, Rob?

Dumb slut

Who? Rob or Anne Marie?

Susan, of course. But since you mention it, Rob qualifies too.

Anyway, Anne-Mary did surface in 2004, strongly objecting to Hinawi's parole proceedings. See here:
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/10/15/story64570408.asp

[VW comment:Thank you for the important update -- this moves my understanding of the story ahead.]

you guys missed what Rob said...
"Why didn't he just ask the Mossad agent who had given her the explosive in the first place (having replaced the real terrorist as part of a sting operation), and been seen to do so by a second Mossad agent? According to the article she was detained by security after that transfer was witnessed, so it doesn't take dogged persistence on the part of baggage checkers to work out that there's going to be explosive in the bag. Duh."

Ummm...so a Mossad agent just happened to have cased Marie and found which bag she was going to carry on (most of us gals have several bags you know) and then bought the exact same bag, and stuffed it with the exact same clothing/whatnots that Marie had inside, and then just happened to pull a switcheroo...

Right.

Uh, Rob, there is this bridge I'd like to sell you...

Judith - Of course I have heard of Occam's razor. Since when did an English Christian need intruction, however well-intentioned, from an American Jew on 14th century English theologians and philosophers? Also, being many years your senior, it's a fair bet I heard of him long before you did. But I won't hold your youth against you. (More substantive response below, after swatting some flies.)

tioedong - if you actually read the article Van linked, you would see that Anne Murphy was supposed to collect a package from an terrorist guy airsaide at the airport and put it in her bag. Mossad had staked out the aforementioned guy (not Anne Murphy) and shortly before Ms Murphy arrived he was bundled off to a nice warm cell while a Mossad stand-in met Anne Murphy. She duly collected the package of explosives and was seen (by the Mossad agent who had been tailing her) it into her bag.

So Mossad already knew there would be explosives in her bag because (a) they watched her put them in (b) they gave them to her in the first place. It beggars belief that nobody at El Al was made aware that a suspected terrorist had been arrested airside, so the baggage checker must have known that Murphy's bag had a bomb in it. The original story makes no mention of "nagging doubts"; I just wondered why Van did.

So - tioedong - learn to read or shut up.

Anat and Nahncee - thank you for your peerless contributions. And the same to you.

Actually, just noticed that it was Anat who posted the story update. So non-sarcastic thanks as well. Nahncee - sorry, only sarcasm for you.

Back to Judith - actually I don't think Hindawi should be released, and I very much doubt whether he will be, at least not until he's served his 45 years. In your own words (with my emphasis) "(parole officers') job is AS MUCH to determine whether someone stay in as whether they should get out". Quite so: not JUST to ensure that they stay in. These people deal with killers and other people who would make you and me throw up, and do so on a daily basis. Mostly they stay locked up, but every now and then one of them looks worth considering for release. And if the parole officer doesn't spot that, nobody else is likely to. Of course, it isn't just up to the parole officer: s/he hads to convince a pile of other people, which is why Hindawi is still inside, and probably rightly so.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, he may well be released once his 45 years are up (if he lives that long). Of course, there may be grounds for re-arresting him if that happens. You can build a pretty good case in 45 years.

I find it very funny that someone who once accused me of coming across "like a snotty teenager, twisting around what I actually wrote" is perfectly capable of doing the same herself. I will not 'tolerate and be "understanding" of anything', thank you for the accusation; certainly not murder or attempted murder. I've never condoned or expressed any sympathy for suicide bombers or any other terrorist murderers. I'm certainly a "Palestinian sympathizer" in the sense of wanting Israel to end its occupation (funnily enough, I am wearing an "End The Occupation" T-shirt as I type, though it's not one I wear very often). What I am not is a supporter of terrorism, which distinction appears generally to elude you.

And please tell me what exactly you believe that I "blame....on the Mossad"? Give quotes. Because my only reference to Mossad was to describe the Mossad operation as set out in Van's link, and to say that I considered it an impressive piece of surveillance. Knowing your propensity for twisting things I made damn sure that when I referred to the Mossad agent handing Murphy the bomb I explicitly said that it had been taken from the real terrorist when they'd arrested him, so there would be no question of my implying that it had been planted. The illiterate tioedong accused me of that anyway, clearly not bothering to read either my comment nor the link: you go even further and accuse me of blaming "all of them" (them?) on the Mossad. You're not illiterate, so what are you? I'm sharpening Occam's razor, and believe it is giving me a little hint.

Sorry Rob, but I took Occam's razor out of its case and tested it.

I tried the possibility: "security guard had nagging doubts and kept trying because he knew the bag had to be already set up with the bomb, because of an elaborate sting operation, although the first layers of security had let the bag pass, because that was part of the plot, or something"

Then I tried: "the security guard had nagging doubts because the bag just didn't look right. Could have been some thing about the weight or shape just not matching its presumed contents. Good security guards get well honed intuitions about these things."

Then I tried: "a writer embellished a story to make it more dramatic".

The razor was quite clear. An amazing tool, that.

Oh, yes, Occam also wanted me to tell you that any English Christian who thinks he has nothing at all to learn on a given subject from someone, merely because of differences in nationality and religion- no other qualification cited- should never be taken seriously.

Ben

"Since when did an English Christian need intruction, however well-intentioned, from an American Jew on 14th century English theologians and philosophers? Also, being many years your senior, it's a fair bet I heard of him long before you did."

I'm 53 - how old are you?

Anyway, looks like you do need instruction, based on your credulity.

Well golly gosh, Judith. I had you pegged as mid-40s from the photographs. Just goes to show that Hezbollah don't have a monopoly on misleading pictures....

I'm 51, BTW. And I note that you while ignoring my points concerning your unsupported accusations about me, you seem to have added a new one, viz. my "credulity". About what? I've said I don't think the guy should be let out, and that if he is (after 45 years) I expect he'll be put back inside pretty quickly. So just what am I supposed to be credulous about now? Is it my belief that probation officers sometimes do the job for which they take their salary? I suppose I'm credulous in expecting serious debate from you and your colleagues.

Ben - my point was precisely that Van embellished the original article. If he had had a better source he would have linked to it, so the extra stuff (swish! goes the razor) most likely came from his imagination. Nothing wrong with that, particularly: I just wondered why he did it.

And you clearly didn't spot that I separated the tongue-in-cheek part of my comment (at the start) from the more serious points (at the end) by the "fly-swatting". I don't like smileys but perhaps I should have used one for my remark re instruction from Judith.

P.S. while visiting the post where you accused me of writing like a snotty teenager, I noticed that you still link to the video clip labelled "UN ambulances ferrying around Gaza gunmen - just a reminder of the UN's neutrality". As the vehicles in the clip don't even look like ambulances (they look like ordinary cars that someone has crudely taped "UN" onto) for you to have posted it with that label at all shows that you take credulity to a whole new level. To retain the link when the obvious fakery has been posted out to you by at least two commenters (myself and a UN staffer) suggests that you've decided to take on Hezbollah at the game of deliberate (and highly unconvincing) fraud. Either explain why you believe vehicles with no blue lights and no ambulance markings are ambulances, or post a retraction, or we shall treat all your video "evidence" as just more Flat Fatimas.

Oh Rob, Rob, Rob...

I just looked at the video.

No Ambulance Markings? How did you miss:

1) The flashing lights?
2) The red and white pattern and reflective markings?
3) The Red Cross symbol?
4) The quite large and obvious word "Ambulance"?

But, alas, no blue lights. You're right about there being no blue lights. Since all the markings are very obviously there, QED, this must be the one detail you are hung up about. Occam, y'know.

But a worldly, educated English Christian like yourself does not need to be told by a New Yorker like me that ambulance lights and markings may vary from place to place.

And here in the USA, blue lights do not necessarily mean Ambulance. Sometimes they mean "Special in Housewares, aisle six!"

Which leads me speculate: if you were travelling somewhere out of England, and were, let's say, run down by an errant bus, what markings would constitute the minimum acceptable insignia for the ambulance that came to rescue you, if the ones in the video were not enough?
It would be a dreadful irony if you suffered some sort of woeful injury, and your last words were "Not getting in that FAKE ambulance... no BLUE LIGHTS... get me REAL ambulance"

A typical American ambulance: Note the lights are red.
http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/ambulance/GMC_Ambu-Serv1.jpeg

And of course, an Israeli ambulance, not a blue light in sight, but you know, those Jews, right? They would be just the sort of people to improperly mark an Ambulance just to make a cheap Palestinian deception appear more plausible.

http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/ill/2006/05/29/h_9_ill_777091_ariel-sharon-ambulance.jpg

Ben

Oh Ben, Ben, Ben (had I three ears, I'd hear thee....)

I've reviewed the video, and yes, the vehicles both have red and white patterns and reflective markings, whatever the heck that is supposed to signify. One of the two has a red cross; not, admittedly, like the ones one normally sees on ambulances videoed by normal journalists, but a red cross nonetheless. (Actually in the video it LOOKS much more like a white cross on a red background: maybe it's those wicked Swiss getting in on the act.) It also says "Ambulance", true enough, and that must be really difficult to fake, because we all know none of these ragheads can speak English. The other vehicle has no markings at all that I could distinguish through the poor quality of the footage. When we see the vehicle with the "Ambulance" marking it has has a flagpole with a UN flag which neither of the vehicles we see in the beginning is carrying. Perhaps the Hamas gunmen stopped in the middle of their gun battle to adjust the trim level of the vehicle while fixing their makeup. Perhaps the video has been cobbled together from who knows what.

But the vehicles have flashing lights. Undeniably. Lots of flashing lights.

Now. Given the preponderance of Flat Fatimas and Green Helmet Guys in video coverage from both Lebanon and the OT, I'm not about to take ANY video on trust just because someone tells me it shows an ambulance wrecked by an Israeli missile, or UN ambulances ferrying gunmen around, or whatever. I'm not the one making wild claims that the UN is supporting terrorists; that would be Judith, So it's for her to prove that the ambulances are genuine, despite their seeming as genuine as a three-dollar bill. If she has some evidence that one of the many vehicles shown, one of which was an unconvincing attempt at an ambulance, is in fact a bona fide UN ambulance, then let it be shown. Otherwise, Man from Ockham he say Nay.

Oddly enoughm Benm, I do know that ambualnces are different from place to place. The commenting guy whom Judith say she believes to be a genuine UN staffer reckons the ambulances they use in the OT have blue lights. You know better? Show me proof then. Show me an undeniably genuine UN ambulance with red lights in Gaza, if you can. Your beautiful American ambulance fails the relevance test on so many counts.

"Of course, those Jews, right?" Oh dear me, it's the old "my argument is coming apart, quick, let's accuse my opponent of hating Jews to divert attention" ploy. You're welcome to imply that my attitude is antisemitic if you like. I shall bust a gut laughing while waiting for you to come up with a single shred of evidence. And waiting.

Still waiting.

Next time you're feeling ill, by all means climb into the first vehicle that passes with pretty flashing lights. With any luck it will be a garbage truck, thus proving that there is such a thing as poetic justice.

Rob has come clean!

First, Rob said, no markings.
Now, Rob says "yes, I lied when I said no markings, there were markings, but not good enough for me!"

Face it Rob, you are Caught in Lie. Red handed.

The preponderance of markings on the vehicle, the markings Rob lied to hide, clearly indicate a UN ambulance. YOU prove it isn't. You can't.

And what is Rob's absurd fallback position? (after being caught lying) That we can't prove it really WAS a UN ambulance? Hamas faked it all? Dear Rob, that's hardly needed!

Why?

All we need to do is prove UN complicity in the use of ambulances MARKED as UN as terrorist movers!

Why? Because the UN has not condemned this, or taken steps to punish those involved or prevent recurrence, even though there is undeniable, absolute proof that vehicles clearly marked as THEIR ambulances (you remember, the markings you lied about?) were in fact transporting fighters in a tactical situation. Yet, this is one of the most outrageous of war crimes. To abuse the symbols of a Neutral Power, to abuse the sanctuary provided by the symbols of a humane organization, in such as way as to damage its neutrality, or its conferred protection, is unspeakable. It would be equivalent, let's say it was 1941, for Germany to camoflauge a cruiser as a Swedish hospital ship, and use it to sail close to Portsmouth or Liverpool and blast the hell out of it.

Since the UN has issued no official condemnation of this act, we can only assume tacit acceptance of the use of UN marked ambulances as tactical vehicles.

Either way, whether the UN actually pays for the ambulances or not, the result is the same: UN complicity in a very obvious and dire war crime. To prove otherwise, you will have to show me the UN investigations into these misdeeds, and the outcomes. Otherwise, it is little more than a bookkeeping issue; who actually owns the ambulances is a sophomoric dodge.

So you are trapped: Either produce evidence that the UN has condemned and attempts to prevent illegal use of its symbols and its sanctuary and its neutral status, or you must admit that the UN has forfeited all of it!

Furthermore, I reject completely the thesis that I must provide you with proof that NO UN ambulance in Gaza matches or ever matched these vehicles. As I noted, it is unnecessary, and therefore I reverse it and lob it back into your court: Prove that the UN takes steps to prevent this abuse.

And last of all, here's a UN website, with a UN ambulance, with markings on the level of those in the gaza incident:

http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/stories/images/amb-02.jpg

Another UN Ambulance, similar design:

http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/un_ambulance_2.jpg

Palestinian Ambulance, no blue lights, no UN Logo either:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Email_Update/20031228_Ambulance.jpg

Overhead UAV shot of Ambulance-Scam
http://www.polemiken.net/index.php?p=158

And you'll say: But that's not the ambulance in the picture! And I say: so what? If you want to prove your point, please send me the complete motor pool logs from all UN ambulances in the area during the subject time period, showing absolute verification that all had blue lights at all times. The word of one (claimed) UN staffer is insufficient. When one is testing whether a neutral status is compromised, it's silly to take the claim of a the one being tested as evidence!

And yes, in a accident, I WOULD get in the first vehicle with flashing lights, a red cross, and the word ambulance, because here in the States we know garbage trucks never look like that!

And in a pinch, yes, I'd settle for garbage truck. Any port in a storm, y'know.

Ben

Thank you for the photographs, and I am now perfectly content to accept that the UN staffer was most likely therefore taking out of his butt. But trust me, without evidence I would withiout hesitation take the word of a UN employee over yours, any day of the week and on any subject whatever (Ben says the sun rose today: I'll just need to check on that....) No need for me to lie (which is why I didn't): I simply believed someone who appeared to know what he was talking about. As Judith made no attempt to deny his accusation for more than two months (actually, she still hasn't), by your warped logic the truth of it was proved automatically. (If I really wanted to be pedantic, only one of the vehicles in the video - two if the one with the flag is not either of the first two - has visible "ambulance" markings, so the labelling of "UN ambulances" is still wrong. But hey, let's be generous.)

Now perhaps Judith didn't respond to the accusation of passing off a fake video as real, not because she was guilty of that but because she felt (a) it was riduculous (b) responding to it would only serve to give credibility to it (c) she had better things to do with her time. Perfectly understandable, and equally understandable therefore that the UN didn't waste time on a grainy video clip that might show a UN ambulance on a website of an avowed UN-hater. (I meant Alan Peter there, but given Judith's posts on the matter here on KT perhaps I should say TWO such websites).

Clearly as far as you're concerned, it is of no consequence whether the video shows real gunmen in a real ambulance, real gunmen in a fake ambulance, or actors in fake ambulances filmed on a back lot in Tel Aviv or Texas. No, the video SEEMS to show something which can be used to portray the UN in a bad light, so what need of evidence, of fact-checking, of corroboration?? Bah! time-wasting liberal nonsense. You KNOW the UN are evil terrorists, and of course this is borne out by the fact that their peacekeepers get shot by the IDF, who only ever target terrorists, never make mistakes and never kill people they didn't mean to kill.

If you look a few dozen entries up the comment box, tioedong - whose real name is Nancy - has a bridge for sale. You would probably be interested, especially if it were, appropriately, a pons asinorum (you and she both). My razor is away being sharpened, but I can still whack you over the head with a copy of Euclid.

So in summation of what I suppose I must call your argument, even if the video is a complete fake it proves the UN's support for terrorists because they don't waste time disproving it. So then all those Green Helmet Guy fakes and Flat Fatimas that Hezbollah pump out: unless the IDF investigates and disproves every one that must mean they're guilty of dreadful war crimes! And if it's wrong to take the word of someone from the UN as evidence on a matter involving the UN, why then it must be wrong to believe any IDF denials over "deliberate attacks on ambulances", "targetting UN peacekeepers" or whatever, because the IDF are the ones being accused.

No wonder Judith hasn't commented here herself. The stench of your double standards is probably making her delicate nose wrinkle. Either that or she's appalled by your rising exclamation mark count as you channel your Inner Troll.

Oh, and....

...still waiting.

Rob,

If you wish to put anyone's words over mine, credibility wise, it's your own foolishness, as I've never lied to you, never told you things didn't exist when they were clearly present in a video. Lying on the net is bad- someone will call you out on it. And I followed through with some evidence, and when your standards rose, so did my evidence. So, whatever, your loss, not mine.

But what the hell are you babbling about? We're not talking about the IDF or Green Helmet or Green Cheese- we are arguing about why you told us the ambulance had no markings. THAT is what my initial post was about, THAT is what I called you on, correctly. Nothing else. No double standards because I'm covering no other subjects. Nor have I called the video a complete fake- which seems to be your take on my opposite. Quite the opposite, I claim the video is exactly what it appears to be. Palestinian fighters committing a major transgression of the laws of war by mounting a vehicle with markings indicating a neutral, protected status. Focus, focus.

Now, again, why did you LIE and tell us the ambulance had no markings when it clearly does?

Just say "Dude, I screwed up, I never watched it through to see the word Ambulance in big bold letters, sorry, my bad." Easy.

Look, Rob, I know you're into Occam's razor, but clearly you're using a version that won't cut an old banana on a summer day. Here's how the razor works.

1) Does it LOOK like a UN ambulance?

Yes.

2) Is there evidence to the contrary? No, just heresay.

Ergo, by Occam, it is a UN ambulance until contrary evidence presented.

So find us some.

Any other argument is equivalent to calling a picture of a horse a unicorn, because someone might have cut the poor beast's horn off and painted the hide brown, and you are pretty sure there were no horses around the paddock that day- or someone told you, maybe, something like that.

Let's review:

Stage 1:

1) Ambulance body type? Yes.
2) Flashing lights? Yes.
3) UN Insignia? Yes.
4) Internationally recognized medical insignia? Yes.
5) Word "Ambulance"? Yes.

Occam's Conclusion: UN Ambulance. Major breach of neutrality. Wars have started for less.

Stage 2: UN reaction to major breach of neutrality? No.

Conclusion: UN okay with this. UN no longer neutral. If UN is okay with this, actual ownership of Ambulance is irrelevant.

Simple.

Green helmet, green beans, irrelevant- it's not a UN symbol being abused, they are therefore not directly implicated. I don't care.

Now, do you have any evidence, at all, other than hair brained schemes, insults, and blowhard verbal flatulance that something above is amiss? An official statement by the UN, perhaps?

If you ever find some, let me know. Not on this thread, though, you've shot your load.

You said it had no markings. It did. I win.

And for my own curiousity's sake, why the phrase "liberal nonsense"? I am liberal, this has nothing to do with it.

Ben

Dude, I did watch it through, and yes, one of the vehicles has "Ambulance" in big bold letters. I'll cheerfully admit to being guilty of believing the UN guy who reckoned they didn't have the CORRECT markings, lights, etc. And AMBULANCE takes about ten minutes to fake with scissors and tape, so I didn't (and don't) regard it as definitive proof of ambulancehood. But yes, FWIW one of the ambulances has ambulance markings. The other one is just a van as far as I can tell from the video. The "ambulance" sometimes has a flag, sometimes doesn't, which doesn't make me less sceptical.

And I know you're not claiming it's a fake, you idiot: I am. Or more accurately, since I don't start out from the position that the UN are terrorists and therefore anything that smears them has to be genuine, I treated it with scepticism, like all the other fake footage doing the rounds. You on the other hand are so desperate to find something whith which to smear the UN that you show no scepticism at all. In any case, according to you it is "immaterial" whether it's real or fake, because the UN haven't complained about it, ergo they are wicked terrorists. Are you sure that isn't Occam's hairdryer you've got there? Ask yourself who stands to gain from producing footage like this. Is it the UN? No. Hamas? No. Islamic Jihad? No. The PA? No. Israel? Bingo. American neocons who want the UN dismantled? Absolutely.

Judith labelled the original post "UN ambulances ferrying Gaza gunmen around", and considered that it showed the UN's support for terrorists. You go much further, and say that it doesn't matter whether they're real ambulances or not: even if they're nothing to do with the UN it still shows UN support for terror, because the UN hasn't paid attention to this world-altering video clip from someone's Youtube account. You know, I really doubt whether the UN has people assigned to read Kesher Talk every day to see what new accusations are being levelled at them.

You and Judith are the ones accusing the UN of supporting terrorism. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, which is why normal people don't believe that Israel planned the 9/11 attacks, for example. It would take more than a grainy video clip to convince me of either of those equally ludicrous latter-day blood libels. Corrupt UN? Incompetent UN? Wouldn't argue too much with that. But UN supporters of terror? Nope.

Why 'liberal nonsense'? Well, in my experience it's only right-wing lunatics who equate the UN with terrorism. So in my book, you're no liberal. Walks like a wingnut, talks like a wingnut: wingnut. Actually maybe you don't walk like a wingnut: but you sure as hell blog like one.

Oh, and actually, you don't get to say what goes in this thread, any more than I do: that would be for Van to say, I guess (his post). Or Judith, whose post we ended up taking about. I'm sure they'd be happy for us both to give it a rest. After all, the Anne Murphy discussion has moved elsewhere now for some peace and quiet.

Thank you for calling me a dumb slut.

You might like to be informed that I have
never campaigned for Hindawi's release. I was
his Probation Officer I ceased to be in 1989.

I got to know him because as a Jew I wanted to
understand what could drive someone to hate so
much as to blow up a whole plane load of people
Hindawi is a psychopath, he did it for money.
not for an idealogical reasons which is worse
don't you think ?!

He will be released whatever you think, and no
he won't be re arrested. He is due to be released in four years time, because by then he
will have served the necessary time, given when
he was sentenced and the sentencing rules which
pertained at the time.

I am certainly no dumb slut, and I had no romantic relationship with him.

The bomb was already in a calculator primed and
placed in a hold all it never left his possession
from whence he took it, i.e. Anne Marie's flat.
There was no handover at the airport. Yes the
Israelis were aware of the liklihood someone would attempt to place a bomb.
Anne Marie is very naturally full of hatred for
him and why shouldn't she be ? Nothing surprising there. Her daughter is a beautiful
person and of course she knows about her father
and his circumstances.