one of the many unnecessary scenes in the film...at least the one that was taken to the anal-expulsive extreme....

Trey and Matt do a disservice to their talent, blame it on the fame and the pot......Grat film, however....so true it hurts.....

Hell no!!! Yer first idea sunk like lead, and you need some time in the corner to think about it....time out!

Sorry bout the spaghetti bender collective, I'm Italian, and I'd take it over 'ceptin they made only a handful of decent films, they are anal-expulsive by nature with their humor, and hell, kind of a smallish box anyhow.......love their whacky politics though....porn stars and what not...

No way dude, even the Japanese don't make commercials with that much anal-expulsive humor and sexual innuendo...."flavor like a fist"....

Great post!

I have friends who helped with their legal fight for return. The case really exposed a very nasty, cruel and uncaring side of the British government.

Paradise Cleansed by John Pilger 10/11/04 - 'The Guardian'

"There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraqs along imperial history's trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia.

The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty, and once of peace. Newsreaders refer to it in passing: "American B-52 and Stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan)." It is the word "uninhabited" that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defense in London produced this epic lie: "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation."

Diego Garcia was first settled in the late 18th century. At least 2,000 people lived there: a gentle creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation. Watching a film shot by missionaries in the 1960s, I can understand why every Chagos islander I have met calls it paradise; there is a grainy sequence where the islanders' beloved dogs are swimming in the sheltered, palm-fringed lagoon, catching fish.

All this began to end when an American rear-admiral stepped ashore in 1961 and Diego Garcia was marked as the site of what is today one of the biggest American bases in the world. There are now more than 2,000 troops, anchorage for 30 warships, a nuclear dump, a satellite spy station, shopping malls, bars and a golf course. "Camp Justice" the Americans call it.

During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labour government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to "sweep" and "sanitize" the islands: the words used in American documents. Files found in the National Archives in Washington and the Public Record Office in London provide an astonishing narrative of official lying all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq.

To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents."

What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill: "Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays ..." Under the heading, "Maintaining the fiction", another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating population" and to "make up the rules as we go along".

There is not a word of concern for their victims. Only one official appeared to worry about being caught, writing that it was "fairly unsatisfactory" that "we propose to certify the people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else". The documents leave no doubt that the cover-up was approved by the prime minister and at least three cabinet ministers.

At first, the islanders were tricked and intimidated into leaving; those who had gone to Mauritius for urgent medical treatment were prevented from returning. As the Americans began to arrive and build the base, Sir Bruce Greatbatch, the governor of the Seychelles, who had been put in charge of the "sanitizing", ordered all the pet dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. Almost 1,000 pets were rounded up and gassed, using the exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked," says Lizette Tallatte, now in her 60s," ... and when their dogs were taken away in front of them, our children screamed and cried."

The islanders took this as a warning; and the remaining population were loaded on to ships, allowed to take only one suitcase. They left behind their homes and furniture, and their lives. On one journey in rough seas, the copra company's horses occupied the deck, while women and children were forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertilizer. Arriving in the Seychelles, they were marched up the hill to a prison where they were held until they were transported to Mauritius. There, they were dumped on the docks.

In the first months of their exile, as they fought to survive, suicides and child deaths were common. Lizette lost two children. "The doctor said he cannot treat sadness," she recalls. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was told the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died. Unemployment, drugs and prostitution, all of which had been alien to their society, ravaged them. Only after more than a decade did they receive any compensation from the British government: less than £3,000 each, which did not cover their debts.

The behavior of the Blair government is, in many respects, the worst. In 2000, the islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion illegal. Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a "treaty" with Washington - in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the US Congress. As for the other islands in the group, a "feasibility study" would determine whether these could be resettled. This has been described by Professor David Stoddart, a world authority on the Chagos, as "worthless" and "an elaborate charade". The "study" consulted not a single islander; it found that the islands were "sinking", which was news to the Americans who are building more and more base facilities; the US navy describes the living conditions as so outstanding that they are "unbelievable".

In 2003, in a now notorious follow-up high court case, the islanders were denied compensation, with government counsel allowed by the judge to attack and humiliate them in the witness box, and with Justice Ousley referring to "we" as if the court and the Foreign Office were on the same side. Last June, the government invoked the archaic royal prerogative in order to crush the 2000 judgment. A decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home. These were the same totalitarian powers used to expel them in secret 40 years ago; Blair used them to authorize his illegal attack on Iraq.

Led by a remarkable man, Olivier Bancoult, an electrician, and supported by a tenacious and valiant London lawyer, Richard Gifford, the islanders are going to the European court of human rights, and perhaps beyond. Article 7 of the statute of the international criminal court describes the "deportation or forcible transfer of population ... by expulsion or other coercive acts" as a crime against humanity. As Bush's bombers take off from their paradise, the Chagos islanders, says Bancoult, "will not let this great crime stand. The world is changing; we will win." "


Finally in 2006 Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell ruled that orders made under the royal prerogative to prevent the return of the Chagos islanders to their homes were unlawful. They described as "repugnant" the action to exile the population of the islands. "The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an order in council, exile a whole population from a British overseas territory and claim that he is doing so for the 'peace, order and good government' of the territory is, to us, repugnant," the judges said.

But the government are appealing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6333223.stm) and the right of return is still being denied!

(sorry for long post - but this one really gets to me!)

Great post!

It's about time the Gulf states started exerting political pressure on Israel (and America) to negotiate. I've always been pissed off by the way the Gulf governments encourage a domestic anti-Israel rhetoric (which at times is often anti-semitic) - in part to appease the more radical sections of the public - but make no real attempt to exert political influence on America or Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians.

It's nice to see an Israeli politician being put on the spot, but he doesn't look uncomfortable, and I don't really hear anything new. We've heard the same rhetoric before - and he shows no signs of compromising on the important issues. Settlements were removed because they were too costly to defend - not as a gesture of peace towards the Palestinians. Furthermore it is perfectly clear that they intend to steal further land for settlements in areas which are cheaper to defend. He makes no apologies for the illegal apartheid wall and again, as always, there is no possibility of any kind of joint control of Jerusalem. "Israel never initiated...Israel always just reacted" - this is completely untrue. Israel initiated the murder and expulsion of Palestinians in 1948. Furthermore, if violence stops Israel will still not negotiate on the key issues - like Jerusalem and the right of return. Israel did not simply attack Hezbollah, they collectively punished the Lebanese people - and for this he makes no apology. "I'm not making any account with the past" - again, Israel refers to past injustices committed against the Jewish people and Israel to justify its actions, but will never accept that Palestinian actions are a direct result of past injustices committed against them by Israel. How has Israel forgiven and forgotten?

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org

Jewish Voice for Peace is a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights. We support the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination.
We seek:

A U.S. foreign policy based on promoting peace, democracy, human rights, and respect
for international law
An end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem
A resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem consistent with international law and equity
An end to all violence against civilians
Peace among the peoples of the Middle East
We are among the many American Jews who say to the U.S. and Israeli governments: "Not in our names!"

JVP supports peace activists in Palestine and Israel, and works in broad coalition with other Jewish, Arab-American, faith-based, peace and social justice organizations.


FOR A CHANGE IN U.S. POLICY

Jewish Voice for Peace calls for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights. The United States must stop supporting repressive policies in Israel and elsewhere. U.S. military aid to countries in the Middle East must be based on rigorous enforcement of the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts, which mandate that military aid may be used for only defensive purposes within the recipient country's borders, and that aid may not be delivered to countries that abuse human rights.

Under these guidelines, U.S. military aid to Israel must be suspended until the occupation ends, since the occupation itself is in violation of these guidelines. Military aid allows Israel to avoid making serious efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as conflicts with its other neighbors. It enables the occupation, contributes to the devastation of Palestinian society and fosters the increasing militarization of Israeli society.

JVP also calls for suspension of military aid to other human rights abusers and occupiers in the Middle East. This aid helps prop up autocratic and repressive regimes, promotes violations of human rights and international law, obstructs democratic movements, prolongs the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and fosters militarism and violence at home and abroad.


FOR PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI PEACE

Israelis and Palestinians have the right to security, sovereignty, and self-determination within political entities of their own choosing.

Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, completely withdraw from these Occupied Territories and relinquish all its settlements, military outposts and by-pass roads.

Jerusalem has to be shared in a manner that reflects its spiritual, economic, and political importance to both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as to all Jews, Muslims and Christians.

The plight of Palestinian refugees needs to be resolved equitably and in a manner that promotes peace and is consistent with international law. Within the framework of an equitable agreement, the refugees should have a role in determining their future, whether pursuing return, resettlement, or financial compensation. Israel should recognize its share of responsibility for the ongoing refugee crisis and for its resolution.

The parties must equitably distribute water and other natural resources.

Diplomatic negotiations between the two parties must be held unconditionally. Countries other than the U.S. should be involved in peace negotiations. An international peacekeeping force should be established to protect all civilians.


FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

All people of the Middle East deserve the right to democratic participation and equality within their societies, regardless of religion, ethnicity, culture, national origin, language, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or other status.

Israel must cease its use of military force against Palestinian civilians, including attacks involving American-supplied F-16s and Apache helicopters. Moreover, Israel must stop land seizures; destruction of homes, infrastructure, orchards and farms; arbitrary arrests and imprisonment; torture; assassinations; expulsions; curfews; travel restrictions; abuse at checkpoints; raids; collective punishment; and other violations of human rights.

Palestinians must stop suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli civilians.

The international community must support Palestinian efforts to promote democracy and human rights, while understanding that this aim cannot be fully achieved under occupation.

Racism and bigotry cannot be tolerated, whether in the U.S. or abroad, whether against Arabs or against Jews.

Firstly, I'm not denying the fact that the Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history in many different states - not just Arab or Islamic countries. I'm simply pointing out that the people who condemn the 'terrorist' activities of the Palestinians in their attempt to establish their own state are the same people who forget or deny that the state of Israel was also created in part due to the 'terrorist' activities of the Irgun and Haganah. Similarly, today the Israeli government often use 'terror' activities - including the direct targetting of civilians - to suppress the Palestinians, yet condemn them when they are used against Israel. The same charges could also be levied at Palestinian extremists. However, I do not think that the extremists on either side are acting in the best interest of either peoples.

AIPAC and organisations like it paint the issue as black and white - Israelis are good persecuted champions of democracy, Palestinians are fanatical cold-blooded terrorists. Unfortunately this simplistic black and white myth dominates American politics and media.

I'm not saying this is a black and white issue - I'm fighting to regain the grey!

In reply to your comment:
“"The reason they are 'belligerent' - and if by 'belligerent' you mean not completely passive and submissive in the face of overwhelming acts of hostility, suppression, and terror being committed on a daily basis by the Israeli state - is that there have been over fifty years of violations of Palestinian rights - beginning with their expulsion in 1947-8 mainly as the result of attacks by the official Jewish army, the Haganah, and the Irgun, a terrorist organisation. If you treat a people so badly for so long they will turn into extremists. Israel can only carry on the way it does because of the unquestioning support of America - due in a large part to the power of the Israel lobby in the States (particularly AIPAC).."

Dude, Arabs were harassing Jews long before the Irgun and Haganah were formed. The reason they were formed is because of the ever increasing violence against Jews by Arabs in "Palestine". The Arab world wasn't ready to give the Jews a homeland in the Middle-East. Also, Jews were being expelled from tons of Arab countries, where's the outrage there? The Palestinians could have had their own state long ago, but they decided that the partition plan was unfair and rejected it. 5 Arab countries attack Israel and lose, they still haven't gotten over it it would seem.

Funny how you label the Irgun and the Haganah as terrorists, yet you seem sympathetic towards the Palestinian extremists. Sad.”

"The reason they are 'belligerent' - and if by 'belligerent' you mean not completely passive and submissive in the face of overwhelming acts of hostility, suppression, and terror being committed on a daily basis by the Israeli state - is that there have been over fifty years of violations of Palestinian rights - beginning with their expulsion in 1947-8 mainly as the result of attacks by the official Jewish army, the Haganah, and the Irgun, a terrorist organisation. If you treat a people so badly for so long they will turn into extremists. Israel can only carry on the way it does because of the unquestioning support of America - due in a large part to the power of the Israel lobby in the States (particularly AIPAC).."

Dude, Arabs were harassing Jews long before the Irgun and Haganah were formed. The reason they were formed is because of the ever increasing violence against Jews by Arabs in "Palestine". The Arab world wasn't ready to give the Jews a homeland in the Middle-East. Also, Jews were being expelled from tons of Arab countries, where's the outrage there? The Palestinians could have had their own state long ago, but they decided that the partition plan was unfair and rejected it. 5 Arab countries attack Israel and lose, they still haven't gotten over it it would seem.

Funny how you label the Irgun and the Haganah as terrorists, yet you seem sympathetic towards the Palestinian extremists. Sad.

The reason they are 'belligerent' - and if by 'belligerent' you mean not completely passive and submissive in the face of overwhelming acts of hostility, suppression, and terror being committed on a daily basis by the Israeli state - is that there have been over fifty years of violations of Palestinian rights - beginning with their expulsion in 1947-8 mainly as the result of attacks by the official Jewish army, the Haganah, and the Irgun, a terrorist organisation. If you treat a people so badly for so long they will turn into extremists. Israel can only carry on the way it does because of the unquestioning support of America - due in a large part to the power of the Israel lobby in the States (particularly AIPAC)..

In reply to your comment:
“Israel affords more right to Arabs than most Muslim countries. And Israel is the bad guy? Fuck that shit. The Palestinians remain belligerent, and thus will remain deprived of certain rights.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html”

The reason they are 'belligerent' - and if by 'belligerent' you mean not completely passive and submissive in the face of overwhelming acts of hostility, suppression, and terror being committed on a daily basis by the Israeli state - is that there have been over fifty years of violations of Palestinian rights - beginning with their expulsion in 1947-8 mainly as the result of attacks by the official Jewish army, the Haganah, and the Irgun, a terrorist organisation. If you treat a people so badly for so long they will turn into extremists. Israel can only carry on the way it does because of the unquestioning support of America - due in a large part to the power of the Israel lobby in the States (particularly AIPAC)..

anal-expulsive humor, is a cheap laugh, no matter what....

Go on gorgeous George!!!

I feel sorry for the Muslim teacher/teaching assistant who was fired for refusing not to wear a veil. This is not because I support the veil (niqab) - orthodox Islamic law does not require Muslim women to wear a veil - only to cover their heads with a scarf (hijab). I feel sorry for her because she has clearly been influenced by the teachings of reactionary Islamic political groups like Hizb at-Tahrir (حزب التحرير), who preach complete separation rather than integration. Hizb at-Tahrir have been behind a number of the high profile cases regarding Muslim dress in the UK. They have lost all of these cases - but have benefited from the publicity given to them and their cause. Unfortunately the women involved in these cases have suffered the most - from loss of job or expulsion from school.

quantumushroom - your understanding of history is deeply flawed and based more on propoganda than facts. Unfortunately for a long time the myth of Israel's creation that you advocate was accepted as historical truth in Israel and the rest of the world.

Thankfully the age of myth is passing. Non-Zionist Jews such as Elmer Berger, Alfred Lilienthal, and Norman Finkelstein have already published well-documented refutations of the official version of Israel's history.

More importantly, the standard myths about Israel's creation have started to be challenged by Israeli Jews — a younger generation of historians with impeccable credentials as Zionists, patriotic Israelis and scholars.

For example, Benny Morris was among the first of the younger Israeli scholars to receive widespread notice when he refuted Ben-Gurion's long-accepted assertion that the Palestinian refugees of 1947-48 left Palestine at the instruction of Arab leaders. In 'The Birth of the Palestine Refugee Problem', published in 1988, Morris concluded that Arab leaders had not urged the local population to leave but that the exodus was mainly the result of attacks by the official Jewish army, the Haganah, and the Irgun, a terrorist organisation headed by Menachem Begin that had carried out assassinations and bombings against both the British and the Palestinians during the British mandate.

Similarly Ilan Pappé, associate professor of Middle East history at the University of Haifa, emphasizes in 'In The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-51' the importance of Plan D in the creation of Israel. Plan Dalet, or Plan D, was adopted by the Israeli leadership to impliment their intention to expel the Palestinians from as much territory as possible and by whatever means necessary. From April 1, 1948 to the end of the war, Pappé writes, "Jewish operations were guided by the desire to occupy the greatest possible portion of Palestine." Pappé also writes that the Jewish army formally adopted the plan in early 1948 after Arabs protested a U.N. partition proposal that allocated to the Palestinians only 38 percent of mandatory Palestine although they made up more than 65 percent of the population.

Israel's apologists blame the Palestinians' misfortune on their opposition to partition, and especially to a Jewish state. If the Arabs chose to fight rather than share, then Israel would also fight—and take enough territory to insure its future security. But Pappé describes a more complex situation, in which blame is shared several ways - including a significant degree of blame for the Israeli leadership and armed forces who pursued what Pappé calls the "uprooting, expulsion, and pauperization of the Palestinians, with the clear purpose of taking firm control over Western Palestine."

...someones ' on the anal-expulsive express to-nite....

Y' know, after careful review of the mechanism which led me to share this bit of anal expulsive humor with the world, I respectfully disassociate myself with this post, but not those who find humor or disgust in it.

Popeye sure mumbles well.