To begin with, it's wildly inappropriate to make a claim as bold as the one that prompted your first post without providing some information on the school you mentioned. Great, now you've provided a link to the website - which, from both searching the site and looking through their sundry photo galleries, provides no evidence of a mural whatsoever, let alone an offensive one. (A Google search of the Academy and "mural" retrieved nothing in the way of supporting your claim, either. A Factiva search - which has access to over 14,000 newspapers and publications - was similarly abortive. Of course, I was able to find numerous newspaper references to the academy in local Houston newspapers; not one of them, however, mentioned a mural or a controversy)

I have a call in to the school presently, but I surmise that, since it's summer, I won't receive a very prompt response.

As to your logic....No it's not sound. You assert (again without evidence) that the school is funded by Israel or by US tax breaks? Without addressing the self-evident baselessness of the first claim, I'll proceed to the second, that US "tax breaks" fund the school. Apart from the obvious inanity of claiming that "tax breaks" fund a school, you're again partaking in the same fatuous attempt to relativize US and Saudi government practices. Even if one concedes that under the Bush presidency's ridiculous faith-based initiatives program, private religious schools do have access to some federal funds (and this isn't something I'm willing to concede, as it's unclear under Federal law how much such schools are actually allowed to receive), there is still a major distinction between a tax-break and actively funding the production.

Again, even if one concedes that US tax-dollars circuitously arrive in the hands of religious schools like the one you mention, the US government is in no way connected to the commission of the mural. That can't be said for the Saudis and textbooks.

As for your next claim - that I haven't "seen the mural" - no moron, I haven't, and that's because you provide no evidence of its existence! It's surely not a matter of public knowledge , as I already alluded to. And I didn't dispute that, from your account, it contains violence: I said that unlike the cited textbooks, the mural ostensibly contains no "exhortations to immanent violence." Put simply, for minds like yours: does the mural call its audience to the parapets? Does it tell them to take up arms? From your own account, no. It's a distasteful and potentially inappropriate artistic rendering of violence, not a call to violence.

Hilarity ensues: "I don't need to read the entire report" - a defense of ignorance after you attack me for not having viewed some obscure, undocumented mural!

The coda to your reply ("...it's the same old BS hate mongering that it professes to be uncovering") was simply too good to be true: how do you rebut a claim of relativism? Why, with more relativism of course!