Creationism, Evolution and the Public Schools

quote:

---

This country is not pro-war.

---

That statement is not accurate.Whether or not the United States majority is pro-war is based on the circumstances at hand. We are a country more based on vengeance after being messed with. After Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." And how true that was. Our country became the most productive and militaristic country on the face of the Earth after the first sight of danger. After 9-11, we were just itching for revenge with sadness and anger in our hearts.Also, if you look at the majority of our technological development programs, our country is a war-machine.

quote:

---

This is because there is no clear moral reason for it.

---

No clear moral reason for war in general? I totally disagree. Maybe in a perfect hand-holding world, we'd have no moral reason for war, but the world is a vary dangerous place where a lot of people hate us. We need to have a strong defense. That's one of our government's primary functions.If you are referring to Iraq, specifically, there are several reasons to go after them. One reason that stands out in my mind is the fact that Iraq actively funds terrorists in several nations, including our own.

quote:

---

Thanks to our pro-war, pro Bush media, in a recent poll only 17% of Americans polled correctly identified the number of 9/11 suicide bombers as Iraqi.

​

None of them were Iraqui. Almost all of them were Saudi.

---

(Sarcasm)Could you be more rhetorical? Everyone knows that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. Osama is Saudi. Saudi Arabia hates us as much as they hate Israel, if not more. It's only the oil sales and politics that hold them back. Your polls are meaningless.

quote:

---

That means that many people think, have assumed because of media coverage of Iraq, that we are retaliating for Sept. 11.

---

I thought many suspect it's because of oil and weapons of mass destruction. Oh yeah, they fund terrorists too.

quote:

---

Sept 11 is so "last year" according to the Bush administration.

---

Pure speculation from a view that opposes our current administration no matter what. I smell a Democrat. Will you vote for Lieberman?

quote:

---

The propaganda machine fans the flames of needless war.

---

The liberal propaganda machine fans the flames of needless destruction of American history and tradition.Also, what does any of this have to do with Creationism, Evolution and the Public Schools?------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

If you follow the thread, it is clear that I am not claiming this.

---

That wasn't clear in that post. All you said was "This country is not pro-war." I figured this to be your conclusive statement based on your discussions with the other debaters. So I read it for what it said and suggested otherwise.

quote:

---

So does Saudi Arabia, Israel, Ireland, Pakistan, etc.

---

I agree with every country in that statment except for Israel. I'm sorry, I don't buy the "hardship Palestinian" propaganda.

quote:

---

Nearly every single 9/11 suicide bomber was Saudi, but we aren't going after them, are we?

---

Nope. That is a failure on our administrations part. It also represents a failure of the political correctness ideology.

quote:

---

There are two big reasons we are careening towards war with Iraq;

​

1) Bush is seeking revenge for the assasination attempt on his father, and

---

The first reason is not substantiated. How do you know Bush's motives? And do you really think it's personal, like some sort of mob ring family(our government) VS "the evil Saddam".

quote:

---

2) Oil

---

I said this, and I agree. Under our current economic and technological standard, no oil = anarchy. If only Henry Ford could be alive today to see his legacy unfold.

quote:

---

LOL!! The fact that only 17% of those polled in America COULDN'T IDENTIFY the correct number of Iraqis shows, very clearly, that everyone DOESN'T know that the hijackers were Saudi.

---

And again, the question arises about the validity of this "poll". Who conducted it, and where was the information gathered from?When you watch the major news channels, most everyone agrees that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. CNN, NBC, Foxnews, etc saying something = the average person knowing it too.

quote:

---

You saying that "everyone knows" is contradicted by to poll, and you declaring that the poll is meaningless is, well, meaningless. Why is it meaningless?

---

It's meaningless because I talk to many many people in my personal life and at work. Based on that and what I see on the Internet and on the news, I've concluded that most everyone agrees that they were Saudi. Your "poll" is the first I've heard of "the majority of American's feeling otherwise".

quote:

---

My point was to show that the US population wrongly thinks that Iraqis are behind the 9/11 bombing, and that is why we are going after them.

---

Point taken, and I disagree with you. From my observation, most people think that the Iraqis are indirectly responsible, in that they fund terrorism, but don't think that they are directly responsible.Regardless, you and I both know that "Al Queda terrorism" is not the main reason why our administration is going after them. It's just the icing on the cake. I think a lot of other people see that too.

quote:

---

Maybe, maybe not.

---

And there we have it. You don't know. Further proof that the "poll" was meaningless.

quote:

---

So do lots of countries that we somehow manage to not go to war with, like Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

---

Again, I agree, except for Israel.

quote:

---

It is not pure speculation. When was the last time you heard anything about Afghanistan...

---

The Afghanistan campaign is concluded for the time being, even though the military presence remains to help establish a new government. Hence, that is not the government's primary concern right now. I think this would be the case regardless of what administration was in power.

quote:

---

...or Bin Laden...

---

The Bush administration (to my knowledge) has not come out and officially stated that Bin Laden is alive. They suspect he might be, but until he reveals his ugly head, all they can do is speculate. Our enemies hide him well.Oh, I know there have been tapes of him speaking after the Afghanistan campaign, however they could have been taped prior for the use of propaganda.I, personally, think he's alive.

quote:

---

...or Al qaida from Bush?

---

Ask the Department of Defense? Here, go to their site and do a search for "Al Qaida": U.S. Department of Defense You could even do a search for "terrorism" in general.

quote:

---

It is true, however, that I have little respect for the Shrub. I think he is possibly one of the most ill-informed, intellectually feeble, vacuous, uninspiring, war-loving losers to ever hold public office. He is a national embarrasment.

---

Yeah, he's not a very good speaker.He does surround himself with powerful and intelligent people, however.

quote:

---

I am actually an independent, and I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat if the Republicans had had the balls to back him. Unfortunately, he looked like he was going to actually make campaign finance reform happen, so he bit it.

---

That doesn't surprise me. I guess the Dems aren't liberal enough for you.

quote:

---

Huh?

---

You read what I posted.

quote:

---

What "destruction of history and tradition" are you talking about?

---

First and foremost, I said "AMERICAN history and tradition".Second, I don't know where to begin. Maybe I shouldn't take the time? I'm sure you'd discount everything I'd say as "right-wing fanaticism" anyway. Just take a hard look at the last 40 years. Do you think many are personally responsible these days?

quote:

---

Also, how "liberal" do you think Disney and Time/Warner are?

---

When I see a gay march parade in Disneyland, I think liberal.When I see Disney changing the skin tone of Aladdin because of political pressure, I think liberal.When I hear the slogan "it's a small world", I think liberal.Should I continue?As for Time/Warner, I enjoy taking amusement over their anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian rhetoric. I consider that very liberal.

quote:

---

The mainstream media are "infotainment" now.

---

When I think of organizations like the BBC and CNN, I agree with you.

quote:

---

They don't want to appear unpatriotic by opposing the President so nobody is doing the job that journalism is supposed to do; challenge authority for the public interest.

---

I thought Journalism was about reporting the facts?There is a time to challenge authority, and then there is a time to respect authority.

quote:

---

ME: Also, what does any of this have to do with Creationism, Evolution and the Public Schools?

---

quote:

---

Schraf: Not much.

---

Ah, the joys of a "Free For All" forum. ------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

This is the myth most people seem to believe.

---

And you have a new Palestinian gospel to share with us?

quote:

---

http://www/palestineremembered.com/Jaffa/Jaffa/Story151.html

---

That is completely biased and illegitimate site. You may as well post something from Arabia.com or Arab News - Worldwide Latest Breaking News & Updates where they discuss daily how 'evil' the Israeli 'empire' is and how it must be pushed into the sea.You seem to have a knack for posting such sites to back your claims, John.Granted, you are knowledgeable in the fields of science, but I think you lack knowledge on this issue.

quote:

---

Israel is in a precarious position.

---

Seemingly so, but I disagree. Let's wait and see, shall we? The suicide bombings are occurring less.

quote:

---

Basically, every nation around them is an enemy.

---

Correct. They've attacked Israel before and were defeated. And now, they're under enormous political pressure now to not attack.

quote:

---

They exist because the US and the UN back them.

---

Correct. They wanted to give the scattered and persecuted jews a homeland.

quote:

---

The US, vor example, has armed them with the best weapons we have, including nuclear missiles

---

Yes, because they are our ally and we are upholding our original commitment to them.I'm not so sure about the nuclear missles part. I do know that the United States helped develope and fund them.

quote:

---

If they push things too far, they destroy themselves.

---

Ummm, no.

quote:

---

I think the tactic is to hassle the Palestinians just enough to chase them off but not enough to get on the bad side of the US and the UN.

---

Oh really? Have you studied the IDF's policy on urban tactics? They calculate precision-based operations to seek and destroy hostile militia. Root out the enemy and cripple the terrorist network = less suicide bombings. Who would have thought?This should give you a good reference to start from:http://www.idf.il/english/News/main.htm

quote:

---

As for the latter, they can get away with a lot because the US wants an ally in the mid-east.

---

I'm not even going to presume what allies the United States government wants or doesn't want in the middle east.The U.S. is committed to Israel, and has sworn to protect it. This is why many nations in the region have anti-American sentiment.Does this mean we should stop supporting Israel to "make buddies" with those other nations? I think not. That is illogical and quite dangerous, tactically. We'd be opening ourselves up to treasonous regimes. Ever heard of Islamic Koresh? Many nations in that region are not going to simply "make buddies" with us just because we say we're sorry. That is nonsense. I understand that religious conviction is something hard for you to understand, but the people in this region have a lot of it.

quote:

---

Israel has to play that card.

---

It's a game of poker and mere chance?Perhaps you should read a little more data about the situation:error page------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

IIRC, Dimona was a French-designed and provided facility staffed by Israeli scientists. One rumor had it that some South African technicians had also worked there. The Israeli Jericho missile systems are also home-grown, as is the (supposedly) nuclear-capable Kfir fighter/bomber. Remember that Indian and Pakistani scientists were ALSO capable of developing nuclear devices for their respective countries. Just because the Israeli's live in the Middle East and have odious internal policies doesn't mean they're ignorant, especially with the nice leg-up the French gave them.

---

Nice information.

quote:

---

It's okay to beat up on historical revisionists - just don't fall into the same trap.

---

It's ok to be a hypocrite sometimes too, right? I'd consider some of your "data" in your post previous to this to be revisionist.(Sarcasm)
So, how do you know what really happened and what didn't? How do you know that Julius Caesar really existed? How do you know when you were born? People could be just making it up. It's all a myth, I tell you.
(/Sarcasm)------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 01-28-2003]

quote:

---

What kind of response is that? Since when is the truth a 'gospel'?

---

Metaphor and sarcasm indicating that your first statement was rediculous. You are assuming your position is the truth when there is a lot of historical evidence to refute it.As for the word 'gospel', it simply means "good news". And is commonly referred in the context of biblical gospel. Analogy? Metaphor? Ring a bell?

quote:

---

Kinda like how you cited an ISRAELI GOVERNMENT MILITARY SITE to support your claims. It can't get any more hypocritical than that!!! Thanks for the laugh.

---

Lets recap on this:Me: Citing official government sites recognized internationally and formally.You: Citing some unknown site that contains biased information from a specific individual or group with a specific agenda.Let our audience be the judge.

quote:

---

Maybe you didn't notice that the article in question was a Washington Reports article. The url given is http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0494/9404075.htm but it seems to no longer work.

---

Yes, we must be cautious of many *.org webpages, shouldn't we.So, this is a biased article taken from a ultra biased organization. And this makes everything ok?I look at http://www.washington-report.org and I see everything I would see on a Saudi Arabian news site. I.E: "Dollars sent to Israel...", "Bring Islam into the library", "The Zionists...", "For Allah...", etc. The exception is that the people maintaining this site are probably Muslim-Americans.I'm sure Meilleur site de rencontre srieux : comparatif et classement 2020 is a nifty site too. Do you cite from there often?

quote:

---

You are denying the blatantly obvious.

---

Nope, I'm denying the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel rhetoric that Islamic and liberal organizations keep spouting.I enjoy taking the historical account and using it to refute the "history changing" propaganda.

quote:

---

You may as well deny the jewish holocost.

---

How is this relevant?We're talking about the state of Israel, it's history, and the current situation over there. And I'm pro-Israel.I'm debating for history, not against it.Also, which "jewish holocaust" would you be referring to? There have been several throughout history.

quote:

---

ME: They've attacked Israel before and were defeated.

---

quote:

---

YOU: ... due to aid from the US.

---

The economic and military aid from the US helped Israel defeat their enemies, however wars are not simply won by money and technology. Israel has demonstrated several times that they are autonomous when it comes to military strategy and force.

quote:

---

The UN had no right to give that land to anyone, most especially to people who hadn't lived there in centuries for the most part.

---

I disagree with this right here.The jews had every right to be there based on both history and modern law.History:The name "Palestine" is derived from the word "Palaestina" meaning "land of the Phillistines".Source: HISTORY | Watch Full Episodes of Your Favorite ShowsEmperor Hadrian of Rome renamed the land of Judea to Palaestina in A.D. 135 after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt. He renamed it to spite the jewish people, because he knew that the extinct Phillistines were once an arch rival of Israel.At the same time, the governor of Judaea (Roman rule) by the name of Rufus confiscated all jewish lands in the region, and prohibited any jew from ever stepping foot on that land again.During this period, the jews were scattered throughout the world due to wave after wave of persecution.The jews had the land first, and the origin of it's new identity was Rome.Modern Law:During the late 19th century, waves of Zionism increased drastically under relaxed policies of the Ottoman Empire. Many jews were legally purchasing lands to settle there and rebuild Israel. This intensified when "Palestine" was mandated over to the British in 1920.So, not only were they there first, but they also bought much of their own land back.

quote:

---

Helluva response there.

---

Helluva retort there. I notice you use the same tactic in many of your posts.

quote:

---

What do you suppose would happen if the US cut all diplomatic and economic ties to Israel? hmmmm....? Everyone around them would attack. And nuclear weapons or not, they lose.

---

How do you know that? You haven't even studied their defenses. Like I said, the nations around them have lost before.

quote:

---

ummmm.... are you sincerely foolish enough to take Israeli public relations material at face value?

---

I take much of the unclassified U.S. defense data at face value, and Israeli intelligence is more sophisticated than our own.What does Israeli "public relations material" have to do with the Israeli defense force? One is military, the other is political.I supposed you discount our military analysis as "public relations material" too?I'm gonna recommend a *.org site:Federation Of American Scientists – Science for a safer, more informed world.Declassified data is declassified data. And it's widely available.

quote:

---

Oh.... thanks for the link... yet another good laugh!!! The irony is killing me.

---

And I see you have no link for your rebuke. Glad I'm here to humor you, because you humor everyone else.

quote:

---

ME: I'm not even going to presume what allies the United States government wants or doesn't want in the middle east.

---

quote:

---

YOU: Yes, coming to such a conclusion would take a bit of thinking wouldn't it?

---

Hahaha, no. Coming to a conclusion about that would be basking in ignorance.

quote:

---

So we protect it cause we made a promise? The naivety of that is staggering. We've made mountains of promises to many nations. We keep the ones that serve us and break the others. It is a harsh reality.

---

And it's a great national strategy.

quote:

---

Well, you've got something right. But you go on to argue against yourself, claiming that the problem is religious rather than the result of the military conquest of Palestine.

---

You go on in that quote to contradict yourself.The problem is religious. It is also spiritual, political, tactical, and practical.When did I claim that the current problem in the middle east was the result of military conquest of Palestine? Oh. I see. Those are your words.

quote:

---

Don't kid yourself. The US could wipe out the whole mid-east, just as we did Hitler's Germany in WW2 should the nation's population ever be convinced that it is the thing to do.

---

There are many that would disagree with you. I don't. But I don't think we're invulnerable.

quote:

---

The need for Israel is not military, it is political.

---

So if we look at this practically: Israel not there anymore = no ally in the region which = bad staging point for military retaliation in the region.

quote:

---

And I'll wager that any politician who suggests that we stop supporting Israel will be crucified by the fundamentalists who consider Israel a God-ordained nation.

---

I agree. However, that wouldn't make the need for Israel political, it would make it spiritual.

quote:

---

No? Really? Kinda like now, eh? Israel in no way protects us from treachorous regimes. It, as you say, is the REASON for much of the hatred aimed at the US.

---

That is reason enough to remain allies with them. And Israel does provide us with intelligence and a safe haven in that area.

quote:

---

No. And I don't have time to wade through all of the references to David Koresh. Care to give me a hint?

---

Sure. The hint for you is ignorance. I also mispelled it. It's Koreish, also known Kuraish or Quraysh, which is used in regards to the term "al-Hudaibiya Treaty" or simply "Hudaibiya" by people like Arafat.The Islamic code of "al-Hudaibiya Treaty" has its origins from the time of Muhammed. Its roots were founded when Muhammed made a 10-year treaty with the tribe of Koreish in Mecca and then sudden broke it 3 years later and took it by storm. The doctrine he wrote based on that explain that treaties with non-Muslims can be established, and then broken when stronger so that Islam can advance. It also teaches that obligations, ethics, and honor must not stand in the way of establishing Islamic dominance in the region, and across the Earth.

quote:

---

I never said they would just "make friends." But removing the thorn is bound to help the wound heal.

---

That analogy is a difficult one to apply in a fundamentally religious area of the world.

quote:

---

Yes, I believe you and it isn't hard to find Islamic religious leaders call for an end to the hatred and strife. You are focusing on a subset of Islam, not on the whole.

---

I'm focusing on fundamental Islam, which controls most of the middle east.

quote:

---

Metaphor is beyond your grasp as well? Sad....

---

Good taste is beyond yours...------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

hmmm.... metaphor and sarcasm, eh? Well, you are bad a both.

---

So are you.

quote:

---

And you can't spell.

---

Has this become a spelling bee?Two can play at this game: You misspelled "holocaust" and "treacherous" in post # 101. At least I admit it when I misspell.

quote:

---

Yes, like all very reliable data put out by the offending parties.

---

So you ignore reliable history?

quote:

---

And we know how honest governments are. LOL... the joke gets better.

---

You missed the point entirely. Instead, you take bad aspects of government and attempt to apply them to everything pertaining to government.

quote:

---

LOL....

​

1) the popularity of the site is irrelevant
2) that the information is biased is only your pronouncement based upon ------
3) Information from a specific individual or group with a specific agenda!!!! ta-ta-da!!!! The ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY, man!!! Talk about specific group with a specific agenda. It just gets better. How can you stand yourself? If I were you, I'd never stop giggling.

---

1) Information agreed upon is relevant.
2) That may be true. However, ultra-agenda propaganda is easy to spot.
3) I'd trust the Israeli Foreign Ministry over a group of militant Islamic fundamentalists bent on my destruction.It does get better. Your proving yourself to be more ignorant than ever. And I haven't stopped giggling.***A note to the admins: I'm simply following John's lead in this character debate.***

quote:

---

Why yes indeed, they may print a story we don't want to hear. God forbid!!!!

---

Using God in the context of existence, John? How unlike you. Nothing wrong with free speech. I said we should be cautious of them, not ignorant or condemning. Although there are several sites I'd condemn.The Internet = one big pissing match, it seems.

quote:

---

None of which makes the site or the reports wrong.

---

Promoting false information and anti-semetism makes them wrong.

quote:

---

It may just be that they are telling the truth.

---

You seem unsure about that.

quote:

---

Am I smelling some well-cooked bigotry? You sure can make Muslim-American sound like a slur. Want we should kick 'em all out?

---

Nice baited trap.I'm strictly talking about fundamental Islam. Some of which has found its way into America too, especially in the Muslim-American communities.

quote:

---

It isn't hard to find the information, if you care to look.

---

Actually it's very easy to find anti-Israel rhetoric. All I have to do is talk to the 'experts' I work with. Or read the BBC. Or read some sort of Islamic fundamentalist news site.

quote:

---

Is Robert C. Miller an ultra biased Muslim-American too?

​

Research Guide to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

---

Haha, you can't be serious about this site?Hmmm, let me point out some catch words and phrases from this site:"I've been a social justice activist all my adult life.""Dispossession""Israel's Brand of Apartheid: The Nakba Continues""Transformation of Palestine""The BBC has obtained video footage...""The real disaster is the closure...""The donkeys of the Holy Land""...find a way to get my progressive perspective into the mainstream press.""Conservative Christians and truth telling...""I live in New Orleans and invite other activists in the area to contact me."If that isn't ultra progressive liberal propaganda, then I don't know what is.This site is no different than propaganda sites like Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community | Common Dreams

quote:

---

Nope, but it strikes me that you should spend some time there.

---

The only reason I know of it is because CAIR representatives plug it all the time on our mainstream news channels. The plug usually follows some sort of Anti-American sentiment.

quote:

---

Sad that you are defending a false history.

---

So history books and the history channel represent a major conspiracy of false history? Care to enlighten me?I might agree with you in a few years when they do get changed drastically.

quote:

---

Yes. It is the irony that strikes me. I doubt you'd deny the tragedy of Nazi Germany, but you adamantly deny the tragedy surrounding Israel's creation.

---

What tragedy? Oh wait, war retaliation over the years has been a tragedy to the innocent population.

quote:

---

LOL.... so lets give it to the Philistines!

---

They're extinct.

quote:

---

That was two thousand years ago! Lets give North America back the various indian nations. We'll give Mexico back to the Mayans-- there are still a number of descendants there. Give back the Philipines. Hell, we'll just uproot everybody and sort the whole world by ancestry!!!!

​

Your argument is absurd.

---

It's only absurd if the land was inhabited by a nation prior to the taking away of that land. That is not the case with the land of Israel.

quote:

---

Yes, but we aren't talking about buying land and moving back are we? I have no problem with that. But we are talking about undeniable military conquest. The jews in Palestine were in no way a majority and took the country by force after the UN declaration in 1948.

---

Actually I was talking about buying land back legally. That was one of my points. And I'm glad you have no problem with that, as I'm sure you either own a house or want to buy one someday.The statement about military conquest is false. The UN declared it, there were many jews living there, and it became Israel. Majority is irrelevant. Besides, the Israelis told the arabs living there to remain, however the surrounding nations encouraged them to leave.The Palestinians aren't Palestinians at all, but refugees from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. The goal is to eliminate the "jewish threat" and incorporate the land back into Jordan.

quote:

---

I have a very low tolerance for idiocy.

---

You must have a difficult time tolerating yourself. Again, just following your lead.

quote:

---

And you know what I have studied? Don't make yourself look worse by making comments you cannot possible have information to support.

---

I actually agree with this point. I don't know what exactly you've studied or haven't studied. You seem very knowledgeable, however you embrace misinformation on this matter.

quote:

---

Yes, other countries have fought and lost -- against an Israel that has US backing. But the speculation concerns what would happen without US backing so really, your comment is meaningless.

---

Your comment that they'd lose is meaningless speculation. There have been several other cases where the minority won over the majority. I.E. American revolution, Vietnam, etc. Israel is most certainly not the majority in the region.

quote:

---

You are joking?

---

Not about sites depicting declassified military data. Especially since many in my family have served and back much of the information provided.

quote:

---

What a very strange world you must live in to think that a nations' publicly posted information isn't controlled. Do you think you are really getting Israeli Defense Force material rather than something the Israeli government wants you to see?

---

And the information you obtain from your 'sources' is any different?Sure, it's controlled so it doesn't fill itself with meaningless propaganda to sway people back and forth.

quote:

---

ME: I supposed you discount our military analysis as "public relations material" too?

​

YOU: Absolutely.

---

So you live your entire life based on someone else's opinion, rather than examining the data yourself?

quote:

---

Interesting, but what is the point? Other than to highlight that governments ain't all that trustworthy? Why else would such a sight be needed to "challenge excessive government secrecy and to promote public oversight"? In a way, it contradicts much of your claims about the reliability of the information you have presented.

---

It was a tangent.But I was pointing out that much of the information on that site is accurate about our defenses and operations. It also lists defense capabilities of other nations. I was giving you a dose of the reliable.

quote:

---

hmmm.... considering the options and coming to a conclusion is basking in ignorance?

---

No, but simply coming to a conclusion based on partial results and options is.

quote:

---

Surely you must see how you've contradicted yourself here? You first claim that we protect Israel cause we promised, then agree that conveniently breaking promises is good strategy. You must also be basking in ignorance because you have just come to a conclusion about US national policy.

---

I haven't come to a conclusion about U.S. national policy. That was my own opinion.My reference to the U.S. breaking treaties being a good strategy was pertaining to the shakey treaties we often make for insecure or unstable peace. Hence the policy of appeasment. Our alliance with Israel is not insecure or unstable.

quote:

---

You didn't. That is the problem. You appear to be blind to this simple fact. Certainly there are religious elements, like the Zionists who seeded this mess back in the 1880s or so.

---

If I didn't, then why do you claim that I did?I'm not blind to the fact that there are many elements to the nature of this issue: Political, Religious, Spiritual, Economical, National, Tactical, etc.People just need to get the facts straight. I don't consider this to be a "mess", nor do I consider the Zionists to be the cause of it.

quote:

---

But it is basically the military conquest of land that is the problem or that is my problem with Israel.

---

You're right, your problem with Israel is just that: Your problem.

quote:

---

Its a good point. But I don't think it is critical to have Israel, especially given that it is a major case of problems in the mid-east to start with.

​

Wheren't you just chiding me about claiming the "US wants an ally in the mid-east"? You've pretty much said the same thing here.

---

So the warring factions of Islam and the war between fundamental Islam and the western secular cultures aren't problems?Weren't you just chiding me about how you think the issue is strictly political?

quote:

---

Aren't you a pleasant chap?

---

Thanks for the compliment.

quote:

---

From what I can tell, the Koreish broke the treaty and Muhammed over-reacted to their attack. This isn't quite how you have it portrayed.

---

Sources please? Many agree that Muhammed broke the treaty in the name of Allah to capture Mecca for Islam, because the people would not embrace his new religion.

quote:

---

Where can I read this doctrine?

---

Read the Koran. Many references point out that non-believers must be punished, persecuted, and must not be negotiated with officially.

quote:

---

Removing an irritant doesn't help in a fundamentally religious area of the world? That makes no sense.

---

Sure it makes sense. Religious conviction can be an ugly thing. Many nations in that region oppose each other, as well. And what you propose would irritate the rest of the world, making it global.

quote:

---

In terms of government, that seems to be the case. But government is built on people. Public sentiment could help change that but right now we give everyone fuel for the flames. I'd like to see the violence stop. I just don't see it happening while Israel exists.

---

I don't see the violence halting anytime soon, either. I was merely dealing with the causes, not the possible outcomes of all this.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

This is silly. You take as historical record material published by the very people with the most to hide, while discounting, for the very same reason, material published supporting the other side of the issue.

---

Ok, so you don't agree with written history, but agree with selective modern opinion. We have established that.I analyze history by exploring written data, and then come to a conclusion, using multiple references.

quote:

---

The point being? Official government sites are utterly reliable? Then admit that governments have 'bad elements.' How does one seperate the two? Apparently some magical force causes government web-sites to be unaffected by these 'bad elements.'

---

The point being that you fully embrace an opinionated position based on modern liberal propraganda.I wasn't indicating that official government sites are 100% reliable, however I'm saying that they are 100% useful.One can separate the governments' bad elements from the good through wisdom and common sense. It's foolish and unproductive for one to live their entire life 100% cynical of ALL government. Especially when that person voted the government and laws into office.Your last statement is nonsense. Just because an official site may contain "bad elements" or "bad policies", one shouldn't simply dismiss it entirely. There are official and formally recognized sites, and then there are opinionated sites. It's like the difference between a news site and "http://www.Bobs-stance-on-the-middleeast.com".

quote:

---

What?????? Agreed upon? Agreed upon by whom? You?

---

Agreed upon by the majority, or a group of people specialized in the study. What you're suggesting is that nothing is true and everything is false, except your own opinion.

quote:

---

Yes. It can always be identified simply by considering whether such propaganda agrees with you or not. If it does, it is historical. If not, then it is obviously ultra-agenda propaganda.

---

No. It can be identified whether or not it's merely someone's opinion to promote a new cause and rewrite history.But that's obviously not an easy concept for you.

quote:

---

Paranoid aren't we?

---

Not really.

quote:

---

I imagine that every Muslim is a militant Islamic fundamentalist, isn't that right?

---

You do? Interesting. The way I see it, there are peaceful Muslims and then there are Islamic fundamentalists. Many of the bureaucracies in the middle east are ran by the latter. Many of the Muslims living here in America are the former. Both places have both. Terrorists are the latter.

quote:

---

You make this judgement based on what?

---

Judge not by what the people do, but by what the faith teaches. This makes me distrust Islam in general.

quote:

---

That they dislike having been kicked out of their country?

---

What country? Palestine? That was never an independent and internationally recognized country. The people who lived there that were encouraged to leave by the surrounding arab nations after the formation of Israel, were not originally from there.

quote:

---

Yes, it would. But you have only shown that Israel disagrees with the charges, and of course they would, just as most people would lie if caught stealing. That you find any semblance of rationality in assessing the situation based entirely -- as far as I can tell, you dismiss anything not Israeli-- upon the publications of one of the claimants is unbelievable.

---

Because Israel is telling the truth.

quote:

---

I doubt it will do good, but here is one christian's perspective on the issue.

​

Page not found - CounterPunch.org

---

Let me take out a quote from that page:"Forgive me, an atheist student of Christianity, for intruding in your affairs."He is atheist. Doesn't really matter though. I know many atheists and agnostics who support Israel.That article is a classic example of an atheist using doctrine to dejustify the overall bahavior of Christians in general. That is a mistake on the atheist's part, because most Christians recognize that everyone sins. The doctrine teaches that also. So as such, everyone is in the same boat. He is judging the actions of the church and people, and not what the faith actually teaches.Again, this is the opinion of Mr. Neumann. I'm not going to take this to heart as being the end-all be-all fact of the matter.

quote:

---

I am never 100% convinced of anything, but really, I was just trying to sugar coat what I was actually thinking.

---

So you're just critical for the sake of being critical. Fascinating.I enjoy a good debate.

quote:

---

You can't be serious about this response? Pointing out that the man disagrees with you is not proof that he is wrong.

---

Pointing out that he is an ultra liberal activist with a serious agenda does.

quote:

---

History is far more political than you seem to realize. I have some serious doubts about the History Channel. But you follow neither as far as I can tell, opting for an modern myth instead.

---

I'm sure you found all text books in highschool and college to be political, as well? So you'll never know the truth, because everyone 'could' be lying to you. Neat.

quote:

---

You know, I can't find any reason to believe in God, but when people say things like this I very much wish I could believe, because then I could believe in a day of judgement. As it is, I can only feel sad.

---

I understand the sentiment: "Is this all there really is???"

quote:

---

It was inhabited by people, who were dispossessed.

---

No, they were encouraged to leave by the surrounding nations. (That is assuming you're referring to the "Palestinians".)

quote:

---

The UN sent an army. BTW, what exactly gives the UN the right to declare such a thing? Maybe you'd like it if they declared your home an Apache nation?

---

The UN sent a peace-keeping force. The UN has no right to declare such a thing. But many people like you claim that they do have global governing authority.Home is where you hang your hat. However, I am blessed to be an American, and I love this country.

quote:

---

I claimed that you were focussing on religion rather than on the creation of a country via military force.

---

The issue is mostly religious and spiritual. The interesting thing about Israel is that it is the one place in the world where most global issues collide.

quote:

---

Much like the Spanish explorers were not responsible for the deaths of all those Aztec?

---

A different situation and a poor analogy.

quote:

---

Starting in 1880 or so, some Jews did imigrate and buy land. Fine. This is not armed robbery.

---

Good thing.

quote:

---

And this follows from my saying that distrust publically released military analysis?

---

Moot. You distrust everything.

quote:

---

And this right after having admitted that "I don't know what exactly you've studied or haven't studied." So, don't make yourself look worse by making comments you cannot possible have information to support.

---

No, that's the concept of humility.I've been supporting my claims. You discount almost everything and follow up with character debates. Sounds like smear tactics to me.

quote:

---

Wow... how about that!!! So WAS THE COMMENT YOU CHASTISED BE OVER!

---

Everyone is free to have their own opinion. And I'm free to debate it.

quote:

---

Childish response.

---

The fact you would classify that response as childish, is childish.

quote:

---

I haven't said the other nations in the region are best buds. In fact, it is you who tend to lump them all together as "thier people" or some such nonsense.

---

So Al Qaida isn't a group of people that are linked internationally? Saudi Arabia aren't a group of people? People who believe in fundamentally Islamic principles, such as conversion by the sword, aren't a group of people?

quote:

---

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch4s14.html

---

Ok, I did some research on this one.That site is from a completely modern-Islamic perspective. I'm not discounting it, but I'm not entirely trusting it, either.Many historical records indicate that the Quraysh were a Bedouin tribe near Mecca that Mohammed came from. At first, the majority of the Quraysh were bitter opponents to Mohammed and his new religion, but then became his devoted followers after he took over the Kaaba.There seems to be two sides to the story about HOW the Quraysh went from bitter opponents to devoted followers. One side says that he converted him by the sword and broke treaties to wipe out his opposition and retain his followers. The other side says that the Quraysh were the deceivers and they are the one's who broke the treaty, and Mohammed merely retaliated.So which is true? I think the former is true when one studies the teachings of Islam. Islam is a religion based on submission to God by the sword. Non-believers will be punished, and the works/conquests of the believers over non-believers will be rewarded. It's all there in the Koran.It should also be noted that many of the people from Quraysh were jews who refused to accept Mohammed's new theism.Even if the jews were openly opposing Mohammed's new theism, that still doesn't justify the breaking of a peace treaty. The Islamic spin on this story isn't very convincing.If Mohammed made a treaty with the Quraysh to simply break it and conquer them in the name of Allah to promote his new religion, then that fits in with what fundamental Islam teaches. It also fits in with the words "Al-Hudaibiyah" that Arafat utters when he signs a treaty proposed by the U.N. or the U.S, such as the Oslo accords. Or when Saddam Hussein signs treaties with the U.N.Muslim fundamentalists (leaders and otherwise) are well known for breaking their agreements and peace treaties. That disolves others' trust in them real fast.Let's have a history lesson, shall we?Islam, Power and Empire, 600-667 CE The URL above is taken from http://www.hyperhistory.com ; a well respected source of world history.Or how about some other references to "Al-Hudaibiyah":http://wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/moslem.htmyahoodi.com is for salehttp://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1999/jan/cair1.htmAnd a reference for Palestine in general:http://www.palestinefacts.org------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 01-30-2003]

quote:

---

Happy reading.

---

Indeed.Thanks for the references, Quetzal. I'll be checking them out soon.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Satcomm: That doesn't surprise me. I guess the Dems aren't liberal enough for you.

​

Schrafinator: And no, the Democrats aren't progressive enough for me. There is very little difference between the two parties now. The republicans are mostly pretty far right wing and the Democrats are pretty much centrists for the most part.

---

You just proved my statement valid, regardless of whether you support McCain or not. I like McCain too. He seems like an honest politician. Probably why he's nothing more than a senator."Progressive" = a new substitute epithet for liberal. Just go read Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community | Common DreamsWhen I see house minority leaders like Nancy Pelosi running the democratic party now, I don't think moderate.

quote:

---

There is no "left" in the US that has any power or influence.

---

Thank goodness. Although, they are in control of the state of California.

quote:

---

Hell, Dick Nixon would have had to be a Democrat if he was alive today because he would have been way to "liberal" on the environment.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

quote:

---

Don't try to use that conservative tactic of saying that if one is liberal, left-leaning or progressive one is evil or a commie or anti-American.

---

Nah. Liberalism = idiocy.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Who do you think wrote history? Magic Honest fairies who never tell lies?

---

A good portion of history is written by those who wanted to keep an accurate account of what was going on. Yes, yes, I know some history is revisionist. It's up to historians to sift through the garbage to find the gold. Archeology has a tendancy of spouting history too.

quote:

---

What you've said makes sense, until one realizes that your 'official and formally recognized sites' are those most likely to be biased.

---

I disagree. There is information and then there is opinion.

quote:

---

You are making sense, but your actions violate these very ideals. As far as I can tell you refuse to look at anything not for your position. Noble sentiment but it is all posture.

---

I'm disappointed that you've come to that conclusion, John. I've read and reviewed the majority of the references you've posted. Wouldn't those be something not for "my position"?

quote:

---

Satcomm: What you're suggesting is that nothing is true and everything is false, except your own opinion.

​

John: It is pretty clear that I am not the one with this opinion.

---

It's pretty clear that you are the one with that opinion. And I'll go on with further evidence of this with another one of your quotes:

quote:

---

Yeah, I probably never will no the truth. Life sucks like that.

---

quote:

---

Apparently it cannot be so identified as you are blind to cases where just this sort of revision has been done. But since that revision fits your prejudice, it is history.

---

I think it's the other way around. Except you commonly embrace the revisions of others to match your own opinion, instead of forming your own revision.

quote:

---

Again, you make sense but your actions violate these ideals. Everything not pro-Israel you have dismissed as being Islamic fundamentalism.

---

That is incorrect. Everything you've sent me I've dismissed as anti-Israel or liberal rhetoric.You didn't see me dismissing the five reference books that Quetzal posted. In fact, I'm going to order them when I get the chance.

quote:

---

Think about the Jewish holocaust in Germany. Does writing about that atrocity make one an Jewish fundamentalist and hence unreliable? Nope. Yet writing about what the Jewish government and Zionist movements have done the local arab populations makes one an Islamic militant and an unreliable source.

---

This is simply absurd. You can't possibly compare the Jewish holocaust to the current government in Israel. There are too many differences.I'm sorry, I don't buy the rhetoric. It's propaganda and unreliable.

quote:

---

Its a double standard.

---

Hmmm lets see:double standard - A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another.The way I see it you impose this upon yourself in this debate.

quote:

---

This is a very strange statement. I suppose that if I were to criticize Judaism for this same reason you'd not object?

---

Haha, I'm glad you approve. Criticize Judaism all you want, I could care less. However, we're talking about the modern state of Israel. And I was talking about militant Islamic fundamentalists who I don't trust.Let's recap on this one:

quote:

---

Satcomm: I'd trust the Israeli Foreign Ministry over a group of militant Islamic fundamentalists bent on my destruction.

​

John: You make this judgement based on what?

​

Satcomm: Judge not by what the people do, but by what the faith teaches. This makes me distrust Islam in general.

---

I made that statement (which you so eloquently called a judgement) based on what I've read in the teachings of Islam. I also base it on my observations of Islamic fundamentalists. With that being said, there are also peaceful and secular Muslims in this world, and especially in this country. Hence I said one shouldn't judge based on what an entire group of people do, but what the actual faith teaches. If someone is a fundamental, they have a tendancy to uphold their doctrine to the letter.

quote:

---

What difference does it make whether Palestine was a nation or not?

---

You said, "That they dislike having been kicked out of their country", indicating that they had a country. I corrected you.

quote:

---

People who lived there were terrorized and evicted from their homes.

---

No. They were encouraged to leave by the neighboring arab nations because jews are considered great enemies to Islam.

quote:

---

The people who lived there were as native or more as the Jewish peoples who imigrated from around the world.

---

I agree with this, as they are both native to the region by definition. Both jews and arabs have immigrated to that area at one point or another.

quote:

---

Based of Israel's say-so? Unbelievable......

---

Based on historical data.

quote:

---

I don't expect you to...

---

It seems like yyou were hoping I would. Hence the endless debate.

quote:

---

This doesn't follow.

​

I am critical of everything but not for the sake of being critical.

---

You are most of the time, based on your posts.

quote:

---

Then you should accept that Israel is an ultra pro-Israel source and discount its say so as well. But this you won't do.

---

Nope, because I believe they are telling the truth. A lot of historical data confirms this.

quote:

---

I haven't read all text books. However, it is possible to track changes in textbooks as the years pass. For the most part, the changes are minor but, on some issues, the changes can be radical. Ideally, this would be the result of the emergence of new information-- documents and such.

---

But you won't accept any of the information in the books due to the fact that they can be changed?

quote:

---

Satcomm: No, they were encouraged to leave by the surrounding nations.

​

John: ... rather than stay and be shot. Yes, that makes sense.

---

That was not always the case. Again, you are depicting the Israelis as some sort of Nazi regime.

quote:

---

1) Peace-keeping force == army
2) Yet it did, and you used this vey thing to justify the cration of Israel
3) There you go again making claims for which you cannot possibly have information. I am not a fan of the UN.

---

1) Ok, by definition. However there is a difference between an army sent in to eradicate, and a police force sent in to keep the peace.
2) No I did not use that. I'm making a case that Israel had justification to become a country and remain a country. The UN is beside the point.
3) I'm drawing conclusions based on observation of your behavior. I'm glad many in the U.S. are not a fans of the UN. They are an insult to our national sovereignty.

quote:

---

Religious in that the Zionist Jews and quite a few christians feel that Israel is a god-given right.

---

And the fact that you have no involvement in the situation makes it still religious and spiritual. It's God vs Anti-God and pseudo-God.

quote:

---

hmmm... lets see.

​

1) Spanish wanted gold. Zionists wanted land. Not a significant difference.

​

2) Spanish were nice in the beginnning and traded for what they wanted. Zionist were also nice in the beginning and traded for what they wanted.

​

3) As Spanish power, and numbers, increased it turned bloody. As Zionist power, and numbers, increased it turned bloody.

​

4) When the Spanish got the upper hand, the indians were turned into slaves. When the Zionist got the upper hand-- ie Israel was declared a nation-- the arab populations that remained were chased out.

---

Exactly. That is a poor analogy and different situation:1) Gold and land are two very different things. Strike one.
2) The difference between the Spanish and the Zionists is that the Spanish were there to pillage and conquer, whereas the Zionists were there to start a new life free of discrimination. Strike two.
3) The Spanish were conquering and the Zionists were retaliating. That's strike three, and you're out already.
4) How is that a similarity? The arabs were never made into slaves, nor were they "chased out" as a majority. If only you could hit the ball.

quote:

---

How exactly does "Moot. You distrust everything." fit into this series?

---

Exactly my point. Your question was irrelevant. You've proven that you distrust everything and won't even look at the data presented. It wasn't just the fact that you won't look at the military analysis data, it was the consolidation of things you've stated on the matter.

quote:

---

You have been supporting your claims by insisting that Israel is blameless because it says so, while discounting anything contrary to those claims. That is just silly. Of course, you claim to believe israel because it is telling the truth but the only proof has been the claims made by israel. That is circular.

---

This conversation is circular.I am not insisting that Israel is "blameless" and it is a nation containing human beings who have the capability to error. And I don't discount anything to the contrary of the idea that Israel has a right to exist. What is silly is that you keep insisting that those are my claims.I don't claim that Israel is telling the truth just because "they say so". I am basing my claims on historical data and philosophy. I've provided historical data, analytical data, opinion, and argument, whereas you are merely providing your own opinion and any rhetoric that supports it.

quote:

---

I am not aware of my discounting anything. I know what Israel claims, and it doesn't hold under the weight of the evidence.

---

Are you kidding? You are discounting everything I state and all the data I use for support. Your claims don't hold under the weight of evidence.

quote:

---

It looks to me like the Quraysh were an arab tribe, a kind of large family group. Calling them jews doesn't make sense.

---

My mistake. I meant to say Mecca, not Quraysh in regards to the jews living there.

quote:

---

I hope you spent some time reading your own lesson plan.

---

Why, because you won't bother?Well, here are a couple more history lessons for you:Jews and Arabs from WW2 to the 1967 (Six-Day) War Joyous Israelis, Resentful Palestinians: 1967Also, here is a link to a listing of some other prominent history sites:Subject | ipl: Information You Can Trust------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?