Creationism, Evolution and the Public Schools

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:

---

So you ignore reliable history?

---

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.

quote:

---

You missed the point entirely.

---

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.'I state:

quote:

---

1) the popularity of the site is irrelevant

---

You reply:

quote:

---

1) Information agreed upon is relevant.

---

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

quote:

---

2) That may be true. However, ultra-agenda propaganda is easy to spot.

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Paranoid aren't we? I imagine that every Muslim is a militant Islamic fundamentalist, isn't that right? You make this judgement based on what? That they dislike having been kicked out of their country?

quote:

---

Promoting false information and anti-semetism makes them wrong.

---

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.I doubt it will do good, but here is one christian's perspective on the issue. Page not found - CounterPunch.org

quote:

---

You seem unsure about that.

---

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

quote:

---

Actually it's very easy to find anti-Israel rhetoric.

---

And just as easy to find Israeli rhetoric. But the truth is the real issue.How about some anti-israeli rhetoric from a jew? That will be fun. Page not found | Norman Finkelstein

quote:

---

Hmmm, let me point out some catch words and phrases from this site:

---

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

quote:

---

So history books and the history channel represent a major conspiracy of false history? Care to enlighten me?

---

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.

quote:

---

What tragedy?

---

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.

quote:

---

It's only absurd if the land was inhabited by a nation prior to the taking away of that land.

---

It was inhabited by people, who were dispossessed.

quote:

---

The statement about military conquest is false. The UN declared it, there were many jews living there, and it became Israel.

---

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?

quote:

---

If I didn't, then why do you claim that I did?

---

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

quote:

---

nor do I consider the Zionists to be the cause of it.

---

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

quote:

---

Actually I was talking about buying land back legally. That was one of my points.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

I haven't come to a conclusion about U.S. national policy. That was my own opinion.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Childish response.

quote:

---

So the warring factions of Islam and the war between fundamental Islam and the western secular cultures aren't problems?

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch4s14.html------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

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

​

Page not found - CounterPunch.org

---

Your attention to detail rivals the hole in your head. Here is the first sentence of that lovely article:Forgive me, an atheist student of Christianity, for intruding in your affairs.A christian point of view? So reading is not your forte. I forgive you.

quote:

---

How about some anti-israeli rhetoric from a jew? That will be fun.

​

Page not found | Norman Finkelstein

---

This is well written, however, it is garbage. Why is it garbage you ask? Mr. Finkelstein, who i'm quite sure is HUGE in Canada, never once portrays Arabs poorly. They are just innocent victims doing nothing but getting slaughtered. Israel is nothing but evil. I really hope you don't think this is anything more than angry bias towards Israel.

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.

---

Yes, we are all victims of misinformation. Everything I know is false. Trust no one. Once again I ask, where can I find the true history books? I no longer want to be in the dark.

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'm sure you would brand God a false history lesson even if he did exist.

quote:

---

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

---

You lost the spelling bee again. The correct word is ME, John. Not BE. I'm sorry, but you did not win the trip to Washington DC due to your incompetence.

quote:

---

Childish response.

---

We could all learn a lesson in childish behavior from you. I find it humorous you would even cite such a thing. Look at your posts. It was the Nation of John who resorted to childish trash talking before Satcomm ever did. Perhaps you can find a .org site to prove me wrong.

quote:

---

A christian point of view?

---

oops... It is a good piece though.

quote:

---

Why is it garbage you ask? Mr. Finkelstein, who i'm quite sure is HUGE in Canada, never once portrays Arabs poorly.

---

It is garbage because he does not portray the Arabs badly? Please kids....Do we hate Canada now too?

quote:

---

I really hope you don't think this is anything more than angry bias towards Israel.

---

Maybe I should take up your angry bias towards well... pretty much everyone?

quote:

---

You lost the spelling bee again. The correct word is ME, John. Not BE.

---

Well, you are freaking brilliant!!!! It happens. Big deal. I pick on people sometimes but I don't really care. Everybody spells badly on these boards. It is amazing to me that you and satcomm both take it so personal.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Do we hate Canada now too?

---

Why yes, I find both the government and local populous Canada quite offensive. They are the white trash of North America.

quote:

---

Maybe I should take up your angry bias towards well... pretty much everyone?

---

That really hits home. You're right. I'm going to change starting now!

quote:

---

Well, you are freaking brilliant!!!! It happens. Big deal. I pick on people sometimes but I don't really care. Everybody spells badly on these boards. It is amazing to me that you and satcomm both take it so personal.

---

Nice try to save face. Didn't work though. Hypocrite comes to mind.Third request: Where can I find History books which speak of the truth? How do I discern between falsified history (or I believe the buzzword for this is revisionist history) and truthful history books?

quote:

---

Third request: Where can I find History books which speak of the truth? How do I discern between falsified history (or I believe the buzzword for this is revisionist history) and truthful history books?

---

Actually a reasonable question (rather than your usual diatribe). It IS difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and find any history of that region that is unbiased. However, after wading through a small mountain of material over the years, if you are in fact interested in the history of the area rather than just something that supports your preconceptions, I'd like to recommend:David Fromkin: "Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" (takes you to the British Mandate). This one's a lot of fun because it really shows the Brits in a rather bad light ( for all my British friends). I think Fromkin goes a bit over the top (you could come away with the impression that people like Churchill, etc, were incompetent boobs, which is not the case), but overall an excellent, well-documented history.Howard M. Sachar: "A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time". This one does have a slight slant (I'll leave it to the reader to determine which way...), but provides a pretty good factual history of Israel from the late 19th Century to the late 1990's. Personally think Sachar is a bit naive and dovish - but that doesn't really detract from the factual account, which he does quite well.If you want to read two completely diametrically opposed viewpoints (in the sense of hearing the extremes of both sides and "making up your own mind), there are literally hundreds of volumes out there. However, two fairly representative examples:Benjamin Netanyahu: "A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations". Nice pro-Israeli apologetic. A little whiny in places, however. One of the better "nationalist histories" out there. Netanyahu should have stuck to politics, unfortunately, he's not that great a writer...Sami Hadawi: "Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine". The seminal exemplar of anti-Israeli vitriol. If you want a book to support every myth you've ever cherished against Israel, this is the one for you. Of course, not all the facts are really quite as Hadawi portrays...Happy reading.

quote:

---

Why yes, I find both the government and local populous Canada quite offensive. They are the white trash of North America.

---

Well... that sorta proves my point.

quote:

---

Nice try to save face. Didn't work though. Hypocrite comes to mind.

---

I thought it was funny that satcomm said my statement was "rediculous" thats all.

quote:

---

Where can I find History books which speak of the truth? How do I discern between falsified history (or I believe the buzzword for this is revisionist history) and truthful history books?

---

Well, it helps to not accept on side's story a priori as truth. What is so amusing about this debate is that both you and satcomm discount anything pro-arab ( whether written by actual arab/muslims or not ) and accept uncritically the Israeli accounts of the conflict. It is just mindbending that you think this is rational. It also helps to take the opinions of those directly involved with a big lump of salt. You both seem to have cannonized the Israeli reports though. It just doesn't make sense.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Good stuff, quetzal. The first two look quite good and I am placing an order today. Thanks for the information.

quote:

---

Well, it helps to not accept on side's story a priori as truth. What is so amusing about this debate is that both you and satcomm discount anything pro-arab ( whether written by actual arab/muslims or not ) and accept uncritically the Israeli accounts of the conflict. It is just mindbending that you think this is rational. It also helps to take the opinions of those directly involved with a big lump of salt. You both seem to have cannonized the Israeli reports though. It just doesn't make sense.

---

Post a site that is not left wing. I'm sure your internet favorites is quite the left wing library. Pro-Arab views I carry no grudge against.You are avoiding my question, however, how are you discerning the difference between revisionist history and truthful history?

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:

---

Post a site that is not left wing.

---

'Left-wing" determined by what? Whether or not it agrees with you? That is the only criteria either you or satcomm have given. Not to mention that satcomm violates this idea by posting the extreme right-wing sites.

quote:

---

You are avoiding my question, however, how are you discerning the difference between revisionist history and truthful history?

---

???? Read what you can find of all sides and try to make sense of it. I wish there were a more accurate way to do it but I can't think of one.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Happy reading.

---

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

quote:

---

Ok, so you don't agree with written history, but agree with selective modern opinion. We have established that.

---

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

quote:

---

There are official and formally recognized sites

---

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

quote:

---

Agreed upon by the majority, or a group of people specialized in the study.

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

It can be identified whether or not it's merely someone's opinion to promote a new cause and rewrite history.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

That was never an independent and internationally recognized country. The people who lived there that were encouraged to leave after the formation of Israel were not originally from there.

---

What difference does it make whether Palestine was a nation or not? People who lived there were terrorized and evicted from their homes. The people who lived there were as native or more as the Jewish peoples who imigrated from around the world.

quote:

---

Because Israel is telling the truth.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't expect you to...

quote:

---

So you're just critical for the sake of being critical.

---

This doesn't follow.I am critical of everything but not for the sake of being critical.

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

The issue is mostly religious and spiritual.

---

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

quote:

---

A different situation and a poor analogy.

---

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.

quote:

---

Moot. You distrust everything.

---

Lets review, because this makes no sense. How exactly does "Moot. You distrust everything." fit into this series?

quote:

---

I've been supporting my claims. You discount almost everything and follow up with character debates. Sounds like smear tactics to me.

---

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

quote:

---

It should also be noted that many of the people from Quraysh were jews who refused to accept Mohammed's new theism.

---

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

quote:

---

Let's have a history lesson, shall we?

---

I hope you spent some time reading your own lesson plan.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

For the record, this thread is way of of topic for this forum, but since I started it, let me put my two cents in....again..I realize it's the popular thing to be pro Palestinian. The liberal media portrays them as underdogs being oppressed by a brutal government, but I don't see this.What I see is Barack offered them an incredible deal of land and control of half of Jerusalem...the Palestinian response was to step up homocide bombings. Stop...... There was reasonable peace in Israel until Barack tried to give the farm away. If you're pro Palestinian, explain how when you have nothing, you are quiet, but when someone extends their hand in a gesture of peace, you attack and destroy people in a marketplace or blow up a disco full of people.Honestly, WTF? Are you telling me that the Navajo have the right to go into a local Safeway and blow everyone to shit because a burgeoning U.S. government gave them some land instead of kicking them to the curb and leaving them to fend for themselves? That makes no sense to me.The Palistianians aren't fighting for freedom. The PLO charter calls for the absolute destruction of Israel. THAT'S why they fight. Are Israeli children taught to hate the Arabs? Are they taught that God is pleased when an Arab dies? The answer is NO. But That's exactly what the Arabs are teaching THIER children...Refer to Al Jazerra if you don't wanna believe that. In case you didn't know it already, Al Jazeera is an Arabic news agency of the magnitude of CNN.If Israel wanted, they could have whiped out all the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors by now if that was their intention. It clearly is not. They simply want to exist in peace. If anyone harms them, they will do whatever is neccessary...just like ANY government...just like any individual.I say that if the Palestinians want peace, be peaceful...but if they want war, the consequences be on their own heads.[This message has been edited by Arachnid, 01-31-2003]

I don't have time for a full response right now, but I have to mention this:

quote:

---

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

---

I just told you I would have voted for JOHN McCAIN.The REPUBLICAN WAR-HERO.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.There is no "left" in the US that has any power or influence.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.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.