Zionism

[Moiraine]

Uh, Norompanlasolas, are you real ?

[Desdicado]

Lets hope he's not real, or if he is, posting from some secure establishment somewhere.

Idea- Maybe he is George Bush as they seem to basically agree regarding Israel.

[ 10-31-2002, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Desdicado ]

Originally posted by Moiraine: You are welcome. [img]smile.gif[/img] In fact, I didn't know this until your saying that "the British promised the Jews a 'National Home' in what is now known as the Palestine Mandate" tickled my curiosity. I didn't believe it had been possible that one nation alone may have made such a promise. So I made a research, and found a lot of interesting information about the League of Nations, of which I posted only the brief extract concerning your post. You should learn more about the League of Nations. Partial information is dangerous, as it is biased.

To be sure, partial information can be dangerous, but in this case, Im not sure that the additional info really changes the basic character or validity of what I did post. In reviewing some of the documents I used to prepare the entry, I did actually find a few foot notes concerning the League of Nations. I also noted that I am unable to find any reason why Britain would have offered to find the Jews a national home land prior to WWI, except for the fact that they controlled territory in the area prior to WWI and may have felt some guilt, but I can't prove it either way. So now Im trotting off to learn more abotu the League of nations (if Im not mistaken it might have been the LoN that set the stage for WWII, that and the very harsh terms of the treaty of Vesailles.)

Originally posted by Desdicado: Lets hope he's not real, or if he is, posting from some secure establishment somewhere. Idea- Maybe he is George Bush as they seem to basically agree regarding Israel.

I don't suppose you could point me to any public sources for information regarding Bush and his thoughts on Israel? Or are you just assuming his personal thoughts on the subject due to national policies that have been in effect for more than 40 years? I do watch the news, but must have missed President Bush making those Pro-Israeli comments.
Thanks in advance.

PS. What is your view on the conflict of the Jews and the Arabs?

Originally posted by Warhammer: I respect your point of view even though I disagree with you. Since the British and the American felt so guilty about the Jews why did they not give them Wales or Montana ? Why do the Arabs have to pay for the Hitlers actions ?

Well basicvly thats what they did do. You see, by winning World War I the Allies (especially Britain and France and the LoN) had claim to the lands in question (this was before the United Nations) and basicly gave the jews lands that they had aquired, only instead of giving away Wales or Montana, they gave away, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan (and the Palistine Mandate). Take a look at the very first post on page 1 of this thread. Also make note of Moiraines correction later about the League of Nations.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by caleb: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Exquisitly researched and well thought out argument there Caleb, how could anyone refute your studies and researched facts. I salute your Historical and political acumen! PS. can you spell S. A. R. C. A. S. M. ?

Glad you liked it [img]smile.gif[/img] Heres another one.

[/QUOTE]I needed that this morning, Caleb. I'm... just.... 'snf'... 'chzxxxks'.... laughing... 'hmmpppffff'... too hard to keep typing right now. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]
Good morning world. [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

[ 10-31-2002, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Davros: You started a debate on Zionism and laid a challenge for anyone to prove you wrong. I countered with a claim that it seems altogether extremely difficult to prove you wrong "to you". I don't believe that I am yet to see such an occasion, and that discussion with minds that are predetermined has ever throughout history been a lesson in futility. In fairness to you I went back and reread my entire first post. No where in that post did I challenge anyone about anything. The only emphatic statements I made were that I would not argue with anyone about the rightness or wrongness of the concept of "Right of Conquest" as it applied historicly since you cannot change the way things WERE. At the end of the post, I summarized my take on the issue as derived from the information that was available to me. I invited people with additional or contradictory information to post, since I wanted and still do want to hear from both sides. I would like to hear factual information and not emmotional rhetoric true, but thats not a horrible crime. Aside form the information that I read when researching the whole Zionism thing, I have no particular love for either side in this conflict, any more than I like North Dakota residents more than South Dakota residents. The second debate is merely a corrollory of the first - with the question being is it theoretically possible that the best logic in the world could dissuade your good self from a taken position. I think this is a fair question to pose, for indeed the general populace could then see some purpose in assaying such a challenge. In fact it is in your interest to pursue this debate, for numerous denizens of IW, instead of avoiding such topics, might engage you in various discourse. I see this second question to be more important than the subject that spawned it, and do not see why the simultaneous tackling of both subjects cannot be essayed in the one thread. The whole point of your discussion was to belittle me personally. You were inaccurate and incomplete in your statements too. I have in fact on several instances on these forums admitted mistakes and to being wrong. In this very thread I admitted agreement with Timber Loftis (hardly one of my greatest admirers) and have also Accepted correction from Moiraine on part of the first paragraph of my 1st post. What you appeared to be interested in highlighting is that since apparently I angered you in some particular instances you assumed that I fit some label you attached to me and wanted to attack me on that basis. I have no idea why you chose this thread to make the attack, rather than in the threads where you were so offended by my stubborness. What you perceive as a personal attack is not lies, slander, name calling, personal abuse etc - it's a challenge to demonstrate the existance of flexibility and objectivity. Throughout my debate of that topic I have been at pains to maintain a respect, for you have some outstanding assets. Grit, determination, persistance - even intractability are important qualities - I respect that, for even an elephant can be eaten one bite at a time [img]smile.gif[/img] . You accused me of threatening 7 or 8 people by accusing them of a TOS violation. To my knowledge the TOS has only come up in one other instance in my history here. 1 does not equal 7 or 8. As for being intractable, there are some things I believe in and there are some things Im trying to learn about. I know about guns, I know about Military and US intelligence agencies and practices, I know Computers and electronics So I will debate those issues and will not accept people trying to twist the meaning of a post, just to evade admitting they cannot refute facts or statistics gatherd and presented. (the source of most of your out of context quotes). I saw no respect for me in your first few posts on this thread. It is not that I need patted ont he head and told "good boy" I can live with your disdain quite well, but I do resent it that you take an interesting, controvetial topic and attempt to drail the thread without adding anything to the substance of the debate. There was more but Im short on time. All I can say, is leave the personal attacks out of it and debate the issues and we will do just fine, I am flattered that you seem to be sayiong that you watch every post I make and keep tabs on how many times I say things, however I do believe that you may be exagerating a tad. Since obviously you were so wrong in so many of your assertions. A Parting thought: Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge the facts. - F.A. Hayek

[ 10-31-2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Attalus]

LOL, rock on, MagiK.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: In this very thread I admitted agreement with Timber Loftis (hardly one of my greatest admirers) and have also Accepted correction from Moiraine on part of the first paragraph of my 1st post

LOL You didn't have much choice - I didn't emit an opinion, I stated facts ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: In this very thread I admitted agreement with Timber Loftis (hardly one of my greatest admirers) and have also Accepted correction from Moiraine on part of the first paragraph of my 1st post

LOL You didn't have much choice - I didn't emit an opinion, I stated facts ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes Ma'am you did, yet were I the kind of person that was being alluded to, I would have argued with you just for the sake of argument. [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not saying I have never done that either, but I do try to limit it as much as possible. [/QUOTE]