Azzem wrote:
> Are you still contending that that list is all facts (apart from the two
that you have accepted are not facts)?
You bet
Who is this Dr Morley? What are his
> credentials? How can you be sure that the other statements are facts?
How can you be sure the snakebite URL statements are facts?
If this is the URL you're referring to, then I can point out 2 "howlers":
It says jews in Arab countries never suffered persecution.
It's true that for centuries they coexisted peacefully. In the late 50's
the situation got progessively worse.
After 1967, Jews were forced to leave Arab countries with nothing but a
suitcase. All their belongings were confiscated. It was that or death. I
know many Jews personally who fled Arab countries under those conditions. I
have first hand testimony that they were threatened with machine guns.
The statement that they were simply immigrants to Israel is a blatant lie.
You see, liars are smart. They don't tell you only lies because they would
be easily detected.
They tell 2 truths, 1 lie, 2 truths, 1 lie. This tactic is universal.
On the subject of why Arab refugees didn't get integrated in Arab countries,
unlike jewish refugees/immigrants. It says Israel relied on U.S. aid +
money from world jewry, "a luxury that Arab countries do not have" Really?
How about fellow Arab brothers in oil-rich countries, can't they afford it?
Why aren't they helping their brothers who live in camps? Either they do it
and the statement is false, or they don't and this proves that they have a
political motive to keep Palestinians in their current state.
At any rate, I'm not a dialectics professional and this debate is turning
into just that: pick one word/one phrase/one statement from a post, tear it
apart and disclaim the whole argument.
I guess I could spend my whole day trying to prove or disprove every word
but at the end of the day I agree with Colin, this discussion is going
nowhere since everybody sticks to their sources.
However, those who call me a zealot and a fundy would do better to look at
themselves.
> Further, are you saying that it's wrong or somehow less valid to "base an
> opinion on anything but fact"? I disagree. Opinions can be based on
> intuition, common sense, experience, probability, as well as other
people's
> opinions. Relying too much on "facts" can engender a rigidity that can
> hamper rather than promote enlightenment.
Action speaks louder than words.
Also, another example of the dialectic tactic I just described above.
