A Pop Quiz On The Middle East (1 Viewer)

[Whip]

A POP QUIZ ON THE MIDDLE EAST -- ANSWERS MAY SURPRISE YOU

Charley Reese of the Sentinel Staff

The Orlando Sentinel - 2/8/98

Just so you can keep up with the perpetual crisis in the Middle East, I have a little quiz for you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?

A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign terri-tory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

A: Israel.

The rest is at http://groups.msn.com/ISRAELISTATETERRORISM/quizofthemiddleast.msnw

 

[FallingPianos]

oh boy, here we go...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is the kind of post that denotes an agenda rather than attempt at honest debate. Let's examine it, a little.

First the source. Charley Reese. A man who is admittedly anti-Jew. In the Suncoast News on August 24, 2006, he was quoted as saying, "Today, there is no avoiding stating the plain truth: We have a Jewish problem." A Jewish problem. Hmm...I seem to remember a group of people using the same statement back in the 30's and 40's. Anyone care to guess the name of that group? I'll give you a hint, it begins with an N ends in an I and has an AZ in the middle. Very difficult to accept information provided from such a biased source.

Now, the quiz itself. Reading each question, it is obvious that the writer intends to present Israel in a negative light by presenting many half-truths and revisionist statements. It's kinda like saying, 'Who is the only country to ever use nulcear weapons? The United States." This is factually correct, but imagine it as a question and answer to a 'quiz' titled "A Pop Quiz on the US's Evil Disregard For Human Life". See the point? The answer does not tell the whole story, but states it in an agenda-driven way.

Now let's take the three questions (of the many from that 'quiz') that you posted.

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign terri-tory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
A: Israel.

Now let's ask the questions a little more honestly.

Q: Which country alone in the Middle East might need to have nuclear weapons because nearly every country and group around it is dedicated to it's destruction?
A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections because a 'cold war' type of deterance assists in keeping others from using their biological and chemical weapons, especially since most are dedicated towards that country's destruction?
A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign terri-tory of other nations by military force in a pre-emptive military action after several neighboring countries prepared to, together, militarily destroy that country and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions in resistance to a consistently pro-Arab UN?
A: Israel.

I could go on with the other questions in the same vein. This biased, agenda-driven drivel is nothing more than predjudice. The information has a small percentage based in fact, yet either tells half-truths, twists information to fit an agenda, or revises history, again, to fit an agenda.

You know, Whip if you truely want to debate the Israeli govenment's actions, I would be happy to do that. But, as you consitently present extremist, agenda-based, revisionist, half-truth, overgeneralized, straw man premises and arguments, you show that your desire to actually debate this issue is nil.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

oh boy, here we go...

Don't worry star2589. I've got it. :mrgreen:

 

[Whip]

This is the kind of post that denotes an agenda rather than attempt at honest debate. Let's examine it, a little.

Everyone has an agenda Capt'n, including yourself. And with every agenda comes food for debate.

First the source. Charley Reese. A man who is admittedly anti-Jew. In the Suncoast News on August 24, 2006, he was quoted as saying, "Today, there is no avoiding stating the plain truth: We have a Jewish problem."

Link? Rather or not Reese is anti-Jew is irrelavant. What is relevant is rather or not his information is correct and if not, how not?

Very difficult to accept information provided from such a biased source.

Please find us a source that is not biased. You are a source. I am a source. We are both biased. It is nearly impossible to find any source that is not biased to one side or the other on any topic, even those not as charged as this one.

Now, the quiz itself. Reading each question, it is obvious that the writer intends to present Israel in a negative light by presenting many half-truths and revisionist statements.

Where in this quiz are, as you say, the 'half-truth's and 'revisionist statements'? This quiz has no lies, (or 'half-truth', which equals a lie). Nor does it contain any revisionist statements'. What it does have is facts. Unadalterated facts. And since facts cannot be disproven you have chosen to rally against the author and not the content of his quiz. Reshaping the questions to fit your biased agenda does not change the facts or lessen the weight of said questions.

If you will notice the author is making a point and its full strength comes to bear in his last question.

Q: What country is the United States threatening to bomb [has bombed] because "U.N. Security Council resolutions must be obeyed?"

A: Iraq.

He is asking, "if Israel can have nuclear weapons, if Israel can ignore sanctions, If Israel can violate humanity with impunity, if Israel....then why can't Iraq or any others in the Middle East also be exempt from prosecution/persecution for acting in the same manner?" I see no reason for Israel to have as many as, or more than, 400 nukes aimed at their neighbors and, for that matter, much of the world. I see no reason for Israel to not be sanctioned for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I see no reason for 10m. dollars a day to go to Israel, ( a country about the size of California) from the US. I see no reason for the US to Supply Israel with weaponry, (air craft, small arms, tanks, etc. Not to mention the American made bulldozers used to demolish homes). Why isn't Israel sanctioned? Why isn't US and Brits bombing Israel? As this author has made clear, and I whole heartedly agree, if we are going to bomb other countries 'back to the stone age' for lesser crimes than Israel has committed, then why aren't we also bombing Israel?

Before someone says, 'Israel is are ally, our friend.' Let me tell you that Israel is not our friend. Although displayed as such, they are not. They are the greatest enemy and the biggest threat to the safety and security of the US and all other 'free countries' in the world. Without Israel as 'a friend' we would not be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would not be threatening to attack Iran and other sovereign lands. The only reason we have enemies in the MidEast is because Israel is our 'friend'. Doubt this? Find a foreign news source, (preferrably Middle Eastern) and see what they say. They hate us, not for our freedom, as G.W. claimed, but because the US supports Israel.

We are killing and dieing in the Middle East for the biased agendas of Zionist Israel.

 

[Vader]

Everyone has an agenda Capt'n, including yourself. And with every agenda comes food for debate.


Link? Rather or not Reese is anti-Jew is irrelavant. What is relevant is rather or not his information is correct and if not, how not?


Please find us a source that is not biased. You are a source. I am a source. We are both biased. It is nearly impossible to find any source that is not biased to one side or the other on any topic, even those not as charged as this one.


Where in this quiz are, as you say, the 'half-truth's and 'revisionist statements'? This quiz has no lies, (or 'half-truth', which equals a lie). Nor does it contain any revisionist statements'. What it does have is facts. Unadalterated facts. And since facts cannot be disproven you have chosen to rally against the author and not the content of his quiz. Reshaping the questions to fit your biased agenda does not change the facts or lessen the weight of said questions.

If you will notice the author is making a point and its full strength comes to bear in his last question.


He is asking, "if Israel can have nuclear weapons, if Israel can ignore sanctions, If Israel can violate humanity with impunity, if Israel....then why can't Iraq or any others in the Middle East also be exempt from prosecution/persecution for acting in the same manner?" I see no reason for Israel to have as many as, or more than, 400 nukes aimed at their neighbors and, for that matter, much of the world. I see no reason for Israel to not be sanctioned for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I see no reason for 10m. dollars a day to go to Israel, ( a country about the size of California) from the US. I see no reason for the US to Supply Israel with weaponry, (air craft, small arms, tanks, etc. Not to mention the American made bulldozers used to demolish homes). Why isn't Israel sanctioned? Why isn't US and Brits bombing Israel? As this author has made clear, and I whole heartedly agree, if we are going to bomb other countries 'back to the stone age' for lesser crimes than Israel has committed, then why aren't we also bombing Israel?

Before someone says, 'Israel is are ally, our friend.' Let me tell you that Israel is not our friend. Although displayed as such, they are not. They are the greatest enemy and the biggest threat to the safety and security of the US and all other 'free countries' in the world. Without Israel as 'a friend' we would not be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would not be threatening to attack Iran and other sovereign lands. The only reason we have enemies in the MidEast is because Israel is our 'friend'. Doubt this? Find a foreign news source, (preferrably Middle Eastern) and see what they say. They hate us, not for our freedom, as G.W. claimed, but because the US supports Israel.

We are killing and dieing in the Middle East for the biased agendas of Zionist Israel.

Ok, Whip, my anti-Semitic friend, the following items have apparently escaped you:

1.) There was been Jews in modern Israel forcenturies (*hint* they were there before the Arabs and before Islam)

2.) Survival is NOT a biased agenda.

3.) People who say survival is biased agenda are terrorists, terrorist-supporters, or brainwashed terrorist sympathizers.

4.) Israel can have nuclear weapons because Israel IS NOT A SILLY ISLAMIC THEOCRACY RUN BY TERRORISTS.

5.) Israel doesn't fund terrorists the way Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon do; SO THEY CAN HAVE NUKES

6.) Israel doesn't arm terrorists the way Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon do; SO THEY CAN HAVE NUKES

7.) I see no reason why you need to continue to whine about Israel's nukes

8.) Israel isn't sanctioned because Israel doesn't conduct terrorist attacks
in the name of Judeaism. (*Hint* Arabs often commit such attacks in the name of Islam and Allah)

9.) Israel isn't violating humanity. Perhaps, you should put down the Islamic
propaganda book and look at who is attacking who. The Arabs attack
and Israel retaliates. Get your facts straight or keep quiet.

10.) Bulldozers? What they are demolishing are bombed out buildings used by Hamas to make bombs. These buildings also serve as impromptu holding cells for kidnapping victims and meeting places where Hamas plans attacks.

11.) HAMAS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION .... your arguments are irrelevant until your good buddies in terroristville Palestine are NOT governed by a TERRORIST GROUP.

Any other questions?

:doh

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Everyone has an agenda Capt'n, including yourself. And with every agenda comes food for debate.

This is true. Everyone has an agenda. Mine is to debate issues that I enjoy discussing, to debate issues that I have some (or more than some) knowledge about, and to become more educated on alternate positions from where I usually stand, or on issues that I don't know about as much as I'd like.

What's your agenda?

Link? Rather or not Reese is anti-Jew is irrelavant. What is relevant is rather or not his information is correct and if not, how not?

Actually, his stance is relevant. If he makes claims that can not be corroborated at other sites, by other persons, then it makes his information less credible. If his information is not presented by those that do not share his views then his information is less credible. The way one researching information proceeds is to check and verify facts received from potentially biased sorces to add to the credibility of those facts. If I were researching the holocaust, for example, I would post things from national archives and news sources. I would not post anything from Nikzor without a secondary source to back me, even if I completely believed what Nikzor was stating. A well stated postiional agenda cannot be used as a primary source without credibility being questioned.

Please find us a source that is not biased. You are a source. I am a source. We are both biased. It is nearly impossible to find any source that is not biased to one side or the other on any topic, even those not as charged as this one.

We are both biased, considering we hold different positions. A non-biased source is one that provides infomation, and information alone. A source may provide information from one side of an argument, only. This source is only biased if it presents or implies that this information is the only information surrounding the subject. Reese's piece does this. It is, also, more of an op-ed piece. These facts, Reese's position on Israel, and the totally one-side position of the site that this came from all contribute to making this information not credible. And this only reflects on the source, not the information itself.

Where in this quiz are, as you say, the 'half-truth's and 'revisionist statements'? This quiz has no lies, (or 'half-truth', which equals a lie). Nor does it contain any revisionist statements'.

I think I pointed some of these out in my response to the three questions you posted. I could go through all the questions, but I didn't feel the need, as I felt my examples were sustainable to my position.

What it does have is facts. Unadalterated facts. And since facts cannot be disproven you have chosen to rally against the author and not the content of his quiz. Reshaping the questions to fit your biased agenda does not change the facts or lessen the weight of said questions.

See, but the facts are not facts, per se. They don't tell the whole story, but they coerce the reader to the position the author wants. That is a good example of a biased source.

Here is an example. Let's say I shot a dog after that dog attacked me without provocation. This is how Mr. Reese might word that act in his quiz:

Q: Who is the only person in his neighborhood to shoot a dog?
A: CaptainCourtesy.

Here would be the whole story in quiz form:

Q: Who is the only person in his neighborhood to shoot a dog after that dog attacked him, threatening him with bodily harm?
A: CaptainCourtesy.

The first set is what Reese did. Notice the missing pieces and how it leads the reader towards an agenda, perhaps that of an animal hater. The second completes the story and allows the reader to come to a conclusion with as many facts as possible. This is how I reworded the questions.

If you will notice the author is making a point and its full strength comes to bear in his last question.

Sure. This follows suit with his agenda. His quiz was nicely done in a biased, opinioned, and leading way. He missed to many facts for it to be 'strong'.

He is asking, "if Israel can have nuclear weapons, if Israel can ignore sanctions, If Israel can violate humanity with impunity, if Israel....then why can't Iraq or any others in the Middle East also be exempt from prosecution/persecution for acting in the same manner?"

As I think I've pointed out quite completely, this is not what he's doing. He is not asking questions, he is stating his position and attempting to lead the reader towards this position, though, without all the facts.

I see no reason for Israel to have as many as, or more than, 400 nukes aimed at their neighbors and, for that matter, much of the world.

I do. It's called deterrence.

I see no reason for Israel to not be sanctioned for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I would agree that when war crimes are evidenced that Israel should be sanctioned. I do, however, see the UN (often the body that puts forth these sanctions) as being a non-integritous organization. Israel is the only member not allowed to sit on the UN Security Council. Israel has many restrictions that no other member of the UN also has. The UN presents all these sanctions towards Israel, but does not aggressively go after Muslim attacks on Hindus or Christians in Pakistan, Buddhists in Thailand, or anyone in Sudan. Special sessions are brought against Israel, but not for the human rights violations in Rwanda or Sudan. All of this points to anti-Israel bias by the very organization that is supposed to fairly mediate in the world. I used to believe completely in the UN. The more I read, the less I support them.

And as an afterthought, The United Nations Association of the United Kingdom published a report in 2004 examining resolution surrounding the Israeli-Arab conflict. They found that Israel receives disproportionate sanctions in comparision to similar acts commited by Arab countries and organizations, and though Israeli aggression is liberally discussed, Palestinian aggression is briefly and vaguely mentioned. They identified that the General Assembly was decidedly pro-Palestinian and their decisions reflected this.

A link to this can be found here: http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/una-uk_report.pdf

Again, so my position can be seen clearly, Israeli human rights violations are just as heinous as others'. The targetting of Israel without sanctions against others makes me )and many others) question the motivation and agenda of the UN.

I see no reason for 10m. dollars a day to go to Israel, ( a country about the size of California) from the US. I see no reason for the US to Supply Israel with weaponry, (air craft, small arms, tanks, etc. Not to mention the American made bulldozers used to demolish homes).

Why not?

Why isn't Israel sanctioned? Why isn't US and Brits bombing Israel? As this author has made clear, and I whole heartedly agree, if we are going to bomb other countries 'back to the stone age' for lesser crimes than Israel has committed, then why aren't we also bombing Israel?

Since you agree with the author, your bias must be anti-Israeli, also. What a surprise. :roll:

Before someone says, 'Israel is are ally, our friend.' Let me tell you that Israel is not our friend. Although displayed as such, they are not. They are the greatest enemy and the biggest threat to the safety and security of the US and all other 'free countries' in the world. Without Israel as 'a friend' we would not be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would not be threatening to attack Iran and other sovereign lands. The only reason we have enemies in the MidEast is because Israel is our 'friend'. Doubt this? Find a foreign news source, (preferrably Middle Eastern) and see what they say. They hate us, not for our freedom, as G.W. claimed, but because the US supports Israel.

All of this omits facts and tells only half the story. Middle Eastern countries hate us because we support Israel, which they hate and want to destroy and have always wanted to destroy from it's formation. You see, you missed the part in italics, an important fact in this situation, without which 'a dog is being shot, and without the explanation, the shooter seems like an animal hater'. This is what I mean by half-truths and half of the story.

We are killing and dieing in the Middle East for the biased agendas of Zionist Israel.

We are killing and dying in the Middle East for many reasons. For the purpose of this thread, we are killing and dying in the Middle East to support Israel, alone against many nations and groups bent and focused on Israel's destruction.