I lay claim to no telepathic powers. If you want to convey a picture, you should try transmitting more than disconnected dots. t s n m f t u c t m r p h t r.Why do u keep blaming me for your inability to connect the dots?
You did not mention the "detail" so there was nothing there for me to overlook.You have overlooked a crucial detail (again).
The suffering of a child is very real, and I am beyond saddened that you do not understand even that much. You make it ever more clear what a dangerous and repugnant religion Islam is, why it hardens so many to callous cruelty.According to my position, anything created, does NOT possess inherent existence. Which means that even though that child in that painting is "real" and the painting is "life" neither the painting, nor the child actually exists. There is NO contradiction in this view. God did not kill anyone, because there is no one to kill.
I said it doesn't even MEAN anything. It depends on some bizarre notion that 2+2 could be something else.This is what i meant by "God created the concept of 2+2=4" which you dismissed as not being relevant.
Not much point in you posting, then... But seriously: no, you never told me that before, nor do I even now have a grip on what you could possibly mean by such a facially ludicrous sentence.I also told you that I do not believe that neither you nor I actually exist.
God is not a "person" taking actions within the world; God does not "want" some things and "not want" others, so there is no question about whether God "can" do what he "wants". The concept of "power" has no more to do with God than the concepts of "color" or "time" do to the equation 2+2=4.Secondly, in this view, what power does God actually have?
Are you thinking that God is a repository of information sitting here in the universe at the present time, containing information about other times?He does not even know the future!
It was the RULE that if a woman divorced her husband, she could NEVER marry a relative of his, to avoid any question of improper influence or duress. This is how brothers were discouraged from flirting with sisters-in-law, by making it absolutely plain it could never go anywhere; and especially, fathers were not to think they could ever have their daughters-in-law, because the power fathers had over sons would make this particularly liable to be a case of duress. That is the rule the Qur'an takes for granted as existing, when it carves out a narrow exception.??? What are you talking about !!!!
What "rule" ??? It was a "rule" that if a woman divorced her husband and married a relative of his that she had to have been forced ???
I am sure you are equally deferential to his views about your own people?I even told you it was Lord Curzon who said it.
I have always condemned the Likudniks (spiritual and institutional heirs to Irgun/Lehi). But if Israel as a whole took their attitude, Palestinians would have been exterminated long ago and you know it, so don't try to compare Israel to Hamas, who have only failed to exterminate the Jews because of sheer incapacity, not any lack of will.
I never claimed that no Arabs fled earlier; I denied Chomsky's ludicrous claim that the whole Jewish offensive and the majority of the flights came before May 14 and before any Arab incursions. If you had read even a line further in your Wiki, you would have seen that from late April (as the British started withdrawing and the Arab League started moving in) to early July, the Zionist forces were taking control of the major cities within the "Jewish zone" (and about a quarter of a million Palestinians fled); then there were two major operations July 8-19 into the "triangle" from the coast to Jerusalem (about 70,000 Palestinians forcibly expelled) and extending their border in Galilee past Nazareth (all the residents there were left in place, now the "Israeli Arabs") which was when Israel expanded past the "Jewish zone"; this is what Chomsky claims had already happened before May 14.Clearly, your claim that no other historian has ever claimed that Arabs even fled before the jewish offensive started is not accurate.
Yes indeed. Jerusalem wasn't a top-ranked city (Merneptah's Stele lists Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam as the dominant cities of Cana'an) but it does get mentioned among the Egyptian tributaries (it is in the Amarna correspondence). Egypt waned considerably after that, particularly when the Palestinians invaded under Ramesses III, but Pharaoh still controlled some cities in Cana'an as late as Solomon's time (he gave them to Solomon as dowry for his daughter).Pharoah controlled Jerusalem at the time of Moses (pbuh) ??? Are you sure?
Show me in the Qur'an where Jesus says the word of Moses is no good any longer.Wait... so you actually thought I was just going to accept the Jewish version of the story and forget everyone elses??
They were committing random murders decades before there was any such thing as the Israeli army. It won't do to claim the later event as the "cause" of the earlier.because they see the Israeli army killing their civilians.
As I said before, I've never seen a case involving stones thrown at tanks. 12 year olds throwing rocks at soldiers I have seen, and yes indeed they are combatants, if very stupid and ineffective ones, more likely to get hurt or killed themselves than to accomplish anything.In what universe are 12 year old kids throwing stones at tanks "combatants" ???
We should be certain that it was not stolen. Just as the outcome in Florida 2000 should have been determined by actually counting the votes, the questions about Ohio 2004 should have been investigated officially, not by stats professors in their spare time. An election has no legitimacy unless the correctness of the outcome is openly apparent.You are not "certain" it was stolen, then why are you speaking as if you are certain that the people in the US did not elect Bush for a second time??
If that's true, why is the US allied with Saudi Arabia?
It takes an extraordinary degree of simple-mindedness to think that ALL political issues are driven by ONE paradigm. Of course we hate the Saudis: if they didn't have any oil, we would have bombed Mecca a long time ago; but they do, so we don't. Another incident like 9/11, however, and we might just say to hell with the oil, we're taking Islam out.Since, clearly, the public surely hates that nation as much as it loves Israel.
You are arguing that your government took all those risks and suffered all those losses just because of American sympathies, right? If that were true, then ALL American relations must be views through that paradigm, but CLEARLY this is not the case.
Not a thing, but I drink a lot of Mountain Dew, if that helps to explain it.What are you lacing those camels with?