No body forces me to do my laundry either, but it gets done nonetheless. And we are still talking about the same thing. Only this time, the question has been turned around on its head and your "shared observation" and its validity is what is being questioned. Somebody? LoLz... Mr. Elijah, I am not one to follow just anybody. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that already. Here's my principle: I don't exist, and neither do you. Nothing has any inherent existence except God, as He was the only entity that was not created. I call this reverse existentialism. As it agrees with the proposition: existence before essence, only it does not consider anything created as having properties of fundamental existence. No contradiction required whatsoever. Faith does not claim a rational motivation or purpose. I believe the Quran is the word of God and the Prophet is the final messenger as a proposition based in faith, not reason. I believe this because it is written in the Quran and resonates with me on a personal level. At the same time, even though I believe those who do not accept this reality are mistaken, I do not see myself as superior to them because I did not EARN this knowledge. (occasionalism, again). I was quite the rebel actually and rejected everything my parents ever told me. And by the way, my parents were never the ones who forced religion on me, I was pulled towards that direction by abstract forces that I have no reason to explain to you. I would not be "defending" the Quran by claiming any such thing. In fact, I would be going against its own verses. It is stated in the Quran that if God wanted to convert everyone to Islam through the Quran He would have. This verse was revealed at a time when the Prophet was severely distressed that his mission in Makkah was (seemingly) failing. God told him that it was not his job to convert everyone through the Quran. For Abdullah to claim that the Quran can be empirically verified as the truth goes against this principle. God created vareity in life and set man apart from man so that "we may know each other" and ultimately come to the realization that we are all the same, regardless of everything. Now, why would I claim that the Quran is empirically the source of objective truth, knowing that? Because that is what I believe, is a separate issue and due to faith, not reason. anyways... what "rights" ??? The right to marry someone that person has already divorced?? Your the one who asked me if I knew what "books" were. We're already past this. We both know your source is not even contradicting mine as he was talking about the 1860s figuring out my motivations is beyond your capacities. This contradicts your original position on the issue which states that "the Arabs started it" You just admitted that they had legitimated grievances for their actions. To say that it was strategically a poor decision (in hindsight) means nothing. Their actions were a direct result of the Jewish actions in their homeland. So they didn't "start" anything. I am sure if I do a little digging some dirt will be uncovered on this land grab as well. Maybe when I have a little more time. As if they really had their interest's in mind. If they did, you'd think they would have at least consulted them on it. Ideally, the foreigner who buys the house next to yours, in your birth place, is not planning on separating and forming his own country next door. The Arabs certainly thought they were about to... self-fulfilling prophecy? Not if you consider the recent evidence of Hess's influence on the entire movement. It's not the "living there" that set off the Arab attacks. I gave a quick example of how you were wrong. I never said that the first born rule was ALWAYS prevalent. But this still does not answer my objection that it doesnt matter how kings become kings or how dynasties start. The end result is a sharp distinction between royalty and the rest. again with this... Oh you mean the same blood that was kept "pure" through generations of incest among all the royal blood lines of Europe? Is that the blood your talking about, and how freely it supposedly intermingled with the rest? Kings wont even be PRESENT on most of the battlefields! And when the were, the idea that they often ended up "in the thick of it" is absurd. Sometimes, yea maybe. Exactly, like I said, most people use the term in that sense. If you want to get technical to that level, then fine, whatever. Please show me a quote of myself saying that MOST of the crusaders were the Templars or Teutonics or Hospitallers. If that was the case, the Europeans would have easily won every single crusade. Again, this suggests the US requires no (nor did it ever require) as large a military as it possesses. When was the last time the US was threatened by an invasion from the outside? The fact is that you can not rest the claim that this society was not militaristic based on the fact that it was not expecting to be over run. hmmmmm, i am willing to accept this. tell that to that poodle sarkozy in any case, i was talking about the german issue today.