Click Image to Enlarge.
Jimmy Carter has a new book with a provocative title. I'm in no position to quibble with provocation. What bugs me about "America's best ex-pres" is that every time I turn on the tube he is bravely blabbering that he's being silenced by the Jews.
Jimmy Caarter was the worst president in my lifetime and I have lived through 12 presidents.
Carter worst president ever of Carl's lifetime? It's possible. Not likely but possible. But which president has worked harder to bring peace to the Middle East ?
In the blogosphere, there are only the absolutes that all Muslims are terrorists and all Israelis are saints.
Well, the Palestinians could do a little more to help their PR. Actually, doing nothing would help their PR.
http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_6427-Gaza-Islamists-Target-Internet-Cafes.html
Mick, thanks for making my point.
Instead of using the term "fundamentalist Isamist " that your link mentioned, you used the broader term Palestinians.
We should alert Jimmy Carter.
The distinction is meaningless. Those running things (at least nominally) in Palestine are in fact islamic fundamentalists.
What if I said all evangelicals who handle snakes and speak in tongues are in fact Christians….. Does that lack a certatin distinction?
In my experience, all snake handling, tongues speaking evangelicals ARE Christians, so as far as I know that statement is succinct and 100% true.
Yes of course Mick. But the reverse of that is not true, just as all Palestinians are not fundamentalist Islamists.
I think you're splitting hairs here. Its acceptable in a discourse about WW2 to say that the Germans did X, Y and Z rather than the more specific term Nazi. Of course not all Germans were Nazis at the time, but those people were irrelavent to the actions of Germany as a whole. Same goes here.
Fair enough, but you're still using the equation that if A (Palestinian) sometimes = B (Islamic Fundamentalist) and B sometimes = C (Terrorists) then A and C are interchangable.
My ex-accountant (R.I.P) escaped Germany during WWII, came to
America and joined the US Marines as soon as he got his citizen- ship. I think he would have questioned your equation as well.
Since nitpicking is what it's all about, the presence of the word "sometimes" in your formula implies that A and C are interchangeable only sometimes (doubled).
I used the word sometimes so as not to make it an absolute which has been my point all along… avoiding sweeping generalizations.
I mean really what was the point of your posting the link anyway ?
Be honest.
What if I had posted a link about yet another car bombing in Baghdad? Would that have been redundant or merely restating the obvious?
Larry didnt post the link, I did.
In any case, in terms of your formula, you are correct if were taking the Stanford-Binet. But in any discussion regarding large groups of people, generalizations are unavoidable. We're debating English usage here, not politics.
As an illustration to this debate, If I said "the Americans invaded Iraq" you're congruent analogous response would be "No, not all Americans since both of us are still here in Akron". While your response is technically correct, its understood as a given and kind of pointless to include that information.
"What if I had posted a link about yet another car bombing in Baghdad? Would that have been redundant or merely restating the obvious?"
Both I'd say. But in your initial post you seemed to wonder why the Palestinians have such a bad reputation. I posted the link as an example of why.
"you're (sic) congruent analogous response"
I had a doctor scope me once and that happened then too.
Wow.