Sapien has two proven subspecies: sapien sapien, and sapien neanderthalis. Scientists suggest there may be other now-extinct sapiens, but none of them are "Caucazoid."

Go back to bed, racist.

Or, if you wanna stay up, you have to answer this question:

What "race" is this guy?

*not_secure_link*blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/Images/Barack_Obama.jpg

How about this guy? What "race" is he?

*not_secure_link*nitegator.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/tiger-woods-pga-tour-11.jpg

 

this guy came from Mars to take over the world and take all the women for alien reproduction (what the hell i was getting bored )

 

I am not going to criticize Ilan Pappe, who is a "Historian/Political Activist" because I am not an expert in Israeli History, I only know what I've read and I've read that many Historians do not agree with Pappe, saying that he has been rewriting Israeli history and subjugating it to his political ideology. I also know that in 1999, Pappé ran in the Knesset elections as a Communist and in 2007 he was fired from the University of Haifa for his extreme political views. That tells me that Pappe is a controversial figure with unorthodox views that are not widely held or supported. I'd think twice before relying on him

I note that you and Stumbler rely on the published views of certain controversial individuals (such as Ilan Pappe) while I rely on the recorded history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conflict is part of relatively modern history that has been covered by mass media so there are lots of published accounts. When I say that the Arabs and Palestinians started the war, I am quoting what is considered a historical fact.

"On May 15. 1948, the day the UN resolution creating the State of Israel and the Palestinian State went into effect, an Arab army, consisting of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, aided by Palestinian civilians, initiated a war against the Jews thus starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Arab army began by occupying the portions of Palestine given to the Palestinians by the UN Mandate, and used that as a platform from which to attack Israel. The Israeli Defense Forces repulsed the Arab nations from Israel and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, thus extending its borders beyond the original UNSCOP partition."

Wen you say, "there have not been any wars waged against Israel. Israel has started and waged many wars against its neighbors." I have to ask myself... where does he get this from? Were all the newspapers, radio and TV accounts wrong? Are all the history text also wrong?

Help me out here... how is it that all those reporters that were right there as the stories broke, and all the news annalist who debated what was going on in the middle east, while it was happening,... how is it that they all got it wrong? How did they miss that it was Israel that started the war???

HD

 

Mixed race.

The fact that the different races can produce fertile offspring does not refute my argument. Members of different subspecies can too. Indeed, it possible for wolves and coyotes to produce fertile offspring.

It is a lot easier to shout "Racist!" at me than it is to refute my arguments. The different races do differ in terms of average ability levels, personality, and character. They always have differed as long as as there is any record of them, and they have always differed in the same ways. Those who keep expecting the differences to disappear keep being disappointed.

 

Are their children mixed races, or are they "Negroids?" What if we were unaware their mothers were "Caucazoid" and "Mongloid", respectively? Wouldn't they then become "Negroid"? Yes, they would. That's social, not scientific. There is no science in your crazy.

I'm shouting "racist" because you are making the argument that certain social groups of people are better than other social groups of people for reasons of pseudo-biology, which you call "race." That is the definition of racist.

I do not engage the substance of your "arguments" because if I did so, I would grant your ideas a measure of validity they do not deserve. You are rejected en face.

 

Explain these facts:

-------

SAT and ACT Scores by Race/Ethnicity: 2003

In recent years the noted pattern of test scores has reflected similar numbers--
Editor, 2005

SAT Ethnic Group Scores (Math/Verbal+total)

• American Indian---482/480 (962)
• Asian American-----575/508 (1083)
• African American-----426/431 (857)
• Puerto Rican----457/448 (905)

Other Hispanic----464/457 (921)

• White-----534/529 (1063)
• Other ----513/501 (1014)

Source: www.collegeboard.com

Average ACT Composite Score by Race/Ethnicity, 2003
----------------------------------------------------

• African American ----16.9
• American Indian---18.7
• Caucasian---- 21.7
• Mexican American----18.3
• Asian American---- 21.8
• Hispanic----19.0
• Other ----19.3
• Multiracial-----20.9
• Prefer Not to Respond -----21.8
• No Response-----20.1

Source: www.act.org

Quote from attached SAT/ACT article:

"Readiness for college science and math coursework was particularly low among African American students. Only 5 percent of African American test-takers scored at or above the college-readiness benchmark for college biology, and just 10 percent attained the readiness benchmark for college algebra.

*not_secure_link*www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

 

No sweat! You take poor, dumb people and you lump them in a social group that is not your social group, essentially creating an "other" - so that you can isolate yourself and proclaim the superiority of your social group. You use pseudo-science based upon where you think your and their social groups' ancestors came from centuries ago to attempt to justify isolating your social group from their social group.

Ever seen the Sneetches? With their stars?

 

I am white. If you look at the chart I posted, you will see that Asian Americans usually outscore whites. Many of them learn English as a second language. Many come to this country as poor people. This is certainly true of Vietnamese refugees. Nevertheless, the children usually do well in school.

 

Actually, no where on your chart does it say Vietnamese.

And, I say you are Irish and I say the Irish are not "White". LOOK! I have now created an "other." You get to be drunk, violent, and engage in Popery because those are the characteristics my superior "White" social group place upon your "other" social group.

Funny thing, too. Half a century ago, the Irish weren't considered "White" by the majority of self-identified "Whites." That's because "White" is a social construct.

 

Expand this doggo, what nations would you describe as those sub species?

It sounds like you're trying to renew your membership in Stormfront, l'm sure they'll be happy too have you back.

 

OK let's look at this. Where was the ship? International waters. What legal right did Israel have to board the ship? None. Now you're on the ship you see gun fire coming from helicopter and from commandos sliding down ropes. You're first reaction is going to be; nothing to worry about they are PROBABLY just shooting paintballs and tear gas? Come on Foe, and do I need to add that you're basing your points on the ASSUMPTION that Israel is telling the truth which past history shows is poor assumption.

 

The Arab nations rebelled against the creation of Israel because they were tired of being betrayed, manipulated, and oppressed by the west and the creation of Israel was the final assault on their sovereignty. They also pointed out that Israel would threaten their existence and once created would immediately begin to expand the borders of Israel which is exactly what Israel did and continues to do to this day.

Even so the war could have been prevented through negations that would have delayed the creation of Israel by a few weeks but that was vetoed by Ben Gurion who is the architect of both Israel's expansion through terrorism and Military force and the carefully crafted myth that Israel is threatened by annihilation by their Arab Neighbors.

*not_secure_link*chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html[/quote]

But do you notice how you so easily slip from maintaining Israel's innocence to making up excuses for Israel's behavior and essentially claiming that two wrongs do make a right at least in Israel.

And as far as the "relentless campaign of annihilation against the State of Israel," I think this is really the most significant and telling thing about that.

​

*not_secure_link*chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html

I do not recall you making assertions that both Israel and the Palestinians are responsible for atrocities and human rights violations, which include the terrorism, war crimes, assassinations, murders and persecutions I pointed out. It seemed to me you were simply blindly defending Israel as being an innocent victim.

But if that is your assertion, here is the difference. On the one hand we have terrorists independent of any government and on the other hand we have the NATION AND GOVERNMENT of Israel committing acts of terrorism, war crimes, assassinations and murder. And that terrorism, war crimes, assassinations, murders and persecutions were actually paid for by US Taxpayers.

In other words, contrary to their hypocritical claims, the US has been aiding and abetting a terrorist nation for more than 60 years.

As I pointed out it was the Nation and Government of Israel that embarked on a campaign of terrorism, war crimes, assassination, murder and persecution to drive the Palestinians out of Israel and continue to expand their borders.

*not_secure_link*chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html

The truth is the "reprisals" were government sponsored terrorism with three objectives: Drive the Palestinians out of Israel. Provoke their Arab neighbors into war. And expand Israel's borders through these pre-planned wars.

 

Huh? Precisely what "Arab nations" are you talking about? There were no independent Arab nations other than Saudi Arabia before 1918. The vast majority of them were Ottoman.

The so-called "Arab nations" were born on the same day as Israel.

 

Israel had a naval blockade that had been established for several years; as such, the ships they boarded were legitimate military targets for trying to run the blockade. This has quite a bit of precedent running for several hundred years now. It actually has roots in the same precedents that allow us to go after pirates in international waters, in so far as a sovereign nation has the right to project its own interests on foreign shipping when it considers those interests to be threatened. Yes, this often leads to war. See everything from the war of 1812 to the sinking of the Lusitania.

As for the fighting, I'm not denying that, nor denying the people on the ship had an interest in fighting back when the Israelis boarded. That would actually be rather hypocritical of me, since I've always agreed that both sides in a conflict have a right to violence to defend their rights and liberties as they view them, whether or not I agree with their position. (The flip side to that being once the decision to take up arms has been made, all arms are legitimate for use. Rocks are knives are bullets are bombs, and this applies to both sides. You can't complain that someone pulled a gun after you attacked them with a knife.)

What I am arguing is that Israel committed no crime. Grig has spent the entire time trying to characterize the Israelis who boarded as some sort of blood thirsty monsters who came in gunning down civilians with wanton abandon. His arguments have ranged from, "they never fought back", to "they only fought back once the Israelis attacked" to "the Israelis had orders to execute people" to "they opened fire before even boarding".Their motives have changed from, "We didn't want any conflict" to "We were deliberately attempting to swamp the blockade". At first they claim they Israelis would never let the ships land, then admitted all the Israelis wanted to do was inspect the cargo first. There have been radical departures each and every time, in an attempt to make an ever changing story fit the details presented. He has offered no proof other than eyewitness statements from the aggrieved party, which cannot be accepted as being unbiased. Any attempt to present evidence has been met with no more rebuttal then that the evidence must be lies.

By contrast, the Israelis have never tried to deny that they shot those people, but only have insisted that they were casualties of an active conflict on the deck of the ship. All evidence presented has so far supported their story, no matter what the source. Their defense time and time again for their actions has solely been the moral position that they are fighting with terrorists who hide behind hospitals and churches and women's skirts. They have no motive to commit the massacre they have been accused of, and in fact have every reason to avoid such an incident, especially when they know the entire world is watching.

Should I ever attempt to make an argument such as the way Grig has been making his, you would never accept it. In fact, you would call me on it with the same intolerance you normally reserve for Deidre. I see no reason why I should accept the same sort of behavior from Grig, and see no reason why you continue to support it in him.

 

Again you are contending that two wrongs make a right, and that the NATION AND GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, is no better than the terrorists both Israel and the US condemn and are at war with.

That is what I am no longer willing to fund with US aid and support. We do not support Hamas and have refused to even meet with them because they are considered a terrorist organization. Its only fair we do the same thing with Israel because you admit Israel is committing the same terrorist acts.

Personally, what I would like to see happen is the US take a very firm stance that any future aid or support for either Israel or the Palestinians until a peaceful two state solution is actually in place.

But if nothing else. If the hatreds are too deep. If neither side is willing to give up violence and terrorism. Then cut off all aid and support to both Israel and the Palestinians and let them kill each other but with so help from the US.

That sounds like a pretty fair deal to me. Would you agree with that? If not why not?

No I do not deny that at all. My point is exactly that. That both Israel and the Palestinians have resorted to terrorism, assassination, and murder. So it is both unfair and plain wrong to contend that Israel is an innocent victim.

And the real point is that the US and its citizens should not support acts or terrorism and those who commit them regardless of who they are. But that has been a point of obvious hypocrisy when it comes to the US's relationship with Israel, which was to turn a blind eye to the terrorism and atrocity Israel committed, and protect Israel form any official condemnation.

Also it is not the Palestinians that are illegally occupying territory and building illegal settlements in that territory.

Yes I very much deny that. The conflict was started long before that but was brought directly between the Palestinians and Israel after Israel became a state and after the 1948 war. The Palestinians were not the ones who waged war with Israel. They were supposed to be Israeli citizens with the same rights and protections of everyone else. And yet Israel violated those rights by committing terrorism, war crimes, assassinations, murders and persecution to drive the Palestinians out of Israel. That's what began the Israeli/Philistinism conflict that we still have more than 60 years later, which is too long if you ask me.


To me it was the Zionists, (who incidentally are hailed as heroes in Israel for guess what? Running British blockade) against Palestinians and Arabs up until the state of Israel was created. At that point it is up to the Nation and Government of Israel to behave in legal and civilized ways. They had a responsibility to live with the Palestinians not terrorize them and persecute them to drive them off their own land.

 

HD the Jews did not take land from the Palestinians, they ripped it from them through a series of massacres, starting when they were given Israel back in 1948. As I stated above, read Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleaning of Palestine. Pappe gives a blow by blow description practically minute by minute.

 

Are you sure Foe? I thought the sinking of the Lusitania was the reason the US entered World War I. For the Germans sinking a Passenger ship that may or may not have been carrying munitions to Great Britian.

And I further contend you see this through the veil of inadvertent prejudice. I sincerely doubt that you would be reaching the same conclusions if Iran had boarded a ship in international waters and killed 10 people.

But everything that has happened since clearly shows that it was not necessary to board any of the ships. It was not necessary to risk an armed conflict. There was no reason to risk violence. The Israeli's proved that beyond reasonable doubt when they made the next ship go to port and unloaded the supplies. They proved that again when Israel agreed to lift the blockade and allow the supplies the ships were carrying to go in. The prove it today with an announcement that they are lifting most of the blockade.

In light of that the flotillia was successful and there was no reason for Israel to have to kill nine people over it.

First, I had the same words for Grig that I have for anyone on either side of the conflict that says peaceful settlements cannot be reached or they refuse to negotiate. If we're going to kill anyone over this stuff it ought to be those people on both sides of the conflict.

Or at the very least cut off all aid and support to both parties.

But there is no more constant a devious liar on the international scene than Israel has been and there is absolutely no reason to believe that we have heard the truth from Israel. And that is about the only story getting out.

Want proof? If Israel has nothing to hide and acted as you contend then they would welcome an independent investigation to clear them of wrong doing wouldn't they? But as most consistent of Israel they refuse to allow any outside investigations into their actions.

Remember this is the same government that was willing to forge passports from other countries, travel to a foreign country, and assassinate a Hamas leader. And you're contending Israel didn't do anything wrong here because Israel says they didn't.

There is no other source but Israel because the confiscated all the video and all the cell phones and everything that could possibly record what happened. Even then, anyone watching the video supplied by Israel can see it is edited. Why? If Israel has nothing to hide.

You'll make this claim Foe after the last offensive against Gaza that killed 1,300 people, mostly women and kids, where Israel used banned weapons on civilian populations?

The same country that just openly assassinated a Hamas Leader?

The same country that I have clearly shown is guilty of just as much terrorism, as those they condemn?

I think that's unsupportable in the face of the facts Foe.

I point out again that I do not support Grig's arguments, his evidence, or his conclusions. Although I do have to admit Foe he takes more time to document his arguments than most on this forum.

I don't support nor agree with anyone who says a peaceful resolution can not be found and is not willing to work towards that.

But Israel is not innocent Foe. That is obvious.

 

The Jews accepted the UN Partition of 1947. The Arabs did not, and attacked Israel.

----

After the Arab rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine.
*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

 

I'm not going to bother rehashing Grig's position. We've already agreed that Israel has as much to answer for, but I still insist that if they're going to be judged guilty of a crime that there be proof given. Just because Israel has done stupid shit before does not automatically confirm they committed a crime here.

That is, actually, exactly what I meant. In WWI both belligerents were trying to prevent the other from receiving material aid. The Germans had reason to believe the Lusitania was carrying arms to Britain. They attacked and sank it, as was their right, we took umbrage and declared war on them as was our right. What it comes down to is that if you're going to get involved in someone's war you should expect to be shot at, prepare yourself for that event, and not complain about it when it happens.

Actually, once the blockade was established, the Israelis had to stop those ships. Any other course of action would reduce the blockade to little more than an act of piracy writ large. The Israelis demanded the ships be stopped and searched before moving on; the flotilla refused to comply. At that point, boarding them becomes the only option other than just sinking them, which would have caused even more problems. Again, I point out that five of the six ships did get seized peacefully by the blockade, and the seventh was landed after being searched. The only ship which encountered violence was the one that offered violence, and on their own heads their fate.

 

Given the disparity of the two dates, that was long debate in Congress. Next time if there is one can you make it shorter and jump in sooner.:excited::laughing::laughing::laughing: