fcgv

Only 60%..hmmm. but of course the question is what sort of a God do they see? The actual God as described by the Church and in the Bible, or the secular God created by the PC crowd?

In another forum I am on there is currently a thread devoted to the Trade Centre(Sept 11th) and on that forum are several Middle Eastern people. A lady of that forum, Fatin by name, has given me permission to share her comments on why she fears America. I thought they were interesting, coming as they are from the "other side": Fatin wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Fatin, your response here intrigues me. Do you believe that the USA is on the whole 'immoral'? And if so, may I ask why? Cheers, Manfred. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- I put this here to avoid ruining the other thread Do I think them immoral. Oh yes! They are a drug infested, self-abosrobed society that allows their children to run wild in the streets, their children to carry guns and their girls to dress like porn stars,. Marriage doe snot exist in America, single women shamelessly sleeping around and having babies out of wedlock. Like animals they seek only their base pleasure and nothing more. Brenda writes that there is nothing they can do, but I say you can behave like adults and take charge of your children. I worry all the time that my children will be killed by them. In truth, I am deeply, deeply afraid of America at all times. It is a wicked immoral society that influences the world away from morals and values. Homosexuals are on their programmes and in their news, they celebrate this! Criminals make money from books and tv appearances, and become heroes. they celebrate the evil instead of feeling the shame they should be feeling. What have they given to the world but grief and war? Yes, I am afraid of america, to my very soul.

And what if you're wrong? In other words, how can we truly know of reality based on what we think if what we think is wrong? Is there a right and wrong attached to what we think?

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"? 2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IF the Japanese had not split their forces and attacked head on to Midway the US probably would have lost it. The American's even with "intelligence" about the operation itself got some very serious lucky breaks. However even IF Japan won at midway it doesn't mean that they would have won the war either. There are too many "what if's" to even speculate reasonably what would have happened afterwards. Even if the US lost Midway doesn't mean it would have lost it's flat tops.

All articles are commentary biased by the point of view of the author.

Air hostesses told to shed weight An Indian court has ruled against a group of female flight attendants who were grounded from the national airline for being overweight. The court said that state-owned Indian Airlines had the right to take the step in the interest of flight safety and in the face of growing competition. The flight attendants had argued that the move was demeaning. The airline began a system of measuring air hostesses based on their height and weight last year. The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of the airline, saying that with aircraft flying at higher altitudes, the safety of the passengers depended on the crew's ability to perform. "No airline can afford to remain lax in any department whatsoever, be it the personality of the crew members of their physical fitness," Justice Rekha Sharma said. "If by perseverance, the snail could reach the Ark, why can't these worthy ladies stand on and turn the scale." Growing debate The female judge also dismissed the flight attendants' contention that the airline policy towards their weight was an "insult to their womanhood". "I do not understand how it is any way unfair, unreasonable and insulting to their womanhood if they are asked to control their growth." The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says this is a part of a debate that is being carried out across Indian society, from the entertainment industry to now, the airline business - are Indians discarding traditionally-held ideals of beauty and appearance in favour of a more Westernised skinny look? A year ago, Indian Airlines introduced strict weight guidelines for its flight crew, saying they were doing it in the interest of safety and growing competition. The Indian airline industry has grown rapidly over the past decade and new private airlines have introduced an element of glamour, hiring young slim air hostesses, often dressed in short skirts and high heels. In contrast, Indian Airlines flight crew are dressed in the traditional sari and are allowed to fly until they are 58 years old. The group of air hostesses who had challenged the airline had argued that it was an attempt to replace them with younger crew. One of them was grounded after flying for 25 years, despite being only two kilos over the prescribed limit. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6710845.stm

Mr Brown and an insidiously brutal attack on the British way of life Daily Mail Peter Oborne The past three weeks have been kind to Gordon Brown - and desperately bad for David Cameron. The Chancellor has very sensibly gone quiet. He has not tried to spoil Tony Blair's final days in the limelight, while sadistically allowing poor Cameron to immolate himself over his party's misguided grammar schools policy without outside interference. This is good, shrewd politics. The Chancellor's silence means that he will be listened to all the more attentively when he finally emerges, in two weeks' time, as a prime minister with serious and weighty things to say. He has, however, made one mistake which threatens to dog his premiership, and which may eventually damage his historical reputation. This is the decision to put a determined assault on British identity right at the heart of his vision for the country. The first sign of this came ten days ago, during his visit to the Hay Literary Festival. The central purpose of this trip was to promote his new book about his personal heroes and to emphasise his credentials as an intellectual. The political philosopher David Marquand has recently remarked that Gordon Brown will be our best-read and most intellectually serious prime minister since Gladstone 140 years ago, an observation which has some plausibility. But, judging from the Hay trip, which included an interview with the TV personality Mariella Frostrup, this prediction may turn out to have been premature. Most of the interview (which occurred just days after Gordon Brown's much-vaunted promise to put an end to "celebrity politics") involved meaningless flim-flam, but the Chancellor did make one highly significant comment. He declared that under his leadership, Britain would "not be a place defined by race or institutions". The key characteristics would be values such as "liberty, civil duty, fairness and internationalism". These thoughts were ignored by most of the Press, and given only very minor prominence in the Left-leaning Guardian newspaper. But the temptation to dismiss them as of no importance vanished with the publication this week of a pamphlet by two rising Brownite ministerial stars, Ruth Kelly and Liam Byrne. The document, which I understand had been licensed by the Chancellor, fleshed out in much greater detail his remarks and also paid dutiful homage to some of his earlier speeches. Above all, it contained a number of proposals - including one to create a new British national day - which are likely to be introduced after he becomes prime minister. I have studied this pamphlet in some detail. It is a very important document which gives a fascinating insight into what Britain will be like under Brown. First, it is interesting to point out the astonishing level of historical ignorance displayed by Kelly and Byrne. They make elementary errors of fact and interpretation that would shame a sixth former, let alone a government minister. For example, they describe the abolition of the slave trade, which they rightly highlight as one of our greatest national achievements, as a "victory for British liberalism". The truth, of course, is precisely the opposite. One of the shaming features of the 18th-century liberal enlightenment was its studied indifference to the hideous moral squalor of the slave trade. It was only when liberal ideas were challenged by the evangelical revival, with its tremendous doctrine of Christian redemption and the ubiquitous love of God, that the agitation against slavery got under way. This crucial role of religion in the abolition of slavery has always baffled the progressive Left, which is why ministers such as Kelly and Byrne try to deny it. Indeed, Kelly, who reportedly possesses a strong Christian faith, ought to know much better. More importantly, the Kelly/Byrne document is not merely ignorant, it is also intellectually calamitous. At its heart is the same idea uttered by Gordon Brown to Mariella Frostrup - that a nation can be defined by values rather than institutions. This is nonsense, as becomes obvious the moment you start to think about it. Of course, nobody would argue with the virtues of "liberty, civil duty, fairness and internationalism" which were singled out by the Chancellor at Hay. But nobody - least of all Gordon Brown himself - has yet explained why these admirable traits distinguish us from other countries, such as France and Sweden, which also possess them. Indeed, the assertion that civil duty and fairness are uniquely British would hardly be consistent with Gordon Brown's professed internationalism. The truth is that all these noble values do exist in modern Britain. But they are not abstract ideas - they are actually embodied in our national institutions such as Parliament, the monarchy, the system of justice and - at a more modest level - in the Women's Institute, local choirs, county regiments, local cricket teams and thousands of other local voluntary clubs and societies. And yet Gordon Brown, Ruth Kelly and Liam Byrne are prepared to go to inordinate lengths to exclude most of these symbols of Britain's civil society from the official definition of our national identity. Instead, they are determined to jettison or sideline our traditional institutions, which have grown up slowly over hundreds of years, and replace them with new ideas borrowed from foreign countries, such as this new "Britain Day". Sadly, the Monarchy, which encapsulates our long and magnificent national history and is fundamentally tied into the idea of the British state, has been completely written out of the plot. As I read through the Byrne/Kelly pamphlet, I slowly became aware that these two New Labour ministers were not really celebrating British identity. In fact, they were doing the opposite. They have been authorised by the Chancellor to launch a considered, savage and venomous attack on the British way of life enjoyed by the vast majority of ordinary people. Judging from the Kelly/Byrne pamphlet, and that Frostrup interview, there will be two Britains when Gordon Brown becomes prime minister. There is the Britain that most of us celebrate and love, and there will be the Britain of Gordon Brown, Ruth Kelly, Liam Byrne and the rest of the political class. It is instructive to contemplate the differences. In Brown's Britain, the State will urge us to celebrate a "national day", apparently to be modelled on a similar occasion held every year in Australia. Meanwhile, the rest of us will, instead, continue to observe Remembrance Sunday - the one day of the year when the nation pays homage to the brave men and women who died fighting for our freedoms and against fascism in the two great wars of the last century. Similarly, in Brown's Britain, the role of the monarch will, as much as possible, be ignored. On the other hand, the majority of the country will continue to gratefully acknowledge the Queen as Head of State. Equally, while most of us will try to retain our traditional civic identity, of the kind that has evolved over hundreds of years, Gordon Brown will endeavour to destroy this by creating a new kind of statesponsored citizenship. It is a grim kind of future - yet it is not too late for Mr Brown to turn back. dailymail.co.uk

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- South Africa's last apartheid president, F.W. de Klerk, has urged black people to recognize the sacrifices made by whites in embracing all-race democracy and the courage they showed in ceding power. De Klerk was responding on Sunday to comments by anti-apartheid icon Desmond Tutu who said this week that 10 years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was formed, white South Africans did not fully appreciate the sacrifices made by black victims in forgiving past wrongs. Writing in a Sunday newspaper, De Klerk repeated his apology to the victims of apartheid and said white-rule was "morally indefensible," but denied his government was a "criminal regime" and said whites made sacrifices too. "Would it not be appropriate for black South Africans also to give more recognition to the contribution whites have made to the new South Africa?" he wrote in the Sunday Independent. "It required considerable courage for ... whites ... to overcome their reasonable fears and put their trust in their erstwhile enemies." De Klerk said that Afrikaners -- the white descendents of Dutch and French settlers -- had sacrificed centuries of struggle for self-determination to help create a democratic South Africa. De Klerk, who turned 70 last month, shocked the world in February 1990 by announcing the release of apartheid resistance hero Nelson Mandela from 27 years as a political prisoner, putting South Africa on an historic path to all-race elections in 1994. He fought bitter battles with Mandela in the run-up to the poll but the pair shared the 1993 Nobel Peace Price and Mandela paid tribute to his former foe last month for steering the country from the brink of a bloody racial war. South Africa is often hailed as a model of forgiveness thanks in part to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where those who confessed publicly to apartheid crimes were granted amnesty. But Tutu said this week black victims were let down by the government's failure to bring many perpetrators to justice. De Klerk, the last president of the National Party that instituted apartheid, retired from politics in 1997. Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/04/30...ction=cnn_world

From correspondents in Peshawar, Pakistan PAKISTANI villagers shot dead a woman and three men in a public execution after a tribal council found them guilty of adultery, a witness and government officials said today. About 600 people watched the four, including an Afghan refugee, shot to death yesterday in the Khyber agency, a semi-autonomous ethnic Pashtun tribal region on the Afghan border. "We found a man and a woman in a compromising position along with another man who was drunk and had already committed adultery, and the owner of the house" said Haji Jan Gul, a resident of Alamgudar village, where the four were killed. "All four confessed to adultery," he said. A jirga, or traditional council of elders, ordered them killed after considering their case. An official in the area's administration office confirmed the incident, saying the punishment was carried out in accordance with tribal traditions and authorities did not intervene. Pakistan's tribal areas are governed by their own laws and age-old customs still hold sway. Sex out of marriage is a crime in overwhelmingly Muslim Pakistan and punishable by stoning to death under Islamic laws, although that punishment has never officially been meted out. In March, two men and a woman were stoned and then shot dead for adultery in the same region. Hundreds of people are killed every year in Pakistan, most in remote backward areas, after being deemed to have dishonoured their families or violated tribal laws.

You have not answered it. Your pretense that you have answered is rather pathetic. I suggest the issue is that you might consider improving your reading comprehension skills.

I think I have already written this a number of times. Marriage, unity, is very much implied. Adam and Eve are not, you know, actual people. They represent the first peoples. God intended for us to be one, male and female, from the beginning, which both underscores and illustrates marriage. The Scriptures cannot be taken piece by piece, but within the context of the whole. And yes, I'm fairly certain I know my subject, since it involves what I do, as it were.

What then is the bible, in your rubric, and how does this make it amenable to being misrepresented as you did? The bible s the written part of tradition, and is the book(s) of the Church. ... ... You are evading a question. You call the Bible "the written part of tradition" and the "books of the Church". Okay, fine -- whatever these phrases may mean, how is it that you justify your misrepresentation of the quoted passages of Genesis? They were not misrepresented. How many more times must I write this before you actually read it? Can I be blunt? I very much doubt your expertise in this area is equal to mine. Trust me.

What then is the bible, in your rubric, and how does this make it amenable to being misrepresented as you did? The bible s the written part of tradition, and is the book(s) of the Church. do you posses a degree in theology or have you formally studied the Scriptures? I very much doubt it. My exegesis is not incorrect, despite your claims otherwise. It is compatible to the teaching of Holy Mother Church, who alone determines the doctrines of Scripture as it applies to our community.

1. You being in the business of 'representing "the" Church' doesn't change one whit that you misrepresented the passages of Genesis. You claimed that god made marriage when he made Adam and Eve, and yet the passages you cited in support (Gen. 1:27-28, and Gen. 2:18, 21-22) say no such thing at all. You made up a fake representation of the Word of God. 2. Your resort to denigrating my knowledge (when you can obviously know virtually nothing about that fact) does not improve your persuasiveness. I am not trying to persuade you at all. You are incorrect in your exegesis. The Bible is NOT the Word of God, Jesus is the Word(logos)

Do you accuse everyone who questions your biblical citations of 'mocking God'? It seems to me that someone who knowingly misrepresents the Word of God by saying that a passage from the Bible says something it does not say is the one who really mocks God. It seems to me that someone who purports to know the mind of God and puts his own common sense on a par with it is the one who really mocks God. That is, as it were, my business, to represent and speak on behalf of the Church:-) And I am well versed in the Scriptures, which clearly you are not.

Versus what you are told in Sunday school ? Exactly this type of proselytizing that gets flame responses. Sunday school is a protestant term. :-) I'm Catholic.

Quote:You're right. Just ignore them They've got nothing important to say. Everything they say comes from within themselves. That's THEIR god. Indeed, they prefer to re-define the wheel, to promote immorality as the norm. They mock what they do not understand. They mock God because they are empty.

GOD MADE MARRIAGE "And God created man to His own image: to the image of God He created him: male and female He created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.'" (Genesis 1:27-28) Who made marriage? God made marriage and the laws concerning marriage. When did God make marriage? When He created Adam and Eve. Why did God make marriage? For two purposes: 1. For bringing children into the world and rearing them... 2. For the mutual help of the husband and wife. How do you know the first purpose of marriage is children? The Bible says so: "Increase and multiply." (Gen. 1:28) "I will therefore that the younger should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families." (1 Timothy 5:14) Does not common sense show that the first purpose of marriage is children? Yes, the very differences, both physical and mental, between man and woman show the first purpose of marriage to be the bringing of children into the world. A woman's body is made for the bearing and nursing of children; whereas, a man's body is stronger so that he can protect his family and give them food and shelter. A woman is kinder, more sympathetic, more emotional than man. She needs these qualities to care for and instruct her children. How do you know that mutual love and help are the second purpose of marriage? The Bible says so: "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself... Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God build the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam." (Gen. 2:18, 21-22) Does not common sense indicate this too? Yes, common sense shows that men and women are incomplete without one another but find their physical and spiritual completion in marriage. What is the purpose of sexual pleasure? To attract husband and wife to have children and to foster love for each other. Who are the only ones that may enjoy sexual pleasure? Husband and wife who are validly married to each other. "but I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) How many wives did God create for Adam? Only one wife; God wanted this marriage to be the model for all marriages -- one man and one woman. "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) How long does God intend husband and wife to stay together? Until the death of one of the partners. "A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 7:39) Why does God command husband and wife to stay together until death? Because the lifetime welfare of the children and of the married couple themselves requires that they be permanently united. Divine law requires the couple to stay together until death, even if they have no children. In special cases separation is permitted, but the bond of marriage remains. What is a valid marriage? A union that is a real marriage in the eyes of God and therefore can be broken only by death. No power on earth, therefore, can break a valid marriage. "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (Mark 10:9). This includes the civil government. What is an invalid marriage? A union that was never a marriage in the eyes of God. A couple invalidly married must either separate or have the marriage made valid. Otherwise they are living in adultery or fornication. "Neither fornicators... nor adulterers... shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) What is necessary for a valid marriage? 1. A single man and a single woman 2. Who are of age 3. Free to marry 4. Capable of sexual intercourse 5. Who intend to live together 6. Who intend to be faithful to each other until the death of one of them 7. Who intend to have a family 8. Who are in no other way prohibited by the law of God from marrying. For example, it is forbidden to marry close relatives, such as uncles, aunts, nieces or nephews. Did God make these laws only for Catholics? No, all human beings have to obey these laws. However, Catholics are also bound by Church laws. For example, a Catholic cannot marry validly except in the presence of a priest and two witnesses (unless there is a special dispensation from the local bishop for a particular case and that for a sufficiently grave reason). Does the state have authority to change God's laws? No. God's law comes before man's law. But the State can make laws requiring a license and registration, and concerning health, property rights, and so on, as long as these laws are not against God's laws. Can men and women find real happiness in marriage? Yes, if they follow God's plan for marriage. "Happy is the husband of a good wife: for the number of his years is double. A virtuous woman rejoiceth her husband and shall fulfill the years of his life in peace. A good wife is a good portion, she shall be given in the portion of them that fear God, to a man for his good deeds. Rich or poor, if his heart is good, his countenance shall be cheerful at all times." (Ecclesiasticus 26:1-4) What is the greatest source of happiness in marriage? Raising children in the fear and love of God. Court records show fewer marriage breakups among couples with large families. PRACTICAL POINTS: All laws, both human and divine, are made for the good of society. Once in a while, a law will work a hardship on an individual, and this is sometimes true of God's laws on marriage. But you marry "for better or for worse." Therefore, if through no fault of yours, your married life is unhappy, or if your partner has left you, or if you find God's laws hard to observe, ask God for the strength to do His will; ask your crucified Savior for the courage to carry your cross. The Sacrament of Matrimony gives married people special graces to live their lives according to God's laws. In any case, God made no exceptions to His laws on marriage; to break them for any reason is a serious sin. Do not try to judge whether your marriage or anybody else's is valid or invalid. That can be done only by one who is skilled in the knowledge of these laws. The priest who is instructing you will tell you whether your marriage is valid or not. An "annulment" is not the dissolving of an existing marriage, but rather a declaration that a real marriage never existed in the eyes of God on account of some dire defect or impediment that was present at the time the couple exchanged their vows. For example, if one of the two parties did not intend to enter a permanent union until death, no marriage would take place, despite the appearances. An annulment is more properly termed a "declaration of nullity." Fr. C. Vaillancourt

I enjoy New Advent so much, i can recognise it almost immediately. If I were you, I would cite the site that I cited, lest the stink of plagiarism follow me....... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137b.htm That being said, using the bible to prove the bible is just weak..... Thank you, I forgot to add the link. I reference that site much for source material for homilies.I once wrote an extensive article on the Scriptures which is somewhere online.

The authenticity or authority of Holy Writ is twofold on account of its twofold authorship. First, the various books which make up the Bible are authentic because they enjoy all the human authority that is naturally due to their respective authors. Second, they possess a higher authenticity, because invested with a Divine, supernatural authority through the Divine authorship which makes them the inspired word of God.

The six-day war, forty years on Hazem Saghieh In June 2007 the Arab world will mark a bitter anniversary in its modern history, namely the passing of forty years since the six-day war with Israel. For the Arabs, their decisive defeat in June 1967 occupies a very special, if not unique place in their region's post-independence era. Perhaps this is because the event was laden with significance - political, cultural, economic and of course military - in a way that was unprecedented at the time. Indeed, one might go so far as to call it the first defining moment of the modern Arab world. By any standards the Arabs' defeat in the war of 1948 was a momentous event, leading as it did to the establishment of the state of Israel. But the effect of the 1967 defeat was to confirm what had begun in 1948, consolidating Israel's position in a way that has gone largely unchallenged ever since. Even the Yom Kippur/Ramadan war of October 1973, which Arab regimes sought to depict as a success which redressed the iniquity of their defeat six years earlier, did little of the kind.The war of 1967 exposed the true nature of Arab governments whose legitimacy rested on their stated aim of liberating Palestine. This goal was in turn ostensibly part of a wider radical anti-colonialist agenda, which sought to sweep away so-called reactionary regimes and bring about a social transformation in the interests of the oppressed masses. Both Gamal Abdel Nasser's regime in Egypt and the Ba'athist government in Syria had such pretensions - and it is worth recalling that Nasser had carved out a place for himself in Arab hearts and minds unrivalled by anyone else either before or since. The Syrian and Egyptian armies had been reformed supposedly in order to liberate Palestine and "avenge" the creation of the state of Israel, but in 1967 it was from the latter that they sustained a terrible blow. When the chief-of-staff of the Egyptian army, Field-Marshal 'Abd al-Hakim 'Amir, died (whether or not by his own hand), it was as if his demise were a symbol of the fate of the Arab armies on which so many hopes had been pinned and such vast quantities spent, while the Arab masses suffered under their oppression. The Arabs' resounding defeat occurred at a time of intense polarisation between the west and the Soviet Union - a division in which Nasser's regime invested to great effect. It is also worth noting that in the 1960s, and especially the middle part of the decade, most of the world became a cold-war battlefield. During the 1950s, conflict between the superpowers had been largely restricted to Germany and Korea, but in the ten years that followed confrontation spread from Cuba to Africa, and from Vietnam to Greece. It could be argued that the events of 1967 demonstrated the impossibility of outright victory, even with as powerful a nation as the Soviet Union on one's side, with all its determination to oppose United States and western influence. By the same token, an unprecedented alliance was established between the United States and the Jewish state, an alliance without which nothing in the last forty years could be understood. A destructive obstinacy The six-day war did not only expose the true capabilities of the Arab regimes and their armies and bloated bureaucracies; it also began to show the capacities of Arab societies and cultures, their elites and their structures both new and old. In the aftermath of war there began a transition from the inclusive rhetoric of pan-Arabism, as embodied by Nasserism and to a lesser extent by Ba'athism, towards distinct Arab indigenous loyalties. In the long term this was perhaps the most significant outcome of the 1967 conflict. One symptom of this change was the fighting which broke out in Jordan in 1970 and 1971 between Palestinian Jordanians and East Bank Jordanians. Another was the Lebanese civil war, which began in 1975. For Syria, the six-day war led to the reinforcement of the Ba'athist dictatorship through Hafez al-Assad's military coup of 1970. The origin of the Palestinian resistance dates to the battle of al-Karama in Jordan in march 1968, when Palestinian fighters scored a symbolic victory over Israeli forces; but even the resistance was unable to stand up to the fragmentation of the Arab world. Indeed, with its narrow mindset and its inception from outside Palestine itself, the Palestinian liberation movement became one of the main causes of division in the middle east. The deeply tribal nature of most of the countries in the region soon became apparent. Egypt was historically a far more cohesive nation than its neighbours; under Anwar Sadat it chose to withdraw from the confrontation with Israel in pursuit of its own interests, despite a wave of criticism from other Arab states, and thus managed to avoid some of the tragedies that befell other Arab countries. However, in general the middle east was pervaded by a mixture of wounded pride, a desire for justice, political rivalry between existing regimes, popular frustration and a systematic incompetence in understanding the "Zionist entity" and its strength. The result of all this was a disastrous and destructive obstinacy. A few months after the defeat of 1967, the Arab leaders responded at a summit in Khartoum with three noes: no to peace with Israel, no to negotiation with Israel and no to recognition of Israel. Needless to say, it was an entirely irrational and illogical reaction to the six-day war. Landscape after battle The subsequent transformation in the attitude of the Palestinians and other Arabs reached a climax in the so-called Beirut initiative of 2002, in which the Arab states belatedly offered a peace deal to Israel. But by this time it was too late to reverse the debilitating effect of the policies of the preceding forty years. Meanwhile, the Arab response to Israeli belligerent militarism and American arrogance was to adopt a bizarre form of rhetoric. The Arabs condemn the United States as an enemy whose allegiance to Israel has been almost unconditional since 1967. At the same time they continue to complain that the US is "unfair" in its approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict - as if they could expect any justice from their enemy. This contradiction probably reflects an underlying confusion in the Arab understanding of the modern world. It is as though the Arabs are fighting their enemy in order to make him more just, like a child that smashes whatever it can lay its hands on in order to attract the attention of its hard-hearted parents. But when the child has nothing left to break, its parents no longer take any notice. Many people are to blame for this approach, but Arab intellectuals have played a particularly reprehensible role in excusing it. Indeed, they have even gone so far as to justify despotism and civil war as long as they believed them to serve the interests of this misguided agenda. The intellectual structure, as the late Syrian intellectual Yassin al-Hafez once wrote, was much worse than the military one, and its defeat was much bigger.

Now that is a funny comment.:-)

I provided a topic for potential discussion, which does not seem to be against the norm on a discussion forum. Add something pertinent to the content of the article and perhaps I'll have more to add.