Iran invasion soon?

[M.Dancer]

eh?

are you pretending that you don't understand the function or are you having a bad day and not understanding something this simple?

U.S. gives a loan to israel, and then congress forgives these loans. at the end, israel doesn't pay these loans back and instead, the loan is accumulated towards the U.S. deficit.

it doesn't get any simpler than this.

Yoiu're right. But that isn't what you have posted. A loan guarentee isn't a loan.

Do I need to use crayons?

[bush_cheney2004]

it doesn't get any simpler than this.

Yes it does...what is your point? Too much foreign aid and loans going to the (gulp)...Israelis / Jews?

You should see how much we have blown on Iraq and Afghanistan.....and lots of other basket cases over the years.

I like to think that the scratch going to Israel is the best investment of all!

So why is this a problem for you?

[KeyStone]

eh?

are you pretending that you don't understand the function or are you having a bad day and not understanding something this simple?

U.S. gives a loan to israel, and then congress forgives these loans. at the end, israel doesn't pay these loans back and instead, the loan is accumulated towards the U.S. deficit.

it doesn't get any simpler than this.

Dancer isn't that dumb.

He/she is choosing to play a game of semantic ignorance rather than admit he/she was wrong.

[M.Dancer]

Dancer isn't that dumb.

He/she is choosing to play a game of semantic ignorance rather than admit he/she was wrong.

Yeah..sure....maybe the electronic intfada can shed some light, eh?

[KeyStone]

Yeah..sure....maybe the electronic intfada can shed some light, eh?

Dancer perhaps I was mistaken...perhaps you really are that dumb.

You don't seem to be able to discern what is a non-biased source from what is a biased source.

Let me give you some examples.

If CNN reports that Al-Qaeda says that Jews drink the blood of Arab children.

Simply because CNN is a credible source, does not mean that we can deduce it is likely that Jews drink Arab blood.

Likewise, when a credible news organization reports what Israel says or claims, that does not legitimize what Israel claimed - it is simply reporting on the claims that Israel is making regardless of their validity.

In the case of Electronic Infatada, if they were to give eye-witness accounts, expert opinion or quotes from unnamed sources, that would not be credible. However, if all they are doing is publishing lists of numbers, timelines and facts - that is somewhat more credible because it can be proven false quite easily.

You must realize that almost all sources that track numbers are biased - one way or another - but that does not mean that all information they supply is a lie - it simply means that they are not objective and their opinions should be ignored.

[M.Dancer]

Dancer perhaps I was mistaken...perhaps you really are that dumb.

You don't seem to be able to discern what is a non-biased source from what is a biased source.

Let me give you some examples.

If CNN reports that Al-Qaeda says that Jews drink the blood of Arab children.

Simply because CNN is a credible source, does not mean that we can deduce it is likely that Jews drink Arab blood.

Likewise, when a credible news organization reports what Israel says or claims, that does not legitimize what Israel claimed - it is simply reporting on the claims that Israel is making regardless of their validity.

In the case of Electronic Infatada, if they were to give eye-witness accounts, expert opinion or quotes from unnamed sources, that would not be credible. However, if all they are doing is publishing lists of numbers, timelines and facts - that is somewhat more credible because it can be proven false quite easily.

You must realize that almost all sources that track numbers are biased - one way or another - but that does not mean that all information they supply is a lie - it simply means that they are not objective and their opinions should be ignored.

I have heqrd the same argument before...only for one of the zundelsites...i believe in the case of the E Intifade, they, as been shown have no dredibility and neither do peopel who use it, or the zundlesite.

[M.Dancer]

Dancer perhaps I was mistaken...perhaps you really are that dumb.

You don't seem to be able to discern what is a non-biased source from what is a biased source.

Let me give you some examples.

If CNN reports that Al-Qaeda says that Jews drink the blood of Arab children.

Simply because CNN is a credible source, does not mean that we can deduce it is likely that Jews drink Arab blood.

Likewise, when a credible news organization reports what Israel says or claims, that does not legitimize what Israel claimed - it is simply reporting on the claims that Israel is making regardless of their validity.

In the case of Electronic Infatada, if they were to give eye-witness accounts, expert opinion or quotes from unnamed sources, that would not be credible. However, if all they are doing is publishing lists of numbers, timelines and facts - that is somewhat more credible because it can be proven false quite easily.

You must realize that almost all sources that track numbers are biased - one way or another - but that does not mean that all information they supply is a lie - it simply means that they are not objective and their opinions should be ignored.

I have heqrd the same argument before...only for one of the zundelsites...i believe in the case of the E Intifade, they, as been shown have no dredibility and neither do peopel who use it, or the zundlesite.