What Have The Arabs Given To The World In The Last 20-30-50 Years?

[irosie91]

very good coyote-----the LEGACY OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE----<<< the excuse I heard-----way back circe 1970 for the filth and corruption which exists in Islamic lands. ----the DESTRUCTION OF THE GLORY OF THE CALIPHATE ----by the kaffirin-----the ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM. Way back then----I understood -------just what we are seeing today

 

[Coyote]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

 

[Coyote]

very good coyote-----the LEGACY OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE----<<< the excuse I heard-----way back circe 1970 for the filth and corruption which exists in Islamic lands. ----the DESTRUCTION OF THE GLORY OF THE CALIPHATE ----by the kaffirin-----the ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM. Way back then----I understood -------just what we are seeing today

Foriegn interference in other countries has often created long term problems and has unanticipated consequences. Witness the US invasion of Iraq.

 

[irosie91]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

wikki is not the encyclopedia Britannica----
its credibility is very limited

 

[Sally]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

 

[irosie91]

very good coyote-----the LEGACY OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE----<<< the excuse I heard-----way back circe 1970 for the filth and corruption which exists in Islamic lands. ----the DESTRUCTION OF THE GLORY OF THE CALIPHATE ----by the kaffirin-----the ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM. Way back then----I understood -------just what we are seeing today

Foriegn interference in other countries has often created long term problems and has unanticipated consequences. Witness the US invasion of Iraq.

are you trying to make a point, coyote? ----yes----the invasion of Iraq by the US did put a stop to the genocide of Shiites in southern Iraq-----so sorry to disappoint you-----it was also DETRIMENTAL to the genocide of kurds

 

[High_Gravity]

old question should still be asked. If Islam and the arab states are so great, why have so many migrated west to live on welfare? Why do they want to live in the west if they are so angry?
.

I think these are very fair questions especially the second one.

 

[Coyote]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

 

[Sally]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

 

[irosie91]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

GOOD POINT sally----just as they are tracking down the claims of al jezeerah and----and MAAN----and even ------"jews against Zionism"

 

[Uncensored2008]

9-11-2001..


To the loud cheering of the American left.

 

[Coyote]

very good coyote-----the LEGACY OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE----<<< the excuse I heard-----way back circe 1970 for the filth and corruption which exists in Islamic lands. ----the DESTRUCTION OF THE GLORY OF THE CALIPHATE ----by the kaffirin-----the ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM. Way back then----I understood -------just what we are seeing today

Foriegn interference in other countries has often created long term problems and has unanticipated consequences. Witness the US invasion of Iraq.

are you trying to make a point, coyote? ----yes----the invasion of Iraq by the US did put a stop to the genocide of Shiites in southern Iraq-----so sorry to disappoint you-----it was also DETRIMENTAL to the genocide of kurds

Is that really all you see? I'm not proud of the way we let down the kurds multiple times - but we had established a no fly zone, and it was effective. The genocides were not occuring when we invaded. Tell me Rosie - was it worth it?

Pre-invasion. A relatively stable contained Middle East where the only major crisis ongoing was IP and where Iraq offered an important counter-balance to Iran.

Post invasion: Mid East on Fire. A long bloody sectarian civil war in Iraq that is ongoing and has resulted in a civilian death toll of over 140,00 to date and a host of independent militias and incursions of foreign fighters. Pro-democracy movements fired up by Iraq's "democratic success" which toppled fairly stable regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Libya resulting in a splintering of the the states into rival factions and militias and sectarian warfare. Minority groups have been attacked, subjegated and killed. War crimes have been committed by countless groups. People that had effectively lived side by side for generations now killing each other. How many millions of displaced refugees? How many dead? How much of the region is affectively lawless and a hotbed for terrorists?

Oh...yes...we "stopped the genocide of the Shiites" (which was aleady over).

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, if nothing else, they've supplied an ocean of oil.

As long as British and American engineers were around to extract it.

 

[Coyote]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

It's up to the individual.

 

[Sally]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

It's up to the individual.

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

 

[irosie91]

very good coyote-----the LEGACY OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE----<<< the excuse I heard-----way back circe 1970 for the filth and corruption which exists in Islamic lands. ----the DESTRUCTION OF THE GLORY OF THE CALIPHATE ----by the kaffirin-----the ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM. Way back then----I understood -------just what we are seeing today

Foriegn interference in other countries has often created long term problems and has unanticipated consequences. Witness the US invasion of Iraq.

are you trying to make a point, coyote? ----yes----the invasion of Iraq by the US did put a stop to the genocide of Shiites in southern Iraq-----so sorry to disappoint you-----it was also DETRIMENTAL to the genocide of kurds

Is that really all you see? I'm not proud of the way we let down the kurds multiple times - but we had established a no fly zone, and it was effective. The genocides were not occuring when we invaded. Tell me Rosie - was it worth it?

Pre-invasion. A relatively stable contained Middle East where the only major crisis ongoing was IP and where Iraq offered an important counter-balance to Iran.

Post invasion: Mid East on Fire. A long bloody sectarian civil war in Iraq that is ongoing and has resulted in a civilian death toll of over 140,00 to date and a host of independent militias and incursions of foreign fighters. Pro-democracy movements fired up by Iraq's "democratic success" which toppled fairly stable regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Libya resulting in a splintering of the the states into rival factions and militias and sectarian warfare. Minority groups have been attacked, subjegated and killed. War crimes have been committed by countless groups. People that had effectively lived side by side for generations now killing each other. How many millions of displaced refugees? How many dead? How much of the region is affectively lawless and a hotbed for terrorists?

Oh...yes...we "stopped the genocide of the Shiites" (which was aleady over).

oh gee-----got that everyone----"the genocide of Shiites was "over"--------according to coyote----they are all dead. and the genocide of kurds was not really happening-----they were all dead by then too.-----the WHOLE reason for the "CALIPHATE"---a concept with which I am familiar since I encountered muslims -----from muslim countries------circa late 1960s----SUDDENLY AROSE because the US invaded Iraq.------
coyote---you are very imaginative

was it worth it? I would have preferred that Sadaam simply get a bullet in his head----but he was as well protected as was your other heros SADAAM HUSSEIN and ADOLF HITLER -----not quite as well protected as your latest heroes----the pigs who killed the three Israeli teens a few months ago -----but ALL PROTECTED FOR THE GLORY YOU WORSHIP.

I support the downfall of your heros----cry me a river

 

[Coyote]

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

New information is always coming to light - especially about the past. For example, when you are evaluating a presidency - sometimes the effects of policies and programs take years to unfold. Some times info is wrong or an intepretation is wrong. Even with Encyclopedias, we used to get "update" and "correction" booklets to add to the set. Wikipedia isn't so bad if you take the time to look at the sources - it's just one of many avenues.

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

It's up to the individual.

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

 

[Coyote]

very good coyote-----the LEGACY OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE----<<< the excuse I heard-----way back circe 1970 for the filth and corruption which exists in Islamic lands. ----the DESTRUCTION OF THE GLORY OF THE CALIPHATE ----by the kaffirin-----the ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM. Way back then----I understood -------just what we are seeing today

Foriegn interference in other countries has often created long term problems and has unanticipated consequences. Witness the US invasion of Iraq.

are you trying to make a point, coyote? ----yes----the invasion of Iraq by the US did put a stop to the genocide of Shiites in southern Iraq-----so sorry to disappoint you-----it was also DETRIMENTAL to the genocide of kurds

Is that really all you see? I'm not proud of the way we let down the kurds multiple times - but we had established a no fly zone, and it was effective. The genocides were not occuring when we invaded. Tell me Rosie - was it worth it?

Pre-invasion. A relatively stable contained Middle East where the only major crisis ongoing was IP and where Iraq offered an important counter-balance to Iran.

Post invasion: Mid East on Fire. A long bloody sectarian civil war in Iraq that is ongoing and has resulted in a civilian death toll of over 140,00 to date and a host of independent militias and incursions of foreign fighters. Pro-democracy movements fired up by Iraq's "democratic success" which toppled fairly stable regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Libya resulting in a splintering of the the states into rival factions and militias and sectarian warfare. Minority groups have been attacked, subjegated and killed. War crimes have been committed by countless groups. People that had effectively lived side by side for generations now killing each other. How many millions of displaced refugees? How many dead? How much of the region is affectively lawless and a hotbed for terrorists?

Oh...yes...we "stopped the genocide of the Shiites" (which was aleady over).

oh gee-----got that everyone----"the genocide of Shiites was "over"--------according to coyote----they are all dead. and the genocide of kurds was not really happening-----they were all dead by then too.-----the WHOLE reason for the "CALIPHATE"---a concept with which I am familiar since I encountered muslims -----from muslim countries------circa late 1960s----SUDDENLY AROSE because the US invaded Iraq.------
coyote---you are very imaginative

was it worth it? I would have preferred that Sadaam simply get a bullet in his head----but he was as well protected as was your other heros SADAAM HUSSEIN and ADOLF HITLER -----not quite as well protected as your latest heroes----the pigs who killed the three Israeli teens a few months ago -----but ALL PROTECTED FOR THE GLORY YOU WORSHIP.

I support the downfall of your heros----cry me a river

So you think Post-Invasion Iraq is better than Pre-Invasion Iraq?

 

[Two Thumbs]

This topic has been tossed around a bit in different threads here, so I thought I would start it's own thread. I have posted a thread or two about what the Israelis have given to the world of late, so let's see what the take is for the Arabs.

Honestly it really isn't much. And here's a video from other Arabs to back my play:



Sure there may be some strong terms there, but no one in that video denies my point.

Can you Pro-Palis do it? I (in the same way as Penelope) challenge you to discredit this factually (as she did with the 'supposed' destruction of some power plant).

 

[montelatici]

The greatest gift Arabs have given the world is a lesson in propaganda. They learned much from their collaboration with the Nazis in ww2, and have used the techniques they learned to not only create a whole new people out of whole cloth, but also a sense of victimhood so thorough that the relationship between those persecuting and those being persecuted has been completely reversed in the minds of those who have fallen victim to it.

"but also a sense of victimhood"

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! What nerve.