This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jasper23 (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 28 December 2006 (→Alleged "violation"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:33, 28 December 2006 by Jasper23 (talk | contribs) (→Alleged "violation")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Point taken regarding personal attacks. My apologies.
My apologies
I apologize if I have offended you in some kind of way. However, I do not see how it is offensive seeing as I know nothing about you and my use of Nazi was referring to their totalitarianism rule, not their hatred. Shakam 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Barack Obama
Hi, I was curious about your edit summary here. I put my edit back with a better explanation of why I took that out. Just H 07:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
DYK
On December 18, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brook Watson, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
On December 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Megaherb, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
- Thanks again Jasper. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Jasper33
Maybe I should change my username if we're going to keep on getting confused... Sorry for the inconvenience. I've copied the above to my userpage and have left a note with Blnguyen - I see you have too. Jasper33 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
SlimVirgin has just returned the disputed text, without returning the disputed notice. You may wish to intervene. CJCurrie 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jasper, you're turning this into a dog's breakfast. Please look at your latest edit and fix it. You've removed an image and left part of the caption. SlimVirgin 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Alleged "violation"
In what way? I know it doesnt but I'd like to hear your reason. --Shamir1 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You know better than to add things like this "Praise for the book is popularly found among the political left and Arab-Americans.Jasper23 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And every word of this is already in the article:
arter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed.
As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.
Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.
Most of what you want to put in the article has already been discussed on the talk page. Please give it a look. Jasper23 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)