Sorry Zaffar but I can't say in good conscience  that this documentary is "no overtly prejudiced depiction of anybody" as you said, the documentary is extremely prejudiced against Israel and overall agenda seems to feed fears of a vast Zionist conspiracy.

It sure has a lot of facts but they are never presented in the "why we lost" kind of format, for example they denounce Al Husseini as being a fruit of nepotism but stop short of saying that Yasser Arafat was his Nephew.

The documentary never explicitly states British Opposition to the Jews, and does a big white wash of Arab actions in the war of Independence. Maybe if their vigorous denunciation of Irgun was followed by something about the Etzion block and Mount Scopus massacres I would see this as impartial.

About the overall problem of the Palestinians, this is an artificial problem maintained by Arab countries refusing to give these people basic human rights despite being born and raised in said countries. Egypt and Jordan has been discriminating against Palestinian refugees from Syria and in Lebanon the labor laws prevent them to work.

and I though that the Church of Naked Congregants was weird.

Now watching the second part, and it is unfortunate that they present the simple historic fact that elements of the future IDF had been part of British Army unit during WW2 as some sinister plan. Somewhere beyond the agenda there is some good historical research here, but the whole tone is supposed to make everything look sinister and it doesn't help.

Also I am scheptical if because they seem to heavily rely on Ilan Pape, who seem to be trustworthy.

Well at least the series is full of some interesting factoids such as Ben Gurion being member of a Jewish Military unit in the British Army, even if it is drowned in sinister music from end to end like a Evil Dead Movie.

Franco

I don't understand this post. People who have nothing to do with the attacks except for having the *same* religion, giving condolences and 'condemnations'. So what? In effect they are saying ,"It's not us." It's not me, either. 

Apparently British Politics is heavily based on identity politics, so it was only good form for the Community leaders to apologize for the act and deny responsibility. Check this from Brendan O'Neil at the telegraph.

jonsouth

I wonder if the condemnations will continue at local mosques when leaders are speaking only to their faithful. Certainly hope so.

two things bug me in these affairs, firstly is that the foam mouthed cleric at the mosque the attacker went to get their daily dose of hate is never mentioned, I can understand that it is a bit obsolete in the age of Youtube but there seems to never be a investigation about the promotion of violence in mosque, and secondly the media is never held responsible for exaggerating the woes of Iraq and A-stan and thus helping fuel the Islamist grievance list.

Funny that James Jelly's are still hurt from the comments on that post.

Funny that the there is a TV show about CIA agents, because in terms of espionage James Bond was actually Russian and it would make more sense to have a TV show about the adventures of Vladimir Putin in his KGB times.

I would say that showing up would be the good call, as it would help keep the family bonds despite the disagreements and more importantly by doing you keep the door open to be a positive influence on the kids we can expect from this marriage. It would be a shame for them not getting to have a chance to know you because their parents hold a grudge against you for not showing up at the marriage ceremony.

I think that it is entirely possible to be a pro-life libertarian. I don't think anybody disputes that. What is apparently in dispute here is whether it is possible to be a libertarian without being opposed to abortion under all circumstances.

Salvatore Padula

Why should my morals be dependent on being Libertarian ? Is Libertarianism a substitute for moral ? I know that there is a lot of attitude to take Libertarianism as virtuous and Statists as evil, but I don't see why your political ideology should superseded moral judgment regarding a life.

Libertarian or not, is is moral to end a life ?

I'm an artist and I should be taken seriously

The sense of entitlement is priceless.

My question is the following : Why should ideological consistency be the highest value one should uphold ?

What I mean is that there might not be a pro-life Libertarian argument, or maybe there might be one by why should leave it to Libertarian theory to answer to a question with such moral implications.

I know that there is a tendency to create a Libertarian answer a whole host of problems, but I guess that maybe using our Political ideology guide our moral choices is taking things too far. Can there really be a Libertarian response to everything in life ?

There is a reasonable chance that abortion ends a life, but why are we skipping the moral dilemma of it and instead taking refuge in the fortress of ideological consistency.

I had a teacher that would show up drunk at classes, give us impossible tests to make us fail on purpose by telling us that we had to memorize 500 pages of outdated technical standards for screws and gear designs for a test. He wanted for us to pay him to get a pass mark or burn our brains trying to get it ourselves.

The problem with this approach is that you are back in scare one when the current crop of young men who enter Catholic Seminaries become Cardinals and simply adopt their youth understanding of economics in their new positions.

The Catholic Church is not isolated from the rest of society attitudes, so a health society will create a healthy clergy, otherwise you will just get catholic priests who dismiss the Church official positions are old fashioned dogmas.

I wonder how long until the US gets its full on Bunga Bunga Berlusconi kind of politician, not only because the Liberals would cover him for being liberal but the rising Libertarian tide would dismiss criticism of him as Puritan shrieking.

The Pope doesn't abide to Liberation Theology, He just happen to speak in the language of it out of habit, just like Rinos in the USA speak like Democrats out of habit even if they are from the other side of the fence.

Taking the context that South America is a pretty left-leaning place puts the Popes remarks in perspective, because Left-leaning opinions and ideas is what the Pope has been hearing even since He has been a young man. He can't live in a bubble of his own and the has simply absorbed the culture around him.

The Catholic Church in South America has been struggling against a homegrown heretical brand of Communist Catholicism know as "Teologia da Libertação", that combined with the total domination of left-wing politics means that Pope Francis views on the economy will always be veered well to the left, even if He is personally against said theories.

At the exception of Colombia, Chile and some central American countries, every South American countries have been under total left-wing dominance for some time now, so why are we surprised that the someone from there selected to be Pope is so left-leaning.

The 4.5mm gun hidden inside of a lipstick is sure to make your date interesting.