TJ46

Except you have an amazing ability for picking out the facts that bolster your position while ignoring all of the ones that don't. That is what it has to do with. Why come here and make these threads when you are not willing to have a serious, neutral, and intellectual argument. It is obvious you are being negligent in your personal research on this issue because you have made a number of statements that are constantly repeated by pro-palestine websites that have been CONSTANTLY refuted. If you had done your due diligence you would not have made these errors while still succeeding in making a decent case for your own position. Instead, it seems like most of your position is based on these ill-conceived and poorly-researched claims and arguments that only look at one side of the issue, rather than a fair and balanced understanding of this conflict. It seems to me like the only reason these 2 threads of yours are still going is because no one wants to spend the immense amount of time needed to refute all of your many claims/arguments sufficiently, and no one really wants to type out several pages of information when they will likely just be thrown to the side by you anyways. Especially when half the time your responses are based on very poor premises that were obviously not thought out very well or introduce any number of logical fallacies as the foundation of a specific claim/argument. All of this information is available, in books and online.

1. So if he does not agree with your views on Palestine then he is most likely an citizen of Israel and therefore biased? Can you give us a reason why you are even worth bothering to talk to after this statement? I would really like to hear it. The fact that you did not bother to take a moment to check his profile, which says he lives in Iowa. I have to wonder, if you are doing such an abhorrently poor job figuring out the facts on something as simple as this before making such bold and sure statements, I have to wonder if such a shoddy job can be attributed to your personal analysis of the facts regarding other things. 2. I suggest you do some more research on Bin Laden.... (and please don't post his messages to the U.S. regarding Palestine/Israel, I am already aware of them. Again, I ask, as I have in the other thread. Have you actually ever visited Israel or Gaza? Particularly the latter? No one here is suggesting Israel is completely innocent, that it has done nothing wrong. However you are creating such a ludicrously biased and blinded position for yourself (I would attribute it to confirmation-bias with respect to finding out information on the subject) that it is almost not worth the time to respond to your comments as I see it. I say this because I do not thing you will ever budge one notable inch from your position unless you go visit the place yourself. I suggest you go buy a plane ticket and let us know when you have rejoined us in reality. This assumes you were initially there however.

Probeson, I have to ask... Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever visited either Israel or Palestine yourself? I have done both, and I am skeptical that you have done either.

He did not say it was not autonomous in that article. He seems to claim it is a separate in actuality, as an entity, but not so much regarding actual content. I have always viewed TOS as a de-facto ARI mouthpiece as well, just through a different form of publication. Things like TIA and The Undercurrent, along with several other media sources of this nature I have not had that impression of. I am not aware if he has written any actual books...all I can seem to find is that he has a Phd. in the History of Science from Stanford in '06 and that he has a phenomenal professor rating on ratemyprofessor: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=363648 That is saying something considering his easiness rating is 2.6. I hardly ever have seen ratings this good. Not that it says anything about this event however.

Yes that is what I meant... I meant it means nothing with respect to the potentiality that Tracinski's quoted claim may be in err simply because Biddle departed to some extent from Peikoff's view on that matter. The implication seems to be that it essentially follows in footstep with ARI, which it very much does, and that any deviations are not great enough in substance to really take notice of, which I would agree with after having read Biddle's article and comparing it to all of his others. Half of the essays in Winning an Unwinnable War were first published in TOS for example, I have not seen any foreign policy works that go against the views espoused in those articles, including Biddles counter-argument, which is merely a deviation but follows the same general flow, as can be seen by many of his own, other articles. A single article does not invalidate this among the tens and tens and tens of others. At any rate, there has clearly been some poor journalism with respect to some of these foreign policy articles, as Tracinski has pointed out regarding Just War theory and the Bush administration, and that in itself should be a bit of a concern. Personally, as a military man I find the suggestion that the Bush administration's views on foreign policy are a result of Just War theory to be incorrect and do not hold up to Just War theories structure nor do these claims hold up to the facts at hand during deliberation on intervention in Iraq pre-invasion.

The TOS largely falls in line with ARI's foreign policy. The fact that there was a disagreement regarding opinion on the Mosque means nothing because Peikoff's argument regarding the Mosque was viewed as illegitimate by many members of the Objectivist community, and in my personal opinion was not only wrong but in conflict with Ayn Rand's writings (and what she has alluded to in audio interviews), but this thread is not here to discuss that, nor do I wish to do so. I have noticed Lew Rockwell has also taken note of this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/65169.html

He is not an Objectivist, though he does like Objectivism there is some reason or another (disagreement on something perhaps) he wishes not to identify him as such. The most illuminating example of this was when he was on some news channel, both him and Yaron Brook, and they had a bit of a back and forth regarding Peter Schiff having Objectivist-aligned views for a moment within the discussion.