Wrong.
You call Hamas as Islamic terrorists, but you don't have the courage to call Israelis as Jewish terrorists.
Even here you use the term "settlers" because you are so desperate not to offend Jewish fanatics.
You have already demonstrated your abject, nay comically pathetic, ignorance of the Palestinians conflict
You only seem to know what the pro-Israeli media feeds you and desperately parrot their propaganda in an obsequious bid to get a pat on your back for being a good "European".
Pathetic...
Except that YOU justified the Jewish fanatics' attack as a "revenge" attack.
When you finally overcome your inferiority complex and don't need to be so obsequious to gain validation from whites you may have the intellectual courage to condemn racist colonialism, even when it is practiced by Jews.
You are right that there is no way to prove objective reality. All we can is to form theories and test our theories to the limits of our technology. Along the way, we derive practical benefits from our world view, but that is not a proof that our version of reality is correct.
People used...
We have built instrument which can detect those parts of reality which our biological senses can't.
Our eyes can't detect photons in the ultraviolet range, but our instruments surely can, so we can be confident that those photons exist in an objective reality regardless of our biological...
The native Americans were the first humans to enter that continent. There were (most likely) several waves of human migration into that continent.
To say that those people don't really count and that the continent was only truly "discovered" once Vikings, Columbus, Chinese or Muslims showed up...
The whole discussion is racist and idiotic, as if the native Americans were part of the fauna, and their presence doesn't really count.
As if America was only truly "discovered" when Europeans/Chinese/Arabs or someone else came along.
The observer's characteristics affect their perception of reality, not reality itself.
If you look at something with the naked eye, you see something. When you look at it through sunglasses, you see something different. Reality hasn't changed but your perception of it has.
Well, Stephen...
Physical limitations of the observer don't affect objective reality. We can not see ultraviolet light with our eyes, but we can still accept its existence.
For something to be claimed as a fundamental law of nature, it must be an objective part of reality, not a consequence of an observer's...
I don't think it's right to criticize anyone's religious beliefs.
@syedali73 is probably reacting to the constant assault on Islam by people here, including Indians (and many Pakistanis and others).
You are confusing two subjects.
Many religious rituals have evolved over the centuries through experience and their validity can now be explained scientifically. For example, washing hands, not eating pork, fasting have all had valid scientific reasons.
That is different from claiming that...
The opening statement is so false that the rest of the article becomes irrelevant.
The West is doing a lot more than "sitting back".
The Western media, which is an integral part of the West's arsenal against its perceived adversaries (including China), is engaged in a full scale propaganda...
I am speaking for those of us who ridicule claims by all sides.
Because statements on morality and lifestyle are not subject to the same scrutiny that applies to scientific claims.