Skip to main content
30 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
S Apr 14, 2017 at 9:55 history notice removed CommunityBot
S Apr 14, 2017 at 9:55 history unlocked CommunityBot
Apr 7, 2017 at 13:42 comment added Oddthinking (I've explained why not to remove the source - this is the source being given by the claimants. It also has more than one argument cited.
Apr 7, 2017 at 13:41 comment added Oddthinking The language used isn't that hateful. While I virtually never hear the words "Zionist" or "Neocon" except to disparage those views, they are not hateful words. I've locked, because the edit war is not getting us closer to a solution.
S Apr 7, 2017 at 9:29 history notice added Oddthinking Content dispute
S Apr 7, 2017 at 9:29 history locked Oddthinking
Apr 7, 2017 at 9:28 history rollback Oddthinking
Rollback to Revision 7
Apr 7, 2017 at 7:43 comment added SIMEL @Oddthinking, if the meadleeast.org source is problematic, then we can drop it and use the artiles it qoutes. No need to quote inflamitory and hatefull language that doesn't help to explain the main claim.
Apr 7, 2017 at 7:41 history edited SIMEL CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 734 characters in body
Apr 7, 2017 at 3:20 comment added Oddthinking @SIMEL: You may be right about "very specific language", but I want to assume good intentions. I agree that "Did someone make this claim?" is insignificant and boring. I don't agree that including that single quote turns the question into the boring version. I wanted to avoid ascribing the Klein quote, which makes the real claim, to the author of MiddleEast.org article. The MiddleEast.org article is horribly written, and I was tempted to remove it from the chain, but the OP cites as the reference others give, and for all I know they invented the Klein quote.
Apr 6, 2017 at 21:36 comment added SIMEL @Oddthinking, that quote was put not because it's important, but because it uses a very specific language that the editor likes.
Apr 6, 2017 at 21:34 comment added SIMEL @Oddthinking, this edit transforms the question from "Did pro Israeli americans lobbied for a war in Iraq?" to "Did some jewish writes claimed that pro isralei americans lobied for a war in Iraq?". This complitly transforms the question and, in my view, make it into an insignificat and boring, something that should be answered with who cares. This edit doesn't conform with the question in the title, or in the body of the question. If this is indeed the main claim of the article, then the article it references are the real claim and they alone should be quoted.
Apr 6, 2017 at 13:11 comment added Oddthinking I've tried to compromise to settle the edit war. Please discuss before making further changes, so I don't have to lock it.
Apr 6, 2017 at 13:10 history edited Oddthinking CC BY-SA 3.0
Try to settle edit war with a compromise.
Apr 6, 2017 at 6:39 history rollback Sakib Arifin
Rollback to Revision 4
Apr 5, 2017 at 15:16 history rollback SIMEL
Rollback to Revision 3
Apr 5, 2017 at 15:15 comment added Sakib Arifin I have edited the question with what the source actually claims instead of what it quotes.
Apr 5, 2017 at 15:13 history edited Sakib Arifin CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 213 characters in body
Apr 4, 2017 at 13:32 answer added DavePhD timeline score: 3
Jul 7, 2016 at 14:06 history tweeted twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/751054667199746048
Jun 30, 2016 at 16:04 answer added tim timeline score: 5
Jun 30, 2016 at 12:24 comment added Golden Cuy "Did pro-Israel Americans lobby Americans" may be on-topic, but I suspect that asking whether they were decisive in the US decision to invade Iraq would be off-topic, as it's a motivation question.
Jun 30, 2016 at 10:57 comment added Christian Is the question whether there were pro-Israel Americans that lobbied for the Iraq war or is that that those people where the strongest lobby?
Jun 30, 2016 at 1:22 history edited Oddthinking CC BY-SA 3.0
Cut back extraneous text. Quoted claim. Reduced bias against claimant. Changed to clarify *Americans*, not Israelis were doing the lobbying (as per claim)
Jun 30, 2016 at 0:27 review Close votes
Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03
Jun 30, 2016 at 0:22 history edited Oddthinking CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Jun 29, 2016 at 22:00 comment added Henry It is not a novel claim: see for example this abcnews article from 2003. Essentially the argument goes American neo-conservatives pressed for the second Gulf War, and that many of them also had strong ties with hawkish members of the Likud Party in Israel, and this is little doubt about this. The claim then becomes that there was a specific chain from Israel through the neo-conservatives to the George W Bush post-911 administration, directing US military policy for the benefit of Israel; this would be harder to demonstrate,
Jun 29, 2016 at 21:35 review First posts
Jun 30, 2016 at 1:18
Jun 29, 2016 at 21:34 history asked Hates Trolls CC BY-SA 3.0