A discussion about the creation of the concept of zero started me thinking about how one can lie by not actually lying. This is important since it is Michael Moore's major tool in convincing his brain-dead zealots.

Ask any college student what civilization created the zero and you will get answers of "Islamic" or "Arabic". Right? No - wrong, dead wrong. It was actually conceived by Indian mathematicians. So how did these kids get that idea in their head? Because a history teacher (intentionally or not) brought them to that conclusion.

We all know the story. A European meets with an Arab trader hundreds of years ago. During their discussion, the trader bends down and writes a "0" in the sand, animated discussion ensues.

From this data, deprived of that crucial Indian info, the student draws the false conclusion that Islam conceived of the zero (because if we got it from them they must have created it). In bringing the student to that conclusion the teacher did not present a lie once...but it is irrelevant, as the student now has new data that is false.

Forward to Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore presents the fact that Bush was Governor of Texas in the 90's (true), that the Taliban met with Unocal about a natural gas pipeline in the 90's (true), and that this meeting was in Texas (true). All this leads the viewer to a conclusion, that Bush had ties with the Taliban (false). All in all a terrible tactic to use in a debate, but one that is becoming more and Moore common on the left.

Addendum
Don't you brown guys ever get pissed at the Arabs for stealing your glory?

Godless adds:

It would be remiss of me to not point out...

1) The standard left-wing retort is that the Bush administration engaged in exactly the same behavior by mentioning Saddam and Al Qaeda in the same breath, over and over, in the runup to the war. The result is that the majority of Americans thought Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. (I believe this was done intentionally, though I didn't mind it at the time because I thought we'd be sure to find WMD, retroactively justifying any steps we took to go to war.)

2) Being proud of an Indian accomplishment several centuries ago would be problematic for two reasons. First, Razib and I are Americans. Second, it's probably better to point to contemporary advances. The reason K-12 education talks about "Arabic" numerals is because it's been a while since the Arab world got attention for something other than oil or terrorism. (To be fair, the Arabs *did* make seminal contributions to algebra, the idea of the algorithm, etc. - all of which were named for Arabs).

But lack of contemporary recognition is not so much of a problem for India or South Asian Americans, so there's much less psychological need to dwell in the past. Less cows, caste, and curry...more chips, computers, and capitalism.