|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
In related news...
+ Show Spoiler +http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-01/middleeast/world_meast_israel-settlements_1_nabil-abu-rudeineh-israeli-official-settlement-housing-units?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday called for speeding up the construction of 2,000 housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The announcement from his office comes in retaliation for the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO's vote, a day earlier, to accept a Palestinian bid for full membership.
According to a senior Israeli official, the plan involves building 1,650 units in East Jerusalem and the rest in the West Bank settlements of Efrat and Maaleh Adumin.
The construction will take place in areas that are expected to be part of Israeli territory in any future peace agreement, and there is no contradiction between it and the various peace plans that have been on the table, the official said.
BBC:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801
|
On November 02 2011 10:17 BluePanther wrote:
Eh, we pay too much money to these types of organizations as it is... Membership to our clubs should require equal monetary commitments.
I have no interest in paying 50 billion a year for that type of shit.
you honestly don't think churches etc more then a 1000 years old are worth saving? especially with all that bullshit going on over there, take a look at the ancient destroyed buildings in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area.
If i am not mistaken the organisation that does that worldwide is the UNESCO, seems like the easiest way to protect/maintain these historical monuments. please correct me if i am wrong
anyone know whats ment by this?
"We will not sit with folded arms against these measures which are hurting Israel and are violating bluntly the most basic obligations the parties took in the peace process"(last qoute, from that bbc link)
|
On November 03 2011 03:50 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 03:41 Sgonzo wrote:On November 03 2011 03:31 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:
You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis.
Unfortunately neither do the Palestinians. When you demand 1000 of your prisoners for one of your enemy's you kinda set your own exchange rate. So apparently the Palestinians think that they are worth 1/1000 of an Israeli. Also why are we funding 20% of UNESCO when they have 160+ members???? no1 knows why USA pays so much into UNESCO, but the real question is why do they spend couple trillion a year on dropping bombs What does that have to do with anything? I'm just asking how are the membership dues assessed for all of these organizations. It certainly does looks like they're going to have a mexican stand-off if Palestine tries to join other organizations. Obviously the US wants to be a part of WHO and WIPO but it can't if Palestine joins. On the other hand I'd imagine most of these organization need US funding more then they need the political statement of accepting Palestine. So who's going to back down first?
UN dues are based on the country's GDP. The US has the world's largest GDP so we pay the most, but we get a discount. We are 27% of the world's GDP but we are only billed as if we are only 22%.
http://www.unausa.org/unfunding
|
On November 02 2011 17:40 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 17:23 Shinta) wrote:On November 02 2011 16:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 16:31 Shinta) wrote:First of all (this didn't make me want to pull my hair out, so I'll take care of it first), you're making a huge fallacy of making out ancient mythology to be fact. We may as well talk about the Minotaur in the labyrinth in Crete and how Marduk slayed Tiamat (like how Yahweh slayed the Leviathan; not the one in StarCraft, mind you) if you're going to bring this up.
The fact that people came from the discussed regions is not myth. If you want to call it myth, then you commonly refer to all history that you yourself have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc to possibly be nonfactual or 'mythical'. Secondly, there was no state called Palestine in ancient times, and what was called Israel back then was completely irrelevant to Israel today, and this is referring to the Kingdom of Israel which only lasted 100 years or less. In fact, today's Palestinians are the overwhelming majority of the descendants of the ancient peoples of Judah, Samaria, Philistia, southern Phoenicia, northern Edom, western Aram, etc., not today's Israelis. There were many nations just within present day Israel even at the height of the state. Araibu peoples, Phoenicians, Edomites, Aramites, Philistines, and others, including a plethora of lesser polities, all had territory in present-day Israel. Also you forget that the Hebrews split into two nations, and these Hebrews constantly warring against each other while warring with all these other people as well. So what you're saying is just so inaccurate and just plain wrong. There was no "israelis vs. palestinians" back then, and the majority of Israelis today are not descended from anyone in the Mideast, so don't make it out that way. It started out as "Israelites each other whiel fighting two shitloads of other peoples in Canaan" and then "Israelites still fighting each other (but now as two established polities rather than as semi-civilized tribes) and a shitton of people in Canaan and then even as far away as Mesopotamia", which is a far cry from what you're saying. Um... did you miss the part where I said their ancestors? Herp Derp. And ofc there was no Palestine and no Israel, and yes the area of Israel is centered around important historical sites, and not where the state that didn't exist was. And yes, everyone was fighting with everyone back then, and everyone fought with everyone up until recent days, but the point in this topic is 1 people vs the other people. The other peoples are to be disregarded. That said, the most likely story are the Hebrews were a small people in some city-state that ended up conquering neighboring peoples and acculturated them, meaning that sometime before 1000 BC, the Israelite tribes made some local conquests and acculturated the other cultures and peoples who were conquered in much of the boundaries of modern-day Israel. There's no reason why else that by 900 BC so many cultures in Canaan had vanished. That whole region next to the Mediterranean (which is where the Canaan people were primarily located) was mostly used by western states. Eventually politics changed, battles were waged, and the people we have now are the ones that ended up being there. Sure there were a bunch of people that belong to different states or no state at all, but as history is bound to prove, an area is eventually ruled by 1 people (with few exception). I don't even understand why you found it important to state this information, it's relatively useless. And by that I mean it doesn't provide anything for the discussion. Thirdly, very few of the Jews in Israel are descended from anywhere in the Mideast (they are mostly from Europe by far), and most of the Jews actually from the Mideast are recent immigrants to Israel from other places in the Mideast in the past 80 years, so it's not like it was their ancestors or something in ancient Canaan, although even the 'israelites vs. palestinians' thing was straight up wrong as shown in the last paragraph. I don't know why you claim that. Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel. Also, the beginning of mankind was at least tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years before there was even civilization in Sumer, nevermind in the Levant. So no, it wasn't the beginning of mankind.
That was an OBVIOUSLY intended as an over exaggeration. And this over exaggeration is a very commonly used one. Don't be ridiculous. Get smart ~_~ First part: You're using ancient religious mythology for your argument. That isn't history. Just because I "have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc" that the Minotaur existed and was in a labyrinth in Crete, that means it must have been real going by your logic, right? In other words, it's irrelevant. It doesn't work, is what I'm saying. Second part: One people vs. the others? As I said, there were no modern Palestinians and Israelis back then, so I don't see how they were fighting back then. Herp derp. In fact, all of those different nations back then are just the ancestors of modern Palestinians if anything. Third part: I was explaining how the Hebrews came to that point. You made it seem like yahweh just magically gave it to them or something, and almost no one else was living there, like in the Exodus myth or Abrahamic covenant. In actuality, one group conquering others directly tended to lead to cultural assimiation, so that non-Hebrews (but albeit closely related peoples) became Hebrews. Fourth part: I know the Sumerians didn't come from Europe. When did I say they did? Of course people from central/eastern Europe did not come across people from Canaan in ancient times. When the people in Canaan apparently migrated and populated and settled in that that area (I assume that's what youre saying there tens of thousands of years ago from wherever in the prehistoric era, well, tens of thousands of years ago is a hell of a long time before the 20th century AD, so I don't see why you're saying that there were clashes when the people who today claim to be Israelis were in Europe. Seems rather strange to say such a thing. Unless you are claiming that the people from Europe immigrated to Israel before the natives moved there and there were clashes? Now that's just ridiculous. Please clarify what you're saying here as it isn't very clear. First Part: The fact that people migrated to the Canaan region from both Sumer and Europe is not mythology. That's the only thing I was talking about, so I have no clue what the heck you're stating -.- Second Part: Erg.... In this case, people is being used to describe specific groups. People is not being used to describe everyone from that time.... The 2 'peoples' of course being the ancestors of modern day Israeli's and modern day Palestinians. Yes, as I stated before, many people were fighting, and many people became absorbed into other cultures. Sure you can try to argue that out of all people who lived in the modern day Central-Western Asia, Central-Eastern Europe, and Northeastern Africa regions ended up becoming one people, and that that people eventually separated, but many people will argue differently. The fact of the matter is that these people (the natives of Canaan, who were made up of people from Africa and Europe) fought with the people from Sumer and that these 2 groups were what would eventually become what people refer to as modern day Israelis and Palestinians. Those were the people that inhabited and fought for those lands, regardless of the names of the states or city-states that ruled the area. Who you consider back then to be ancestors of who is irrelevant. Third Part: How Hebrews actually came to that point is irrelevant anyways. You're merely trying to describe when people in Canaan started speaking Hebrew? The only point in time when the term Hebrew becomes of importance is during the time of Jacob and the rise of the Israelites. Whether they spoke the Hebrew language or not, everyone who lived in that area before the migration of the Sumerians, engaged in a never ending conflict with the people who would eventually migrate from Sumer. Any more history added to this would be a further waste of time and irrelevant to the discussion so I'll leave it at that. Forth Part: Seriously? "They've been fighting since the beginning of mankind" Have you never heard that term? It's a commonly used over exaggeration. I don't even understand what you're confused about. Stop hurting your own head. No further comment necessary. First Part: Oh, now you're saying that ancient Hebrews came from central/eastern Europe as well? I asked once and I'll ask again. Do you have any proof for this, including for the Sumer part (Genesis doesn't count)? Second part: The ancestors of modern day Israelis were in central and eastern Europe and had no contact with the modern day Palestinians in ancient times. I don't know why you claim they did. Now more theories that now there were even people from Africa and Europe living in ancient Canaan as well, not just Sumer?!?!? Lol, where do you get this crazy talk from? You're starting to hurt my head with this banter. XD I mean, you're making up a crazy conspiracy theory in order to claim that yes indeed the modern Israelis actually came from Canaan, which is just absurd. You realize how silly you're sounding right now? I'd like to see where you read all this crazy stuff, or if it's stuff you pulled out of your ass in order to convince me that the recent immigrants from northern Europe in the past 100 years are actually natives from the land. Sorry man. I'm not that naive. Third part: Didn't you say earlier that the migration of Sumerians was with Abraham, the original Hebrews? So you're saying there were two migrations of Sumerians, a second one coming when the Hebrews had supposedly long since come from Sumer? Why the contradictions? Also, seeing as how the Hebrews came from Sumer, and in your conspiracy theory history, they fought against people who came from Sumer later on, (even though everyone in Canaan came from Canaan, and they fought against people living in Canaan as well as large foreign invaders like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Persians), then that kills your claim that . Ancient Israelites came from northern Europe? HAHA!! You're a real joker XD Fourth part: I never said anything about that expression, and yes I've heard of it. You just replied to something that wasn't written lol. So clarify what the hell you mean by: "Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel." Because you're saying that the ancestors of today's Israelis were living in Canaan in ancient times and had come from Europe (despite anyone with a brain knows that they came only in the past 100 years). This is an absolutely ludicrous claim, so I'm asking you to clarify it because it's just so ridiculous. What is this East migrated to meet the West (the Abraham myth of his tribe's migration to Canaan, or is it the 2nd migration of Sumerians you made up as well?) So please clarify what you mean by that paragraph, and also give evidence for the things I said in my last post, because right now, you're just stating ridiculous things (ancient Hebrews are from northern Europe and these ancient people are the ancestors of all of today's Israelis... lol.....). Hell, I think I got trolled.
LMAO, wow, can't even have a decent conversation with you because you can't read..... You are not capable of analyzing a sentence and then figuring out what it means.... I can say the same exact thing 10 times in a row and you still don't know what the words I'm saying mean. I'm done trying to defend something that is common knowledge. Why don't you give it a rest yourself, you're not going to achieve anything with the way you're going about things.
I suggest slapping yourself in the face and starting anew.
|
On November 03 2011 03:04 Durp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 02:58 Pika Chu wrote:Durp, i will quote something you said: Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever That is what I said, though taken pretty remarkably out of context. You should edit for Michael Moore.
I'm trying to come up with some surrounding sentences that would make the 'quotation taken out of context' claim valid.
So far only 'j/k, that would be sick and inhuman', 'sorry, dude I'm kinda high' and 'I'm a sociopath with no regard for other human beings' come to mind.
Taken out of context? You're advocating genocide. That's fucked up...
|
On November 03 2011 10:45 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 17:40 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 17:23 Shinta) wrote:On November 02 2011 16:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 16:31 Shinta) wrote:First of all (this didn't make me want to pull my hair out, so I'll take care of it first), you're making a huge fallacy of making out ancient mythology to be fact. We may as well talk about the Minotaur in the labyrinth in Crete and how Marduk slayed Tiamat (like how Yahweh slayed the Leviathan; not the one in StarCraft, mind you) if you're going to bring this up.
The fact that people came from the discussed regions is not myth. If you want to call it myth, then you commonly refer to all history that you yourself have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc to possibly be nonfactual or 'mythical'. Secondly, there was no state called Palestine in ancient times, and what was called Israel back then was completely irrelevant to Israel today, and this is referring to the Kingdom of Israel which only lasted 100 years or less. In fact, today's Palestinians are the overwhelming majority of the descendants of the ancient peoples of Judah, Samaria, Philistia, southern Phoenicia, northern Edom, western Aram, etc., not today's Israelis. There were many nations just within present day Israel even at the height of the state. Araibu peoples, Phoenicians, Edomites, Aramites, Philistines, and others, including a plethora of lesser polities, all had territory in present-day Israel. Also you forget that the Hebrews split into two nations, and these Hebrews constantly warring against each other while warring with all these other people as well. So what you're saying is just so inaccurate and just plain wrong. There was no "israelis vs. palestinians" back then, and the majority of Israelis today are not descended from anyone in the Mideast, so don't make it out that way. It started out as "Israelites each other whiel fighting two shitloads of other peoples in Canaan" and then "Israelites still fighting each other (but now as two established polities rather than as semi-civilized tribes) and a shitton of people in Canaan and then even as far away as Mesopotamia", which is a far cry from what you're saying. Um... did you miss the part where I said their ancestors? Herp Derp. And ofc there was no Palestine and no Israel, and yes the area of Israel is centered around important historical sites, and not where the state that didn't exist was. And yes, everyone was fighting with everyone back then, and everyone fought with everyone up until recent days, but the point in this topic is 1 people vs the other people. The other peoples are to be disregarded. That said, the most likely story are the Hebrews were a small people in some city-state that ended up conquering neighboring peoples and acculturated them, meaning that sometime before 1000 BC, the Israelite tribes made some local conquests and acculturated the other cultures and peoples who were conquered in much of the boundaries of modern-day Israel. There's no reason why else that by 900 BC so many cultures in Canaan had vanished. That whole region next to the Mediterranean (which is where the Canaan people were primarily located) was mostly used by western states. Eventually politics changed, battles were waged, and the people we have now are the ones that ended up being there. Sure there were a bunch of people that belong to different states or no state at all, but as history is bound to prove, an area is eventually ruled by 1 people (with few exception). I don't even understand why you found it important to state this information, it's relatively useless. And by that I mean it doesn't provide anything for the discussion. Thirdly, very few of the Jews in Israel are descended from anywhere in the Mideast (they are mostly from Europe by far), and most of the Jews actually from the Mideast are recent immigrants to Israel from other places in the Mideast in the past 80 years, so it's not like it was their ancestors or something in ancient Canaan, although even the 'israelites vs. palestinians' thing was straight up wrong as shown in the last paragraph. I don't know why you claim that. Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel. Also, the beginning of mankind was at least tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years before there was even civilization in Sumer, nevermind in the Levant. So no, it wasn't the beginning of mankind.
That was an OBVIOUSLY intended as an over exaggeration. And this over exaggeration is a very commonly used one. Don't be ridiculous. Get smart ~_~ First part: You're using ancient religious mythology for your argument. That isn't history. Just because I "have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc" that the Minotaur existed and was in a labyrinth in Crete, that means it must have been real going by your logic, right? In other words, it's irrelevant. It doesn't work, is what I'm saying. Second part: One people vs. the others? As I said, there were no modern Palestinians and Israelis back then, so I don't see how they were fighting back then. Herp derp. In fact, all of those different nations back then are just the ancestors of modern Palestinians if anything. Third part: I was explaining how the Hebrews came to that point. You made it seem like yahweh just magically gave it to them or something, and almost no one else was living there, like in the Exodus myth or Abrahamic covenant. In actuality, one group conquering others directly tended to lead to cultural assimiation, so that non-Hebrews (but albeit closely related peoples) became Hebrews. Fourth part: I know the Sumerians didn't come from Europe. When did I say they did? Of course people from central/eastern Europe did not come across people from Canaan in ancient times. When the people in Canaan apparently migrated and populated and settled in that that area (I assume that's what youre saying there tens of thousands of years ago from wherever in the prehistoric era, well, tens of thousands of years ago is a hell of a long time before the 20th century AD, so I don't see why you're saying that there were clashes when the people who today claim to be Israelis were in Europe. Seems rather strange to say such a thing. Unless you are claiming that the people from Europe immigrated to Israel before the natives moved there and there were clashes? Now that's just ridiculous. Please clarify what you're saying here as it isn't very clear. First Part: The fact that people migrated to the Canaan region from both Sumer and Europe is not mythology. That's the only thing I was talking about, so I have no clue what the heck you're stating -.- Second Part: Erg.... In this case, people is being used to describe specific groups. People is not being used to describe everyone from that time.... The 2 'peoples' of course being the ancestors of modern day Israeli's and modern day Palestinians. Yes, as I stated before, many people were fighting, and many people became absorbed into other cultures. Sure you can try to argue that out of all people who lived in the modern day Central-Western Asia, Central-Eastern Europe, and Northeastern Africa regions ended up becoming one people, and that that people eventually separated, but many people will argue differently. The fact of the matter is that these people (the natives of Canaan, who were made up of people from Africa and Europe) fought with the people from Sumer and that these 2 groups were what would eventually become what people refer to as modern day Israelis and Palestinians. Those were the people that inhabited and fought for those lands, regardless of the names of the states or city-states that ruled the area. Who you consider back then to be ancestors of who is irrelevant. Third Part: How Hebrews actually came to that point is irrelevant anyways. You're merely trying to describe when people in Canaan started speaking Hebrew? The only point in time when the term Hebrew becomes of importance is during the time of Jacob and the rise of the Israelites. Whether they spoke the Hebrew language or not, everyone who lived in that area before the migration of the Sumerians, engaged in a never ending conflict with the people who would eventually migrate from Sumer. Any more history added to this would be a further waste of time and irrelevant to the discussion so I'll leave it at that. Forth Part: Seriously? "They've been fighting since the beginning of mankind" Have you never heard that term? It's a commonly used over exaggeration. I don't even understand what you're confused about. Stop hurting your own head. No further comment necessary. First Part: Oh, now you're saying that ancient Hebrews came from central/eastern Europe as well? I asked once and I'll ask again. Do you have any proof for this, including for the Sumer part (Genesis doesn't count)? Second part: The ancestors of modern day Israelis were in central and eastern Europe and had no contact with the modern day Palestinians in ancient times. I don't know why you claim they did. Now more theories that now there were even people from Africa and Europe living in ancient Canaan as well, not just Sumer?!?!? Lol, where do you get this crazy talk from? You're starting to hurt my head with this banter. XD I mean, you're making up a crazy conspiracy theory in order to claim that yes indeed the modern Israelis actually came from Canaan, which is just absurd. You realize how silly you're sounding right now? I'd like to see where you read all this crazy stuff, or if it's stuff you pulled out of your ass in order to convince me that the recent immigrants from northern Europe in the past 100 years are actually natives from the land. Sorry man. I'm not that naive. Third part: Didn't you say earlier that the migration of Sumerians was with Abraham, the original Hebrews? So you're saying there were two migrations of Sumerians, a second one coming when the Hebrews had supposedly long since come from Sumer? Why the contradictions? Also, seeing as how the Hebrews came from Sumer, and in your conspiracy theory history, they fought against people who came from Sumer later on, (even though everyone in Canaan came from Canaan, and they fought against people living in Canaan as well as large foreign invaders like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Persians), then that kills your claim that . Ancient Israelites came from northern Europe? HAHA!! You're a real joker XD Fourth part: I never said anything about that expression, and yes I've heard of it. You just replied to something that wasn't written lol. So clarify what the hell you mean by: "Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel." Because you're saying that the ancestors of today's Israelis were living in Canaan in ancient times and had come from Europe (despite anyone with a brain knows that they came only in the past 100 years). This is an absolutely ludicrous claim, so I'm asking you to clarify it because it's just so ridiculous. What is this East migrated to meet the West (the Abraham myth of his tribe's migration to Canaan, or is it the 2nd migration of Sumerians you made up as well?) So please clarify what you mean by that paragraph, and also give evidence for the things I said in my last post, because right now, you're just stating ridiculous things (ancient Hebrews are from northern Europe and these ancient people are the ancestors of all of today's Israelis... lol.....). Hell, I think I got trolled. LMAO, wow, can't even have a decent conversation with you because you can't read..... You are not capable of analyzing a sentence and then figuring out what it means.... I can say the same exact thing 10 times in a row and you still don't know what the words I'm saying mean. I'm done trying to defend something that is common knowledge. Why don't you give it a rest yourself, you're not going to achieve anything with the way you're going about things. I suggest slapping yourself in the face and starting anew.
You're right. It's not easy trying to have a conversation with people who claim such things as ancient Hebrews coming from Europe and claims ancient religious mythology as fact because it isn't personally experienced. Just so you know, that stuff isn't "common knowledge" lol. Anyways, thanks for the tip  . After patting (slapping?) myself on the back, I realize that ~30 min. of time and brain power in the convo. could have probably gone into something more useful, like supporting ESPORTS  <3 <3
Not going to lie though, some of the things you said really confused me as they were rather novel, and it didn't help when I asked for some evidence or clarification of such claims that you adamantly refused, which made me a bit sad face  .
On November 03 2011 11:14 Hans-Titan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 03:04 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 02:58 Pika Chu wrote:Durp, i will quote something you said: Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever That is what I said, though taken pretty remarkably out of context. You should edit for Michael Moore. I'm trying to come up with some surrounding sentences that would make the 'quotation taken out of context' claim valid. So far only 'j/k, that would be sick and inhuman', 'sorry, dude I'm kinda high' and 'I'm a sociopath with no regard for other human beings' come to mind. Taken out of context? You're advocating genocide. That's fucked up...
Maybe he was, or to his defense, maybe he was just in a really, really pissed off mood and that combined with existing hatred of Palestinians caused him to state something like that. Just my opinion, because lol, something like that is quite clear. I don't see how it is taken out of context. If I say that I hate Roaches and hope they all burn in Colossi lasers because they're overgrown bugs, I think the context is quite clear  .
|
|
|
On November 03 2011 06:52 Sofestafont wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 03:50 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:41 Sgonzo wrote:On November 03 2011 03:31 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:
You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis.
Unfortunately neither do the Palestinians. When you demand 1000 of your prisoners for one of your enemy's you kinda set your own exchange rate. So apparently the Palestinians think that they are worth 1/1000 of an Israeli. Also why are we funding 20% of UNESCO when they have 160+ members???? no1 knows why USA pays so much into UNESCO, but the real question is why do they spend couple trillion a year on dropping bombs What does that have to do with anything? I'm just asking how are the membership dues assessed for all of these organizations. It certainly does looks like they're going to have a mexican stand-off if Palestine tries to join other organizations. Obviously the US wants to be a part of WHO and WIPO but it can't if Palestine joins. On the other hand I'd imagine most of these organization need US funding more then they need the political statement of accepting Palestine. So who's going to back down first? UN dues are based on the country's GDP. The US has the world's largest GDP so we pay the most, but we get a discount. We are 27% of the world's GDP but we are only billed as if we are only 22%. http://www.unausa.org/unfunding
Thank you for the link. I figured it was something like this. I don't suppose we get 22% of the vote though do we?
|
On November 03 2011 23:53 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 06:52 Sofestafont wrote:On November 03 2011 03:50 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:41 Sgonzo wrote:On November 03 2011 03:31 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:
You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis.
Unfortunately neither do the Palestinians. When you demand 1000 of your prisoners for one of your enemy's you kinda set your own exchange rate. So apparently the Palestinians think that they are worth 1/1000 of an Israeli. Also why are we funding 20% of UNESCO when they have 160+ members???? no1 knows why USA pays so much into UNESCO, but the real question is why do they spend couple trillion a year on dropping bombs What does that have to do with anything? I'm just asking how are the membership dues assessed for all of these organizations. It certainly does looks like they're going to have a mexican stand-off if Palestine tries to join other organizations. Obviously the US wants to be a part of WHO and WIPO but it can't if Palestine joins. On the other hand I'd imagine most of these organization need US funding more then they need the political statement of accepting Palestine. So who's going to back down first? UN dues are based on the country's GDP. The US has the world's largest GDP so we pay the most, but we get a discount. We are 27% of the world's GDP but we are only billed as if we are only 22%. http://www.unausa.org/unfunding Thank you for the link. I figured it was something like this. I don't suppose we get 22% of the vote though do we?
But the US doesn't have 22% of the world's population. Or cultural significance. I realise cultural significance is impossible to compute, but that's not the point.
|
On November 04 2011 07:26 Niall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 23:53 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 06:52 Sofestafont wrote:On November 03 2011 03:50 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:41 Sgonzo wrote:On November 03 2011 03:31 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:
You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis.
Unfortunately neither do the Palestinians. When you demand 1000 of your prisoners for one of your enemy's you kinda set your own exchange rate. So apparently the Palestinians think that they are worth 1/1000 of an Israeli. Also why are we funding 20% of UNESCO when they have 160+ members???? no1 knows why USA pays so much into UNESCO, but the real question is why do they spend couple trillion a year on dropping bombs What does that have to do with anything? I'm just asking how are the membership dues assessed for all of these organizations. It certainly does looks like they're going to have a mexican stand-off if Palestine tries to join other organizations. Obviously the US wants to be a part of WHO and WIPO but it can't if Palestine joins. On the other hand I'd imagine most of these organization need US funding more then they need the political statement of accepting Palestine. So who's going to back down first? UN dues are based on the country's GDP. The US has the world's largest GDP so we pay the most, but we get a discount. We are 27% of the world's GDP but we are only billed as if we are only 22%. http://www.unausa.org/unfunding Thank you for the link. I figured it was something like this. I don't suppose we get 22% of the vote though do we? But the US doesn't have 22% of the world's population. Or cultural significance. I realise cultural significance is impossible to compute, but that's not the point.
And the Worlds Population is also not the point, but GDP. And quantifieing American Cultural Significance would propably raise the point that the USA export Culture, and that it's actually the most important. Because US stuff is watched, heared, etc. the most in the world.
|
On November 04 2011 08:20 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 07:26 Niall wrote:On November 03 2011 23:53 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 06:52 Sofestafont wrote:On November 03 2011 03:50 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:41 Sgonzo wrote:On November 03 2011 03:31 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:
You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis.
Unfortunately neither do the Palestinians. When you demand 1000 of your prisoners for one of your enemy's you kinda set your own exchange rate. So apparently the Palestinians think that they are worth 1/1000 of an Israeli. Also why are we funding 20% of UNESCO when they have 160+ members???? no1 knows why USA pays so much into UNESCO, but the real question is why do they spend couple trillion a year on dropping bombs What does that have to do with anything? I'm just asking how are the membership dues assessed for all of these organizations. It certainly does looks like they're going to have a mexican stand-off if Palestine tries to join other organizations. Obviously the US wants to be a part of WHO and WIPO but it can't if Palestine joins. On the other hand I'd imagine most of these organization need US funding more then they need the political statement of accepting Palestine. So who's going to back down first? UN dues are based on the country's GDP. The US has the world's largest GDP so we pay the most, but we get a discount. We are 27% of the world's GDP but we are only billed as if we are only 22%. http://www.unausa.org/unfunding Thank you for the link. I figured it was something like this. I don't suppose we get 22% of the vote though do we? But the US doesn't have 22% of the world's population. Or cultural significance. I realise cultural significance is impossible to compute, but that's not the point. And the Worlds Population is also not the point, but GDP. And quantifieing American Cultural Significance would propably raise the point that the USA export Culture, and that it's actually the most important. Because US stuff is watched, heared, etc. the most in the world.
Not if you are talking people. Places perhaps. But US shows don't come close to the Asian ones.
|
|
|
Well Americans have got to start paying off that debt somehow...
|
On November 04 2011 09:53 Hynda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 08:20 BlackFlag wrote:On November 04 2011 07:26 Niall wrote:On November 03 2011 23:53 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 06:52 Sofestafont wrote:On November 03 2011 03:50 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:41 Sgonzo wrote:On November 03 2011 03:31 FryBender wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:
You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis.
Unfortunately neither do the Palestinians. When you demand 1000 of your prisoners for one of your enemy's you kinda set your own exchange rate. So apparently the Palestinians think that they are worth 1/1000 of an Israeli. Also why are we funding 20% of UNESCO when they have 160+ members???? no1 knows why USA pays so much into UNESCO, but the real question is why do they spend couple trillion a year on dropping bombs What does that have to do with anything? I'm just asking how are the membership dues assessed for all of these organizations. It certainly does looks like they're going to have a mexican stand-off if Palestine tries to join other organizations. Obviously the US wants to be a part of WHO and WIPO but it can't if Palestine joins. On the other hand I'd imagine most of these organization need US funding more then they need the political statement of accepting Palestine. So who's going to back down first? UN dues are based on the country's GDP. The US has the world's largest GDP so we pay the most, but we get a discount. We are 27% of the world's GDP but we are only billed as if we are only 22%. http://www.unausa.org/unfunding Thank you for the link. I figured it was something like this. I don't suppose we get 22% of the vote though do we? But the US doesn't have 22% of the world's population. Or cultural significance. I realise cultural significance is impossible to compute, but that's not the point. And the Worlds Population is also not the point, but GDP. And quantifieing American Cultural Significance would propably raise the point that the USA export Culture, and that it's actually the most important. Because US stuff is watched, heared, etc. the most in the world. Not if you are talking people. Places perhaps. But US shows don't come close to the Asian ones.
You don't think that that the American Cinema had a big influence on Japanese and Hong-Kong Movies?
edit: Cinema is just one example. Talk Shows, News-shows (Look at CNN and Al-jazeera, from the looks of it, and from the style), etc.
|
On November 03 2011 04:05 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 03:28 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:On November 03 2011 03:04 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 02:58 Pika Chu wrote:Durp, i will quote something you said: Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever That is what I said, though taken pretty remarkably out of context. You should edit for Michael Moore. In or out, it's just as sick. You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis. You could supplant any two groups of people for the parties at hand, my feelings wouldn't change in the slightest. So if an israeli madman throws a bomb in red square in moscow the russians have every right to go fuck up whoever they want, kill the israeli women, men, soldiers, civilians whomever wherever. I just hope you made a mistake or you're not actually understanding what you wrote... because this is absolutely sick. Show nested quote +(If Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever
No, but if 1,000 Israelis would have done that, and Israel did nothing to stop them, I don't think anyone would blame Russia for tearing Israel apart.
|
I hope that it goes very good so people can see that things can get accomplished fine without american input...
|
On November 04 2011 19:36 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 04:05 Pika Chu wrote:On November 03 2011 03:28 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:On November 03 2011 03:04 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 02:58 Pika Chu wrote:Durp, i will quote something you said: Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever That is what I said, though taken pretty remarkably out of context. You should edit for Michael Moore. In or out, it's just as sick. You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis. You could supplant any two groups of people for the parties at hand, my feelings wouldn't change in the slightest. So if an israeli madman throws a bomb in red square in moscow the russians have every right to go fuck up whoever they want, kill the israeli women, men, soldiers, civilians whomever wherever. I just hope you made a mistake or you're not actually understanding what you wrote... because this is absolutely sick. (If Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever No, but if 1,000 Israelis would have done that, and Israel did nothing to stop them, I don't think anyone would blame Russia for tearing Israel apart.
But what if Russia had already blockaded Israel for the last 40 years at the same time as taking over more and more land from Israel, do you think people would blame Russia then?
|
On November 04 2011 19:44 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 19:36 RageBot wrote:On November 03 2011 04:05 Pika Chu wrote:On November 03 2011 03:28 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 03:20 Pika Chu wrote:On November 03 2011 03:04 Durp wrote:On November 03 2011 02:58 Pika Chu wrote:Durp, i will quote something you said: Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever That is what I said, though taken pretty remarkably out of context. You should edit for Michael Moore. In or out, it's just as sick. You don't take palestinians for human beings or equals of israelis. You could supplant any two groups of people for the parties at hand, my feelings wouldn't change in the slightest. So if an israeli madman throws a bomb in red square in moscow the russians have every right to go fuck up whoever they want, kill the israeli women, men, soldiers, civilians whomever wherever. I just hope you made a mistake or you're not actually understanding what you wrote... because this is absolutely sick. (If Palestinian government doesn't police its citizens and rockets are still being shot out of Palestine into Israel) I would feel strongly that Israel would have every right to then go fuck up whoever there they want. Men, women, soldiers, civilians, whomever No, but if 1,000 Israelis would have done that, and Israel did nothing to stop them, I don't think anyone would blame Russia for tearing Israel apart. But what if Russia had already blockaded Israel for the last 40 years at the same time as taking over more and more land from Israel, do you think people would blame Russia then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–present_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
1. As far as i'm aware, that blockade began after the second intifada, which is after several hundreds of Israelis died to terrorist attacks.
2. What about the fact that Israel gave-up a lot of territories, prior to the blockade, and removed tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes, in which they lived for 40 years, to improve communications between the sides, only to be slapped in the face when terror resumed?
3. After 1967, Israel have only gave up territories, if anything, they built more on already conquered territory.
4. Israel have already proved that they considered terrorists of their own as criminals, with "HaHagana" chasing down the "Irgun" (who were terrorists) prior to the extablishment of Israel, and jailing any Israeli who was caught terrorising the Arab minority in Israel., and creating commitees to judge most of the Israeli soldiers who commited war crimes during the last Gaza attack.
|
The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg) Make sense?
holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades?
Well there you are getting into seriously un-abridged territory. Israel have had a 'special' relationship with the US (and the Brits to a lesser extent; Brits used to control Jerusalem area before the UN plan took over). The reason for this relationship depends on how cynical you are, some say a lot of Jewish US Americans being successful politically had a lot of weight to push their agenda, others talk of slightly more dubious conspiracy theories. I think its a mixture of post-war guilt, and religious sympathy from the US consciousness (your emphasis on 1st amendment and mainly back then christian backgrounds).
Also, the nature of democracy means that we do not have stable long-lasting governments, which means that we tend to not think about things either in the long term or things that have progressed slowly over the past 60 years. Israel have been encroaching into Palestinian territory slowly. It wasn't simply, as you probably imagined, through military invasion (though this did happen a few times particularly in the few wars they had 50-60 yrs years ago) that Israel got all that land but by giving weapons to civilian 'Settlers' who then take over a Palestinian village and booted its original occupants out. This was particularly true in the 80s. So it was a gradual, unreported (or badly reported) civilian seizure of land.
This is however a gross over-simplification and fails to point out the pressure the Israeli State has been under all this time, if any are more interested I would recommend reading various historical/political books about the history of the area, I found the following a pretty decent introduction (its short and written by Arab and Jewish authors):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Years-War-Israel-Arabs/dp/0140268278
Peace.
|
Aargh sorry, can someone tell me how to delete this post I quoted rather than edited *facepalm*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
