I agree with you that Israel has taken away the freedoms of the people in Palestine, however I feel that that freedom was lost by the people because of their continued backing of Hamas and Hamas's continued attacks against Israel.
I think that both parties are at fault to some degree, but I also believe the burden of the blame rests with Hamas and their continued requests for the destruction of Israel. To answer your questions directly:
1b. Do you disagree with any of, "The core Hamas themselves are (generally speaking) just haters like WBC or the KKK and they get support now from the citizens because they're all collectively being severely oppressed by Israel." ?
I agree that Hamas are just hater racists. I believe that they have integrated themselves into the Palestinian people with a hate and blame based marketing campaign that has the Palestinian children learning how to kill Jews in class. This campaign is reinforced by some of the policies of the Israeli government as an unintended consequence. I have consistently seen any positive developments towards peace wind up being corrupted by the outrageous demands of Hamas that they will not settle for anything but the complete elimination of Israel and the refusal to recognize the Israeli state.

"2b. Do you think, if a free Palestinian state were created with the 1946 borders, that Hamas would retain enough support from the people to continue fighting with Israel, which would keep their lives constantly under threat, just as is the case in Israel now? Personally, if the citizens weren't being oppressed, I don't think they would favour killing anybody, and would choose a live-and-let-live policy so they could raise a family in peace and seek success in the world."
Perhaps, but Hamas has stated many times that their goal is not just reverting back to the 1946 borders, but the elimination of Israel. They've ingrained that into the people of Palestine and as we are discussing this I fear that this may be a situation where peace can not be brokered because of the constantly reinforced hatred towards the Jewish people. I pray it doesn't revert to a situation like that of WW2 where entire cities were eliminated in order to get Germany to eventually collapse. (We didn't just do it to the Japanese, although the comparison may be more accurate) Besides reverting back to the 1946 borders isn't really feasible, or justified, but that is a WHOLE different discussion. (There weren't borders in 1946 as all of Palestine was under British control from WW1)

"Can you substantiate that? Celebration alone makes someone a terrorist? And "blight on humankind" doesn't even have meaning. They ARE humankind. They're not an affliction."

I can actually, celebration of an innocents death in my opinion shows a lack of a soul and a lack of sympathy towards other human beings. Celebrating the death of a child is about the most evil thing I can think of, yet Islamic extremists do it on a regular basis. It makes you a monster and puts you outside of humankind. So yes it makes you very much an affliction on humankind. Unfortunately it is very likely a symptom of humankind as well, but like an infection is a symptom of being alive, sometimes it must be abraded and removed completely.
As humans we have to value life and celebrate life, not death. I feel the same way about the KKK or any other organization that divides the human species into groups and has devalued one of those groups to the point where the death of one of them is something to be celebrated. That is hate and it is evil. Evil, real evil, exists in this world and it can be seen in the video above.

Celebrating the death of innocents isn't in and of itself something that makes a person a terrorist, it merely reinforces the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

All this yet I still like to play FPS. Huh...gonna have to dwell on that.

@WaterDweller: I'm surprised that you went to such trouble to research someone else's statement about word definition and then came to such an obviously incorrect conclusion. Your stated definition of eviscerate makes no mention of the use of the word in the figurative sense it is used in the video's title; however, just because a word does not have a particular definition in the dictionary does not mean that word does not have that meaning. Clearly, the figurative use of the word 'eviscerate' is referring to the actress' extremely effective rebuttal and denunciation of the mullah. This correlates precisely to your second definition of 'excoriate' (which happens to be the figurative interpretation of that word,) and so they are figuratively the same.

Now the with regards to the literal definition of 'excoriate' your dictionary says that it effectively means 'to take the skin off of'. Since the literal definition of 'eviscerate' (all of the definitions you provided save #2) effectively mean 'to take the contents out of an animal' one simply needs to see that the skin could be considered an animal's 'container' and hence 'excoriate' means to take the container off from around the contents and 'eviscerate' to take the contents from the container. Hence, they are literal opposites. (:

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

.iaui.


>> ^WaterDweller:

>> ^messenger:
I looked up "eviscerate": figuratively, it means "excoriate"; literally, it means the opposite.
Now that's clear.

Strange, I looked up both words, and found no indication that one means the other, neither figuratively nor literally:
e·vis·cer·ate
v.tr.
1. To remove the entrails of; disembowel.
2. To take away a vital or essential part of: a compromise that eviscerated the proposed bill.
3. Medicine
a. To remove the contents of (an organ).
b. To remove an organ, such as an eye, from (a patient).
v.intr. Medicine
To protrude through a wound or surgical incision.
ex·co·ri·ate
tr.v. ex·co·ri·at·ed, ex·co·ri·at·ing, ex·co·ri·ates
1. To tear or wear off the skin of; abrade. See Synonyms at chafe.
2. To censure strongly; denounce: an editorial that excoriated the administration for its inaction.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. Just thought I'd point out.

I originally wrote "body slams", but wanted a cooler sounding word..>> ^WaterDweller:

>> ^messenger:
I looked up "eviscerate": figuratively, it means "excoriate"; literally, it means the opposite.
Now that's clear.

Strange, I looked up both words, and found no indication that one means the other, neither figuratively nor literally:
e·vis·cer·ate
v.tr.
1. To remove the entrails of; disembowel.
2. To take away a vital or essential part of: a compromise that eviscerated the proposed bill.
3. Medicine
a. To remove the contents of (an organ).
b. To remove an organ, such as an eye, from (a patient).
v.intr. Medicine
To protrude through a wound or surgical incision.
ex·co·ri·ate
tr.v. ex·co·ri·at·ed, ex·co·ri·at·ing, ex·co·ri·ates
1. To tear or wear off the skin of; abrade. See Synonyms at chafe.
2. To censure strongly; denounce: an editorial that excoriated the administration for its inaction.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. Just thought I'd point out.

>> ^messenger:

I looked up "eviscerate": figuratively, it means "excoriate"; literally, it means the opposite.
Now that's clear.


Strange, I looked up both words, and found no indication that one means the other, neither figuratively nor literally:

e·vis·cer·ate
v.tr.
1. To remove the entrails of; disembowel.
2. To take away a vital or essential part of: a compromise that eviscerated the proposed bill.
3. Medicine
a. To remove the contents of (an organ).
b. To remove an organ, such as an eye, from (a patient).
v.intr. Medicine
To protrude through a wound or surgical incision.

ex·co·ri·ate
tr.v. ex·co·ri·at·ed, ex·co·ri·at·ing, ex·co·ri·ates
1. To tear or wear off the skin of; abrade. See Synonyms at chafe.
2. To censure strongly; denounce: an editorial that excoriated the administration for its inaction.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. Just thought I'd point out.

>> ^griefer_queafer:
2) How the first thing the guy does when he gets off the line is check his hand for scratches

I think he does that first because he seriously burned\abraded his hand.
That's why he didn't stop - he couldn't.

When my office went ziplining (a really fun experience), they has us wear leather gloves with reinforced padding on the palm. When you neared the end of the ride, you'd firmly press down on the cable behind you with the gloved hand. Even with the padding, it still got pretty hot.
(You didn't grab the line because it would jerk your arm out of socket, and you pressed behind you so the pulley wouldn't eat your hand.)