@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

I thought i smelled something fishy, those figures would've been the first in the whole history of humankind.

When was leaded gas&paint banned in the Australia? Would be nice to see that graph there too..

Yet, I will continue to buy Nvidia graphic cards probably till I die. They really have innovated the industry in MANY ways that have stuck around, which actually makes his comments hilarious to me--another person just too particularly concerned with their field of research getting angsty--so I'd be the anti-him.

I understand the difficulty issue, but really, God all of the major makers of graphic chips are asses in this field (Nvidia *used to be* one of the good ones...). I think once Nvidia jumped into their "chipset" and other devices field, I believe that is when they really became FAR more less likely to support other sub-set projects or atleast helping them.

I don't know the whole history, but if someone else has a better vantage speak up, this is more from a hardware buying point of view.

A software point-of-view would be the next best, it would be nice to know what are the best usable graphics cards right now on the market...?

Dude, you're probably the worst Marketing assistant in the whole history of Marketing assistants. Go open a facebook page or something. BOOOOO

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).

But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

>> ^gorillaman:

There's no such thing as white privilege; there's no such thing as a white race or a black race. It seems harsh to say this guy spent an hour talking about literally nothing at all, but there it is. He's living in a fantasy world where people are linked in a way that simply doesn't exist in any objective sense.
The world is a collection of individuals, and some of us were born into disadvantageous circumstances and some of us were born into advantageous circumstances. Yes, in the past some more individuals behaved like dicks to some other individuals, for a variety of reasons, and some of us have benefited incidentally from that while others have not. But that's really all it boils down to, the whole history of humanity is just one big roll of the dice, and some of us rolled higher than others.
Now, if we want to talk about correcting those imbalances on an individual basis through whatever social means - progressive taxes, subsidies, culling racists, fine; that could be a conversation worth having, but if we're going to go on pretending we've all been naturally and necessarily divided into these arbitrary tribes based on vague genetic similarities, well, it's just noise.

There's no such thing as white privilege; there's no such thing as a white race or a black race. It seems harsh to say this guy spent an hour talking about literally nothing at all, but there it is. He's living in a fantasy world where people are linked in a way that simply doesn't exist in any objective sense.

The world is a collection of individuals, and some of us were born into disadvantageous circumstances and some of us were born into advantageous circumstances. Yes, in the past some more individuals behaved like dicks to some other individuals, for a variety of reasons, and some of us have benefited incidentally from that while others have not. But that's really all it boils down to, the whole history of humanity is just one big roll of the dice, and some of us rolled higher than others.

Now, if we want to talk about correcting those imbalances on an individual basis through whatever social means - progressive taxes, subsidies, culling racists, fine; that could be a conversation worth having, but if we're going to go on pretending we've all been naturally and necessarily divided into these arbitrary tribes based on vague genetic similarities, well, it's just noise.

>> ^dannym3141:
Dune is the most godawful, low quality, banal storied, craptastic piece of pseudo-epic shite that i have ever had the misfortune to sit through 1/4 of. That's all i could stomach, and i watch some real pieces of shit i can tell you. It should have been the death of everyone's career that got involved in this film, and their undying shame.
David Lynch should have been treated in a way which his name suggests.
The money put into the film (which by the look of the sets and effects could have only been about £30 and a sponsorship of sand from a DIY store) should have been put into more productive endeavours which more greatly enriched and benefitted human kind, such as fuelling a car whose sole purpose was to burn fuel, standing still and empty, polluting the atmosphere LESS than dune has polluted the earth with it's bad film making sneaking under the guise of cult success.
What an absolute embarassment of the highest order this film was. When we meet aliens, i want the whole history and any proof of the existence of this film to be obliterated lest we be laughed out of the universal council and sent home riding a giant fake looking worm, being forced to shout rediculous sounds pretending that we're duelling each other. Each of us trying to pull a more dramatic face than the last. And they'll give us all surgery to make us have kyle machlachlachlachlachlan's annoying facial features.
Meeting a person who enjoys that film is like stumbling into the inner order of the Nerd World Order. The people that get together to discuss the ethical implications of the latest doctor who episode. It's like meeting someone who enjoys "The Happening" and takes it for a modern great. You can't quite believe the words they're speaking, and you're almost certain they're playing a joke on you. A lot of them quote each other word for word "If you'd read the book before you saw the film..." - And i can only assume that the book was hypnotherapy which conditioned me to enjoy abominable films.
Alright, i feel better now.


You got me pegged.

Dune is the most godawful, low quality, banal storied, craptastic piece of pseudo-epic shite that i have ever had the misfortune to sit through 1/4 of. That's all i could stomach, and i watch some real pieces of shit i can tell you. It should have been the death of everyone's career that got involved in this film, and their undying shame.

David Lynch should have been treated in a way which his name suggests.

The money put into the film (which by the look of the sets and effects could have only been about £30 and a sponsorship of sand from a DIY store) should have been put into more productive endeavours which more greatly enriched and benefitted human kind, such as fuelling a car whose sole purpose was to burn fuel, standing still and empty, polluting the atmosphere LESS than dune has polluted the earth with it's bad film making sneaking under the guise of cult success.

What an absolute embarassment of the highest order this film was. When we meet aliens, i want the whole history and any proof of the existence of this film to be obliterated lest we be laughed out of the universal council and sent home riding a giant fake looking worm, being forced to shout rediculous sounds pretending that we're duelling each other. Each of us trying to pull a more dramatic face than the last. And they'll give us all surgery to make us have kyle machlachlachlachlachlan's annoying facial features.

Meeting a person who enjoys that film is like stumbling into the inner order of the Nerd World Order. The people that get together to discuss the ethical implications of the latest doctor who episode. It's like meeting someone who enjoys "The Happening" and takes it for a modern great. You can't quite believe the words they're speaking, and you're almost certain they're playing a joke on you. A lot of them quote each other word for word "If you'd read the book before you saw the film..." - And i can only assume that the book was hypnotherapy which conditioned me to enjoy abominable films.

Alright, i feel better now.

Without the rhetoric, the whole argument goes like this:
-The question to Hitchens: Isn't the jihad fueled by the Western powers' action in Islamic land over the whole history of colonization (i.e. 1000+ years if we count the crusades)?
-Response by Hitchens: No, it is fueled by the religious content of these actions, i.e. the things jihadists are most upset about are not related to colonization per se but to the perceived desecration/irrespect of their religion's rightful place as the OTR (Only True Religion). Jihadists don't care about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, only of those that are committed against Islam (and their definition of "atrocity" is very broad). That's why the establishment of an independent country in East Timor with a christian majority is to them worse than the genocide that islamists committed with the help of their former western allies.

Let's remember that Al-Qaeda was formed just as the Cold War stopped and the U.S. started to take action against their former Islamic allies. What the U.S. did to Iran doesn't count since they are Shi'ites, not Sunni like Al-Qaeda. Also, Al-Qaeda doesn't care about the Turkish government massacring Kurds, they care that it is a secular government in a Islamic land. Same with Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraqi insurgency is another matter. An insurgency is inevitable in any invaded country. This one is used by Al-Qaeda as a testing ground and as a continuation of their war against the U.S.A. They don't care about the freedom of the Iraqis since they also are Shia Muslims in majority. They only care that the Sunni minority be free to be as Islamic as they want. They also want to destroy the U.S.A. and a war of attrition is always a good way when you're overwhelmed in terms of raw power. So in brief: the Iraqi insurgency is fueled by Al-Qaeda, not by the occupation (though the invasion/occupation was the spark, so to speak).

I have no frame of reference for this comment. Was this something I typed at one point on this site?

In reply to this comment by griefer_queafer:
This kind of behavior really makes me rethink whether I want to keep on investing my time in this site. I don't know the whole history, but I do believe this is kind of fucked up.

EDIT: Whatever. You're right burdturgler, I really don't know the whole history, but I have read quite a bit of the history. But... point taken.

you press forward with claims of Jewish mistreatment within Palestine pre-1948, as if those alleged incidents


Really? Alleged incidents? So you deny mistreatment of the Jewish people by the Arab majority in Palestine from well before 1948?


as if those alleged incidents supplied the necessary historical context to then go ahead and justify, to your mind, actually ignoring the serious and supported claims about actual atrocities.


I suggest we ignore them? Are you really gonna try to misread what I said that deliberately? I'll repeat myself again Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now.

Or how about my last paragraph:

Look at the whole history and there are no easy answers like some might like to think. How do you blame the Jewish people for fleeing Europe and defending themselves aggressively in Palestine after? How do you blame the Arab Palestinians for feeling threatened, especially after the British had been ruling over them as a colony until then? It's a mess, and blaming one side or the other is ignorance or personal bias.


Is that really anything like a defense of genocide? Really?

^If you read Gabriel Ash article there closely you should notice something. He takes EVERYTHING negative Morris' historical account says about Israel and declares it fact beyond contention. He then also declares EVERYTHING positive Morris' historical account says about Israel and declares it the working of a depraved and racist/colonial mind. That doesn't give you any pause?

Here's the bigger picture of 1948, since the context is important and cliff's notes versions are generally the tool of propagandists from either side. Palestine, under British rule, had both Jewish and Arab Palestinian's living there in 1900 already. By the 1940's, the Jewish population was growing, but still a minority that was being mistreated. By the mid 1940's the Nazi genocide was in full swing, and more European Jews came to Palestine as refugees. Many of them entering the country illegally, but under the circumstances I find that difficult to condemn. Among the European Jews, Zionist's had risen up as a result of European oppression and their ranks were filled by those who believed only a Jewish state would ever recognize the rights of Jews.

Low and behold as the majority of them settle in Palestine, the majority Arab Palestinians are mistreating them terribly. Is it really much of a wonder that this boiled into a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians? Is it really a nefarious act of conquest by the Jews, or is just a tragic series of events with hate begetting more hate, over and over again? Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now. I find it hard though to go back to that time and place all the blame on Jewish Zionist aggression. It's even harder when in '48 those Jewish Zionists declared their acceptance of a UN proposed 2 state solution, only to have all the neighboring Arab countries declare a united war to eliminate them. Given just how many of those Jewish people had just come from a Nazi dominated Europe and there might be some legitimate concerns for their own survival playing a role from that point forward, no? Was that really merely Zionist fear mongering?

Look at the whole history and there are no easy answers like some might like to think. How do you blame the Jewish people for fleeing Europe and defending themselves aggressively in Palestine after? How do you blame the Arab Palestinians for feeling threatened, especially after the British had been ruling over them as a colony until then? It's a mess, and blaming one side or the other is ignorance or personal bias.