SeVeR

Very informative although i'm not sure if you're !@#$%^&*uming that it's wrong to hate. Hate is a natural emotion and has its uses. For example it aids self-preservation as those who disgust us are most likely disgusted by us. Hatred for those who want to kill us may be a healthy emotion to hold onto. Hatred encourages us to bring those we hate to justice, eliminating the threat they may pose. Rule 1: Not realising the dawn of hatred in oneself. If hatred is justified one might call it a determination for justice. Your perception of hatred is only the determined drive of those you disagree with. Rule 2: All wrongs can be traced back to the hated. I may never have experienced hate so wouldn't know if this is true. I have seen the way in which conslusions are drawn from less and less evidence the more we dislike a person. I may be guilty of that to an extent although i will always come back to any previous !@#$%^&*umption and cast doubt. You can doubt everything. You can't know anything. Rule 3: Haters always have a jusitification for their actions. Unquestionably yes, but your definition of what a valid jusitification is will be different from everyone elses. Personally i hate Fox News, i see an agenda behind many of the things they broadcast, yet i believe i am justified. I won't go blowing up Fox News Headquarters but even your defintion of what an over-reaction is should be brought into question. Maybe by criticising them in the ways i do i am over-reacting, maybe my justification is wrong. What i'm trying to say is it's all relative. Hate is relative, we can doubt every premise and all we have, to predict a truth, is the level of doubt we encounter or that we know about in the world. Just define everything: What is hatred? Could be an irrational justification to wish harm on another. What is a irrational justification? ..... A justification i've come to disagree with. THats not a definition.

Agreed. This is the one example i always use when i say liberals are going too far. Physical pain is the most simple punishment and is guaranteed to be understood by all children. One thing about liberals is they always take the liberal side of the argument, even if it doesn't make sense.

Israel was formed after a British conquest during WW1. Whether they were right or wrong to intially invade does not matter, they probably were right to invade for strategic reasons. Where it becomes wrong is when they gave that land to a people who did not live in the region. Even with the huge influx of Jewish immigrants due to pro-Zionist western governments the region was still 3:1 Arab. Aileron, if you don't want to define that as a conquest i don't really care since that word can have multiple meanings, the British did not sluaghter anyone, they merely conquered the land in the name of the Zionists as that is who they gave this conquered land to, simple as that. I am however glad that you understand the Arabs have a reason to fight. The murder of civilians accomplishes nothing other than to get the attention of the western media, which in turn gets the attention of the western public, which in turn makes the western public think about WHY they're killing people, which is the only card they have to play. Unfortunately they don't understand that killing civilians makes people hate them even more, better to attack to Israeli military.... like what Hezbollah did recently. I don't expect Israel to just stand there, i fully expect the Zionists to defend their land. Just like i fully expect them to portray anti-zionists as anti-semitic racists... to criticise Israel is to be a racist, i just want people to know the difference.

Aileron, i am well aware that Iran is more of a dictatorship than a democracy. I disagree with this method of government and i disagree with Islamic law and its role in the Iranian government. However i believe that if the people of Iran took a vote they would democratically decide to live under the Supreme Ruler of Iran in an Islamic Dictatorship, therefore i am happy to let them live with what i think they would choose. None of this makes Iran wrong and Israel right. None of this means Iran is lying about producing civilian-only nuclear power. Brutal and authoritarian governments (such as that in Russia not only under Peter the Great but under Stalin) with a scientific direction will accomplish alot for science. That has nothing to do with religion. There is nothing scientific in the teachings of the Koran or the Bible therefore attention is diverted away from science under a religiously authoritarian regime. Sometimes a religious regime will embrace science but only within the limits of the religion. For example Bush's regime holds back science in the area of stem-cells for no real reason other than it being a religious belief; without the religious belief we could be on the way to curing cancer (if i were that optimistic). I expect a balance of positive and negative between authoritarianism(+) and religion(-) within the religous regimes you speak about. However authoritarian regimes are not required to further science, an abandonment of religion is all that is required. I would rather give up religion for the furtherment of science than live with no rights. Astro, i will get to your post when i have some time at the weekend.

I seriously would sit in spec in 17th while i did something else if i could only get into the go!@#$%^&*ed zone in the first place! It won't find the server yet it can find DSB perfectly fine.

Funny how that guys head came off. They should reattach it and redo the whole thing with the other guy too. The executioners thought he'd escaped in some elaborate magic trick at first.

OK, i'll now explain why this is a really good plan. You can test for drug-use. You can therefore only supply to existing users. The dealers lose all their best customers and any new customers would be lost immediately, they'd go out of business and the number of new users would drop to near zero. So no, they wouldn't be legal and available (A and B are the same point...) for anyone who isn't already addicted to buy. If you think drug-use would skyrocket then you'd have to be getting these new users from somewhere. You'd also need plenty of dumb!@#$%^&* idiots to find a way around the system to get themselves addicted, condemning themseves to pain and death... i'm sure those existing users are going to want to share their drugs... right? But they're treated as such, which was my point. Its just a law, no more important than the any recently changed law. It stops at a reasonably acceptable place deemed appropriate for society. Do you think they'll take away freedom of speech next? You don't have the right to do alot of things in the USA, they're called laws, all countries have them. America probably has fewer rights now as a result of the patriot act. The Netherlands and Denmark deserve the !@#$%^&*le 'land of the free' more than the USA does. You call these things rights when they are technically laws that have been deemed unchangeable. But think about this, if the people democratically decide that society will be safer without firearms then their freedom to live in the society they want will be denied. Your rights will become an oppression of the people. To remain the land of the free, amendments/rights have to be subject to change. Democracy is more valuable. Ugh, not this idiotic statement again. Yes its true, but why state the obvious. Guns don't load themselves and shoot people. The problem anti-gunners have is "People with guns kill other people easier than people without guns". Your statement is not replying to anything anyone actually believes, its merely an attempt to push the opposing argument to a ridiculous extreme. It doesn't really work on anyone with an education, i suggest you preach to the Africans on guns, they seem to be lapping up Christianity afterall.

Ok, so you trust the post-war UN to have made an unbiased decision... given the power of America at that point in history as the only power on Earth with all other powers crippled by WW2 and begging for America's help. I don't trust any vote made in that economic climate. Remember this is a time when America was giving out billion dollar grants to crippled economies around the world as well as multi-billion dollar loans. Surely its obvious that any decision to put a new country somewhere should be discussed and agreed upon with the neighboring countries. A vote where the side with the most supporters wins regardless of whether its the right thing to do or not is begging for the 60 year conflict that has followed.

Ah bloody buggering !@#$%^&*, it still won't work! And now i see 14 people in 17th!

Funny you brought up one of my more outlandish opinions right now, its completely unrelated but i must counter. Legalising drugs and supplying them to users through the government will remove every drug dealer in America overnight, it will remove all drug-user related crime and will remove the drug-running gangs and the crime that comes with them. Every drug-user in the country would become known to the government allowing them to all be offered help with their addictions. It will obviously be interpreted as an illness, just like nicotine and alcohol addiction is, i don't see why you have an issue with that. The only leg you have to stand on is the one telling you all people are idiots and the only thing stopping them from turning into crack-!@#$%^&*s is drugs being illegal... even though drugs are at every party being romanticised for that very reason. Amendments are not sent down from God, there shouldn't be any laws that are impervious to change. Stricter controls might help a bit... but looking at those 5 points, it might make a dent in "4" but thats about it..

Okay so you have no problem with the Romans and you have no problem with the British Empire.... so would you have a problem if America never gave Iraq back? Or what about if Iran conquered one of their neighboring countries? You wouldn't have a problem with any of this? The only reason i have an indifference to the British empires 25 year acquisition of the Palestinian territory is because there was absolutely no point to it. Britain cannot be attacked from that far away (especially back then). I am against all imperialism. Now the reason i'm less critical of the Ottoman empire is because they were expanding their borders. That is something i can understand as the neighboring forces may be a threat to the empire. Back then it was common place to attack your neighbours because governments did not exist, all you had is kings who regularly pissed eachother off and mobilised their armies. Neighbours were always a threat, better to be safe than sorry, especially in those times. This doesn't apply to Britain's acquisition of Israel/Palestine. For this reason 500 years is significant; Britain is/was a democracy and is not a neighbour of Palestine. The cultural, social, educational development after 500 years also cannot be overlooked, neither can the birth of international law to prevent these things from happening... let alone the lessons of World War 1. The victors dividing up the spoils is nothing more than Hitler would have done. I'm glad we saw sense and gave most of it back, but not until after we'd ruined the Middle East. The area in brown is not the Ottoman empire. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan are all countries that never came under Ottoman rule; Wikipedia is as good a source as any to prove that. Yet the Middle East got about as much say as all those green votes in South America who have absolutely no importance in the region other than to vote on the side of America for economic reasons, what a disgrace. If you want to take one small city in Somalia as an example i'm fine with that. You're right, its changing hands based on the stronger force, in this case Christianity (America) is winning the religious war with its African Christian allies. So... how far back in time would you estimate the social situation in Africa is compared to a time in our history? 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? I'd expect any estimate to come well before 1920.

Yes but,Romans: 2000 years ago Greeks: 2500 years ago Persians: 1500 years ago Ottomans: (in Israel/Palestine) 500 years ago British: (in Israel/Palestine) 90 years ago The difference is in how long ago the event took place. Would you support an invasion of the Roman sort in this day and age? Two thousand years ago it would have been supported. Britain had no need to occupy the Palestinian territory after WW1 and certainly no right to give it away to an ally ahead of the resident population. If you have a problem with the Romans then why don't you have a problem with this? They invaded the land at a time of war (something i don't have a problem with) then they kept the land for 25 years (something i do have a problem with as there was no need for it) then gave the resident people's land away to an ally (big problem with this). At least the Romans let the resident people still farm their own land! But yea, the Romans were 2000 years ago and imperialism was what powers needed to do to survive. In this age there is no need for imperialism... especially when the country is nowhere near your borders! I've read plenty. All the regional powers rejected it. Don't you think the regional powers deserved more of a say about what happens on their doorstep? The USA supported it, and most of Europe therefore supported the USA. The USA had Europe's balls in a vice after WW2; By staying out of the war for so long the USA had acquired so much wealth from loan-deals and weapons trading that they pretty much owned the world. Green = Accepted, Brown = Rejected, Yellow = Abstained. It's an absolute joke, the whole region in question rejected the par!@#$%^&*ion plan yet it passed due to the USA and it's allies posessing more votes in the UN.

Exactly, its not an argument for pro-gunners to say "they'll import them illegally anyway". Yes this is true but its blindly obvious from looking at any other country that the number of guns in the hands of criminals will be lower. The price will also go up making it more difficult for the druggy-muggers to afford one. I'm glad we agree on something Astro. The only problem is America is already saturated with guns. Over time the amount of guns will decrease but there is nothing that can immediately be done to take those guns away from them. I recommend tazers for home defense, i don't care much if criminals get ahold of them... at least i wont bleed to death in an alley if i'm attacked. We helped train them 25 years ago. Whether they were grateful or not, we are not fighting the same people we armed back then. The people that have joined Al-Qaeda since then hate America for it's continued support of Israel, its war in Iraq, and its foreign policy in general.

You keep saying "supported by the world" yet all the regional powers objected. Secondly, you keep ignoring the fact that the British had no right to remain there after World War One. They gave the land to an ally and therefore their influence has never left the region. It has been defended since that point of occupation including the massacres that took place in the wars since. I support the border expansion of a regional empire 500 years ago compared to a British occupation of Palestine years ago. Same with the Roman empire, they weren't Arabs, their borders were expanded to remove a neighboring threat. Britain could not be attacked from Palestine after WW1, they should have left, but stayed for some reason... No, i don't follow this law and would like the Arab world to move away from Islamic law in the next couple of centuries, just as the Western world moved away from Christian law.

NBV: We wronged the Muslims who joined Al-Qaeda, or we wronged the people who educated them. As an organisation we helped them alot, a big mistake. AceSpades: I agree with you on this point. If Muslims want to live in this country they should attempt to fit in and learn the language. I did not see the Alternative Christmas message, but not being a Muslim, why would i want to watch it? I'm flattered that i make you sick, how are my opinions biased?... at least in comparison to yours? Again, i agree. Political correctness has gone too far. In America it appears to be even worse as they've had the whole slavery issue in the past and their is some malformed public guilt-trip about that. The governor of New Orleans said he wants a chocolate city and gets away with it when a white man saying anything similar would have had his political career left in tatters. X'terrania: Back on topic. I wouldn't be surprised if the US orchestrated the whole thing. Exactly how do they let people in the exectution room with video filming equipment without knowing about it? The US wants a film out there showing Saddam dying and as a corpse so that there is no doubt about his death among the people of Iraq. They want the taunts for a very public show of hate to Saddam, strengthening the only case they have left for going into Iraq in the first place (to free Iraqis from Saddam). Lastly the "shock" was softened quite obviously by the first release of the taunts, followed by the more recent releases showing Saddams corpse. The men who were arrested (apparently) will likely never see a trial-room. NBV: Until everyone's dead? Better to reach an understanding. Although i'm sure they've got you believing an understanding is impossible.

NBV, you have to look at the big picture, it's not as simple as that. There are a number of ways in which criminals acquire firearms through their legality: 1. Straw purchases. The Columbine killers used this method to obtain firearms, they asked their friend to buy guns legally before buying the guns of her. This type of acquisition would not have been possible without guns being legal in the first place. Their choice to go down this route is testament to how easy it is to make a straw purchase. 2. Unlicensed purchases. Legal gun owners sell their weapons to whoever they want. These are your honest citizens. I heard a story of one "honest citizen" who got talking to someone about guns (who he'd just met) and offered to sell this relative stranger one of his rifles. 3. Theft. Probably the most common way criminals get their guns. This has a knock on effect where the black market becomes saturated with stolen guns making the price decrease. This then makes it easier for low-life druggies on the poverty line to buy one... probably the most dangerous type of criminal and the one you're most likely to meet and get mugged by on the street. 4. Dodgy dealers. You can buy guns at gun-shows, dealerships and so on with few or no background checks in some cases. The supposedly legal dealers do not always sell legally. 5. A criminal with no record can simply walk into a shop and buy one legally. It would be insane just to take away guns for the reason you stated in your post. The five methods of firearm acquisition in this post are the reason why some people want guns banned. The idea is to cut criminals off at the source. There is absolutely no way in !@#$%^&* you can remove guns from criminals, the only way is to remove their sources. You talk as if human beings, the most vicious of all animals, are unable to defend themselves without a gun..?

lol Delpac

It tries for about 10 seconds then says: "Failed to connect to server. Make sure server is online and that you are currently connected to the internet. If the problem persists go to the Tech Support Forums". I can get into dsb fine.

i can't log into 17th atm, was the same yesterday.

I've seen maybe twenty 17th'ers in the last two weeks who would all play 17th again if it wasn't at zero population all the time. The problem is noone wants to play a zone with 0 people in it, which is why i said the thing about no-one wanting to take the last chocolate, everyone is waiting to play but no-one is going to sit in an empty zone.

This zone is like a whole bunch of people not wanting to take the last chocolate.

Nothing wrong with switching to !@#$%^&*.

NBV: Plenty of Palestinians had all their land taken away. How about China, Japan and India agree to put Tibet in Texas? Afterall, its not all of America's territory... 1. Yes, 1300 years later this is what happened, has the world not moved on? 2. It was not world supported, the whole of the Middle East rejected putting a new country smack in the middle of their region with common borders. Just because one country thousands of miles away, which happened to be the most economically powerful country in the world, decided to campaign for Israel's existence, that doesn't mean we shoudn't have listened to the countries who would actually have to live with Israel on their doorstep. And somehow you think a British mandate over land in the Middle East is rightful ownership of that land, to give away to politically allied races? Maybe Britain shoud have held onto India then, with more people like you around they wouldn't have had a problem. Incorrect, it should be in the possession of a race who lived on that land. The Ottomon Turks lived in the Middle East and governed by Islamic Law they were regional occupiers who understood the people they governed over. Britain is not a regional power, they don't have any claim to the land as it is not in their sphere of influence and never was. For instance it would not have been right for Britain to remain in control of the Middle East after the Crusades, yet the Roman and Ottomon Empires were perfectly justified in expanding their borders. I've done a little research and dug up the following facts: Occupiers of the land now known as Israel: 930-720 BC - Kingdom of Israel 720-612 BC - !@#$%^&*yrian Empire 612-539 BC - Babylonian Empire 539-332 BC - Persian Empire 332-165 BC - Greek Empire: (Alexander the Great followed by the Seleucid Empire) 165-37 BC - Kingdom of Israel 37 BC - 390 AD - Roman Empire 390-634 AD - Byzantine Christian Empire (Eastern Roman) 634-1070 AD - Persian/Arab 1070-1291 AD - Turkish invasions + Crusades 1291-1516 AD - Arab rule 1516-1920 AD - Ottomon Empire 1920-1948 AD - British Mandate 1948-present - Israel What i see here is about 350 years of Israeli rule compared to 1600 years of Muslim rule including the last 1300 years prior to the placement of Israel. Astro: I'm not surprised, the Jews got what they want, the Muslims lost their land. Who do you think would be offering peace (given they get to keep what they want) and who do you think would be unhappy enough to go to war? Righting a wrong is not appeasing the wronged in the way Hitler was appeased. Hitler was not wronged and deserved nothing. The holocaust is not an excuse for Israel's creation.

Should we blame them and fight them down only to their level of development? In a couple of centuries they'll likely be where we are at now. Two good questions. I don't support Islam as a religion or as a political system for government. I just happen to see America and Britain as the wrongdoers in this case. I would very much like to see Iran move away from Islamic rule, that doesn't mean i don't agree with them on certain issues. The peaceful dissolution of Israel is important to me as i see Israels existence as one of the two sources of continued discontent from Muslims along with the occupation of Iraq. I dont' want to appease Muslims because i believe they are justified in their anger. Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia even though he knew Hitler had no right to it, that was appeasement. Saddam was a product of Islamic culture and should be dealt with by Muslims alone. What does the political philosophy of pre-modern Western civilisation tell you about toppling a powerful ruler who is keeping warring tribes under his controlling rule? The power vacuum is filled by all the groups who were not powerful enough to claim that power by themselves. The winner is the strongest and peace follows. The problem is America won't let anyone win. The conflict could go on forever as America have shown they are incapable of controlling Iraq. 1. American election candidates all have the same agenda. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? 2. The American military cannot control the warring tribes in Iraq, too many people have died for them to go back and say "time for peace now". You have to let them fight it out until someone wins, the war is lost and all we can do is await the next Saddam or stay in Iraq forever. But what if the democratic decision is for a dictatorship? Where is your evidence for this statement? I don't think the Islamic world was ever superior unless you count the 500 years between the end of the Roman empire and the Crusades. Even in that time i don't see it. Its not like the Muslim world went on their own little Crusade to France and Britain either. Serously though, you believe Muslims are angry over a history that they probably haven't even learnt rather than the recent creation of Israel, the war in Iraq, and the deaths of their friends and families from American and Israeli bombs? I have a hard time believing that. Their is ample evidence to suggest the Iranian President is an anti-zionist, would you agree? If this is the case then power and the support of religious leaders are a byproduct of his opinion! Would you agree? ...In fact he was probably put up for election for his opinions... The promotion of war in my opinion is a promotion of peace since Israel and America are the invaders. There are no killings of the large Jewish population in Iran, obviously the people of Iran aren't being incited to racial hatred. They're being incited to hate Israel, not Judaism. Anti-semites are not the same as Anti-Zionists. Maybe so, but i don't agree with denying the holocaust, dictatorships, oppressing your people, controlling the media etc. I do agree with them on the nuclear issue and the Anti-Zionism and i commend them for making the distinction between Judaism and Zionism, thousands of Jews could have been massacred otherwise. Obviously the people of Iran understand that distinction and its probably thanks to their supreme leader who told his people to respect Jews giving them a place in the Iranian parliament. Not true, it shows the other side of the argument. We are to conclude from that whether they're idiots or not (and i think they are) but anything beyond that is speculation.

There's plenty we can do without giving them the world or any small piece of land for that matter. I wouldn't define appeasement as an end to the wars being fought out on their land or a balancing of trade. We didn't invade Germany before giving them Czechoslovakia... and in the current case it wouldn't be "appeasement" on that scale. Don't you think we should put right our wrongs before concluding if they're a warlike bunch of fascist, racist, lunatics who will fight us no matter what we do? I know plenty of Muslims in the UK who don't fit that stereotype. Don't you think it defies common sense to wrong somebody and not expect them to fight back? Saying they'll fight us even if we didn't wrong them sure is a nice way to keep wronging them, isn't it?