I was wrong in mocking the bible! I have just seen evidence of a real miracle contained within the book, that leads me to believe the bible is completely accurate.

Here, see for yourselves:



Taken from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal Comics, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3702.

Thank you jaysabi.

---

Definitely not; Israel is certainly on a bad path, but comparing what they are doing to the holocaust is taking it way too far. Palestinians are a nuisance, often times an obstacle to Israeli interests, and I think there are substantial reasons to believe Palestinian lives are of little consequence, as far as Israeli policy is concerned; but that's about it - despite the, often extreme rhetoric of right-wing, religious and fundamentalist madmen, it doesn't even begin to approximate the horror you're comparing this to.

That is, of course, no justification for the way Palestinians are treated. And accusations of antisemitism to stifle any and every dissenting opinion are dangerous, not only in the sense they make light of real antisemitism, but mainly because they hide the real issues - which need to be addressed, if the situation is to improve.

Moreover, and this is something I should have included above (and it deserves far more attention than I can give it in this post), I think J. J. Phillips is right in one important point, which he touched upon above: we should never forget the part other countries play in all this - the US being an obvious case, as Israel goes only as far as the US allows it (again, despite the rhetoric; and if you're American, remember that you're paying for a lot of it), but they're not alone - Europe is certainly complicit in a lot of this as well, for example, among many others.

(1) - Oh, is that so? Well, let's see - Israel has just recently had an election, which has seen Netanyahu and his Likud party retain power - so, what options has Israel actually been pursuing these last few years in order to obtain peace? It certainly isn't the one state solution. Is it the two states solution, as you claim? Netanyahu seems to disagree with you; during the campaign, he stated: "I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel, [...] The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand", and later, during that same interview, he added that, was the Zionist Union to win the elections, "'it would attach itself to the international community and do their bidding', including freezing construction in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, and cooperate with international initiatives to return Israel's borders to the 1967 lines". I should add that this was not the first time he expressed these views. In fact, and to be more accurate, since as far back as 1977, the Likud party's position has always been the denial of the right of a Palestinian state to exist - with only occasional divergence.

So, what exactly is the plan here? Because, as far as I can see, the only plan that has ever been put in place is the never ending stalling of negotiations, and the advancement of the illegal settlement activity - activity which is fully funded by the Israeli state, by the way, since the settlers are actually paid to move to, and live in the occupied territories. Nothing here shows actions conductive to a two state solution - that is, assuming the objective of the two state solution is the creation of two viable, independent and autonomous states, and not the creation of one state, alongside several South African style Bantustans.

Further, how can an independent Palestinian state (you claim Israel wants) exist alongside the crushing sanctions and blockade imposed on the occupied territories? As Israeli officials themselves put it at one point, they wanted Gaza's economy, and the over 1.5 million inhabitants "on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge", and "functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis". At one point, among the items denied entry into the occupied territory were crayons, paper, books, clothing, newspapers, baby formula and a variety of other food products, and so on - what possible justification could they have had to deny entry of any of those items? Where do you cross the line into pure and simple collective punishment of one and a half million people?


(2) - Actually, the PLO explicitly recognized Israel's legitimacy, and the two state solution as viable since 1993, and had implicitly done so to some degree years before then. Hamas, on the other hand, has tacitly accepted the right of Israel to exist since the 2006 elections (at least), and explicitly so since 2008. In fact, ever since 2006, Hamas has clearly stated that the issue of recognizing Israel wasn't their responsibility, but rather, to be left up to popular vote - a vote which they would abide by, even if the results went against their beliefs.

Now, I'm not going to defend their use of violence here - it's wrong when Israel does it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it - but they hardly seem the irrational, genocidal actors you're trying to portrait most Palestinians to be; so, let's dig a little deeper...

The disengagement from Gaza you mentioned, in the second post I quoted, could use some more information; here's what the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser had to say about the plan, which goes to show its intent and predictable consequences: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda", and "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde [...] It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians". Asked why the plan had been devised, he stated "Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. [...] Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]", and "You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did".

In other words, it was a way to separate Gaza and the West Bank into two distinct entities, physically and politically, discard the resource poor and unwanted land of the Gaza Strip, and concentrate on annexing territory in the richer areas of the West Bank - all the while being shielded from any real peace process, indefinitely. Tell me again how Israel really wants a two state solution? Further, despite removing settlers from Gaza, the territory was never not occupied - even if no constant military presence exists within, Israel controls: the borders, airspace, coastline, infrastructure, imports and exports, and so on.

Also, if the confidential documents published in 2008 by David Rose are to be believed, the "civil war" you mentioned, or coup, which saw Hamas gaining control of Gaza, was rather the result of the US and Israel (and a few others) training, arming and preparing Fatah to perform a coup on Hamas, which failed; or, as David Wurmser, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser, put it: "It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen".

By the way, you brought up the "creation of Hamas" - you do realize that Hamas was initially, in no small part, nurtured and allowed to grow, by Israel, right? At the time of the First Intifada, it was seen as a force that could be used to weaken the more secular and left-leaning PLO, and thus, divide the Palestinian population and its resistance to the Israeli occupation. And on the subject of the "history of the Intifadas" you also brought up as evidence of the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, I have to ask: do you know how the First Intifada started - why the uprising started, and what the Israeli response was? Was it because of genocidal Palestinians trying to kill Israelis?

Finally, why is Israel opposed to the Palestinian move to seek international recognition, or even better, its efforts to join and seek legal action in the ICC? Surely, this is the right path: avoiding further violence, and seeking the punishment of war crimes - both Palestinian and Israeli war crimes. How is this a threat to Israel (assuming Israel does indeed want a two state solution as you had expressed above)?


(3) - Sure, everyone has the right to defend themselves; but it takes another step to show that they have the right to defend themselves by force, and that there are absolutely no peaceful alternatives that can be taken. Given what I have mentioned in the previous points - no peace plan, continued expansion of illegal settlements, the treatment of the Palestinian population, interference with the internal Palestinian political system, separation of the West Bank and Gaza, the blockade and sanctions regime - it is my opinion that Israel is far from having demonstrated a willingness to follow a peaceful alternative, but rather, seems more willing to avoid it.

To add insult to injury, when it does use force to "defend" itself, it often does so disproportionately, and sometimes even indiscriminately; the Dahiya doctrine is a clear example, unfortunately. Here is what a leaked cable from 2008 had to say about the military strategy - it includes some comments from Gadi Eizenkot himself (the current Chief of General Staff):
" 6. Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction." Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases." Eisenkot in this statement echoed earlier private statements made by IDF Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who said the next fight in Southern Lebanon would come at a much higher cost for both sides -- and that the IDF would not hold back."
" 7. (SBU) Eisenkot stated that Damascus fully understands what the Israelis did in Dahiya, and that the Israelis have the capability of doing the same to Syria. He suggested the possibility of harm to the population has been Hizballah leader Nasrallah's main constraint, and the reason for the quiet over the past two years."

How is this not state sponsored terrorism? And was this the real reason why the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza left over 2200 people dead, the great majority of which civilian, hundreds of thousands displaced, and widespread damage to civilian infrastructure - of which they still haven't recover to this day? Or why, in a previous incursion, Israel left close to 20% of Palestinian farmland destroyed, and a good amount of it completely unusable?



Again, please, don't take all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. You have to admit there are genuine issues that Israel needs to address, and that only it can address - and by that I don't mean Palestinians don't have their fair share of the blame in all this; of course they do. And again, the alternative to that is Israel will eventually find itself isolated and under sanctions; and despite what you might think, that is not something I want to see happen.

I assume it comes from the Hebrew for babel, meaning "to confuse", or "to confound", or something like that - as you'd expect from the story. It is also a name used when in reference to the city of Babylon.

The Akkadian form of the word however, from which "Babylon" apparently came from, seems to mean "Gate of God", or "Gateway of the God", if I understood correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon.

One "miracle" included in the bible I very much like comes from the Tower of Babel, during Genesis, which basically describes how god was afraid of what humans might be able to accomplish, should they put their minds to it, now that they were a single people with a single language - that coming from a sadistic, cruel, genocidal, overpowering bully, is quite encouraging.

The episode, as described by The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/home.html), now with more Lego:


The Tower of Babel



Genesis 11:1-2

Now all the earth had one language and spoke the same dialect.  When they moved to the east, they found a valley in the land of Shinar.




Genesis 11:2-4

They settled there and said to each other, 'Let's form bricks and bake them.  Let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky.  Let's make a name for ourselves, for otherwise we'll be scattered across the face of the earth.'




Genesis 11:3

They used bricks instead of stone, and asphalt for mortar.




Genesis 11:5-6

And Yahweh went down to see the city and the tower that the sons of humankind were building, and said, 'Look!  A single people with a single language, and this is what they start to do!  Now nothing they plan will be impossible for them!'




Genesis 11:7

'Come, let's go down and confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another.'




Genesis 11:8

And Yahweh scattered them from that place across the face of the earth.




Genesis 11:8

And they stopped building the city.




Genesis 11:9

That is why it was called Babel, because there Yahweh confused the language of all the earth.  And Yahweh scattered them from that place across the face of the earth.

Wow! You mean, there is evidence Jedi Knights are real?! No wonder they want to start building Jedi Temples in Universities across Turkey then - that explains it.¹

Joking aside, I don't believe there is a whole lot of evidence that can be derived from the humanities on this subject; true to form, at most, you get speculation, and sometimes wild, wild speculation. So, taking your example of "alien abductions": I'm not sure what evidence you would hope to derive from it, considering we know next to nothing about the phenomenon or its cause - I mean, are all such episodes fake? Are they really caused by aliens? Are they some sort of military experiment? Or perhaps part of some psychological phenomenon? Is there useful empirical evidence for any of it?

As far as I can tell, the most that may be said about the "alien abduction" phenomenon is that it is perhaps the modern incarnation of "similar" stories going back millennia, and historically placed in the context of a religious experience. As such, cases tend to share some common themes among them, though it is unclear whether that is not so only due to those going through the experience and their expectations.

¹ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5WNA4jusc ("Earth’s First Jedi Temple To Be Built", 3m29s)

How do you figure the Drake equation offers such proof?

As far as I can tell, it's a useful thought exercise, that touches upon some of the variables that go into finding the number of civilizations with which humanity might be able to communicate with. However, it's not really very useful as an equation: not only do we have little idea of what the actual value of several of the variables is, we're not even sure those are all the variables we should be considering.

Well, yes, but if everyone starts doing it, I imagine it would get annoying really fast for those select few victi... trusted members.

Wouldn't another way of dealing with this be to simply pay trusted members more, much like higher ranks and staff already are at the moment? It's certainly less effective, but also less annoying and risky.

You Sir/Madam are the most hateful person here - which is saying a lot, considering we apparently do have a Nazi sympathizer in this thread. If you are representative of Israeli society in any significant way, Israel is in deep, deep trouble. By the way, if you think this is helping promote Israel's image in the world, think again.

I completely agree.

J. J. Phillips, you can't just dismiss all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. Like it or not, Israelis have to take a long, hard look at what they're doing - the alternative is, as saddampbuh described above, they will eventually find themselves isolated and under sanctions, much like South Africa under Apartheid.

Sure, I don't disagree with that - I'm just pointing out that I don't believe them to be the "independent actors" they might at times appear to be.

---

Really? If anything, it seems to me that the deal, as it is now, is harsher to Iran rather than anyone else: they are committing themselves to be under constant, intrusive inspections to all of their nuclear facilities, and more importantly, to the supply chain that supports their nuclear program - this in effect means it will be very hard for material to be diverted without the inspectors knowing about it, easing any concerns about any possible secret nuclear weapons program - and no one realistically believes them to have, or to even plan on having one any time soon. Further, they will be limited to producing very little material, from a few, mostly obsolete centrifuges, on only one enrichment facility, and with no possibility of building additional facilities for 15 years. Also, a good portion of the measures Iran will be taking will be irreversible - or rather, quite costly in both time and money to rebuild.

In exchange for all this, the only thing "Obama" gave (again, as the deal stands now; and obviously not just the US) was indeed just a promise: sanctions will be lifted, when and if the IAEA is satisfied Iran has kept its part of the deal - but that is so vague at the moment, it isn't even clear what sanctions will be lifted and when exactly.

For more details, The Real News Network recently interviewed Robert Kelly on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO2-ls2yEp0 ("Extended Interview with Robert Kelly on Iran framework Deal (2/2)", 22m23s).

He sent the wrong link again - should be something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBz0TqQeKN8 ("Pazen Egmond aan zee", 00m53s). It seems to be a very beautiful beach, if somewhat deserted and probably very cold - also, there are no girls in that video.

I was just watching an interview with Dimitri Lascaris and Leo Panitch on The Real News Network, in relation to the situation in Greece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDfVds1OBcg ("Greece says they will Meet IMF's April 9th Deadline for Payment", 21m08s). Leo Panitch briefly mentions the April Fool's joke Varoufakis made about Greece switching to Bitcoin, near the end of the video.

While I would like to agree with you here, I kind of don't.

First, I wouldn't really single out Israelis as having no morals or rules; rather, I'd say states in general have little to no morals or rules, and usually, the more power they have the less constrained by those things they are.

Second, I'm not as convinced Saudi rulers are (completely) retarded; I think they just have different values and priorities than what we would assume them to have. I think you're mostly right in saying much of the Sunni-Shia divide is being played and exacerbated to the advantage of foreign powers (it's the usual tactic), but remember that the main function of the royal family is to serve Western interests - and that's probably the only reason they're still in power. In that context, the Sunni-Shia divide is useful to them, in a way, as it allows them a distraction they can use to play against their own population; and if there weren't any distractions, they wouldn't keep on being the ruling family for long - Western backing or not.

Hmm, could you please clarify something for me? I was looking at the participants list included in the first post, trying to find out whether or not I can continue in this signature campaign, but I can't really tell: my username is stricken through, along with the usernames of everyone else that wasn't able to meet the minimum post requirement; but everyone's post count seems to have been updated - so, are we all still in the campaign, only those without their username stricken through can continue, or is this not the final list for this period yet?

Sadly, I wasn't able to make the minimum number of posts in this period - but if there is a free spot, I would like to remain in the campaign:

Bitcoin Address: 1KnRA3dbGsAV8cw64sckjFz6uAEXJf2JCo
Post Count: 1637

You missed the chance of using Bitcoin to kill fiat.

Anyway, if the fire isn't too hot:

Mitchełł removed the ad over a month ago - shortly after the poll he created on the subject ended, if I'm not mistaken:

Sim; o bloqueio parece ser apenas ao nível do DNS (para já pelo menos), por isso, altera-se o ficheiro hosts como o Jay_Pal sugeriu, ou usa-se outro DNS como dizes.

Ou então, usa-se simplesmente a versão em cache da página: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://thepiratebay.se.

As previously mentioned, the periodical medical tests pilots go through don't usually include psychological assessment - and those that do include it, never do so in great detail.

---

I haven't listened to the program, but going by your description alone, it seems unlikely that was the case; the pilot was apparently calm enough to breathe normally, yet he completely failed to respond to those outside who were trying to open the door - then add to that the time this whole thing lasted, and the pilot's experience.

Yep; já para aí há 2 semanas ou assim, acho eu:


Em todo o caso, não é nada que o Tor Browser não consiga resolver, e sem dar trabalho extra nenhum.

---

Tinha ideia que eles tinham já começado a permitir o acesso à maioria dos antigos mods - simplesmente não iam recrutar mais para já. Não foi esse o caso?