The_Gabe

Hi Everyone! :D I like the message "Keeping Your Account Safe" =D> I have never encountered so many beggars, and scammers (dice etc.) in the history of my over five years of playing RS. I have never been hacked, thank God! I do find that players now think its ok to beg, and then look for sympathy saying "I got hacked." If your account has been hacked, you must honestly ask yourself: :---) Did I give out my password, to my so called "Best-Friend?" Or maybe you have been visiting sites that promote botting, and cheating, which in most cases, leaves you with a key logger. Any way, instead of begging, for hours, and getting backlash from the other players, pick up a pick ax and mine some coal, or cut some trees and sell them. KEEP YOUR ACCOUNTS SAFE! Dont entertain the get rich quick quick scams, and you should be safe. Change your password every so often, and dont ever give it out to anyone, it is usually your brother, or best friend that hacks you! Why did you revive a topic to post something that's common sense about RuneScape when most of the guys on Off Topic don't even play the game anymore.?

The whole point of the British mandate was to keep the lands in order until it settled, when they would leave and the state of Palestine would have been created. There would have been a state called Palestine had the jewish zionists that were relocated to the british mandate not decided that the lands were now theirs, once the british had been forced to leave. The British illegally ignored 2 articles Article 14 of the Mandate required British to establish a commission to study, define, and determine the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. This provision, which called for the creation of a commission to review the religious status quo between the religious communities, was never created. Article 15 required the mandatory administration to see to it that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship were permitted. Article 14 talks about claims of different religions. Aka the Jewish homeland.

Good you're getting somewhere. There was never a state called Palestine, and they are trying to establish one now. Here's a good quote I found that will help talk about the people who inhabited said area. Good. We're getting somewhere. They was never a state called Palestine but people did live there. Please read this. I've read the historical lesson you're trying to show, but there is another. http://www.netjudaica.com.br/novaNetJudaica/Arquivos/Hasbara1/OriginConflict.PDF I don't expect you to read all of it. Maybe the first 10 would suffice to say the least. The attack was because of intelligence gathered that Egypt was going to launch an attack and soon. However Israeli intelligence gathered information on Egypt, and while their field marshal Abd-al-Hakim Amers plane took off to inspect the positions in Sinai, the Egyptian were told not to open fire while the commander was airborne. Israel used that to their advantage and wiped out the air force and took out all the militaristic threats from Egypt on the first hour of the war. This was in the Balfour Declaration, which passed through the League of Nations. False. -The part where the narrator mentions the Balfour Declaration: it was not technically much more than a letter of support from the British Foreign Minister - to a prominent British Jewish banker and part of the Rothschild dynasty -, and never became policy. Following this declaration, the feeling in Parliamenent became less pro-Zionist, as Churchill noted in 1922: "In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine" And in 1939, Churchhill notes, ""So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied . . . ." This was directed at Israel. The legality of it still stood. Try to watch it on YouTube. Might help.

...You're citing something that happened in 1845 as a reason to blame an entire country as being antisemitic? It was banned and then a month after the guy who forced it through died, repealed. Just as there are people who might be antisemitic in power in Norway, there are many who aren't, even officials. Just as I'm sure that there are people in Israel who object to the treatment of Palestinians as there are some who encourage it. I can't pretend to understand what sort of hardships you must endure as being a proud Israeli citizen, considering the muddled public view of the conflict there. But I think that, as an intelligent individual like yourself, you have the sense to understand that some stupid politicians don't always represent the entirety of your people. I can agree with that.

Dear residents of Maine that live in Maine while we come visit We Jersey folk dunno what ya be talking about. Sincerely, the Jersey Shore.

Or you can go ahead and answer the questions at hand instead of trying to indirectly bypass them to arguments that were already discussed in a previous topic.

It's funny that this statement can be flipped around to say something similar: Just saying that maybe you should take what you're saying to heart and be a little more open minded. I understand Israel faces a lot of heat over this issue, but I wouldn't think it's helping the cause to be hypocritical and close minded. So a period where Jews couldn't even settle in Norway is not discriminant against that group? I have spent close to 2 hours now reading about Netanyahu and the Likud party. While there are some claims I do disagree with, I still believe they are doing that needs to be done. Of course it does. That's called an election in a democratic country. There are prerequisites from both sides that should be deleted from the peace talks. I'm not saying Netanyahu is at fault alone here, but I am saying there is room for improvement on both sides. I don't believe you understand the role of lobbyists, so without further ado, here's an article to help you understand what they do a little better. http://www.suite101.com/content/the-role-of-lobbyists-in-america-a77481 Wait a minute. Are you trying to claim something with a lack of burden of proof, and because I don't agree with it, I'm wrong? I see. When I post a video, it's automatically invalid. Are you claiming the facts the video provided are false? Prove the video wrong. You... Left me speechless. And at that, there's only one thing I can do

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason. Ah, but there it is. There is no set definition and standard for reason, and your reason is most certainly not the same reason as mine or Gingers for this matter. 3 Sentences later :wink: All I saw was the word troll. Then you may need glasses :lol: I stated what I do. I can't really back up myself saying that I back up my claims. You can do that by looking at my previous posts.

I can't eat either =D

Well not just in OT but to the RS part of tif. Kind of pathetic :S.

When someone on these forums chooses they hate you and stalk you from thread to thread trying to make you look bad.

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason. Ah, but there it is. There is no set definition and standard for reason, and your reason is most certainly not the same reason as mine or Gingers for this matter. 3 Sentences later :wink:

Examples are irrelevent unless they lead to a logical conclusion or a connection. I have maybe "tarred" Palestine as a whole a few times but it was for reasonable points. I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on this. I'm not seeing where you are getting at. That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason. Same with claiming insignificant events. I do it and I provide reasons with those posts on why they were insignificant. I don't provide claims without backing them up. We have one. I'll link you to it. http://forum.tip.it/topic/298101-norway-attacks-at-least-80-dead/

Pardon? I've put sources and examples down citing incidents. And when I was asked for one for a specific remark, I have been providing them. So no, it doesn't work. EDIT: I see that I missed a link. Here it is. http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/November/23%20n/Israeli%20Army%20Still%20Using%20Palestinian%20Children%20as%20Human%20Shields%20In%202010,%20a%20DCI%20Human%20Rights%20Report.htm

I do wish the world was black and white, and you are most certainly correct, it's not. You're absolutely correct that the views of the government does not often reflect upon the people of that nationality. If I ever gave the nudge that I was disagreeing with that, then I'm sorry. Except a lot of the laws were passed before the Nazis were in control of anything or even formed. Your second statement about Europe is correct. I don't even know what to say to you anymore. You find one statement or picture you like that discriminates Israel, and you post it to try and generalize that all of them do it. Have you ever thought that using human shields is illegal? The cases with human shields are documented and the soldiers are tried. It's called a justice system. Not every person is a good apple. I cannot truly take you seriously when you say that a country uses terrorism and lying as a state policy without a good amount of evidence to back that ridicules claim. As for t he lobbyist, yes. I am quite aware that there are many lobbyists that are pro-Israel and try to convince the Senators to support them, but it's still the Senator's choice one way or another. This is how America was built; on freedom of press, religion, and speech. This includes ideologies that you believe in. No evidence again. I think anyone who truly believes in Israel's existance should also watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ_ozDPtAgc. Don't worry, the English subtitles are on the top left corner. Appeal to ridicule. And not even a good one at that; you make it sound like everyone knows Norway is an antisemitic country. Your posts are poorly thought out and argued; you are trying to convince us with the most vague of statements. There's a "greedy Jew" trend in the newspaper and you expect us to believe that based on a quote? I did not have time to write long posts yesterday, and I apologize. However, I did post a link to read about Norway's history a bit more in depth. It's not my fault if you chose not to read it. That's because that poster is pure propaganda.

The only reason hallal slaughter is allowed is that they have agreed to anaesthetise the animal prior to cutting their throat. As such it isn't "true" hallal,, but a liveable compromise. The law of 1929 is a general law against kiloing animals without anaesthesia. This is at best a subjective opinion. I cannot really remember seeing charicatures etc of jews. I have seen it about the state of Israel (again, that little tidbit. There is a difference between the views and actions of a political state and the general view of an ethnic or religios group of people). And once again at best a subjective opinion. Fun tidbit of the day, I actually had Erez Uriely as a "teacher" in 1st year of highschool science. And before you hop to conclusions. The quotation marks is because he was in training, not yet a fully qualified teacher. Are you trying to deny that Norway has not been and is not an Anti-Semitic country?

From the link above. If that link is not enough, I can provide more if you'd want me to. So? We also 'engage' with Israel. So by that logic we're also pro-israel..... But let us go back further in history. Because I don't have a lot of time right now and I know everyone is waiting for replies, I'll go ahead and post a few key points from Norwegian history regard Jews. There is my information here http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=1256&TTL=Jew-Hatred_in_Contemporary_Norwegian_Caricatures It's not just from relative modern times either; Norway has been Anti-Semitic throughout history. Are you talking about war or terrorist attacks? Either or. Although if you're being occupied that qualifies as a war. Terrorism is primarily focused on civilians and most of the Palestinian terrorist attacks have been against civilians, so I don't think you mean 'either or' :P That's true - the definition of terrorism focuses mostly on innocent civilians. In that regard, no, it's never morally justified. But the term "suicide bomber" is often synonymous with terrorism when it simply isn't the case. As long as it's a military target during war terms, it's morally justifiable. Except nearly always it is the case. I'll have to finish the rest later; going out.

From the link above. If that link is not enough, I can provide more if you'd want me to.

Indeed, he is correct. Furthermore, any attacks on Israeli soldiers are entirely legitimate, just as any Taliban attacks on NATO forces are legitimate, just as Libyan attacks on NATO forces are legitimate. Of course, being a pacifist myself I wouldn't attack those soldiers if I were a Palestinian; but I know not everyone subscribes to my call to non-violence. So terrorism by someone in your own country= unacceptable Terrorism by someone else= morally acceptable Complete misinterpretation. More like terrorism against a state occupying your homeland, committing injustices against your people, etc. etc. = acceptable Terrorism against random people = unacceptable Except it's not random people. It's people who disagree with your ideology. That's the main reason for terrorism; people disagreeing with that you think is right.

Are legitimacy and moral justification the same thing in this case? They don't really seem like they are. But I will say, one scenario is slightly more understandable than a psychopath flying off the handle. Not saying the ends justify the means, but... Yeah my bad. Changed it. I didn't know Norway's youth were being trained to be anti-Semitic. Still that's completely messed up.

Indeed, he is correct. Furthermore, any attacks on Israeli soldiers are entirely legitimate, just as any Taliban attacks on NATO forces are legitimate, just as Libyan attacks on NATO forces are legitimate. Of course, being a pacifist myself I wouldn't attack those soldiers if I were a Palestinian; but I know not everyone subscribes to my call to non-violence. So terrorism by someone in your own country= unacceptable Terrorism by someone else= morally acceptable

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/07/29/norway-innocent-israel-guilty-norwegian-ambassdor/ http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/norwegian_ambassador_the_oslo_attacks_and_palestinian_terrorism_are_different.html [bleep]. Still feel horrible about the victims who were getting brainwashed on that Island :S Anyone else know that this was happening on the Island? Thoughts? For Mods: I do believe this is a different discussion than the Norway Attacks, and as such, I've created a new topic for it.

I wouldn't worry about it.

edit: started topic for it.

Started listening to The Strokes. Pretty good band.