fakeitormakeit2

Bottled water is bad. To make one gallon it pollutes three gallons of water, not to mention the various chemicals you ingest due to the water bottle being plastic which releases particles under heat of light and a water bottle is the perfect petri dish for bacteria. Instead of soda try like pomegranate juice, hits the spot plus its full of antioxidants and prevents blood platelets from sticking. As someone said you could also try tea. There is this one iced tea I get from Whole Foods and its really good, its green tea and peach juice, another is black tea and cranberry juice. They're natural and taste really good.

The Old Testament is the source of law for the Jews. Since God is the perfect and just being, Jews strive to be like that when trying to do what is right. If God is just and Israel wants to be just, than they would follow the example of God. And if Gazans aren't even evil than that's even worse that they would destroy innocent people's lives to kill non-evil people. Lol, the Bible also encourages killing non-virgin women who marry- would you say Israel has to follow that rule? The Bible (by the request of the Orthodox Jews before Israel's establishment) is A source of law for Jews, used SOMETIMES by courts, etc. and only to a CERTAIN EXTENT The Jewish people doesn't have to follow the Bible, and most of it agrees not to. There are Orthodox, Conservative, Traditional, secular, atheist, and a lot more groups of Jews. The Bible isn't binding to the state of Israel, and that whole argument of yours is pointless and unbased. How is it worse that you'd fight your enemy? I find it extremely stupid that Jews can justify any sort of claim to the land of Palestine and yet they don't even follow the religion of the state. It just goes to show their hypocrisy and blatant contradictions. See, if you go to the Vatican, all rules of the New Testament are expected to be upheld because it is a sectarian nation which follows the laws of their holy book. Israel is a nation which claims Jews should have a homeland and yet so some aren't even followers of Judaism. The claim of their land is "validated" further by their lack of a homeland and supposed descent from the original Israel. Seeing as how it has been thousands or years, majority of Jews aren't from the Middle East (Majority being from Eastern Europe/Germanic nations) how do they even know they weren't converted? And it's not worse you'd fight your enemies. It's worse that you'd kill people defined as "non-evil" because that would mean they have the chance to be corrected and it is not out of their own bad intent to commit wrong. It's much easier to defend the argument of blockading, starving and restricting Gazan children who are defined as an "evil" people because they would warrant their elimination. If they are not evil and just not good for Israel then it is just out of greed one would harm innocent defenseless people. And as I said God is suppose to represent justice and not killing innocent because of bad people/enemies is something that agrees with the general consensus of international law and yet Israel breaks that and their own holy book's example.

The Old Testament is the source of law for the Jews. Since God is the perfect and just being, Jews strive to be like that when trying to do what is right. If God is just and Israel wants to be just, than they would follow the example of God. And if Gazans aren't even evil than that's even worse that they would destroy innocent people's lives to kill non-evil people.

Zionism is a political movement that soldified in the 19th century as antisemitic feelings in Europe were building and Jews wanted to go back and reclaim a nation of their own centered around Zion, the temple mount, which is a basic run through of Zionism. Some Jews do not support Israel for specific reasons like for instance it is not ruled by a king of the line of David therefore it is not a legitimate state of Israel. Other Jews actually have morals and feel bad about killing and containing a native population that the land belonged to. I feel personally offended by this. Are you implying any Jew that supports Zionism doesn't have morals? Also, most religous Jews that don't support Zionism do it because, supposedly, Israel should not be re-built until the Days of the messiah. You always seem to forget that tiny detail of HOW these lands were conquered. Through war, and not with the intent to conquer land, and not war Israel even initiated (again, except for the Six Days War). 1. US asked, not forced. 2. You're misinformed, Israel withrawed from there on it's own after the war of October. 3. I'm afraid the Golan Heights are going to stay Israel's. Remember that Israel is not obliged to give up the land. *You mean so that huge amounts of weapons won't be sent there and used on Israeli citizens? Or do you mean so that Israel could send supplies over there? I was saying Jews who aren't Zionists actually follow their religion. 1. "Heavy diplomatic pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union forced Israel into a conditional withdrawal of its military from the Sinai Peninsula,[27] only after satisfactory arrangements had been made with the international force that was about to enter the canal zone." 2. "In the second half of September Hezbollah claimed victory and asserted an improvement in their position, and they redeployed to some positions on the border[297][298] as Israel completed its withdrawal from Lebanon save border-straddling Ghajar." Just because one withdraws does not mean they do it fully on their own accord. It seems like a retreat since it accomplished little but bloodguilt. 3. Conquest *You're a Jew right? Why did God not destroy Sodom, the city full of evil people [comparable to Gaza which you say is full of danger for the Israelis]? Because Abraham tells God he can find 10 innocent people in the entire city and God said He would not kill the innocent because of the unjust. Now either the Zionist government spits on its own holy book's instructions how to live [the OT] or they act to their own convenience and disregard their own standard of morals [provided in Torah]. The average Gazan citizen has about $3.50 a day, majority are under the age of 18, do not have the freedom of movement and many die from starvation, by Israeli aid do you mean the creation of a prison with 1.4millon prisoners? So you're willing to starve, imprison and harm innocent children to kill a few terrorists?

Zionism is a political movement that soldified in the 19th century as antisemitic feelings in Europe were building and Jews wanted to go back and reclaim a nation of their own centered around Zion, the temple mount, which is a basic run through of Zionism. Some Jews do not support Israel for specific reasons like for instance it is not ruled by a king of the line of David therefore it is not a legitimate state of Israel. Other Jews actually have morals and feel bad about killing and containing a native population that the land belonged to. I quickly made a map showing Israeli expansion: [hide=Israel][/hide] Yellow=What Israel is suppose to be Red=Land partitioned for Palestinians in the Partition Proposal of 1947 1. Egypt- Sinai, which the US forced them to withdraw from 2. Lebanon- Southern half, they were kicked out by Hamas mostly 3. Syria- Golan Heights, they have an "early attack detection base" here, they're still to give it back to Syria *Not noted. Egypt-Gaza Strip, technically its under Hamas (not an improvement) now but Israel walks into it like its their backyard. It kinda looks like they're trying to do this hahaha: [hide=I know this is going to receive Romy criticism ]][/hide] You're right Romy, they'd never do that. Cuz they already conquered the land of Philistine on the coast and they would never let Phoenicia get away :P

Says who? Canada/US are built on Native American soil but no one cares (just an example). Invading isn't a right, but it can be a necessity. Yes but the Arabs are far more numerous, unrelenting and better understood than the Native Americans were. Edit: Plus the Israelis are so highly offensive they've managed to also annoy the Iranians and Lebanese Christians who are not considered Arabs (as Iranians are Persian and Syrian Christians are Phoenician due to their intentional mountain isolation for 15 centuries).

"I hope you're not colorblind" hahahaha Seriously though some of the color stuff in Runescape so to annoy me so much because I'm Red-Green colorblind but now they always write the name of the color on the right-click so I'm happy hahaha.

Zionism is not patriotism, it is an ideal that one of any nationality has the right to be intrusive and steal land that is not there's because those people are living in a fictitious past when the last time someone of their religion ruled that land was 40BC and any Middle Eastern person has more genetic similarities with the Israelites than the European Jews who seized the land. There are devote Jews who do not advocate Zionism and it is incredibly laughable that anyone would validate Zionism by them being the original people there when their own holy book says they come from Mesopotamia and traveled to the land of the Canaanites. Sure, that's the definition of Zionism... [/sarcasm] The reason the more strict religous Jews aren't Zionist is that it collides with some of the Bible's principles, not because it's "an ideal that one of any nationality has the right to be intrusive...". Zionism really is patriotism, or as Wikipedia puts it- "Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is an international nationalist political movement that, in its broadest sense, calls for the existence of a sovereign, Jewish national homeland. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to support and advocate on behalf of the Jewish state." If that's not patriotism, I don't know what is. If you want to quote Wikipedia, fine. Under the article: "The revisionists advocated the formation of a Jewish Army in Palestine to force the Arab population to accept mass Jewish migration." That is a bit intrusive would you not say, the formulation of an army to force native people to accept a migration of foreign colonizers? As for your beloved UN [because you claimed Israel has the right to exist because of a UN vote, remember the countless ones against them]: The Organization of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement passed resolutions condemning Zionism and equating it with racism and apartheid during the early 1970s. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3151 72 to 36, with 32 abstentions, in December 1973, stating that there was an "unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism." [31] Resolution 3379, stating in its conclusion that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", passed in November 1975, with many Arab, African, South Asian, Latin American and Soviet bloc states voting in favor of it.[27][32] The resolution was opposed by most of the Western world. Which was only repealed after the apartheid in South Africa was ended (which the South Africans drew parallel to with the Palestinians) and the Soviet government was collapsing, as well as Israel threatened to not partake in the Madrid Conference in 1991 unless it was repealed.

Zionism is not patriotism, it is an ideal that one of any nationality has the right to be intrusive and steal land that is not there's because those people are living in a fictitious past when the last time someone of their religion ruled that land was 40BC and any Middle Eastern person has more genetic similarities with the Israelites than the European Jews who seized the land. There are devote Jews who do not advocate Zionism and it is incredibly laughable that anyone would validate Zionism by them being the original people there when their own holy book says they come from Mesopotamia and traveled to the land of the Canaanites.

Jews and other Middle Eastern groups, specifically the Shamis (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine) have coincided together for a long time in peace. It was only until the European Jews started coming to the Middle East starting in 1897 when Zionism started to pick up that people were started to get annoyed with the Jews in Al Sham, particularly Palestine. The opinion of non-European Jews who resided mostly out of Palestine in the Middle East remained the same, as a brother-religion sort of view. The Middle East only completely erupted against the Jews when Israel was created from taking land away from the British Mandate of Palestine/Trans-Jordan by a UN resolution to create the dual states. From this we can see that (1) Arabs are not against Jews; rather, they are against Zionist European Jews who seize land from them and (2) It was acknowledged as Palestine unanimously internationally until 1947. It also just so happens that every major migration of Jews to Palestine in the pre-Israel period coincide with the beginning of a revolt. The mindset is not that Jews have to die, it is that the Zionist takeover of Palestine. I also know of the coexistence and peace between Middle Eastern people and Jews seeing as how my family ruled Walaayeh Al Sham and I have to hear stories like every day my grandmother feels like talking about it, it might not have been Palestine but they were in the same province. The point of my post was to show hostility against Israel is because of their own intrusiveness and how it wasn't because they were Jews, it was because the Zionists were threatening the dream of having an independent Al Sham unjustly as they were a foreign element.

Execuse me? I was there, a missle literally hit a home right next to me when I visited Sderot. I also watch the news, and every rocket launched was covered the same day, with pictures, and witnesses interviewed about it. As for citing online information. Sure, 1 source could be wrong, but you don't have to count on only 1 source. Maybe I'm nuts, but the point is that you shouldn't prance around saying "Look what they did!" when everything you've ever seen or known could be a lie. How could it be a lie if I saw it with my own 2 eyes? Ok so you sight a missile that misses the target. My cousins who live across the street (not biologically my cousins but Middle Eastern people consider each other cousins when you're close) were forcefully removed from their houses and forced to leave their homeland to a quarantined area but they escaped to Jordan and took a plane here [they are Palestinian]. Which seems worse? Not only do the Israelis illegally settle they also forcefully remove people so that they may illegally settle. And this story is unique because I've heard almost the same story from like four different families with a slight variation to where they fled (some Syria, some Egypt, some Lebanon). How could the belligerent display of Israel injustice be a lie if these first hand testimonies so blatantly voice it? Edit: And statistically speaking you're always making the statement about how most Palestinians don't want peace, I looked it up and I believe 9% more of their population supported negotiations for peace then Israeli citizenry prior to the 2006 War where you know, Israel wrongly molested Lebanon and almost destroyed Beirut, a stronghold for the Christians who are neutral to Israel as well, turning them anti-Zionist. Israel is so indiscriminate against anyone who is not a Jew that they dare attack Beirut and in effect offend the Christians, who have basically been fighting a 140yr. civil war with the Druze and Muslims who know comprise groups such as Hezbollah. Israel made Christians who annoyed that the President, who has to be Christian by law, seemed to be supportive of Hezbollah (and we hate Hezbollah)because they kicked the Israelis out last time. He then pointed out Israeli failure to implement many resolutions when they said Lebanon could not property implement Res. 1559. Israel never officially declared war on Lebanon since they were chasing Hezbollah but does one really have the right to forcibly press themselves into another's country all the way north and attack the capital?

I can't believe someone seriously wrote that. The facts there couldn't be any more wrong, the article writer took a quote of Netanyahu, completely spinned it, and then drew conclusions. I stopped taking it seriously after seeing the article started with- "The history of Israel as a geopolitical fraud will fill entire libraries as those defrauded marvel at how so few deceived so many for so long. Those duped include many naive Jews who-even now-identify their interests with this extremist enclave." And later continued with- "More than six decades ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Truman about the "fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders" and their plans for "Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East."" And then- "Israel betrayed the U.S. by allying with the British and the French to invade Egypt." Not only is it wrong, but frankly I find it funny anyone truely believes the "facts" presented there. This article is just filled with senseless bashing and biased hatred based on nothing. Next time, please atleast present an article that has it's facts right. 1) your arguments against everyone else who opposes Israel diplomatic issues are a simple matter of only your opinion just like the author of the article i posted 2) many others will agree and disagre with your point of view as well as mine, the difference is you do not have any respect for those who disagree with ur point of view by trying to bash their arguments and belittle them 3) At least a great deal of 1st world countries are not blind by the corruption and atrocities Israel commits against the Palestinians unlike the U.S. (who's media is heavily controlled by the Jews) 4) You would think the Jewish people would learn from the Holocaust but instead theyre committing a new kind of holocaust towards the Palestinians while the world turns a blind eye all in the name of "self-defense" and kill 1000s of innocent palestinians because of a few radicals trying to destroy israel 5) Romy, I gotta admit you probably get off bashing all the people who blast Israel as well as the article i posted but you seemed to have purposely not answered my important question. 6) Romy, you are a tool I like you hahaha minus statement 6

I would guess someone with 99 Hunter can just operate their cape giving them 100 Hunter. Edit: I just remembered you can't bring items in... hmmm good question hahaha

10/10 really nice :mrgreen: Is it me because I'm just colorblind or do purple partyhats look pink? I was like since when are there pink partyhats so I had to go on the Item Database and search partyhat and I clicked on the purple since it was the only one I couldn't obviously tell.

Say what? The international media isn't biased at all, I constantly see it cover Israeli fallacies and the like. I even think the latest "important" issue, of the passports, was way over-covered, and quite frankly, biased against Israel- even though Israel didn't do anything the USA, England, Belgium and China wouldn't do, Israel just got caught and the media celebrated over it. 2. Except many see it as legitimate, for some reason I'd never understand... 3. I can't believe you even seriously said that... I can assure you peace is not out of reach for anyone who wants it with Israel, and I have evidence to support that- Jordan and Eygept. I'd like to remind you that the pact with Eygept was formed with a very-right-wing-ish government on Israel's side. Ther reason a dual-state is not a possibility is- The majority of the Palestinians is not interested in it, even if they claim otherwise. Netanyahu presented his terms for a dual state and these were completely dismissed without the opportunity for serious discussion. I can tell you from my own biased opinion that the Palsetinians are not even after that, if dual-states would ever be achieved, they will NOT be satisfied, they want Israel completely out of there, and you can quote me on that. 4. I agree that the US has helped Israel countless times, but I assure you Israel went through serveral wars without definite support from the US, the most surprising one being the very first- Israel used practically CITIZENS to get through it, alongside weapons it bought from the Czech Republic (USA supported with some money, but nothing too serious), and Israel won with great success. 5. Israel earned the right to establish through fair votes in the UN. 6. With good reason may I add (I don't mean they don't want peace I mean that too many just DON'T want it). I can give you a shocking example here. A peace-wanting-arab that is the son of a "successful" Hamas leader, saw the much hatred on the Palestinian side, and saw it as unjust. He secretly joined the Israeli foces, and when discovered was wanted dead by his own father. Today the poor guy is heavily guarded by Israel with good reason- the second he gets free, he's dead. 7. Care to elaborate here? I assure you the illegal settlements could and can be stopped by the other side, if it would just agree to discuss ANYTHING without pre-made terms and conditions. (I numbered the responses so that its clear to what I'm responding) 1. Actually American media is very pro-Israel and American government is very pro-Israel. Obama's administration (I say administration because the prince has three puppeteers behind him) isn't so pro-Israel as Bush but it still is. And Israel got caught so the media had a field day on that specific issue but it doesn't make it any less a wrong thing to do because other countries would do it. 2. Some may see it as legitimate but their power isn't from popular sovereignty, it's from being a bully. 3. The reason why Egypt made a pact with Israel is because they got whipped and it was beneficial. Jordan is Israel friendly because the Palestinians tried to take Jordan and His Majesty expelled them in the Black September, now they're the burden of Lebanon and the Urduni would rather not deal with them again. Many Palestinians do want peace, it isn't their fault they're represented by belligerent terrorists. And I wouldn't blame them if they were not satisfied by a two state resolution, they were there and then uprooted. If you mean dual-state as in for both groups to live under the same government, the Israelis would never do that because they harbor the misconception they've been granted the land when they really just use a high hand to keep it from those who lived there. 4. Israel would have been smashed to pieces and the Jews expelled by the 70s if the US didn't fund them, particularly when Nixon turned up the amount given to them. And yes, let us not forget the tactics the Jews used against the Arabs, like the Deir Yassin Massacre and then the city was used as a new settling housing for Jewish immigrants, which is one of the many examples of Jewish occupation and settlement of non-Jewish territory. 5. Of course they received the majority of the UN vote, none of the other nations had to give up their land so it was good, Britain and France had to move out of the area soon as it was getting harder to control resistance as the only "Arab" nation that liked European occupation was Lebanon. The UN means nothing anyway, they've been reiterating for 41 years for Israel to stop illegal settlement that violate the Geneva Convention and Resolution 242 [which was passed 15-0] and it hasn't stopped them, a UN vote (or any international law for that matter) is only valid if it is beneficial to Israel. 6. Why should the Jews be suspicious of those who want peace? Isn't that a good thing? 7. I was saying I would have absolutely no problem if there was the country of Palestine & Israel because if Jews would want to apply for the citizenship of such a country than it would be of their own accord and nothing illegal. However when you're foreigners who come from far away to invade a long occupied area and disregard property deeds that have been held valid for generations there is no reason why there is Israeli hatred. Answer this hypothetical question; if you had something for a long time that was a family heirloom and you had pride in it, but a cousin said your great grandfather received it unfairly [because his great grandfather, the brother of yours, had been kidnapped so he was not physically present to inherent it] so he's taking it back and his friends assist him in its acquisition, is that fair? Now apply that to Israeli and Palestine. There should be no negotiations in regards to illegal settlement, it is violating an international agreement, Israel is disregarding a resolution of an organization they are part of as well as the disregard of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Edit: Oh yes and Israel claims to a more just side but they broke a ceasefire when even Hamas honored it in 2008 and they've been starving the Gazans with the blockade and they have killed their economy as its olive-export based. Don't be so quick to think Israel is so just, both sides are covered in blood.

I'm anti-Zionism [please do not confuse anti-Zionism with "I hate Jews", very different] based upon my own formulation of opinion through the observation of history and I feel the western media is so pro-Israel it isn't even news because its poisoned with so much bias. Nonetheless the PLO, Hezbollah and Hamas are atrocities that I cannot reconcile with my beliefs and they must be eliminated, they are basically bullies. Now personally I would hold the most just and best conclusion to be the formation of the Bilad Al Filistini wa Israeli (The Land of Palestinians and Israelis) were they would have a joint government where there is a dual-executive brand with one being ethnically Palestinian and the other Israeli. That will never happen though as the Israeli government is just as vehement as the Palestinian organizations, many people want peace but only total victory is acceptable for both sides voiced by their heads. To the person above me, if you're calling Palestinians ill informed, they are not less informed than the Israelis and the only reason they have been able to repel the Arabs is because of US aid, which is basically the structure for Israeli survival because it was beneficial for the US to have an ally like Israel in the Middle East and a lot of people were and still are anti-semitic in the West. Again, there was no problem when it was under the Ottoman Empire and Jews and Greater Syrians (referring to the general people of the Levant not saying Syrians are superior) intermingled and they were friendly, but once one foreign group comes in and makes claim to the land that has been occupied since the beginning of records by the same group, it gets a little sticky. I've also felt a bit of distrust of peace-wanting Arabs by Jews. I have affiliated myself with middle eastern Jews [Mizrahi] very very nice people I have met. Now I don't know if it was just bad experiences, every European-descended Jew who has talked to me about Israel basically acclaim how Israel should kill all the dirty Palestinians because its their land and the stupid Arabs are being nasty, I even received a comment that "I'm surprised you didn't stab me in the back when I turned around, Arab"(Lebanese, long story short different). I have no problem with the idea of a joint state, however land seizure by foreign Jews backed by the blessed democracy bearer, I have a big problem with that. So in the end should that region be solely Israel? No. Does it deserve violent retribution by Hamas and other groups? No. They are even more pathetic that they would execute their own people who are obviously so desperately going after peace.

Stop over-reacting. It's not just that they are hearing the word "god" but are pretty much being made/taught to praise him. It may not necessarily do any harm but it also is incredibly unnecessary. If people want to pray it's fine but you really shouldn't add it into a daily sort of thing for everyone. I have to disagree. I know that, personally, I would have found a religion class to be a waste of time. You learn about what the various religions believe and such in your basic history classes anyways and having to get tested on religion would just seem silly. I'd be fine if religion was erased though. It'll probably never happen in my lifetime. Bull. Why can't they just sing something saying thanks then without mentioning God? They have no comprehension of it but it doesn't mean that it won't stick with them. They tend to pay attention to authority figures at that age and someone telling you over and over that God is good is going to influence you. If I was a religious man I would find it really disrespectful for someone to be pretending that they believe in whatever you believe in. I'd rather someone just sit in silence and be respectful. Do you realize you basically just rephrased what I said to do? You obviously didn't read what I wrote, I said respect, which does not require the belief in it (You can sing another national anthem out of respect but it doesn't mean you have to become a national of that country because you displayed respect). I do not require nor want anyone to believe what i believe but for instance if there was a prayer being said as part of the program or as part of a schedule or just a group of people and people were just talking [and loudly] I'd be annoyed, that's quite disrespectful. And you admitted your own desire for the erasing of religion which is rather disgusting. To desire [or affirm it is ok which is allowing the destruction of therefore warranting while standing idle] the elimination of a set of beliefs that is beneficial to the understanding of values is completely absurd, not to mention how much money and volunteering organizations such as the Catholic Relief Services (to name one of many of just one religion) pour into helping people. History teaches nothing about religion other then what empires were affiliated with what belief system. It's BS being told about God young will make you follow religion, as in this age many people are reluctant to be religious because of religion related events in which they were forced (in reality or in their own opinion) to take belief in religion. But one can never know of God if he was never spoken of. And seeing as how when teaching morals, a being of justice and the ultimate culmination of goodness and love is kind of excellent to sing about when you sing of gratefulness. Edit: And It's not "Bull". Learning moral values from a religion would be easier then self investigation as they've already been pre-established and since religion is a societal thing you would have ready access to a multitude of sources and people to teach you of virtues, etc. then trial and error of finding everything out. Sort of like a guild of morality.

Oh my ܩܕܝܫܛ ܐܠܚܐ (I said the "you know what" in my crazy foreign speak so that no one would be offended by "Its" name being imposed and shoved down their throat). You can probably tell my opinion by reading my first line. I find it incredibly foolish when people make such a big deal over hearing or their children hearing the word 'god'. America says it's a separate of Church and state but it is really an eradication of religion all together from the public place. Kids I know have gotten in trouble for praying in public schools, I mean really, that is not religious freedom. I do not care if someone is an atheist, they have all right to be, as long as they're a good person they're a good person regardless of credence or lack of adherence to one. The removal of anything religious from the public view is disguising though because it is the erasing of religion for those who will it. That is why I would instate a mandatory world's religion class that teaches students for at least have a year about all religions briefly, enabling them to make a fare choice to either be christian, muslim, jewish, buddhist, sikh, taoist, atheist, etc. and it would also double as a sociology class. A structured religion helps convey a moral system easier then the derivation of independent morals from one's own "thought" island (but ultimately they should reach the same conclusion, hence why my Church doesn't believe atheists or anyone else burn in hell and have just as good a chance as I going to heaven). This singing the chant is portraying a message of thankfulness and teaching the virtue of being grateful, these children cannot comprehend such a complex being as God. I find this relates to the Good Samaritan, sadly versions of the Bible in English are so diluted you do not get the message so I will say it from the Aramaic understanding and cultural context. So there's a man who gets beaten by robbers and left to die. Two important and holy men of the society are on their way to temple separately in two instance and see this body. They do not want to touch the body because this would make them ritually impure and therefore unable to worship properly if he were dead so they continue on so that they may go pray because what their religion states for being eligible to worship God is far more important then helping a beaten man. However, the Samaritan, who were perceived as inferior pseudo-Jews by the Jews, the underdog of the story if you will, stops and helps the beaten man by bandaging his wounds and then paying for his rent at an inn. The point of the parable is Jesus is stating the loving help to another far surpasses religious legalism therefore the fear of hearing the word 'God' is highly irrational because the objective of psalms and childish religious chants are to instill moral values and not brainwash them to give the Catholic Church money and make them zombies. Edit: To the guy who refused to display reverence during the prayer at the concert you went to, I suggest you reevaluate how you treat other belief systems other then your own (and if you listen to group prayers a lot of the time they're for nonsectarian causes, today my youth group prayed for people devastated by poverty and natural disasters) . I have gone to synagogue and worn a yamulka not because I have any particular belief in what the Jews do but I was a guest of their community and I was honored to be invited so I was to respect their tradition. It is like you're sincerely doing the pledge of allegiance and a foreigner is purposely disrespecting the pledge. Is this right? Of course not. So one should show respect for others even if one does not believe in the others beliefs. And I think people also impose the "You're going to burn" mentality on all Christians when this is not true for many churches. To summarize my entire post, religious tolerance is a bad term and its stupid because you get things like God paranoia. We should instead have religious respect which would be not to just tolerate the existence of other beliefs but allow them equality and be respectful to the execution of rituals and realize that religious things are a lot of the time oriented towards virtues and helping people indiscriminately.

That's kind of the only way one can train agility. Other than if you want to use penguin points on agility.

Because making a girl cry and a half-assed punch to the chest is totally worth a full punch to the face. Even if he did get in trouble he would just get a slap on the wrist and be told to "apologize" to the girl. If he's stupid enough and mean enough to think that making fun of a girl to the point that she cried is fun, then to be honest it wouldn't have been a tragedy had he taken a trip to the wood chipper. It was extremely rude for him to have made that girl cry, but your solution was kind of belligerent and retributive. A violent answer is only the solution when in defense against an unceasing threat. An ideal solution would have been to brush him off and then comfort the girl. Well for me, I found out my ex-girlfriend cheated on me when we were going out with three people on the same day, one being a girl. I looked at my voicemail today and saw I had a voice message, when I looked at it it was a less than pleasant adult saying he is calling me for the second time while I'm in school at 11am [i called him five times the day before because he told me to call him]. I have a stupid honors society induction thing tonight. I have a lot of homework. And I want ice cream but I'm too cold to eat it, hahaha.

No, the reason of the fee is to not affect the count.

Well isn't that a handy little loophole. It's the stupidest loophole I've ever heard of that works, I find ethnic cleansing (which would be to remove "impurities") and acts intent on exterminating a group the same thing. It isn't even arguable.

Sorry for the delayed response. Not really. No one really won the war. There might have been the ensuring of the creation of South Korea, but it many thousands were killed on both sides and nuclear threat was real. The UN (specifically India I think it was) created the terms of the armistice but it was failure for all sides.

Yes, Hotel Rwanda was a good movie indeed! However, The united nations mandate forbids intervention in "the internal politics" of any country (civil war included) unless the crime of genocide is being committed. Therefore, the UN itself has to wait before genocide is actually taking place before they can act without the agreement of the soverign nation they are making unsoverign in some respect. Media i've seen has covered "why" very throughly. Sensationalist "entertainment media" for the loose :S How do they determine when it is officially Genocide? Not trying to stump you with this I'm honestly curious. Also could someone please enlighten me all I've been able you find out is they want to be more democratic. Was there a particular event that sparked these riots? I believe what sparked the riots was the declaration of the unfairness of the election and electricity prices were raised to 200%. As for your inquiry into what constitutes a genocide, the UN defines it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” but the specific limitations and boundaries of what a genocide is is debated, as is voiced by this article (simply called debate continues over what constitutes genocide): http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/02/05/debate-continues-over-what-constitutes-genocide/3925/ [hide=Article about debate on what constitutes genocide] The word genocide was coined in the wake of the Holocaust. Since then, the term has been used in varying contexts to describe modern conflicts, from Rwanda to Darfur. But the term itself has become a source of conflict, as many look to whether or not governments and leaders recognize and punish genocide. The United Nations defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” and a convention criminalizing genocide became law in 1951. Some people have been prosecuted and found guilty of genocide, including Rwandan politician Jean-Paul Akayesu and Serbian General Radislav Krstic. However, while the U.S. has pointed to genocide in Darfur, the United Nations has refrained from using that term to describe the killings in Sudan. The “Killing Denouement” blog discusses the historical use of the term and modern debates surrounding its usage: Is Gaza a genocide; is Darfur a genocide? Where do you draw the lines between ‘land conflict’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide’, and what are the political value(s) of doing so? And how does something get designated as genocide anyway - is it, legally, only when the ICC at the Hague says so? [...]The Rwandan genocide is popularly characterised as one of the most shocking massacres of a century already stained by violent bloodshed. Much of its associated visceral horror comes from the situation of neighbours turning against each other. Not unlike its historical cousin of the Nazi Holocaust, it too was structured around several poles of binary opposition. Citizen and subject; native and settler. Hutu and Tutsi; Nazi and Jew. Both of these atrocities have seeped their way into the collective Western consciousness, and have come to function as embedded points of reference for future conflicts. The “Presidential Blog” writes about the debate surrounding the Gaza war and its casualties: I see how the name-calling and the evocations of other historical horrors take us all further away from understanding, further away from any hope of resolution on a human scale. Comparisons to “genocide” or “apartheid” simply raise the rhetorical stakes; they may help speakers or writers score points (in their own minds and the minds of the like-minded) but they do nothing to advance shared understanding. On the contrary. Mahmood Mamdani of “Pambazuka News” points to similarities between violence in Darfur and the war in Iraq, exploring how the conflicts are named differently: The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make? Flickr user “Bullneck” posts an image of a protester with a sign declaring genocide, and argues that the word is misused: Here’s an idea: Why don’t we all put the term ‘genocide’ (and ‘Holocaust,’ too) on a hiatus from placards and instead use words with more meaning, rationality, and thought? The only situation which calls for the use of such terms would be something akin to Rwanda in the ’90s. Everything else is self-righteous hyperbole which cheapens the word’s meaning. Blogger “Stacey Perlman” argues that governments use alternate terms to avoid responsibilities: The genocide in Darfur has gone on since 2003 and has not gained the attention it deserves. Other genocides include Rwanda in 1994 and the Cambodian Killing Fields in 1975. Not to mention the death of 11 million people, 6 million of them Jews, in the Holocaust during WWII. Perhaps lesser known is the first genocide of the 20th century. No, it wasn’t the Jews in WWII, it was the Armenians in 1915 during WWI. It is estimated that one and a half million people died between 1915 and 1923. There is still controversy surrounding the mass murder of these people as the Turkish government has continually denied it ever happened. In Kenya, the recent election controversy was the straw that broke the camel’s back after decades of tension from grudges over land. Using a term like “ethnic cleansing” is an easy way to avoid providing aid. [...] Until the situation is deemed “genocide” no legal action needs to be taken, which is disturbing. Ethnic cleansing is not any less minor of a situation than a declared genocide and efforts should be made to combat it. The “BlogCritics” blog writes that Western governments only deem mass killing genocidal when economic interests are involved: After the horrors of World War II, the world said “never again” to horrific mass killings. But, due to the Cold War tensions, idealistic ideas such as this one were abandoned in favor of realist politics and fighting for self-interests. “Never again” does not mean “we will do everything to stop genocides from happening anywhere in the world.” The Western world in particular considers stopping genocides only in countries where they have economic or other interests. That is why in 1994 the American government did not want to use the term “genocide” to describe the fastest genocide in recorded human history that took over 800,000 lives in Rwanda in only 100 days. [...] Calling the mass slaughter “genocide” would obligate the US and other governments, signatories of the Resolution 260A(III), to intervene and stop it. But the US and other Western countries did nothing because they had no interests in the small, overpopulated, and poor African country. That a whole ethnic group was being exterminated in front of the whole world was not enough. Blogger “Erica Thurman” argues that omitting gender from the definition of genocide allows violence against women: Discourse of human security as it relates to women appears to avoid the “G” word—genocide. This is perhaps because the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Convention) fails to identify systematic sexual based violence as an act of genocide. Various threats to human security are gender specific. Rape, forced impregnation, maternal mortality rates and sexual slavery are components of human insecurity which have to be viewed through a gendered lens to recognize “who is affected and how, and what specific forms of protection or assistance are needed by whom.” [...] A finding of systematic rape as genocide would serve two purposes. The first would allow the violence against African women to be classified as genocide, thereby compelling the international community to act to prevent future occurrences of this heinous crime. Secondly, the finding of rape as genocide would introduce the idea of sexually specific crimes in the discourse of genocide which could subsequently compel an amendment to the Convention establishing women as a protected class against genocide.[/hide]

Perhaps Iran is only going after a clean and abundant energy source? My rear end. Knowing Ahmadinejad, he wants to use their nuclear capacity to create weapons. Maybe if we're lucky, Israel will attack Iran and they'll both be destroyed. I forget when but I was listening to the BBC about this, I believe it was about January, and Israel promised to bomb any faculties they knew about if Iranians did not stop in X amount of time. Edit: By Israel and Iran being destroyed I mean their government, not the Jews and the Persians.