fakeitormakeit2

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.

The /b/ image isn't serious, it's for fun. It's ok and expected that it is fake. As for the article, a quick google search of a snippet of one of their stories led me to it already being reported on two years ago. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JI20Ak01.html I'm sure if you wanted to, you could do the same for all of them. Africa is a [cabbage] hole, but we expect more of America, who apparently are there to free the people and stop terrorists and blah blah blah. Agreed about the white girl stories though Yea, American teachings and biases teach the poor quality of Africa so that people expect these things and then feel apathetic because they're dense and they cannot comprehend a person=a live. Plus the African dictator isn't probably going around the world claiming to be the best nation to save all nations and to peacefully bestow upon them lovely democracy while in actuality they censor their own failings (Korean War *cough) and further their own agenda.

The OSCE said that the media biased Bakiyev so thoroughly before the last election that the elections "did not allow voters to make an informed choice" and simoultaneously that the election was "marred by many problems and irregularities" For OSCE, those are very serious terms in saying the elections were undemocratic. no revolution is peaceful, we just need to wait and see how policy is conducted, and if the country actually becomes democratic before we judge the revolutionists in my opinion That is not revolution worthy, in my area, I think for every 1 or 2 John McCain commercials there were at least 8 or 9 Obama commercials. Then for our gubernatorial election there were soooo many John Corzine commercials in favor of him and defaming Christie, and even Obama made a few in state appearances, he still lost. Bias media is no excuse because media is a private enterprise anyway, however unfair Bakiyev's advantage may have been, it was still legal therefore you can't just overthrow your government in a bloody coup, because the point of a successful democratic government is the rotation of power from group to group is peaceful.

So I was thinking about going for 99 con after 99 thieving. I was kind of thinking this house format, (btw normal garden=Menagerie) [hide=House Format][/hide]

Ironically to relax I do work. I'm like OCD, organizing my papers and issuing orders for my organization makes me relaxed. Until some idiots has no clue what to do after you've told them instructions and given them all the info. Then I'm just pissed. I guess my last resort to relax is read a piece of literature with an elaborate/unique moral. I'm not a fan of like mystery/fiction, etc. I like Khalil Gibran, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, George Orwell and currently I'm trying to tackle Mein Kampf, but it is incredibly slow and poorly written.

Nein 7

Virus scan?

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon.... And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods. The terrorists shot down Santa's sleigh in South Park with an RPG so it must be true that one can use an RPG as an AAW.

In comment to those shoes, yikes way too strange of a color in my opinion. Then again all I wear is monochrome. And am I the only person who wears skinny jeans even when its like 100F?

I went through the pix of me and my friends when trying to decide which picture I would like to post... It has made me reluctant to post any... the majority of the pictures are pictures of me either with a face full of cake, or dressed up in disguise as an emo, detective, jewel thief, an Arab lord, expeditionary or miscellaneous (including a transvestite superhero...) -.-. I've realized I change costume a lot... I'm not even a theater person... I've learned from my numerous disguises though that people are incredibly stupid. I've gotten store managers to believe that I was a Middle Eastern prince and in NYC a large crowd of my friends chased me around and we fooled people into believing I was a famous French designer. Edit: It's still a bad pic, seeing as how I'm falling asleep on a girl's head but its the most norm picture I could find of myself hahahaha [PS please remove my other picture from the index, it makes me look uglier then I already am.]

I'm not in college yet, but I'm taking Calculus BC for about a month, 4 days a week for 6 hours a day. I did not even have the vaguest idea of doing any extra courses over the summer but there was some mistake that my guidance counselor put me down for Calculus BC next year, and since my schedule was full for senior year he assumed it was a summer course so my mother payed the extra course tuition which is nonrefundable and thus I am forced to take it. I didn't even try to get out of it, my dad would have probably started one of his "Well in my days, I took Calculus when I was 10 blaa blaa blaa my mustache is too big blaa blaa blaa"

I wonder how I would be received if I busted out my electric violin and started playing :P

No. Really? Please elaborate. Never ONCE did he imply that he believed that he was racially superior. Likewise, I'm assuming that you believe that he believes that he is superior because he is American. For your information, 'American' is not a race, nor is it even an ethnicity. Therefore, he is not racist; you misused the term. Please learn what a race is, it has nothing to do with genetic similarities. Example: Many Lebanese and Syrian people are extremely genetically similar, two distinct races. Race is a social construct that has an ideology, cultural pattern or common descent as its core. For Americans their core is an ideology consisting of "Americaness", the American Dream, land of opportunity idea, etc. Although I would say the "American race" core has diminished since after WW2, things like the Social Register defined the finest of the American race, but with the infusion of more non-Anglo-Saxon races, the mesh of American culture is different and the idea of Social Darwinism has almost vanished (I like how American textbooks normally forget to mention Hitler's declarations of what was superior were often similar to America's and if you know of the Battle of Dunkirk you would know Hitler wanted to compromise with the other Anglo-Saxons. Again, Americans censor war to romanticize their heroism or lack thereof)

As I said The entrance to Iraq was vain. The soldiers died for nothing as puppets. They will sadly continue to die until it can be made to look as thought it wasn't completely a lose, and it will just be covered up in history by America just like the Korean War. People mourn the soldiers' deaths yet the civilians are involuntarily being kill for living in the land their family has lived in for thousands of years. I am not anti-soldier, I am anti-stupidity.

My suggestions would be slayer and rc'ing but that's just me. If you have armour, slayer is very profitable. As for rc'ing if you mine your own ess and go through the abyss to make nats its quick and free.

Are going to say that statement isn't subjective? I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I just noticed you said that after you said someone's posts was "subjective as hell." How is that subjective? Killing journalists/civilians is considered a war crime - you know something designed in the Geneva Convention. Try looking into it sometime Dah hur hur what's that, a type of oven?

So just out of curiosity does anyone agree/disagree with my statements made on pg. 2? I would find a response interesting. And by the way people criticize soldiers when they get trigger happy, isn't it a human response to violence to get carried away and when you become [even temporarily] unstable you go on a rampage?

I am an Arab and I find the change of American thought about the war in Iraq to be about the most humorous thing I have ever encountered. 1. Okay, so first you have the people who are like ya, bomb them dumb towel heads they're evil they blew up our towers (please keep in mind Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). So then all the ignorant Americans, which I would say is at least 25% of the population was like oh ya I think they're right, let's bomb Iran. I mean Iraq. Whatever same different. Yay, killing dumb muslims durga druga. 2. Ya, we caught that crazy bad man super evil Saddam. He caused 9/11 so now all our problems will go away. (Little did the ignorant fools know that the deposing of Saddam caused political unrest for the Christian in Lebanon as well as persecution of Iraqi Christians and Jews). 3. Let's give them our noble and grand democracy! Yay democracy, its the best and only system of government that is good <33333333333 (Ok, so now they install mock elections and really the people in power are theocratic imams with underground power who use their followers to bully around everyone since there isn't an iron fist such as Saddam pinning them. It is also a great chance to get ride of Christians because no one will stop them. Radicalism worsens.) 4. Oh noez, war is soooo bad. America is sooo evil, oh nooooo! What have we done! Oh noooo! President Bush, you're a bad person. Boohoo people died. (What the hell do you expect, when you invade another country there will be bloodshed, or were you expecting a delightful picnic?) 5. The only logical answer for Bush being so evil is that the oil companies bribed him to invade to lower oil prices (Now it is true Saddam had sealed off Iraq's oil sources which in turn raised oil prices, but it is highly illogical to assume the war was based on the acquisition of oil. It was a beneficial byproduct, yes, but not a major objective. The main objective was to spread our wonderful democracy to other people.) Those are the 5 steps through the evolution of emotion of the War in Iraq. Completely stupid, wish-washy and spineless and generally controlled by the mainstream media, but that is like every other American political issue. Personally I was never a fan of the war in Iraq and I feel the "authority" America has to invade a country illegally against international regulation, depose its leader and give it its twisted sense of democracy is more arrogant when the Pope issued the statement in the Investiture Controversy that all princes should kiss his feet and that he had the ability to depose kings, because at least those who followed the Pope did so with an adherence to the religion in contrast to the Iraqis who were subject to unwanted American judgment. The invasion was so popular at first because some Americans were such semite-phobic people were proclaiming carpet bomb the entire middle east, and yet they couldn't find it on a map or explain why it should be bombed other then it had crazy sand n-word towel heads terrorists. This is just like Obama, it truly portrays the pattern of American politics and the mass ignorance of its populace. I didn't like him from the start everyone was like you're a racist. Change, wooo. Now I'm 1 in like >200 million.

"A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle." I read this in a book once :mrgreen: So while it is true reading is important, the application of your knowledge is what ultimately counts. I would place the teen who gets B-ish grades but uses his/her knowledge of service to help at a soup kitchen more righteous and just then the A+++ student who is ranked number 2 in their class, stays home and studies all day and is a complete [puncture]oftheneedle. And although I think everyone should read and it does help increase your intelligence, it is in what your knowledge is used for especially in assistance to others which gives it value. And anyone who boasts their intelligence because they read is obviously not intelligent because anyone who is intelligent would come to the realization that they know nothing. Which also reminds me, I don't know why some people find the use of philosophical writings as pretentious, it is sad really. I've been told I'm pretentious and snobby for the application of a philosophical work in a logical argument, when what is philosophy other then a system in which to make things into a logical pattern?

TV like a lot of things, is something very good in moderation. When we abuse our blessings they become malignant things. It requires self control to properly exploit such a beneficial device. But since it is easier to abuse then moderate, children have an attention span of like 5minutes due to that being the increment of time from the beginning of a program to its break, and from a break to the restarting of the program after commercial break. It also damages our sense of creativity as we have all these wonderful flashing colors displayed to us physically which defeats the purpose of using of imagination to conceive such thoughts, etc. As for this stupid soap operas minus the funding from soap operas (AKA reality television and drama shows) are all redundant and mediocre. I don't watch any of these ER or detective shows and they all seem the same. Also, to the susceptible mind they pervert our sense of thought, instilling the disillusions of the validity of violence and bigoted distinctions between persons. As for the idiots who follow the bias medias as their sole-informers, they follow what they say without question which creates a lack of political and intellectual school diversity. For instance in my region of the USA liberalism is so heavily publicized in the media that I was watching an analysis of the need to replace an old court justice who is planning on resigning and the commentator was getting emotional and saying how the Democrats need to fight to install a Democratic justice and then the other people were saying it is such a shame how the Republicans will get 4-6 senate seats at least in November which they then went on to extol the Democratic senators and Sotomayor. Now I'm not a Republican but I wanted an unbiased analysis of the current political situation, not a brainwashing session of how the Democrats are the upholders of justice. The televised media also collectivizes and dehumanizes foreign entities. They were referring to the president of Afghanistan and Afghanistan as one in the same and they were baffled as to why the "foolish" president didn't like the American intervention. Furthermore, television is also used towards a political agenda, as I was watching Nick (I admit it :P) and there was a commercial. It went through the different types of government and it defamed all types of government (as well as dropping a cathedral with a visible cross which demonstrates a sort of anti-catholicism) other then democracy, then when democracy appeared it was exalted and everyone was cheering. The people who plan televised events set agendas from young ages to when you're old, this is not right and it encourages a homogeneous society. Of course there are many benefits, but as I've mentioned its much easier to abuse then moderate.

So would I be able to beat Nomad? Here are my lvls: Any advice?

I think the Goblin just represented Goblin culture since I do not know of any culture that makes war cyclically in Easter. As for the man, he represented definitely a European Christian culture which was either Spanish or Portuguese by the etymology of what he called something, I forget what the object was I believe it was the decorated stick. The reference to eating fish made me think Italian but then I remembered i sette pesci is a Christmas thing, so it could possibly be a Lenten reference. Eek was last year's Halloween... Anyway it seems like Jagex is running out of ideas as they are making remakes of old rewards. It was technically this year's Halloween event as it is only April and therefore Halloween has not occurred in the year 2010 yet. However, the Halloween that occurred in the last 364 days was in 2009 which was the Eek one, which makes that technically this year's Halloween award.