fakeitormakeit2

You have a very good point. Something like slavery should have been apologized for, and it was in its own way, due to its removal and affirmative action. Actions speak louder then words. It does not necessarily meant to be said by the people who did not support it, but if there were people who did not do anything, then that's partially their fault. Many Germans/Other Europeans had no choice but to go a long with what they were being forced to do. I've been to Europe a couple times and I see Holocaust memorials in like every country, so I think the apology has been said there too. However in the Middle East the people affiliated with the bombings were mostly people who their governments tried to get rid of even, so they shouldn't have to apologize because they tried to work against it. Well, they should perhaps apologize in a sort of we gave it our best try but didn't fully succeed. The Saudi Arabians try to get rid of their extremists and the Lebanese also try to purge themselves, but it's hard when bordering countries harbor. Again, those who do nothing should be apologizing. Sometimes the more intelligent need to apologize to the world for mistake of their stupid/less moral brothers.

You are very wise. You do not presume things without knowing and you state a reasonable opinion.

Have you ever spoken to someone from the Middle East or is that what your friend the television taught you? There is a difference between being Anti-American and thinking the US government is [developmentally delayed]ed. I don't have cable or satellite so i don't have a friend called the television. So in that regard you fail. Also I have read what you have said about being middle eastern so I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong because I know I won't. Just let me know the next time you are watching al-jazeera and there is a guy preaching/yelling death to America, oh ya children doing likewise will work too. Mhm, now I understand your source is better then my source, because you've read it. Please correct me as to why then do NO members of my Middle Eastern family [including extended i.e. close non-blood related] hate Americans but rather disagree with government decisions? I know your limited reading is much more accurate then the resources at my disposal, i.e. actually speaking to Middle Eastern people regularly and frequenting trips to one of the largest Arabic communities in the US at least once a month, but please hear this small comment. My grandmother, who comes from Egypt, who's family has come from Egypt and has lived in Egypt for the majority of her life always says about how she thinks the American government is so very stupid. But she also praises the "old fashion" Americans, about how hardworking and honest they are. I know, that is sullied with hate speech, is it not? PS I don't read Al Jazeera, but let me write that in arabic for you since you're such an Arabic major. انا ما بشؤف ال جزيره I hope you don't mind that there's a kusra over the waw, I couldn't find the key on my keyboard that didn't have a kusra or a fatha over the waw for some reason, but you'll understand anyway.

Have you ever spoken to someone from the Middle East or is that what your friend the television taught you? There is a difference between being Anti-American and thinking the US government is [developmentally delayed]ed.

1. Should the US formally apologize for slavery? Slavery has been removed for 150yrs and there are things such as affirmative action to give "equal opportunity". The apology is already done. 2. Should Germany formally apologize for the holocaust? I'm sure it has probably been done in some form, plus not all Germans supported Hitler, so no. 3. Should the Middle East formally apologize for 9-11? I find this even offensive to ask. I am Middle Eastern and I had 0% support for the actions of the terrorists. They were linked to Al Queda, so if anyone should apologize it should be the US government. Why? Because Saudi Arabia banishes Osama bin Laden for being an extremist douche and then the US gives him money to fight the USSR. It later bites America in the [wagon]. First of all, "The Middle East" is not one entity. It is quite an ignorant statement to lump them all together, it's like saying "Should the West apologize for..." I find this even more so offensive because Middle Eastern Christians have been fighting off Islamic extremism and oppression for the last 1200 yrs and the US goes as far as to threaten to attack (Christian faction of) Lebanon as they supported Saddam but as soon as the US gets hit once, there must be a purging of all the Middle Eastern people from the world. This goes for any other grouping of an entire area and generalizing.

I never said it's not tolerated at all, only that it's less tolerated. On the contrary, Americans didn't even really know what an Arab (over-exaggeration to make a point) was til 9/11. There has been countless articles on how discrimination of Arabs since then has fluxed. But disregard the articles. Next time people asks your race just say that you're an Iraqi or Palestinian or some Arab, and see the response.

Nice unbiased source, ha. I find it sad I have to listen to a foreign news broadcaster (BBC) to not get opinions crammed down my throat. As for that statement you made of majority of Americans want Public Health Care, that I won't even believe. I know many many Democrats who are against the idea. I know the "evil evil money wanting" doctors who provide free service 4months out of the year who oppose it because it will make medical technology scarce and harder to provide better service. We don't have the medical personnel to regular citizen ratio that can even support Public Health Care. Furthermore I believe in helping people who are poorer, and socialism to some degree, but Public Health Care would work against benefiting society overall which some supporters fail to see because they say, oh well so and so does not have coverage so we must supply it. Fact: most people overlook, many doctors provide free services during the course of the year to those who fall under X economic classification. GOP are defending the common interests, but many people cannot see the broader spectrum of an issue and therefore blame those who oppose something that looks nice on paper but is impractical. The Democrats and Obama pursued populism and mud artillery (a level up from slinging), but even that is failing for them. Edit: Plus Obama's "open-door debates" will never happen. He leads by trying to give the impression that he is the people's voice. The thing with "Democracy" is things tend to get "Mobocratic" and uneducated people sway sides very quickly, and the televising of Senate debates would only expedite the cycle of shifting back and forth between parties, and build government opposition. The Senate members might also discuss something as simple as raises for themselves and they would be put on the cross for doing so.

Wow nice observation haha. It took me two times to read what you wrote it get it, but I didn't notice that.

Has anyone noticed the subtle references Jagex makes in Runescape? They are quite elaborate and you are really have to know something very specific to see the connection between them. The ones I've seen so far include: -Mahjarrat, if you say someone is mahjarrati in arabic that means they are like deserted/cursed. As you know, they kind of are cursed with eternal war. -Zamorak's symbol is the arabic symbol shadda. I love words with a shadda because it gives extra emphasis, perhaps an emphasis of power? As for the word Zamorak in arabic? I don't know of any word, but if there was a word+ak ending it means your masculine possession (i.e. bitkallamak is I speak to you [male] because it ends in ak). Maybe it's like 'he does evil unto you'. -(I noticed this one during Theology homework) Hazeel, the Mahjarrat, has a similar counterpart in the Bible. There is a king of Damascus mentioned in the book of Amos called Hazael who God judges and says: As known from the notes on the Mahjarrati, he acquires many supporters and land, as well as being considered very powerful, as most Syrian kings were exalted as. -In Draynor, Fortunato sells wine. In the story Cask of Amontillado, a character Fortunato is a supposed expert of wine and his friend ends up killing him by bringing him down into his cellar and walling him in for insulting him. Fortunato in Runescape seems kind of like a jerk, so it's no wonder his friend killed him for insulting him. -In Desert Treasure, the vampire's name, Malak, means angel. He does send you to kill an evil lord, which message delivering is kind of an angel's job. -In Desert Treasure, the demonish fire giant thing Fareed's name means unique. I don't know how he's unique though, as he's like the easiest boss to beat. I see a lot of semitic references, but maybe I see them because I just have knowledge of them. Anyone know of any other references in RuneScape to any novels, cultures, lingual puns, etc. and as to how they link in?

And maybe yours too seeing as all three developed from the same general concept, region (might be wrong here), etc. Just different times. . Plus Arab isn't the same as Muslim if I'm not mistaken. I'm Middle Eastern. Everyone from the Middle East is not an Arab (example: Iranians call themselves Persians, a minority of Iraqi/Syrian people call themselves Assyrian). The Arabs came up from the southern section of the Arabian peninsula. I'm technically "Arab" to make it easier to explain, but many Lebanese people consider themselves descendants of the Phoenicians rather then of Arabs. Abraham (Judaism & father of all three) would be considered of Assyrian descent (Mesopotamian region) and Jesus(Christianity) would be an Israelite in the land of Greater Syria (under Roman rule). Mohammad (Islam) is the only starter of an Abrahamic faith that is an Arab.

^Too bad that would be ignorance on your part as well seeing as how Christianity and Judaism pre-dates the rise of Arabs :rolleyes:

We have been porting money into Haiti for years and where has it gone? France and the US ultimately made Haiti into what it is today (or was, before the earthquake - a poor, crime infested drug harbor) during colonial times. Think of it like the guilt-responsibility relationship between Germany and Israel. It is bad PR for the US if they didn't keep helping them after using the land for enormous coffee, spice, cotton, manual slave labor etc. profits, and leaving the local population all alone with a corrupt hierarchy after they had collected worthwhile profits & deemed the exploitation to be no longer politically viable due to the negative response in their respective countries. You are not responsible for what happened in the past, just as today's young Germans are not responsible for what happened in WW2 to jews, but the political and moral ground for continuing aid and 'reparation' money exists, and has been paid to Haiti ever since they gained independence. As a result of the earthquake it will probably continue almost indefinitely. The deeds done in the past by others have NO bearing on my responsibility. Atlas shrugged, that is my basic stance on guilt. Honestly, although some support is of course a reasonable thing to give, it is the job of those in government office to care for US citizens, not the people of every nation in the world. To the above: there is no such thing as "citizens of the world". We all live here, but we need to fix our own countries problems first. The same goes for other parts of the world. Your flawed school of thinking is what causes the world to be as hostile as it is. True, the duty of a government is to govern its own nation, but when you're a superpower like the USA who invades countries at will and takes sides on international disputes, but people like you then conveniently say we need not help anyone. I am someone who hates to think there's some kind of score getting kept. You know, oh well we enslaved those people 400yrs ago, we best pay their great great great great grandchildren. No. First of all enslaving should have never been done, but it was an error and it is over. We no longer allow the owning of slaves. Therefore there is no responsibility to pay people who did no experience it. But, we must help those who are effected by things they simply cannot help. You do not do something good because you 'owe' or expect anything. You do it to help those suffering. I did not say donate all that you own. Those who can afford it should give extra what they can spare to help those who don't have the bare necessities. Lastly, contemplate if your [wagon] was in that earthquake. Would you complain if you receieved aid?

Lol that's funny. I'm quoting that in my sig for the irony.

^Not really. If someone of African descent were to say someone called them the 'n' word, no question asked the person accused would go straight to be disciplined and what have you. After being a sand *guess what word* and having my intelligence belitted for 2yrs by the same kid, I reported him to guidance cuz it was getting annoying. I almost got suspended because he cried and told them that I bullied him and it was in his own aggravation that he called me that, and he actually got away with it. Now, other then the fact that I'm shorter, thinner, lighter then this kid as well as believe physical violence is a last resort, and I don't have even a demerit on my record I was still almost declared the person at fault. However, freshmen year someone called an African descendant the well known derogatory word and was suspended after being reported. It is the racism in itself for racism defense priority that also provokes people to loath America and makes comments on them, but I don't agree with this two wrongs make a right idea, nonetheless it happens. Plus Americans also sometimes assume and classify people into categories. A natural tendency in American: Middle Eastern=Speaks Arabic=Muslim. A good example of skipping common sense and listening to racial stereotype, seeing as how there's a 4:1 chance that a Middle Easterner in the USA is Christian/nonreligious. [hide=Pie Chart][/hide] Which is just an example of one racial assumption that occurs in the US against commonly obtainable fact, out of probably many. But the reason why this incorrect presumption occurs? Because as I said in previous post, it doesn't matter if you offend anymore not under the American priority of racial defense.

Americans are more incline to be less intelligent and culturally educated as European races if you think about it. Since we are in a trophy age, where people get fancy degrees because "daddy" can pay for them and we have laws like "No Child Left Behind" and everyone bows to the "bill"(money). This is opposed as my father said he use to go to an Italian school his family funded in Egypt, where he got no special treatment, went to school 6 days a week, and the school day started like 2hrs before what I start at. Language is also something that plays a big part in intellectual growth. Because we consider Canada and Mexico second rate countries, we have little incentive to actually learn other languages then English. As opposed to when I went to Greece and a Greek person kept apologizing to me for their bad Italian, when they spoke Italian almost as well as me, and in France the same thing happened where people apologized for their "poor English" and yet they speak better then the hillbillies in America. Knowing more then one language obviously introduces you to a different culture, etc. but it also increases your ability to register and process information. The more languages you practice, the more able you are to think in different ways and such, which would make you adept at dealing with situations. Plus if you speak a different language where I live, you're basically seen as a foreigner who should "go back to your own country". I'm in high school, and I was discussing something private with my friend in Arabic because I was troubled, and this half-pint nerd was getting annoyed because he couldn't understand, and he's like go back to your own country to make your terrorist plots, "ala mohammad jihad derka derka". Ha. Why is THAT tolerated? It goes both ways.

:thumbup:

^ This is true. The responsibility of helping others who are devastated fall to all people economically stable enough to donate something, even if it's only a case of water or $10, every drop counts. Although we are citizens of our separate counties and have individual backgrounds, in time of need we must look upon ourselves as citizens of the world community and pull together to help those in need. I was reading 2 interesting contradicting articles about the earthquake written by 2 Protestant ministers, one was an evangelist and the other was a Baptist I think. The evangelist was saying how the earthquake was God's punishment for the Haiti's "deal with the devil"(which refers to one instance were a bunch of Haitians made a sacrifice of a pig to there different gods prior to the expulsion of the French from Haiti to help them kick out the French and their "God of the whites", which many see as the Haitians made a deal with the devil) and it was a sign of the fury of God. I find the Baptist's viewpoint even more interesting. That the earthquake was a blessing. Those who survived are just people. They were spared by God, and they have suffered the initial signal of Armageddon (as professed in the book of Revelation that it will be signaled by terrible earthquakes and then basically everyone goes to war), and because they have witnessed the first of the signs of the End-times, Armageddon shall take place in Haiti (I presume by Armageddon taking place in Haiti, he means the rapture). No offense to anyone who might agree with either of those, but I find them quite... far fetched to say the least.

Strangely, that makes me think of Winston Churchill lol. To all the people saying American is not a race, a race is nothing more then a social construct in modern understanding, it does not require common genetics or ethnicity, and as there IS a certain type of culture [although I'm not too sure what it is] about Americans it supports them being a race.

Well, culturally Americans are very isolated from the rest of European-descended cultures. The United States [political entity] also tends to embody the phrase "more gold, faster and less time" as well as gunboat diplomacy. The most ignorant of the American populace seem to be the most notable, such as those who are on shows like Jersey Shore, I assure you, I am not a guido. Although on my vacations to Europe, Americans do seem to be the most blatant tourists taking pictures all the time with their annoyingly loud voices, refusing to try and mingle with the "natives"(the term I so despise and yet I have heard used) and simply demanding that someone speak English. I have also found in my travels, that Americans are the most racist. The amount of insults I sustain for being Middle Eastern in the USA is quite remarkable, with the general assumption of Americans being that I am an extremist Muslim terrorist, ready to serve my demon-god, "Ah-la"(As Americans horribly pronounce it). But in the end, I think "racism towards Americans" is too over blown. In France, I openly stated I was American and the people were the nicest in the world. In Italy, when I was speaking Italian with a bartender at a hotel he asked me where in Italy i was from since my accent since it sounded like a northern accent (as I learned Italian with northern accent as my family is from the north) and I said I was from America, and they said oh how since, where? and I said NYC and they went on about how they would love to live in NYC and how they heard the people were quite nice (which I beg to differ with haha). And in Greece, I was even invited to a village feast/picnic/really big meal because I said I was from America with Greek ancestry and they were overjoyed and wanted me to tell them all about America as we eat. The point is I find racism to America less then what people think. I cannot say how many times in conversation someone will start mocking the French and portray the stereotype with the stripes, beret, mustache, baguette, glass of wine, etc. who hate Americans and yet the people in France were the nicest. To even prove a point I asked a French person in France who I had gotten quite familiar with about the idea of Americans thinking French people hated Americans and he was extremely puzzled and distraught at the thought of it. We stayed up one night sharing jokes and one he said was what is the difference between an American and a cup of yogurt? The yogurt will eventually gain culture, but it was just all in the spirit of fun, not hate.

I want to major in Psychology and minor in Sociology and go to Law school. My ultimate goal is to be a politician and restore some sense of order.

Supposedly I'm a Senior Engineering Specialist at EDS, I'm an Ophthalmologist and I'm a random Palestinian, and then I found my actual self which I wouldn't have expected.

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists. I was stating a conditional to what I would agree to. But note that I said union and you said marriage. I also advocate the avoiding of using that word seeing as how it would be a civil union and not a religious marriage. Then again I contemplate now, if gays were given the right to have unions with the same benefits of marriage, they will then lobby for forcing churches and temples to marry them otherwise they'll sue for discrimination. And when ever you use the term discrimination in America unless it pertains to one who is white everyone panics and does whatever the person who pulled the discrimination card said. This is BS? I think not. It happened to the Boy Scouts, something with a gay scout leader I believe and since they advocate against homosexual relationships that booted him, then he sued for discrimination and was court ordered to be allowed back in. Even though one might say its a club with the right to be selective with their members. Yes, you did say marriage in your second paragraph. If you read the context though, I said the slashing down of the legalization of gay marriage and churches and temples having the right to reject marrying gays. I negated the term 'gay marriage' every time I referenced it. And as the person above me said, I'm using it in a descriptive case not explanatory.

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists. I was stating a conditional to what I would agree to. But note that I said union and you said marriage. I also advocate the avoiding of using that word seeing as how it would be a civil union and not a religious marriage. Then again I contemplate now, if gays were given the right to have unions with the same benefits of marriage, they will then lobby for forcing churches and temples to marry them otherwise they'll sue for discrimination. And when ever you use the term discrimination in America unless it pertains to one who is white everyone panics and does whatever the person who pulled the discrimination card said. This is BS? I think not. It happened to the Boy Scouts, something with a gay scout leader I believe and since they advocate against homosexual relationships that booted him, then he sued for discrimination and was court ordered to be allowed back in. Even though one might say its a club with the right to be selective with their members.

My father says this was rather stupid, medically speaking, seeing as how there is a concentrated drug of the active ingredients of marijuana already legal in New Jersey. I can't help but agree. I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage. I don't really see the problem with homosexuals being united but it should be restricted to something civil and stay away from religious congregations that detest such unions, as it is there right as a group separate from the government to be able to have criteria for members and they have a right to reject to marry those who are not up to their criteria, i.e. of the same sex. By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

If you're Catholic, then you'll know the purpose of marriage is for two to become one flesh - i.e. procreation. It takes a man and a woman to preform the conjugal act, it can't be preformed by a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You'll also know as a Catholic that if you're gay, you're still called to be chaste, just like any heterosexual. This means if you're not married, you're not being impure or looking at impure materials. It also means that you're not having relations with anyone. If you're married, you're still called to be chaste. As in, sex is for procreation, so using contraception is sinful. It also means that you're to accept any children as blessings (not killing them), and to not have extramarital affairs. It also means that you're not to get divorced all willy-nilly (til death do you part). You already knew that though, because you're a devout Catholic. Equal protection under the law means that civil unions should enjoy the exact same benefit as marriage, but it doesn't have to be called marriage, and it shouldn't be called marriage. Right now, there's nothing illegal about being in a civil union. There's nothing to legalize. My priest told me that if the state recognized marriage as the union between two individuals, that the church would probably separate itself entirely from the legal process - getting married in the church would no longer make your marriage legally recognized, and vice-versa (making it a pain in the neck to get married as a Catholic). @Nick_6464 You're intolerant, and you're just as bad as those who "hate gays for being gay". Just because you support the gay side doesn't mean you get a free pass on intolerance. Too bad I know of what you spoke of in your first paragraph since 8th grade, so yes I did know. If you look at my last post I say civil union and that it should not be performed in the context of a place or group of worship that does not approve of gay unions. I'd rather skip the technicalities and call it marriage even though I would much rather refer to them as civil unions, these are just names. The gays would just get all upset about not being able to call it marriage and then more problems would ensue because people like you chose to be confrontational. The important point is that those who believe in remaining chaste keep to their belief. Keep the sanctity in heart if we are unable to keep it in the societal word. It is easy to preach but not to do as you command others to do. Also seeing as how the Church and any state of government are separate, it is not my affair to go around advocating for laws that are going to specifically get people pissed off. Rather I will look at the win-situation in which I hope there would be a decline in abortions due to a higher adoption rate rather then see it as I'm allowing it as gays doing evil. Catholics are to lead by example and word not by force of law. That is also rather strange and extreme of your priest to say. The Catholic Church would not separate from the legal process, as we believe we are doing the correct thing by preserving the definition of marriage (which I signed in my state FYI, and we slashed down the gay marriage proposal) so then that would only make the inconvenience of having to be religiously married and then civilly married. And by the way you're a hypocrite for saying you'd allow them civil union with the same rights rather then just call it marriage. That's just being confrontational and your latching onto a word rather then the teaching you are suppose to be following on the matter. You're quite arrogant for your use of sarcasm and what you might have thought was you giving me a lesson. If you were truly a Catholic you wouldn't go around reprimanding people in public like they were your child and act like you wrote the catechism. How dare you use sarcasm to hint at me not knowing that, as I along with my entire family have been banished from our country of origin, formerly being part of the gubernacula, because we refused to surrender our faith. You're suppose to be a bringer of peace, not confrontation, although you war hawkish ones are too busy trying to kill heathens rather then set good precedents.