Crocefisso

Very well, Gabe, I will write a full and detailed response to that nonsense of a video, so that at least one of us can set a precedent. -On the issue of the Palestinian state: True, there has never been a state called Palestine, but those who use this as a reason to dismiss the notion that there should be one have missed the point of the concept by a country mile. Palestine refers to a geographical area in the Levant which I believe is a Roman - and therefore not religiously or racially charged - appellation. Palestinian Arabs are the people who have inhabited said area for over a millennium. Though they have never had a state that is called Palestine, they have been allowed to live here in states whose names have varied but ultimately allow them residence in the area. Following al-Nakba, many Palestinians were forced to flee, unable to return because of Israel's Zionist assertion that the Jews need a homeland (because they are somehow superior to other minority groups, purportedly), thanks largely to a bunch of Biblical claims and the fact that there used to be two Jewish states between c. 930-586 BC. Jews inhabited this area up until the period of 70-135 AD, when Romans - Europeans - created a Jewish diaspora by selling Jews into slavery across the Empire, which was also at its peak in terms of size under Trajan and Hadrian (whose collective periods as Emperor span 98-138 AD), meaning that Jewish diaspora ended up being as widely spread as possible. From this point on, Jews intergrated into European and later the Americas following their colonialisation. Arabs have lived in the area since around 700 AD (give or take 50 years). This means a number of things: a) Arabs have a longer history in the area called Palestine, b) It wasn't even Arabs who threw the Jews out, but Europeans, and c) The massive time period that elapsed between 135 AD and Israel's creation in 1948 shows that the common argument that many of today's Palestinians weren't even born there, and that this period of 63 years somehow nullifies their claim to the land, but 1813 years did not do the same to the Jewish claim, is inherently illogical. As such, the Palestinian state is a means to allow the native people of that land, outside of the artificial structures of Zionism (Theodor Herzl, the ideologue of Zionism, believed that Palestine was "loose" unless inhabited by Jews, which gives the distinct impression that Jewish occupation of Palestine is some sort of necessary or benevolent act), to live in their actual, rather than textual, Biblical or historical (from ancient history) homeland, as is the case with the Jewish claim. I am not saying that the Jewish people aren't entitled to live in said area of land, but their claim is weak from a rational perspective and does not override that of the Arabs. I also believe that the current state of affairs is deepingly anti-Semitism among Arabs and Islamophobia among Jews, creating massive societal divisions that only grow with time. I believe that a two state solution would inevitably result in a war between said states. As such, I think only a single, secular state - Palestine would have to be the name, because Israel is a religious and racially charge name - for both peoples is the only real way to heal the deep rift and ensure something close to a lasting peace. My other points won't be as lengthy, I assure you. -Six Day War: The Six Day War was the result of a build up of pressure, as both sides were unwilling to cooperate in the years prior. Technically, however, "the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces." - see wikipedia entry for Six Day War. -Jordan & the West Bank: Jordan occupied the area? Wrong. They were encouraged to do so by the UK and US, the latter of which did also recognise this move. The Arab States did not recognise it because they had some disputes with Jordan at the time regarding King Hussein's policies - some Arab states even tried to get Jordan expelled from the Arab League -, and it was nothing to do with some sort of ethical or pro-Israeli decision. -Occupied/Disputed Territories: The meanings in political jargon are identical. This really is splitting hairs. -'Arabs Launched a War'... funny that. It's what one would expect after a Jewish army turned up on their land and demanded that they leave certain parts of it. -The part where the narrator mentions the Balfour Declaration: it was not technically much more than a letter of support from the British Foreign Minister - to a prominent British Jewish banker and part of the Rothschild dynasty -, and never became policy. Following this declaration, the feeling in Parliamenent became less pro-Zionist, as Churchill noted in 1922: "In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine" -The League of Nations may have endorsed this in 1922, but, then again, the LoN was pretty powerless (even more so than the UN). It also reached just 58 member states during its peak, in 1934-5, long after this 1922 endorsement. This pales in comparison to the 190+ UN member states and their overall animosity towards Israel's actions. Thus, the Balfour Declaration has little meaning in reality; it's more symbolic. After 4:06 minutes, I'm afraid to say that the video broke, and I last saw it too long ago to remember what was said. If you'd like to recap, feel free.

Gabe; I think we need to go back to basics. Please regale me with the reasoning you see for the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, without just reposting a video. I also find that the brevity of your responses, and the clever way you answer only select points (and those you do answer are answered so quickly that it's difficult to see depth in your argument), makes engaging in a well-rounded discussion more difficult than it ought to be. Your above post was too fatuous and too selective in what you chose to atually answer to warrant a response. The only thing I will say is this: stop dredging up relics from the past. So what if Norway was anti-Semitic under Nazi occupation? That was over sixty years ago. I lived in Bergen for a year; it's really not an anti-Semitic country.

I hate those people on Fbook who, despite being privilidged in every imaginable way, moan about anything that might go even slightly wrong in their lives, e.g. "OMG! I can't believe I just spilled hot tea on my carpet. I'm gonna kill myself" (I may be exaggerating slightly) A bit OT: Jesus Christ, Julie! Almost 500 posts in under a month. You must live on TIF.

The discussion seems to have turned to name-dropping. The closest I can get is saying that my dad's friend is a former Olympic athlete and the Finance Minister... of Luxembourg. :mrgreen: Compared to Dylan and Obama, it's pretty weak.

Very quick critique: I think that both poems, though good, could be made better and more 'poetic' by: a) Abandoning the artifical and restrictive rhyme scheme (this, I suppose, is more of an opinion/preference, but I feel that rhyme schemes are not necessary in poetry, and needn't be forced upon a poem) b) Punctuate the poems to make them more readable. Otherwise, I'd say these are pretty impressive.

Thanks very much for the feedback, you two. Sy; I'm sorry to hear that you didn't find it poetic enough. The intention of this Canto was really to be stunted, in order to portray the descent into madness and pedantry, but I accept that I may not have communicated this as I could have. Once again, context within the wider poem I cannot give you, because the other Cantos (of which there are but eleven) aren't finished. The poem is also hindered by the fact that the layout - similar to certain Imagist poems, if you'd care to get an idea - cannot be reproduced on TIF. I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to how I might be able to imbue the poem with a much needed rhythmic quality? (PS: If what I said sounded like an excuse, it was not intended as such) Phrixeon; thanks very much for your kind appraisal. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the poem. By the way, the quote in your signature, though commonly misattributed to Plato, is in fact a quote of the 20th century philosopher George Santayana. I've just checked that on Santayana's wikipedia page in case you needed verification; it's in the second paragraph.

Spam, methinks - doesn't relate to the thread, really. There's a separate Norway-related thread for you to post this conspiracy theory.

That's quite an achievement; how do you destroy it beyond repair?

Congratulations all :thumbsup:

Gabe; On the topic of Netanyahu, I urge you to look at some very basic facts that I shouldn't need to post on here so you can have your silly little proofs. The fact he and his right wing Likud party were elected in the first place shows the sort of views held by a large number of the Israeli populace. Similarly, just go and look at his poll ratings for foreign policy - which involves such magnificent feats as causing the break down of talks with Palestine - and tell me it doesn't reflect badly on the Israeli populace. Similarly, by calling lobbyists democratic, you quite clearly demonstrate a rather distorted view of what a democratic system should be. Israeli government and business figures paying politicians in DC to lobby for them does not represent the will of the American people. It's a shamelessly corrupt practic by a nation which, without spoon-feeding from the US, and indoctrinating part of the US electorate with the false assertion that Israel is a victim of something other than its own aggression, could not exist. I do not feel the need to assert the notion that Israeli policy is based upon lies and terror needs backing up with some sort of empirical evidence. It is my take on the Israeli policies and reactions to their actions (they kill civilians, then lie about it). I see through the nonsense, as do most of us here, Gabe. If you choose to believe it, that's your error of judgement. That terrible, patronising video you've posted (which convinces me that Israel should exist about as much as Menachem Begin's assertion that the Jews are the Master race) here, you've also posted on other threads. It's as if there's only one video supporting Israel's right to exist. And even that video is shameless propaganda with very little reasoning outside of petty Zionist radicalism that is incredibly similar to al-Qa'ida and Islamist ideologies (and more extreme than Hizbullah), if only you'd come out of your US right wing propaganda cocoon and listen to objective fact that isn't influenced by money or bribery, but by clear-sightedness, human empathy, and objective facts. @Kimberly: I don't think it's possible to support Israel without being both close-minded and hypocritical.

They're called "Italians", and they extend this to their driving, walking in public, and every other aspect of their lives so long as they're in a public place. I'm Italian, and I don't act like this. :-| But do you live in Italy? Or, as is more likely, are you a person of Italian heritage living in the US, UK, Canada etc? I am referring to the scientific fact that all Italians residing anywhere on the Italian peninsula south of Rome act in this way.

RS is not a good enough product to be able to justify micro-transactions and not offering a F2P form. It'd be commercial suicide. The phrase 'every trick in the book' is just that: a phrase, not a something I was stating as fact. Just you wait and see what happens to RS once Jagex is floated on the FTSE.

There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about it. Zionism, the philosophy upon which Israel was founded, is a radical interpretation of Judaism and the rights of the Jewish people in much the same way that Qutbism or Islamic fundamentalism is with regards to Islam. The only difference is that our governments support the former ideology. Please do watch the video I posted if you're in any doubt. My issue was how this got completely off topic when people started attacking the entire country of Norway for being 'antisemetic' when this topic was originally about terrorism. Your post is a bit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X_Ot0k4XJc Factually correct, but so out of place and so very awkward. My aim, though I didn't state it (foolishly), was to try and shut up all those people who'll accuse people of anti-Semitism for little to no reason, as if they're programmed just to randomly shout the phrase whenever someone criticises Israel.

They're called "Italians", and they extend this to their driving, walking in public, and every other aspect of their lives so long as they're in a public place.

Today I just saw that locked thread, "Can atheists be fire fighters?", for the first time. Some of the funniest and most original trolling I've seen in a while.

There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about it. Zionism, the philosophy upon which Israel was founded, is a radical interpretation of Judaism and the rights of the Jewish people in much the same way that Qutbism or Islamic fundamentalism is with regards to Islam. The only difference is that our governments support the former ideology. Please do watch the video I posted if you're in any doubt.

All Square Enix is doing is publishing the game. Development is left entirely to the studio. That being a group of studios made up largely of subsidiaries of Square Enix.

Let me guess, you're angry because Norway are copying Israel's style? Seriously Gabe, I don't think many straight thinking people can sympathise with a country based on religious extremist values, that uses terrorism and lying as a state policy, and gains most of its support by paying lobbyists to strangle the USA. I find it even more distasteful that the Israeli populace approve of Netanyahu (foreign policy-wise), whose settlement building and total refusal to co-operate with the Palestinians whatsoever is astounding. I think anyone who truly believes in Israel's existence should watch what this leading (though deceased) academic has to say, before they listen to some radical racist like Melanie Phillips (a British ultra-Zionist who claims that a) opponents of Israel are all anti-Semitic, and b) London is being taken over by Muslims). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anOMM5S6NMw&feature=related

I think you've mistaken this thread for the "Top 5 Most Boring People" one. :P

^ I cannot bring myself to read The Guardian. Any paper that employs condescending, pretentious [expletive]s like Polly Toynbee does not have my respect. The Times does have its issues - such as supporting some religious fundamentalists (Israel), while condemning others (Taleban, al-Qa'ida) - but overall it's a paper that's just as balanced as most other quality press publications (The Daily Telegraph being the exception; it's too right wing biased to even make sense). Both The Guardian and The Times are biased, but only slightly, and readers of the quality press should be able to see through the thin veneer of bias in both publications. Though I agree with much of what you say about The Sun, the reality is this: most people are morons and, if The Sun were to close, they would not suddenly start reading The Times, Guardian, Independent etc. They'd read The Daily Mail, which is 100 times worse than The Sun when it comes to racism, bigotry, and hate-fuelling against minorities and so on. Melanie Phillips - the woman who at the same time calls anyone who criticises Israel "racist" while spreading fear that Muslims are taking over London - is their star columnist, after all. I'd rather these people read The Sun, which is harmless by comparison. Especially when many Sun readers just look at the topless girls and sports, which are timid compared to the Mail.

I've noticed a recurring out of shape/wanting to do more exercise theme on this thread. I can't really apply that to me, but I should probably eat less liquorice. It's like my Achilles heel.

I'm worried Square Enix will mess it up, as they tend to do with most things they do. Other than that, I'm looking forward to a proper sequel at last.

Octopus and French Omelette. Mmmm.

I've written quite a lot of poetry in the past year - around 100 poems of varying lengths -, and I'm currently working on a longer poem that I've subdivided into Cantos. It's not going too well as of today, and only Canto II is actually finished. As such, I've decided to post it here as a standalone poem to see what sort of a reception it gets. There are some thematic spoilers below the poem for people struggling to "get it"; I'm no expert poet and the message I intend to give might not be clear to others. I may also add some more poems at a later date. Furthermore, the exact layout of the poem on the page cannot be recreated on these forums (the poem on word is laid out in such a way as to communicate thought processes), so this aspect of the poem is lost. Canto II Intertwining clouds and contrails pattern a sky, a cerulean sky, the stuff of idyllic hopes, and wistful fantasies. The purity of their whitish glow, on this clear afternoon, a crochet of heaven and the terrestrial; a crossroads, an intersection. Conjures up the smell, feel, look of times gone by and those yet to come (for I am eternal, whispered the sky). Cirrostratus and cirrocumulus and contrails; the three baskets, Tripitaka three jewels, too, - triratna – and three Kingdoms (Wei (魏), Shu (蜀), Wu (吳)) all of these, I see in these translucent lines which crisscross over this floating world. Floating world?! Is this 17th century Japan? it might be. when all one has to go by are a few ephemeral shapes, perpetually afloat in the azure, who, but by the aversion of their gaze, could know of such things as time and date? The contrails narrow it down. have I not stated this? they merge with the clouds, they become one with the clouds, they have found the Tao of the clouds, and – as far as I am aware – there is no distinction. Did you not see the planes that made them? alas, no; did you? He did not answer, but I knew he hadn’t seen them. Nor was he a meteorologist. Thus he was none the wiser to the ‘contrails’, perhaps another cirrostratus? To this day, I remain blissfully ignorant, to both those clouds, and all clouds. And his pedantry. Let me dream alone! SPOILER: This poem is the attempt of the poem's protagonist (of sorts) to reconcile the natural and modern worlds which seem to come into conflict in his eyes.

Beaches are only as fun as the sea they're on. A beach with a good surf can entertain me all day long. The Med, on the other hand, is really quite dull.