Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/29/06 12:32 PM, mynamewontfitin wrote: So then why is everyone complaining that this war is so one-sided? It's obviously not. (...)

By the way, I took the liberty to enhance the image you posted.

At 7/30/06 09:16 AM, 4aces wrote: i can't,however,find anyone to blame for the sensless killing(besides -hizbullah of course)... i can't expect the israeli government to submit to hizbullah-and i can't expect lebanon not to go against israel after the amount of deaths.....

"Not bombing a building that's bound to be laden with civilians" and "submitting to Hezbollah" are not quite on the same level. Katyushas launchers are mobile, as someone had pointed out earlier, so arbitrarily shelling cities from which rockets have been fired would not seem to be a very fruitful tactic. This particular incident just pushed a handful of civilians closer to joining up with Hezbollah or a related movement either now or in the future.

And I hate the justification behind these bombings. When Lebanese civilians get killed in the cities all we hear is "they should have fled because we warned them about cities in South Lebanon being targeted". So when they flee and get killed on the road it's "they shouldn't have used the roads because the infrastructure in South Lebanon is being targeted". I would be more prone to respect these arguments if a temporary cease-fire had been put in place, those two Israeli hostages could have waited a couple more days.

At 7/30/06 10:18 AM, El_Guapaduro wrote: What does Hezbollah do? Strap explosives to their children and send them into a crowded coffee shop.

Point out at least one situation involving infantile suicide bombers that happened in the past few weeks and I'd be a lot more inclined to believe you.

Israel had information that Hezbollah was hiding in the building, the civillians had had a few days to get out, so they bombed it.

False, they had information that Hezbollah was using the city as a place from which rockets were launched.

This was obviously a plot by whomever gave them the information. They knew there were still civillians in the building, so they told Israel that Hezbollah was there, and when they bombed it, it would be really bad PR. Simple.

Oh yeah, a plot, OBVIOUSLY. But you're wrong about the culprits, it were the Annunaki and their allies among the CIA. They watch me when I shower.

At 7/30/06 09:57 AM, DarthTomato wrote:

At 1/16/02 11:04 PM, bula_luigi wrote: You think that's bad? Do you know how the American amry are treating prisoners of war? there's a rumour that one of the American Taliban fighters captures were put in a cage.

apparently you've never seen the inside of a prison before... a prison is a series of cages to detain criminals... and prisoners of war. of course we call them "cells" instead of "cages"

Call me weird, but for some reason I think that someone whose last post was made over four years ago isn't going to read your reply.

And to Ranger2: please, for the love of God, stop bumping ancient threads.

At 7/30/06 08:05 AM, natali1 wrote: The terrorist group refused to let the civilians leave because they knew what was going to happen.

Oh yeah, they must have purposely kept the civilians there because they're Hezbollah and they're evil. A local correspondent on the other hand suggested that "many did not have the means - or were too frightened - to flee". Why would he make such an outlandish claim?

It could be because in the past two weeks Israeli bombardments have destroyed 62 bridges and have rendered 600 kilometers of roads unusable. Earlier reports already mentioned that since a lot of the main roads in Lebanon had sustained heavy bomb damage aid convoys were forced to use dust roads clogged with scores of refugees. So it's not that unreasonable to claim that most of the inhabitants lacked the means of escaping. The part about them being afraid is also substantiated: roads and convoys using these roads are still being targeted so the inhabitants of Qana had to decide whether they would stay and risk being hit by a bomb or leave and risk being hit by a bomb. They apparently chose the devil they knew in favour of an uncertain journey.

The flyers that might have been dropped in Qana would basically have said: you can either attempt to flee or stay and in both cases you and your family will risk being blown to pieces, but it's Hezbollah's fault for being there instead of ours for dropping the explosives. If anything, this conflict teaches us to appreciate the US method of conduct in times of war. When they mess up they at least sometimes accept responsibility for their actions in contrast to the Israeli authorities who blame every single one of their indiscretions in Lebanon on the other side.

At 7/29/06 08:55 AM, -Marine237- wrote: Let's invade them.

It's always cold there and they've got Tahnok. I don't understand why they're so happy.

At 7/29/06 08:56 AM, Jossos wrote: Thanks, finally someone gave a list with more results.

There's a complete list here, but it's alphabetically sorted instead of by Satisfaction With Life score so it's kind of hard to read.

Finland is number 6, what the fuck. If I remember correctly they had some of the highest suicide rates on a global scale in the past but apparently they're totally satisfied with their lives now. Maybe their victory at Eurovision has something to do with this.

At 7/25/06 12:23 PM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: But one thing is true! Mohammed did say that Muslims should conquer Constantinopel.
That is really violent to me, since it was a Christian city back then. And Christians believe in the same God(as we all know) so i don't think it was Allah's will or something.
So i think it was just for personal gain.

He apparently foretold the conquest of Constantinople and blessed the commander. I doubt his prediction was out of personal gain since it happened about 700 or so years after his death.

At 7/25/06 01:18 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Tridium isn't rare at all, its H3. There is tons of it.

It's not three hydrogen atoms, it's a proton with two neutrons. And "in comparison to many other atmospheric radioactive isotopes, tritium is extremely rare and not affected by chemical processes." For the rest of the topic I'd say cheers to China I guess.

At 7/25/06 11:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote: So did Jesus say this....
Or some other Prophet?

Leviticus is the third book of the Torah so it's the word of God as told to Moses. The quotes from Romans and I Corinthians are from Paul. As far as I know Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality.

Or this one from Romans:

[1:26-27] "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

This one also specifically mentions girl-on-girl action. One can only imagine the dismay that must have taken a hold of Paul after he came to Corinth and became aware of the number of ways in which the Greeks touched each other and exchanged bodily fluids.

Or I Corinthians [6:9] could be mentioned.

At 7/25/06 07:27 AM, FeeFee85 wrote: To shed some light here can any one tell me were in the bible it says homosecuality is wrong?

I'm Agnostic and I personally don't believe in any of this but I think they mean these passages from Leviticus:

[18:22] - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

[18:23-24] - "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

[20:13] - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "

Then again, most people who refer to Leviticus as an example of the Bible condemning homosexuality shave the sides of their heads so they're not really in a position to judge.

At 7/24/06 11:39 PM, troubles1 wrote:

When you take information from the internet link to your sources. Saves people the effort of having to google it.

Mohammad had as many as 25 wives. One was six when they married; he was 54. He consummated the marriage when she was 9

Third post.

The joys and glories of the Islamic "paradise" are tangible and sensual and include sex with virgins -- and young boys

Bullshit

The Crusades were a belated military response to three centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian lands and peoples

"All versions of Urban's speech in Clermont note that the pope urged Christians to fight righteous wars against non-Christians instead of being engaged in iniquitous and fratricidal combats among themselves. " Not that much of a surprise considering that the First Crusade started in Germany with the massacre of thousands of Jews. The war between the Turks and the Byzantines was an excuse but never the main reason, the main reasons were Christian religious intolerance and geopolitics.

In 1993, Saudi Arabia's supreme religious authority declared that the world is flat, and that anyone who disagrees is an infidel to be punished

Fucking HOAX. Ibn Baz personally called it a "pure lie". Even though I'm not a big admirer of Saudi Arabia's policies regarding religious tolerance this bit is just plain wrong and pretty much shows mow credible your source is.

Like Communism, Islam cannot foster prosperity, and is always reliant on plunder or unearned wealth (e.g., from oil)

You mean the kind of prosperity that results in camels going easier through eyes of needles than rich men passing through the gates of Heaven, according to J.C. himself? Great job on gaining wealth if you'll spend an eternity in Hell or an indefinite period of time in Purgatory for it. Crazy Jesus and his Communist antics.

"The arbiters of official Islam will not tell us what Islam is, only what they want it to be. For the truth, we must turn Dr. Serge Trifkovic, a European historian of broad learning, sound philosophy and keen political insight." -- Brian Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief, Investor's Business Daily

Yeah, nice one. We should listen to a revisionist who calls the Srebrenica massacre a "long-debunked myth". The sheer amount of points makes it a pain in the ass to respond to them one by one but I'm sure they're all crap anyway like the ones I mentioned. Your source is a nice new addition to the already present collection of Islam-smirching books and opinions and like the other ones it probably deserves a rightful place in my trash bin.

Although the anti-war movement in Israel appears to be pretty marginal some are refusing to serve out of ideological motives.
Staff Sergeant Itzik Shabbat is apparently the first one who has willingly refused duty, although the website of the Yesh Gvul movement claims that there are others. Shabbat was already on the list of those who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories but he apparently disagrees with the way this conflict is handled as well.

I love your post, JMHX, and I also think that the US and the international community should work more closely together when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism. But what exactly do you propose? Any military intervention in Somalia or sub-Saharan Africa is doomed to fail, aid money to these regions might be seized by the wrong parties and one might doubt that the capacity of the AU to handle conflicts like these is adequate. I like the spirit and I'm not trying to be overly critical but I'm not sure about the potency of the measures. Please elaborate.

At 7/23/06 06:41 PM, Kasualty wrote: Self defense, the problem isn't Israel, it's religious fanatics like the taliban and hezbollah. Christians, Jews, and Muslims were living in relative peace until the taliban came along. It all went downhill from there.

Muslim fundamentalism wasn't part of the conflict until the late eighties or so. The Arab enemies (Syria and Egypt for example) of Israel were generally ruled by secular governments, be it Nationalist or Arab Socialist. The rise of the Afghan Taliban has nothing to do with the origins of this particular conflict. Nothing at all.

At 7/23/06 03:02 PM, KefkaPalazzo wrote: (reference to Blackadder and a historical British campaign to massacre pygmies)

Captain Darling considers your argument to be invalid.

At 7/23/06 03:05 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: Do you know that HI is a Jew, or are you just assuming that?

"I'm a relatively new BBS user and I'd like to join this club. I'm a conservative Jew in the United States and am a social liberal, economic conservative and a STAUNCH Israel supporter. Is it possible to join and how would I go about doing this"?

Yeah, we know.

At 7/23/06 01:04 PM, KefkaPalazzo wrote: Unfortunately, being a miner , I'm not allowed to stand for election.

I was unaware that the United Kingdom had such laws in place and I must say that I'm shocked and appalled. Miners certainly contribute to the economy and without them the Western world would be even more dependent on raw resources from the Third World. You should have every right to stand for election and I'll be sure to write Tony Blair an angry letter about this utter disgrace.

At 7/22/06 08:55 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I'm never sure if they have ulterior motives (cough "Revelations" cough), but is it just me who feels this way?

Give me one reason why a Republican would not support Israel's current solution to the hostage crisis. People who believe that "shock and awe" tactics are the best means of solving international conflicts are generally found among rightist parties, look at Ann Coulter for example who apparently thinks Israel's reaction was not extreme enough.

Where a typical leftist would normally try to understand both sides of the conflict a typical right-winger would seek to divide those involved in the conflict into a "Good" and "Evil" side, he would condemn any form of negotiation with Evil and believe that only pressure and force could destroy it. Even though the current Israeli government is mostly centre-left they share the latter point of view with you and a lot of Republicans. I can't believe you're amazed at the fact that you find your allies among the neo-Conservative ranks whenever the subject of Israel arises.

At 7/21/06 11:28 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: But, if Israel does use force, and terrorists know that they will be viciously attacked for attacking Israel, they may hesitate.

No, Hezbollah wanted Israel to attack viciously. The Lebanese people are bound to view the Israelis as the aggressors and while their mostly anti-Syrian government sits by idly the Hezbollah is fighting "back". Their support among the common man is increasing and any Katyusha launcher that's destroyed will only be compensated with another purchase in the future.

This was never about prisoners, I think the main goal of Hezbollah was to get the Syrian army to return to the country as a stabilising force but the more Lebanese civilians die the more popular support they'll gain. Whatever force the Israelis resort to should only be used if the negative consequences for non-combatants is minimal. Dropping flyers telling people to flee while bombing the roads that people are supposed to use when they flee is sure to cause distress which will be sure to affect the opinion these people have of Israel and the Hezbollah in the future.

Giving populations aid and service, as someone suggested, is fine, but not in the midst of a terrorist attack.

The terrorist attack has already happened and the ensuing conflict could theoretically last for months, the individual people are not responsible for Hezbollah's actions and should therefore not be allowed to rot.

At 7/21/06 10:51 AM, Shayel wrote: I'm almost sure that Israel attacked no power plants anyway...
I KNOW Israel didn't bomb any power plants 'till yesterday (not sure about today but... 80\5 sure).

In Gaza and in Lebanon (picture 8).

At 7/21/06 09:53 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: All of you who decry Israel's use of force and wish it to stop have to understand that that will only encourage more terrorism, because the terrorists won't stop.

And you have to understand that excessive violence only breeds more future violence. You can't kill an ideal, all you can kill is a number of followers and they have little brothers and cousins who will take up arms against Israel when they're older. And then you can kill them as well, and the next generation of terrorists after them but all that time you'll have war, Qassams, Katyushas and citizens hiding in bomb shelters.

It's wasn't the bombing of Dresden that killed Nazism in Germany, it was the Marshall Aid afterwards. As long as people are desperate, angry with the current situation and reliant on the social support of organisations like Hezbollah there will be tensions and a war every now and then. Measures like bombing power stations, destroying infrastructure needed for humanitarian aid and being fairly inconsiderate when it comes to the potential deaths of civilians aren't bringing the region one step closer to a solution.

At 7/20/06 12:26 PM, Turandot wrote: It's a cunning Hezbollah trick, they'll shop you to the feds :/

And I walked right into it. I'm hearing people screaming and knocking on my door already.

NARC!!!!

At 7/20/06 12:30 PM, somegirl1 wrote: i dont know what you mean child porn, its not like shes naked..
actually, all the last part i didnt understand, about the child porn.. could you explain it to me?

She isn't naked, but it's a pretty sexual pose that she's striking and she's like 12. I don't know, it's just that I don't want to see girls that young looking like that. But then again, a website called "growing up" is probably for her own age group so I shouldn't mind in the first place. It doesn't really matter.

At 7/20/06 12:11 PM, somegirl1 wrote: between 12 years old to 20 years old.. most of them are 16-15.. teenagers :)

Haha, okay. I just spent the last forty minutes trying to sign up for your forum (crazy Hebrew) so thanks for fixing that. On a somewhat unrelated note, the fourth picture in
this user's sig is borderline child porn, it felt kind of wrong to look at it. If that's you: for the love of God, try something a little more tasteful. I already fear I just got myself an FBI dossier after logging into a children's forum and if they find that picture in my temporary internet files it's not going to look good in court.

At 7/20/06 10:46 AM, somegirl1 wrote: oh, i swear to you in my mother and father and i dont know who, that were not.
i dont know how to prove it to you, perhaps talking on MSN and proving?
its pissing me off that you think im ALT or whatever =\

I wasn't being sarcastic, I really thought it was plausible that you read the link to this topic in another forum. You don't have to MSN me for it, but maybe you could link to the other forum where you read about Newgrounds. There's a "link" button above the area where you type your post, it doesn't matter if the forum is in Hebrew.

You can post links this way.

And respond to the rest of my post for that matter =/

At 7/20/06 09:51 AM, Someone15 wrote: o, BTW - I have absolutely no idea what ALT is. But we got this link from an israeli forum, a member got here and gave us this link.

Okay that sounds plausible, especially since two of you are logged in at the same time. An "alt" is an alternate account, created by one person to spam under several names, and we figured the five of you were one person.

And this has been said a couple of times, but most people don't think that Israel has no right to defend itself - they're criticising the way in which Israel is defending itself. Let me ask you: do you think that this tactic of invading a couple of hours after the soldiers were kidnapped will work to achieve peace in the long run? Don't you think that the violence, the dead innocents, the fact that about half a million people had to flee from their houses and the blow to the Lebanese economy due to lessening trade and the bombing of a power plant and infrastructure will only increase future sentiments of hate among the Lebanese among others? Don't you think that in the course of a few years this attack and the excessive violence that is used to carry it out will create a new generation of Qassam launchers?

Look, I hope I can to some extent empathise with the position you're in but I think Olmert should have put a lot more pressure on the Lebanese government to turn on the Hezbollah before resorting to an all-out invasion. And if an invasion had to take place a little more restraint would have helped prevent future terrorism. I might be wrong in my observations, but this is a Politics forum and we're here to discuss things like that with each other. No need to get all worked up about it (I'm not referring to you in particular).

At 7/20/06 09:09 AM, shiri_c wrote: CUT THE BULLSHIT.

Oh come ON. It was funny when alt nr. 3 quoted alt nr. 1 in agreement but this is alt nr. 5 already and it's starting to get annoying. Quit it.

At 7/20/06 07:44 AM, somegirl1 wrote: BTW, what's ALTS?

Put your legs behind your neck and look down.

That part of the BBS really intimidates me. I oftentimes feel like posting there about more important issues than all this political garbage, but I'm afraid any attempt at a decent argument would easily be bested. So let us discuss the pressing matters they contend right here, in the safe confines of the Politics forum. So, who do you guys think would win in a fight: Super Mario or Bruce Willis? I think we can all agree to the fact that either a Haduken or Kamehameha will deliver the final blow, but the issue is: who will use it first and, more importantly, who will be able to use it effectively?

I was busy yesterday but I had promised a bigger response so here it is. I guess most of it has been stated already.

At 7/16/06 06:09 PM, Cahenn wrote: 1)How do you think Israel should have reacted to the kidnapping of the soldiers?

I'll start by saying that in contrast to the Hamas which had upheld a truce for 1¼ years and offered a negotiable condition for the release of Shalit Hezbollah was deliberately looking for an Israeli incursion. They had launched attacks even in the end of 2005 like this one and this one so the kidnapping of the two soldiers was not a sign of solidarity with the Palestinians but a direct declaration of war.

Like we all know the Hezbollah are strong supporters of a Lebanese/Syrian alliance but after their peaceful protests had failed they turned to violence in order to get what they wanted. I think they're hoping that the Syrians will once again send their soldiers into Lebanon, perhaps while being tolerated by the IDF as a stabilising force (like Bush has suggested to Blair). But even if the Syrians would meet the IDF on the battlefield the Hezbollah are probably hoping that Syrian forces would be allowed stay in Lebanon like they did earlier after a cease-fire had been signed.

It should also be noted that if a Syrian incursion would fail or never happen the Israeli air strikes and bombardments were bound to improve the popularity of Hezbollah among Shi'ites, for example in the Shi'ite suburbs of Beirut which wave been heavily targeted by the IDF. The Hezbollah can hardly be destroyed using weapons since the excessive force will only make the common man more desperate instead of weary, for every dead Hezbollah member a few new ones will stand up ready to make or fire Qassams.

By launching an attack a few hours after the kidnapping of the two soldiers the Israeli government basically gave the Hezbollah what they wanted. Starting to release random prisoners would be seen as a victory for Hezbollah and would also strengthen their position among Shi'ites. I think the best solution for the Israelis would have been to put extreme pressure on the Lebanese government for at least one or two weeks before resorting to violence. If the Lebanese army were to be deployed against the Hezbollah it would be a humiliation for them. The Israelis should have moved to the UN calling for strong resolutions and later on sanctions against the Lebanese who rely on Europe and the US for most imports. At all times the Syrians should be kept out of the country, but invading Lebanon a few weeks later would have hardly mattered.

Big settlements in the west bank as well as ones who are extentions of already existing cities like Maale Adomim being an extention ofJerusalem will stay under Israeli control.

Ma'ale Adummim is even being expanded, an action condemned by the United States.

Alternative territory will be provided where similar cases apply (big Palastinian settlements outside the border. The problem is no Palastinian settlements want this (the living conditions in Israel are better), but we can give them empty land instead I guess.

If the borders were to be formed along the separation barrier 6-8% of the West Bank would be annexed by Israel, a lot of that stems from drawing settlements like Kedumim, Ari'el and Barqan into Israel. Would it not be a lot easier, and more according to international law, to tear down those settlements? I can even live with attempts to turn Jerusalem into more of a Jewish city by building the barrier in a way where Ma'ale Adummim is going to be made part of the city while nearby Arab towns such as Anata and Abu Dis are walled off.

At 7/18/06 03:03 AM, _Truth_ wrote: I'd love to post alot in Politics but this topic area seems to move really slow and if for the last 6 threads it has mu name as the last poster someone might ban me for "spamming"

Mackid once managed to have his name as the last poster in eighteen consecutive topics in 32 minutes, I'm not sure whether or not it's his personal record but it pretty much shows that you won't get banned unless a mod is really having a bad day. I had to take two screenshots to make one .gif file out of it.