Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/9/06 04:54 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And I really wonder what was said to Zidane to make him headbut Materazzi

Weeeee. Since a red card was unavoidable he could just as well have broken Materazzi's jaw with a punch. Then I would at least have one thing to cheer about, now I'll go to bed unhappy. Yesterday's match between Portugal and Germany should have been the final, this one was fucking disappointing. And Ribery should have stayed, he was cool.

I hate this World Cup. Both the Netherlands and France shouldn't have went out the way they did. I need a drink.

I think that after 28 pages of intense debating we can safely conclude that the immoral and at times downright evil aspects of masturbation have remained undisputed. So let us now shift our attention to the practical aspects of the vice.

My country's government has recently enacted a law similar to the measures proposed in the first post of this thread, albeit in a milder form. Selling, or transporting with the intent of selling, of under 2 lbs of masturbation is still legal but it becomes a punishable offense after 2 lbs. As a former employee of a shipping corporation I'm very aware of the logistical problems that arise when large quantities of masturbation have to be transported in numerous small portions. I've also personally witnessed situations in which teenagers were restricted in their destructive behaviour. "Hello my good man, I'd like to purchase 13.6 lbs of masturbation from your fine establishment today". "I'm very sorry sir, but we are only legally allowed to sell under two lbs."

I think these laws have a positive impact but they're not harsh enough by far. The end justifies the means when we're talking about fighting the stain on human purity that is self-stimulation, so a complete illegalisation seems to be the best alternative worldwide. All nations need to enforce what is written in this topic's first post, or wither away as moral bankruptcy takes hold of the youth and future generations of lawmakers.

Schweinsteiger really had his night. His first goal was really unexpected, but when he shot at the goal the third time (after Petit kicked in the second one) I thought "yeah, Ricardo isn't going to fall for an action like that again" and I was wrong. Really nice goals, both of them. A yellow card for taking off his shirt but who cares, he was justified in doing so.

I love how he really looks like a "Schweinsteiger". If he'd walk into a pig farm one day I wouldn't be surpised if he mounted a Schwein. Coolest name for a football player in the whole tournament, forcing Kaka into a decent second place.

Whatever money he was making with smuggling and scamming the Oil-for-Food programme was not enough for him to build an army that would have been a serious threat to other nations in the region. He still wouldn't have had Weapons of Mass Destruction and there would still be no lasting ties to Islamist terror organisations.

Iraq would be a lot more stable but the repression of the Shi'ite majority in his country would remain to be a ticking bomb. The Kurds were already somewhat autonomous before the invasion but they profited most from the regime change in Iraq. Saddam's psychopathic son would still be alive but I doubt that he could achieve the about 30 civilian deaths daily that we see now. Although Ahmadinejad would probably still have been elected Iran wouldn't nearly have had such an incentive to pursue the possession of Nuclear Weapons. The US would have had a few extra hundreds of billions of dollars that they could have spent on more fruitful goals or given back to the public in the form of tax cuts. Anti-Americanism might be less prevalent but these sentiments always remain and erupt every now and then when the US government decides to do something the rest of the world doesn't approve of.

The Hamas should rewrite their outdated charter, it echoes the militant attitude of the two Intifadas and some of the passages contain war rhetoric that do not suit a faction that's supposed to lead the Palestinian people. Times have changed, being part of a democratic government means that certain concessions are inescapable, like recognising the existence of the bigger neighbour. It's a formality and not worthy of ruling out the faction as a partner in negotiations, Turkey has always refused to recognise the existence of EU member Cyprus and yet there have been numerous talks about their possible EU membership, but it's a sign of good will at the very least.

They should also do everything they can to get their armed wing to release Shalit as soon as possible, there is little to be gained from holding him any longer and the Palestinian children in Israeli prisons will unfortunately have to rely on the kindness of the IDF and the IPS until they're released. The Israelis will hopefully release the Hamas MPs some time after Shalit's return, their capture had been planned a few weeks before Shalit was kidnapped so this move is uncertain but it's the best Haniya can hope for. He should also reinstate the hudna, without a time limit.

Fatah and Hamas also really need to quit their internal strife, the latest agreement was a step in the right direction but not enough by far. In the best case the current Hamas administration resigns to form a "National" Unity cabinet with the Fatah. Abbas has rejected this in the past but I hope he realises that he needs to cooperate with the Hamas for the sake of his people. The Hamas must then integrate their military wing into the security forces of the PA since it's current members are mostly tied to Fatah. They also need to compensate the loss of foreign financial aid, I doubt that the Iranians are willing to cough up the 110 million dollars the PA needs every month to pay it's employees so they should turn to the EU, and if that doesn't work to individual member states like France or Germany that aren't tightly tied to the leash of the US. Maybe Russia would be willing to send some aid, anything will do. They should also crack down on the Islamic Jihad to get more international support, and simply because they cannot afford to tolerate more paramilitary attacks on Israeli soil.

In the end the Israelis will probably always refuse to deal with Hamas even if they recognise Israel and refrain from terror for years, they want a powerless puppet like Abbas who stands on the sidelines and keeps up the farce of a somewhat equal relationship while they unilaterally redraw the borders from before the Six-Day War. Assassinations of Hamas members will continue to occur no matter how long a one-sided truce remains in place, but for now their people benefit the most if they keep up the public order in the territories together with the Fatah. While the Israeli government has the unconditional backing of the US no amount of foreign or domestic pressure will get them to start respecting international treaties, resolutions and conventions, and although I think it's noble of the Palestinian militants to not just bend over and take it in the ass like the Tibetans did before them they need to realise that refraining from violence will probably lead to a more reasonable status-quo than fueling the conflict.

I just read this. Now the National Action Party closely won, but they didn't get a majority of the votes. The PDI and PDR are both members of the Socialist International and although they don't seem to like each other that much, can't they put aside their differences and form and leftist coalition? Or must the winning party form a cabinet, even if it's a minority cabinet? I'm not really familiar with Mexican politics so if someone could explain, please do.

At 7/6/06 03:30 AM, aznbudi1704 wrote: I'm pretty sure we were thinking of the "French or German" .. (or some different Europe language) stem which means 2.

for example.. the words.. transvestite( person with 2 genitals ) , transversal ( a line that passes 2 other lines) , etc.

I'm just going to comment on the language part. Trans always means: over, across, on the other side of, etc. First of all, a transvestite is not a person with 2 "genitals", but it's a person of one sex who dresses like people of the other sex. A person who wears the cloths that they normally wear on the metaphorical "other side". You might have been thinking of a hermaphrodite, a person who has both male and female genitals. Second of all, a line that crosses 80 parallel lines is still a transversal, the "trans" doesn't refer to the minimum of two parallel lines but once again to the "crossing" aspect that's associated with the word.

sapien meaning "modern

"Sapio" is Latin for: I think, I am wise. "Homo Sapiens" means a man who can think, who is wise. There is no such thing as a "Sapien", without the s. Homo Sapiens is singular, I think the plural is Homines Sapientes but I'm not completely sure.

I have no idea what Homo Transsapiens would be supposed to mean, someone who has crossed beyond knowing or something. Maybe a new species of humans that knows something about "the other side" could be called Transsapiens. But I'm sure it doesn't exist as of yet.

At 7/3/06 10:41 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: But if you say that CHRIST is a donkey raping child molester to a c hristian, he would obviously start whining and complaining to you that you don't feel the message of god, that christ had died for your sins and stuff like that...

I dare you to go to a relatively poor district in Bogotá, or any other city in Colombia for that matter, walk up to a guy who's about twenty to thirty years of age and tell him that Christ is a donkey-raping child molester (in Spanish). An average Muslim wouldn't hit you any sooner. The problem is that most Muslims in Europe come from masculine cultures which means they're more prone to respond violently to insults, it has nothing to do with what the religions teach.

The answer is quite simple: see if you can obtain a forged Mexican passport somewhere and then apply under the name Pablo Jimenez. Don't overdo the accent, and wear a sombrero and a big black fake moustache every time you meet with people form the real estate agency and you should be fine, just fine. You could really turn this situation into an advantage you know.

At 7/2/06 01:36 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Lapis, dont sell your self short. Dont apologize for making a logical conclusion.

I stand behind what I wrote, but the topic wasn't officially "why mackid is a fucking hypocrite" so maybe I shouldn't have posted it here. Then again, people go off-topic all the time and it's still Newgrounds, not some high-class debating society.

At 7/2/06 09:19 AM, Dzex wrote: If you are referring to me as one of these people - I think that my definition of bias in the previous post is fair.
Don't you agree that the cover in the link I have provided shows unquestionable bias?

A little. They thought the fact that Hamas had just signed an agreement with Fatah, which was step closer to accepting the two-state solution, was worthy of their headlines. They have to appeal to their anti-war readers. But even if their headlines contained "Israel invades Gaza after Hamas kidnaps soldier" there would be people who'd accuse the paper of pro-Palestinian bias since Israel isn't invading and there would be people who'd criticise the paper for not making the distinction between the political and militant wings of Hamas. You can never avoid accusations of bias, no matter how neutral you try to be when reporting.

Simply because you only used Fox as an example of bias, while disproving bias in the rest of them.
You can't say that you've selected these specific examples only because I've mentioned them in my post - the CNN one was your addition.

I used Fox as an example of bias because I personally knew of a specific instance where what they reported conflicted with the truth. I don't really know anything about The Independent or the Guardian apart from what I just read on Wikipedia. I then added CNN to show that both sides can accuse one TV channel of taking two different sides of the argument, which is ironic and supports my point that people scream bias too often.

But don't think of this as an argument, you said it's the former and I've no complaints.
I'm only answering because you asked. You're off the hook :)

k

Alright, name an example of what you feel to be pro-Muslim bias in BBC reports.

http://littlegreenfo..entry=21277&only

I read that article and you can only accuse them of poor fact checking. "Mr Houdaly says his wife, Ataf, 44, headed a women’s organisation dedicated to providing health services for poor Palestinians." He said it, they don't claim that it's the truth. Like I said, they're trying to appeal to the "people" side which also explains articles like this one. In D2KVirus' words, they dedicate a whole article to one kipnapped soldier but not even one separate article to the dozens of captured Hamas politicians.

http://www.honestrep..m/a/What_is_Bias.asp

Here, an article about Israel which contains nine terror-related words. And here, the profile of the RIRA does not once include a word similar to "terror", only militant or paramilitary. Even the Omagh bombing is not referred to as a terrorist attack. They probably used the word "terror" so often because in that instance their headquarters were the target. Of course the words they use will be more powerful. That isn't a clear example of prejudice, that's a personal connection to the event. You can't seriously blame them for it.

And the second accusation is even lamer. "Tension has been high around the Jewish settlements" is clearly an attempt to stay as neutral as possible. Although the link to the photo is dead I can assume that "Palestinians suffer under Israeli security measures" would be pro-Palestinian and "Terrorists stopped in their tracks by Israeli forces" would be pro-Israeli. This example perfectly illustrates that people will whine about bias whenever the media don't pick their side.

At 7/2/06 08:14 AM, Dzex wrote: Well, you have a factual error, the article D2KVirus was referring to was from The Independent, not the BBC. Same as mine, but it doesn't matter.

He linked to The Independent to note that there were events that weren't being reported by the BBC, after that he stated that the BBC only focused on the capture of the soldier rather than the Israeli retaliation and he said that he wanted his tax payer's money back. My post was in no way factually incorrect, you could have easily spotted the word "BBC" in his post.

Now, there is no bias in the article that he has pointed out.

And I never claimed it did. You completely misread my post. I know little about the Independent - according to Wikipedia one could say that a stereotypical 'Independent' reader is well-educated, a Liberal Democrat or perhaps Labour voter, anti-war and interested in issues about the environment. So they have a certain group of target readers that they try to appeal to. I would never deny that some media focus on certain sides of the issue, I used Fox News as an example because you also mentioned them in your post, my problem was more that you accused the BBC of being pro-Muslim while D2KVirus thought they were either pro-Israeli or just plain incompetent.

I might have made a mistake using the BBC as an example, as their bias is of fairly low level, but it's there.

Alright, name an example of what you feel to be pro-Muslim bias in BBC reports.

What I don't understand is whether you agree that all the international media bias varies outlet to outlet, or are you trying to claim that it's a one-sided hate fest against the Palestinians?

The former. But my most important point was that people are often eager to accuse media of bias when they don't hear what they want to hear. And frankly I have no idea how my post could have insinuated the latter.

At 7/2/06 08:03 AM, lapis wrote: Exactly! Then why the hell did you post it as an example of contradicting that Muslims cannot befriend unbelievers?

My English is really lacking these days. Correction: Then why the hell did you post it as an example of a verse that would contradict that Muslims may befriend the unbelievers?

At 7/2/06 01:16 AM, afliXion wrote: Irrelevant. Everyword of it. That verse isn't talking about friends. Its talking about allahs love which the unbelievers do not have.

Exactly! Then why the hell did you post it as an example of contradicting that Muslims cannot befriend unbelievers? Allah does not love the unbelievers, but that doesn't mean that Muslims can't make friends with them. I assumed you thought it was unreasonable that Allah did not love the unbelievers, so I thought it would be appropriate to point out that there's no difference with Christianity in that respect. But since you seem to be fully aware of this I really don't know why you decided to quote Sura 3 in this occasion, and call it "weird" as it contradicts nothing in Sura 60.

Pure fail man.

Pffft.

Uh huh... the quran is always going in circles. Why would it need to say 'jews and christians' who mock you. Does that mean its ok to befriend ppl who aren't jews or christians that mock you??

Christians and Jews are also believers, they go to heaven. That's why they of all people shouldn't mock the religion of the Muslims. They are to some extent transgressors in the eyes of God if they feel that Islam is a pagan religion whereas unbelievers are simply ignorant; they do not know.

Dude. Egyptian god's were such as horus, and osiris. Give me some proof they called there gods allah. And you know, even if they did it doesn't help you at all. The Egyptians worshipped pagan gods. (which allah is)

I'm obviously not talking about ancient Egyptian pagans when I say "Egyptian Christians". A zealot like you should be aware of Coptic Christians. Allah used to be a pagan God in pre-Islamic Mecca but since there was no suitable word in Arabic for God, as in one God, Muhammad chose the name Allah as a means of referring to Him. In time the word Allah simply began to mean "God", that's why Egyptian and for example Libanese Christians call God "Allah", like the French call God "Dieu". Allah is "taking credit" for the Bible because he is the same as the God of the Christians in the eyes of Muslims.

At 7/1/06 10:29 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Meanwhile:
http://news.independ..t/article1152033.ece

Funny - I don't recall any nbews reportage of a group of Palestinian ministers being arrested, but one kidnapped Israeli soldier gets a lot of coverage. BBC, can I have my £127.50 back please, considering you aren't reporting the news very well at all these days...

At 7/2/06 02:29 AM, Dzex wrote: Fox news has pro-Israeli biased, British press (The guardian, BBC) has pro-Palestinian\Muslim bias.

It's funny isn't it? First we have a Brit who feels that the BBC is focusing on the Israeli side of the argument and some time later an Israeli complains about the pro-Palestinian bias of the BBC. I've been reading BBC website articles for a few days now and in the beginning they had pictures of the kidnapped soldiers in every single one, clearly to create a stronger feeling of sympathy towards the soldier and his family. On the other hand, after Israel invaded most articles finished by mentioning the risk of a humanitarian crisis due to a lack of electricity.

Now I'll admit that Fox News is clearly biased, I have only been to their website a couple of times but the way they covered the WMD situation had little to do with reality. They said chemical weapons had been found but never decided to report that even the Pentagon had stated that those weren't the weapons over which the war had been started. The BBC however seems to be trying it's best to avoid ending up on one end of the issue by focusing on the "people" side of the story, they left out to write a whole article about the capture of the Hamas politicians but mentioned it in others.

A socialist would feel that CNN is too right-wing, since it's very pro-business and never very appreciative of anti-globalist protesters. In Midwestern America it's as far as I know considered to be part of the "liberal media". In the end you'll always have partisans complaining about bias simply because the news reporting doesn't completely favour their position so I think the BBC has been doing a reasonable job so far.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, this is why I'm such a strong proponent of Iran getting nukes. Think about it, they're probably already aware of their own slimyness, and if they get nukes we could all nuke Iran together. It'll be one big international celebration in which every country, including Iran in the near future, launches it's complete nuclear arsenal at Iran and everyone wins in the end. It's genious I tell you.

At 7/1/06 08:08 PM, Cahenn wrote:

At 7/1/06 07:59 PM, lapis wrote: Heh, if we're lucky it might take down the current conservative government in Iran, but will it stop global extremism as a whole? First of all, it's arguable whether or not Iran can be successfully held under control by an invasion force.

Oh but you said bomb, not invade ;) We can nuke and forget, nuke and forget...

Haha, good point. The nuclear fallout will hurt our farms but that's a minor inconvenience.

At 7/1/06 07:07 PM, Cahenn wrote:

At 7/1/06 06:15 PM, lapis wrote: So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB? Which country should we bomb to take down Muslim fundamentalists?

Currently? Obviously Iran.

not that I fully support that just like that, but it answers your question

Heh, if we're lucky it might take down the current conservative government in Iran, but will it stop global extremism as a whole? First of all, it's arguable whether or not Iran can be successfully held under control by an invasion force. Iran is larger than Iraq and the general majority of it's population would take up arms in case of an invasion, while there was Kurdish and to some extent Shi'ite support in Iraq. Second of all, fundamentalists in Europe will only see an invasion as proof of the Western world wanting to bring down the Muslim world, resulting in more teenagers turning to radical Islam and will therefore only worsen the problems we have with Muslim radicals in Europe. The result would be an increasing probability of terrorist attacks in Europe, not what I call something to stop international problems with Muslim extremists.

At 7/1/06 07:18 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Gladly. With more support from the world the US would not be the sole defender of Iraq in its current. State would be alot easier to hold off insurgents until Iraq stabilizes.

Your post assumes that Iraq will eventually stabilise. With dozens of civilians dying in Iraq daily this is debatable, since even an increased number of troops in the country would not necessarily be able to stop insurgents from carrying out attacks against rival factions. Blowing up a Shi'ite mosque caused the rivalries to escalate in the past and such an event might happen again any day, and if the Sunnis and Shi'ites turn on each other there's little the Coalition forces can do but watch how the country plunges into chaos.

When Iraq does become a successful democratic government it will be a huge blow to international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. If you ever look on a world map you can see Iraq is in the center of Syria, Iran and the Jordan: three major terrorist contributors.

Back this up. I need evidence suggesting that these three countries really do actively contribute to international terrorism. Iran for example has no interest in helping the Sunni insurgency and the Shi'ites are as of yet laying low. Syria has been accused of being the place where Saddam hid his weapons of mass destruction before the invasion but apart from these accusations they are hardly a big international player, not even when it comes to terrorism. Bombings have been carried in Jordan for which the responsibility has been claimed by al-Qaeda, not much of a terrorism-supporting country it would seem.

Iraq is not only rich resource wise, but a great strategic location. The terrorists will have to completely circumvent it in order to keep operation alive in the south-western portion of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Effectively halting major support.

Coalition forces can never keep the entire country on a complete lockdown, professional terrorists will always find a way to slip through provided that they're not carrying large amounts of weapons with them. But on the other side, the terrorism-related problems we face in Western countries today are caused by Muslim immigrants or sympathisers who live here, who have been born here, who are angry with the way the Western world is handling prblems in the Middle East. Invading other countries, or even putting more pressure on Iraq, would make it easier for radicals in the West to recruit potential suicide bombers in the West itself.

Rather than fighting terrorism abroad, the West could better focus on homeland security and keeping terrorists out of our countries. The Iraqi terrorists do not have the means to strike any other target than civilians in their own country, as long as we keep it that way we're better off by not intervening. So we should only send some money to keep Iraq to some extent stabile while we invest in infiltrating terrorist organisations at home and let the Iraqis build their own police and defense system. Sounds like a better deal to me. It's too uncertain to conclude that the resources that we'd spend in Iraq could not be put to better use at home, so I'll go with the latter.

You destroy terrorism by taking away the reasons for youths to turn to it, sending more troops to Iraq is not that much of a solution in my opinion.

At 7/1/06 06:20 PM, JadedSoB wrote: They should grow some balls and help more besides just sending some of their reservesmen. That's a good start.

Like I said, sending more troops to Iraq isn't going to help the fight against Muslim extremists. These problems go a lot deeper. Heh, I don't know if I'm just feeding the troll right now by replying or not. But go ahead, explain why sending more soldiers would curb extremism and help prevent terrorist attacks like 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings.

So what do you think Europe should do, JadedSoB? Which country should we bomb to take down Muslim fundamentalists? And just as a sidenote, the US-led invasion Iraq only made recruitment easier for Muslim radicals. Sending more troops won't do a thing to stop it.

At 7/1/06 05:27 PM, afliXion wrote: Hm, thats weird.
Sura 3:32 Say: 'Obey Allah and the Apostle.' If they pay no heed, then, surely, God does not love the unbelievers."

Msulims can befriend unbelievers (those who do not a) believe in one God, b) the end of days, and c) live out a righteous life), but they will not receive recompense in heaven. Does God not say "Depart from me, you accursed" to unbelievers in Christianity?

Sura 5:51 "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. "

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

Same here, footnote: *5:51 Relations with other people are governed by the basic rule in 5:57 & 60:8-9. The Jews and Christians who cannot be friends are specifically mentioned in 5:57; they are the ones who mock and ridicule the believers, or attack them.

The quran is nothing but a cheap rip off and perversion of the Bible.
Sura 3:3-4
"He (Allah) has revealed to you the Book with the Truth confirming the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of mankind, and the distinction between right and wrong. Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge."
Sura5:42-43
"But how will they come to you for judgment when they already have the Torah which enshrines God's own judgment? Soon after they will turn their backs: they are no true believers."
Why does allah try to take credit for the Bible?? And if the Bible enshrines his judgement, and teaches us right and wrong, then what worth is the quran?? And far from confirming it, the quran contradicts the Bible in many places.

Egyptian Christians call their God "Allah". To Muhammad, there is not distinction between the two. And I frankly don't really care for distinctions between the Bible and the Qur'an, I'm agnostic so there's not much sense in arguing about that for me. I just dislike the general misconception that the Qur'an calls for violence against all unbelievers. Maybe seventy-one wants to discuss the deeper theological issues with you, but not me, I'm sorry.

At 7/1/06 05:16 PM, fli wrote: So I haphazrd to guess...
"You fuck your dead grandmother's pussy good."

Lol, it makes sense when taking the context into account. Thanks for translating.

Okay, I PMed him about it. Issue over.

At 7/1/06 04:09 PM, Cahenn wrote: I think that his other views on other stuff have nothing to do with his opinions on the manner. You're going offtopic and I think this sort of personal attack does not do your image on this forum justice.

Sigh, this has been going on for a longer, no, for a lot longer time than just these two threads. I'll admit that it has nothing to do with the topic, I considered posting it in the lounge but I don't think other people wanted to see a personal attack in there. I don't know, it's something that has been bugging me for some time but maybe I should have just PMed him about it. If you feel it disturbs the topic then I apologise for that.

At 6/27/06 04:49 PM, -Moco- wrote: France vs Brazil will be a great game. 6-0 to Brazil is my prediction.

Not quite.

HENRY!!!!! He's not that much of a worthless sack of crap after all!

At 7/1/06 02:45 PM, Dzex wrote: Lapis, I think that people should not be limited to certain political beliefs just because they are titled liberals or conservatives.
There shouldn't be guidlines for opinions, believe what feels right for you.

When that belief completely contradicts everything else you stand for I don't think it's right. Imagine a guy who has spent the bigger part of his adult years complaining about social security nets and child support in particular. Then when his sister has a baby he suddenly turns into an avid advocate of child support - for his sister, that is. Everyone else who applies for it is still a parasite in his opinion.

Or I could condemn slave traders and keep blaming Americans for their ancestors getting rich at the expense of poor Africans. But when someone excoriates the Dutch part in the slave trade it's suddenly the Zeitgeist and the descendents of those blacks should be grateful for being their ancestors being shipped to countries that would have a lot less problems with civil unrest in the future. Because that's what is happening here, he's singling out Israel as a case whereas he's usually a supporter of a lot more dovish approaches, just because he more or less has ethnic ties to Israel. It's just my opinion but I'm personally not much of an admirer of it.

At 7/1/06 01:15 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: The "pro-palestinian" side lacks the realization that the amount of combatants killed by the Palestinian side is significantly less than that by the Israeli side.

Your remark is unsurprisingly generic and adds nothing to the discussion, but I found your contributions in this thread to be pretty ironic.

This global struggle is unwinnable, yeah, but we can certainly lessen the amount of extremism in our world. Less extremism-religious, especially, would benefit us as a world greatly. (...) More than anything, we MUST fight the causes of terror, such as poverty.

We MUST reduce extremism and fight poverty, for example by blowing power plants that are vital to sewerage systems sky high. Now mackid, I know that you're not a neo-conservative and that you to some extent live up to your new user name, which contains the world "liberal", but when it comes to Israel your leftist self rapidly morphs into a right-winger that would make Bill O'Reilly think: "God DAMN, that guy's right-wing". And I think I know why. I hate to turn this entire post into an ad hominem argument but I honestly think it's sort of sad that you let your stance in certain issues be determined by your upbringing and ethnicity rather than your general political convictions.

Don't worry England, at least you went out with honour. I only wish I could say the same about the Netherlands. Great match.

Portugal!!!! Ricardo should have taken that last penalty, seriously. That would have been the ultimate climax.

I hope the Portuguese keeper takes the final penalty again. That guy is fucking cold as ice.