Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/22/11 06:08 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yet, I'm coming back to that. I'd prefer to think of you as stupid to dishonest.

You make a judgment on my character when you've never even met me? For God's sake I disagree with you but I at least have the common decency not to call you stupid. You're letting your emotions get in the way of your argument and that shows that this is too much for you to handle.

Fair enough. I'd never heard it called that before. But, are you seriously claiming that the international community didn't get involved?

They really didn't. How many times did the UN call for a ceasefire in Northern Ireland? How many times did they pass a resolution calling for Britain to cede land? They did both to Israel.

There is NO Chechen conflict today, fool. One bombing? Really? A year ago? That's a conflict? You need a dictionary man.

Shut up with your incessant childish insults. You sound like someone who's throwing a temper tantrum.

But the situations AREN'T the same. Palestine is an external force, and has been for quite some time. Neither Britain nor Quebec had that. And even your Russian example is little different than the Oklahoma City Bombing on a much tinier scale. These were governments going after people who broke the law and fought the government. We may disagree with the government on those, but it was never a disputable matter. The UN/NRA conflict lasted so long that the international community got involved.

When did the UN fight the NRA? You mean the IRA.
And you just don't get it, do you? I'll try to explain it so you can understand.

-Israel deals with terrorism in territories it occupies.
-Israel is condemned by the UN.

-Britain deals with terrorism in territories it occupies (Northern Ireland).
-Britan is not condemend by the UN

-Canada deals with terrorism it occupies (Quebec)
-Canada is not condemned by the UN.

Do you see the parallels? Canada and the UK and Israel all have/had the same problems, but only one is condemned.
And again, the international community did NOT get involved in The Troubles.

Whatever makes you feel better, man. I don't even see how you're TRYING to make a point.

You could really benefit from re-reading your work before you post it. BBS is one of the methods of communication where you're lucky enough to see everything you're going to say before you say it.

Animation is tough and precise. Almost nobody is going to do a Flash for you just because you have a script. Believe me, I've tried soliciting Flash artists too, but it just doesn't work.

For all you new animators just starting out with Flash, here's some advice:
Start slow and be patient.

When I was 12 I watched tons of Flash animation on NG. I was a typical NG flash animation lover. I thought I had Spielberg-esque ideas for Flash cartoons and wanted to get it for myself so that I could make my own masterpieces.

I never actually got around to buying Flash, but six years later, in a technology class in my school I got to use Flash for an assignment. I was so excited that I would be able to make my own super cool animations.

My first time with Flash, after a full hour I could barely get a stick figure to move his arms. It took me 10 minutes to send a yellow circle from one side of the screen to the other. During a stick animation I made, countless times I had to follow instructions exactly right otherwise the animation and movements wouldn't work properly.

Contrary to what I thought, animation requires more than an ability to draw and write. It requires a knowledge of computers, a good memory, and above all, patience.

That brings me back to my original point. Be patient with Flash. I am not in any way a master animator with Flash. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from becoming Flash artists. But if you decide to buy/rent Flash and make projects, know that you will not start out with full videos, actions, or even fully-drawn characters. Flash takes time and work. It's not easy, but it can be done.

My experience with Flash has given me a whole new respect for the art form and the artists who do it. The time it must take not only to draw the characters, but to properly animate every frame and voice astounds me. I can't believe that many of them are 13.

So for those who are starting, I say, "good luck." If you work hard at it you will eventually make great animations. But using Flash, like may other things, is a process. You will not make a great video your first attempt, but with time, you will be able to.

At 4/20/11 09:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm saying that the UN is condemning Israel when it did not condemn Britain when it responded in similar manner.

Decent point, but you know why that is don't you? :)

Something having to do with Britain being on their Security council. But that doesn't make it right.

At 4/20/11 05:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You mentioned the Russia/Chechnya conflict. Which was in the early 1900s.

One year ago the Russian metro was bombed by Chechnyan separatists. Putin vowed that the terrorists would be caught and killed. That's recent.

There's no character attack.

It's hard to see the words, "what are you, stupid?" as anything else.

I attacked your argument. While I wasn't sure exactly what "the Troubles" were,

The Troubles were from 1969-1997 when Northern Ireland terrorists (the Irish Republican Army or IRA for short) launched guerilla assaults against British troops and civilians stationed there. Britain, faced with a terrorist situation right by its own cities, responded how it should have; attack the enemy. I think it has some paralells with Israel and Hamas.

Northern Ireland was a province of the UK. The Free Quebec group was a separatist group acting more or less as a terrorist organization. Neither of these examples even remotely help your case. The ONLY example you provided of an external dispute was Russia/Chechnya...and that was in 1905. Was the UN supposed to stop that before it was even conceived?

I don't understand this paragraph. Saying that the Quebec group was a terrorist group helps my case. And I wasn't talking about the Chechen conflict 100 years ago, I was talking about it today. And in this case you made a worthless statement that "Northern Ireland was a province of the UK." That added absolutely nothing to your argument. If you don't know about the conflict in Ireland, then don't talk about it. That's a BS sentence that makes you look ignorant.

My whole point of this was to draw the similarities between Canada, Britain, Russia, and Israel. At one point in time, they all had homegrown terrorist situations. Their enemies fought in guerilla warfare right in and by their own cities. While Britain, Canada, and Russia went in and attacked the insurgents without international condemnation, Israel does the exact same thing and is condemned. It's inconsistant. Britain, Canada, and Russia can attack homegrown terrorism, but if Israel does it, then they're blasted by the UN.

I still fail to see the (lack of a ) point.

You fail to see the lack of a point? Then in other words, you see my point.

At 4/16/11 01:58 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

But um, are you really trying to play the "the international community doesn't condemn Hamas" game? Because you know we've already thoroughly debunked that one right? Just because they may not be condemning them as strenously as you would like does not mean they aren't condemned.

I'm not playing that game. I'm saying that the UN is condemning Israel when it did not condemn Britain when it responded in similar manner.

At 4/19/11 05:32 PM, WolvenBear wrote: So are we really going back to 1905 to discredit my view of today?

No, I'm going back to the 1970s when The Quebec Liberation Front kidnapped Canadian government officials and prompted occupation of the province.

I mean, come on, that's a century ago. The world was different then. There was no UN, there was no EU. Using that to influence a discussion about current politics is ridiculous. Should I counter with..."Well, you know, during the Salem Witch Trials..."?

Quit attacking my character simply because you don't have any facts to discredit me. And the Troubles were until the 1990s, when Britain attacked Northern Ireland because terrorists were threatening Britain's people.

At 4/15/11 02:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: If any other country repeatedly bombed their neighbors until they stole land, we'd eradicate them.

You're right; I don't remember the international community condemning Great Britain during the Troubles. Or Russia while fighting Chechnya. Or Canada fighting the Free Quebec group.

At 4/14/11 12:01 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 4/11/11 10:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Show me where they're harming innocents, and especially in a deliberate manner. Because your argument is you should deliberately kill a human shield if it means killing a terrorist.

Then they should knowingly but undeliberately kill human shield? That's ignorning the truth the human shield will die, that's doing the exactly same thing.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. Is killing a human shield necessary sometimes? Israel can't really go, "oh they're terrorists too" and go John Rambo on them if they're unwillingly taking part in the fight. On the other hand, you have to remember that a terrorist, if unhindered, will more likely take out several of your buddies unless you act. So should you shoot the innocent if that means several of your buddies will be saved? Are there ways of killing the terrorist without harming the hostage?

At 4/10/11 04:54 PM, WolvenBear wrote: The problem is that, Israel could roll over and submit, and they'd still be the enemy. Their very existence is an affront to Palestine. If you don't believe this, watch some Palestinian TV clips. For decades, Israel has made concessions to Palestine, and no peace has ever materialized. The bombings continue.

This brings forth another idea. Is the idea of "land for peace" viable? I read in the Wall Street Journal an editorial saying that the idea should be "peace for land," that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas should promote peace before being given land.

You're a dumbass who breaks the law. They shouldn't have stolen your Xbox but you deserved it.

Recently, during spring break I went to Florida, and had to take the plane. This was my first time taking a plane since the full-body scans were introduced, so I didn't know what to expect.

After shuffling in line, I handed the clerk my boarding pass and ID. He stared at it, comparing it to my own face, as if he was trying to find out my innermost darkest secrets.

I was then told to strip and go through the screening process. I felt embarrassed and naked as I slowly peeled off my shoes, exposing my uncovered feet, and unbuckled my belt, revealing the belt loops. I removed my light jacket, unbuttoning it button by button, and the security guard told me to toss it on the conveyor belt, chuckling that he'll give it back to me after he's finished with me.

I then stood in line, feeling naked without my sneakers, jacket, or belt. My t-shirt was a little tight, and my pants were slowly sliding down without the help of my belt. My toes wiggled, free of their garments.

The grimacing security guard then told me to go into the full-body scan. I could only watch in horror as I had to hold my hands up in the air, my arms exposed for everybody to see. I could see some people chuckle at my nakedness when they saw the tattoo I got from when I was a teenager, (a snake) bared to the public on my left elbow. My knees shook in fear and shame.

Then came the patdown. This was nothing short of rape. The security guard, probably used to roleplay, called me sir as if we were pretending to be strangers just meeting up. Yeah right. I knew what he wanted. He patted my arms and legs, but it felt wrong. As he checked my pant legs to "make sure there's no bomb there" I'm sure he slipped and touched my ankle.

After he dismissed me, looking like, in my opinion, someone who just had the time of his life, I knew that the body scan had gone too far. Undressing to my t-shirt and jeans was too much for me. It felt wrong. I felt violated, as I hurriedly covered myself with my jacket, shoes, belt, and shame.

The full-body scans are far too invasive. I will never fly again because of them. I understand the need for security but in reality, the security guards are nothing more than perverts who will stop at nothing to get what they want. Man or woman, we are all doomed to go through this peepshow called the full body scan.

At 4/3/11 09:58 PM, Warforger wrote: They don't always have too, they can just mute international response and blame someone else for something like what happened when Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Impossible today with the Internet. There weren't many PC during the Gulf War.

How do you know America censors news? If the government was effective at censoring news you wouldn't even know it did. For the most part if it can't (well I wouldn't know if it does) what it tries to do is downplay each story as much as possible which works since say hit the latest headlines thing at the top of you have Firefox, you see a bunch of stories no one knows about.

I never argued that America censors news. Not only is it impossible today with the Internet and unconstitutional, it's clear that it hasn't been done. If the government censored news then companies like Fox News would never exist. Second off, most news stations in America are privately owned (except for PBS and NPR, which had liberal bias even during the Bush Administration) so it's not in the government's power to mute the news.

The difference between Israel and Hamas is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is a major country, and as such it should be held to a higher standard. However, Israel kills a much higher number of civilians than Hamas and it does nothing to settle the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

So, since Hamas is a terrorist organization we should just accept the fact that they will kill innocents? Bullshit. If Hamas wants to be a legitimate representative of the Palestinians they must be held to the same standards Israel is held to.

American propaganda would have you believe that Israel is an innocent victim in all this and is simply responding to threats in the area. If that were the case, Israel would not be constantly expanding its borders and imposing on the surrounding populations. Compare Israel's borders now to where the UN originally drew them when the country was founded.

Oh shut up with the "American propaganda," theory. You seem to think that America is brainwashed with propaganda every day. If that's true, why are there protests against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? And Israel expands its borders? You're forgetting Israel withdrawing from Gaza in 2007, its giving up the Sinai, and giving autonomy to the West Bank.

Israel has expanded through Palestine and Syria and it plans to take more land in the West Bank. It is also important to note that Israel is not able to be checked by the UN because the United States has full vetoing power and will not allow any restriction to be placed on Israel. Israel is an imperialistic western agent that is kept on life support by the US tax dollar. Since the American government censors news stations from commenting on Israel's aggression, the internet is the only way to find this information.

You ignorant idiot. During the flotilla crisis CNN and other American news stations were broadcasting about how terrible Israel was. MSNBC, another AMERICAN news source is anti-Israel too. You've never been to America, have you? America does not censor news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin _massacre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew s/1547036/Israel-rejects-Arab-peace-init iative.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/
middle-east/gaza-i-watched-an-israeli-so ldier-shoot-dead-my-two-little-girls-145 2294.html
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/25/is rael-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-c rimes

Arabs have also rejected peace offerings. Nice try. Want some links?

Never take what the government tells you as the truth. Whether it is America, Israel, Iran or China, every government simply wishes to secure it's own interests and they do whatever they can to justify it to the people. I advise you to approach the Israeli Palestinian conflict with a sense of objectivity. Americans only support Israel because the American government supports Israel.

The hell? You compare America to Iran and China? Your arguments about America censoring unpatriotic news makes you look ignorant. I suggest you look at the conflict with a sense of neutrality. What I hear from you sounds like it was written in Pravda.

Please, learn more about America before assuming that we are an evil dictatorship.

Hawaii shouldn't be a state. They speak frickin' Hawaiian there in addition to English, the culture is different, and it's halfway across the Pacific. I don't know whose idea it was to, out of all the territories, make Hawaii a state.

Although it does give us a nice even number of states

At 4/3/11 02:53 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Israeli supporters like to bring up human shields. In other words, they killed our civilians, and the only way to make sure we get them back is to kill through their civilians. That would be a sad, yet justified stance if only the casualty count wasn't massively in Israel's favor. Israel justifies killing Palestinians by the hundreds based on small numbers of Israeli casualties. They value Jewish life over Arabs.

1: It's tough to determine who is a civilian and who isn't in Gaza. Hamas isn't exactly a true military with uniforms and clear chains of command. In the Intifadas Palestinian teenagers blew themselves up, and threw stones (and fired guns) at IDF soldiers. They weren't technically in the military, but were they combatants or civilians?

2: Israel's more accurate. In the second intifada, around 70% of Israeli casualties were Israeli civilians. 45% of Palestinian casualties were civilians. War is bloody but as far as percentages go Israel has a better civilian/combatant ratio, whereas Hamas doesn't give a damn if it hits an IDF soldier or a preschooler.
In addition, it is mostly irrelevant in regards to "Israel has less overal casualties than Palestinians." Hamas's rockets are cheap, composite, and inaccurate, meaning that many of them don't hit their mark. But just because a rocket launched by Hamas misses does not mean that Hamas is innocent or nonaggressive. If I throw a punch at you and miss, does that still mean that I'm not the aggressor? Also, one thing people tend to forget, this is WAR. In war, it doesn't matter if you have advanced equipment and your enemy has stones. If they are trying to kill you, strike back. Just because Hamas's weapons suck doesn't mean that they don't have blood on their hands. In war, you do what you must to secure your people. I'm not advocating mass slaughter of Palestinians, but the reason why Israel's casualty rates are lower is because they have better defenses and they are good at protecting themselves. In WWII Germans suffered more losses than Americans, were the mean old Allies too tough on those poor little Germans? Of course not. In war you do what you have to do to win.

3: Human shields and placement of weapons. Hamas recruits teenagers to shoot at the IDF or blow themselves up. In addition to using human shields, Hamas puts its arsenals in hospitals and mosques, and overall populous areas. That way, when Israel does an airstrike, it's more likely to hurt civilians because the weapons are in close proximity.

At 3/27/11 08:54 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: This much land, maybe?

Do you think that the land should just be one Palestinian state, no Israel? What are your beliefs?

Just to add to the discussion, this is what I think Israel should look like in a peace agreement. What do you think?
I used MS paint to shade in blue the land I think Israel should have sovereignty over.

At 3/25/11 04:41 PM, bcdemon wrote: And as stated before, when it comes to UN rules, well Israel doesn't have to worry about those ones, they get a free pass from the USA.

Explain this! Sources?

At 3/24/11 03:35 PM, Cootie wrote: There is a reason the United States is called a "melting pot".

It used to be a melting pot. People would come here, and keep some culture of their mother country and also conform to the American culture too. Now, people are so picky and so insecure that they feel the need to identify themselves with a subgroup (Irish-American, African-American, Japanese-American) to feel special. People come to this country now and refuse to learn English or adapt to our culture. We're becoming a salad bowl and that's not good.

So a couple go to a sex therapist because their love life isn't what it used to be. They sit down, and the sex therapist tells them to describe their relationship.
The wife says, "Well we get it on twice a week at 7:30 in the evening, Mondays and Thursdays,"

The therapist says, "That's your problem right there. Too much planning and schedule." He turns to the husband. "The next time you feel in the mood, don't worry about time or place. Just let your instincts take over."

A week later, the couple comes back, smiling and energetic.
The therapist asks, "so, how'd my advice work?"
The husband says, "Doc, it was great! Two days ago, my wife and I were eating breakfast, when suddenly I was in the mood. I went straight in, without thinking, it was wonderful. There's only one problem."

"What's that?" the therapist asks.

"We're not allowed to eat at IHOP anymore."

At 3/24/11 01:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Israeli settlements built outside the UN declared border are deemed illegal by UN and Geneva Convention laws, yet these are deemed legal by Israel and left untouched.

At 3/24/11 02:53 PM, satanbrain wrote:

Since they are built on israeli land.

By the UN declared border, do you mean the border set in 1947, or 1949? I have no problem with Israel building in the 1949 borders, or the Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem. But no setttlements in the West Bank or Gaza. It's stupid, unsafe, and hinders the peace process.

In any peace Israel should retain its current borders and the Golan, while the Palestinians should have the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem should either be under Israeli control or a UN international city.

At 3/24/11 11:11 AM, bcdemon wrote: No no, you misread what I posted. You accused Hamas of "intentionally attacking civilians" , yet they have no way of guiding that rocket to a civilian location. They shoot and hope for the best. Now the IDF on the other hand (who apparently doesn't intentionally attack civilians), can land a rocket within a foot of its desired location.

So? That doesn't matter. Hamas doesn't care whether or not it hits a hospital or synagogue. The fact is that they are shooting rockets indiscriminately into Israel. In fact, the notion that a crazy extremist dictatorship has uncontrollable missiles should make anyone cringe, especially the Palestinians. That Qassam missile could easily hit a mosque in Gaza if they're out of control.

The funny thing, Israel and Hamas get into the same amount of trouble when they kill innocent civilians. NONE
The militant wing of Hamas doesn't recognize international laws and the IDF gets bailed out by the USA every single time.

That's right, the USA bails out Israel every single time. Then explain the international outrage over the flotilla incident. Even US news stations got on the bandwagon before checking the facts, decrying the evils of the IDF on the flotilla brigade.

And if Hamas doesn't recognize international laws then how can it claim to be veritable representative of the Palestinian people if it is not willing to follow rules on the world stage? Simply saying "well I don't believe in those rules" is no excuse.

At 3/22/11 05:29 PM, bcdemon wrote: Well, considering they (Hamas) mostly use unguided rockets (Qassam), I would say they sort of fire in a general direction knowing it will go about that far, and hope for the best. Unlike the IDF who possess the most sophisticated and accurate missiles/rockets on the planet, and can hit their target with pin-point accuracy.

That's terrible logic. So because Hamas fires and misses that means Israel is not justified in retaliating? If I were to throw a punch at you for no reason, and miss, wouldn't you have every right to attack me? It makes no difference whether or not Hamas is accurate or not; the fact is that they are attacking.

Because as "the only democratic country in the middle east" we sort of expect Israel to uphold international laws. Especially considering it was the international community that let you be a part of the "world". If the vote had gone the other way, there would be no Israel today. So asking Israel to abide by said rules doesn't seem that big of a request.
Hamas on the hand is a known terrorist group. It's also "known" that terrorist groups don't abide by international laws. That and the international community and the UN have on numerous occasions condemned Hamas actions, just like they have Israels.

So we should just accept that Hamas does that, simply because it's a terrorist organization? Yes, Israel is bound to uphold international laws, but so should Hamas. It's not fair to tell Israel to uphold UN laws and then exempt Hamas because "it's not known to abide by international laws,"

At 3/19/11 08:33 PM, VergiltheFallen wrote: Israel for all intensive purposes is an occupier of Palestine. Despite its Disengagement Plan 2005, it retains control of the airspace, the waters and the boundaries. And considering they attack the crap out of Palestine means that they are invaders, with lots of civilian casualties. Sometimes they target civilians particularly. So they are oppressors, breaking all international law regulations there are.
Worst thing is they say that its self defense. Anyone who believes that is a fool.

The UN is attacking the crap out of Libya, and there are civilian casualties. Therefore, the UN is an invading occupying force.

Sometimes Israel attacks civilians particularly? If that was true, how do you justify Hamas who intentionally attacks all civilians? You think they fire rockets at military bases only?

People are always whining about Israel breaking international law, what about Hamas? Nobody ever seems to mention how badly Hamas is behaving. It seems that Israel is guilty until proven innocent, and Hamas is innocent until proven guilty.
It's always easy to take the side of the less powerful. All you need is a picture of a blood-stained baby (which both sides have far too many of) and a picture of some slums. It's too easy to go "aww, look at the poor Palestinians" rather than question Hamas and its terrorist leadership.

At 3/19/11 05:33 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Then you haven't looked. Not trying to be an ass, but if you haven't seen Palestinians glorifying suicide bombing...it's because you haven't even bothered to look. It's all over al Jazeera. It's in the Hamas releases. Etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to even try and research this without coming across virulent anti-semitism in Palestine. It's virtually impossible to find anything in Israel to even remotely counter it.

THANK YOU! Society cannot negotiate with a rabid dog, just like Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas. Hamas has to go before any peace can be obtained.

gumOnShoe, quit whining and saying how every single Republican is evil and how every Democrat is a knight in shining armor.

At 3/17/11 07:06 PM, Scarface wrote: Why do people always dig up that fucking thread he made. It's not funny.

That thread has been dug up more than once?

Stamper's dark history that he doens't want you to know.

When I got my license I learned soley on an automatic. I don't know if you have to pass a test in order to drive a manual. I'm sure some places offer lessons but I think if you can drive a car legally then you can legally drive a manual.