Jump to content

Kascha Matova

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kascha Matova

  1. Dresden Ceriano wrote: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Forums-Feedback/An-Open-letter-to-Rod-Humble-Re-Second-Life-forums/m-p/1215419 http://community.secondlife.com/t5/LSL-Scripting/Finity-s-End/m-p/1254169 ...Dres Wow - how unfortunate. Void has been here a long time and from what I've seen in that time (including at the previous boards) she has always been there for the residents wanting to help. And with her skills, this is probably something LL should have taken more seriously. It is not a world where people who put the experiences and happiness of others before their own fall out of trees anymore. I'm sort of at a complete loss as to how the post that she describes as the one she made could be interpreted in the negative. Maybe with determination specifically to do so but as a completely objective outside viewer I see no way the unmotivated would react badly to anything she said. Well I don't know if she still reads these threads on the situation but I wish her continued happiness in whatever she gets up to next. Wherever that is, there will be people no doubt glad she's come.
  2. Baloo Uriza wrote: Coby Foden wrote: To me facelight sends a message "look at me". :smileywink: Yup, pretty much screams either "I'm a newbie" or "I'm all style and no substance." Ridiculous. People use facelights because the lighting in SL is horrible and unpredictable, their screens are not mirrors that they can adjust someone else's perception in, and because they went through a hell of a lot of effort attempting to dress out their avies for the sole purpose of looking nice. Same as in RL. Facelights preceded Windlight. This makes assertions that facelights are the domain of the newbie dubious at best. The backlash against facelights since Windlight came out alone has forced them into the sidelines so how exactly do they maintain enough ummph as a product to be ubiquitous among new players? Where is the advertising for them that existed back in '06-'07 when tons of people wore them, which has newbies running out to buy them in similar numbers? Who would they find out about facelights from then? Additionally most manufacturers only seem to make them in two intensities. Quasar, and Supernova. If there's an issue with that, rip the manufacturers. Don't blame the customers who are just doing what they can to try and present the best appearance they can. Unless you create in SL, what else is there to do exactly besides "look your best" except run store to store to find things that make you look your best? Just so much overblown entitlement sense with a sprinkle of implied chronological snobbery. Nothing more. It would behoove many "old hats" to remember what motivated so many to come here and why possibly 3/4 of the stuff sold in SL is avie appearance related. Or is the mark of a true non-newbie to walk around in the default avie because they don't care what they look like to themselves or anyone else? If so, where are those SL vets then?
  3. Kenbro Utu wrote: I love to listen to the radio, Soma FM Lush to be exact. Turn it on every day for an hour before work. Sadly, I cannot listen to music while I work, I must listen closely to mumbling doctors and other health professionals from recordings. I have it playing constantly on days off though. Even listen on my Android phone on occasion. Radio has changed though, as evidenced by the fact we are talking about streaming radio over the internet. ZOMG! I love Lush!!! The whole group of stations actually including Underground 80's, Beat Blender, Space Station Soma, Doomed, Drone Zone, Cliq Hop, and Groove Salad. Listening to Groove Salad as I write actually. All of those are favorites. Before that I was stuck on Cryosleep, Bluemars, and Deepmix Moscow Radio. It was SL that opened me up to so many more genres (especially electronic) that I can't do without now. One visit to Ethereal Teal was all it took to hook me on ambient/space music and I haven't looked back. What beautiful music to have had streaming on my property while I sat on the beach listening to the waves crash and looking out over the ocean with my partner. It would be scenes like that with such music playing that stayed with me long after I'd logged. I never listen to regular radio though - always internet independents. Better music and I actually feel better helping to keep those stations alive. I had no idea who Sia was until I started listening to Lush. I found out just in time to see her at a local concert hall not too long ago and was floored. My phone is now full of so much new music and it's all brilliant. Oh, and I look great in my Soma hoodie and long sleeve shirt too! :matte-motes-whistle:
  4. I guess I've been gone longer than I thought! What happened to Void?
  5. Syo Emerald wrote: Why do you care so much? Its not that you are going to marry them or date in RL right? If you have a good time, then everything should be fine. What does it matter at that moment if the one behind the avatar is a woman, a dog or your neighbour? :catwink: Also it is most common that more female avatars have men behind them than the other way. So you will have a low risk of meeting a woman with a male avatar, but you should suspect your girlfriends here to be not so female as the appear to be. I have difficulty understanding how you start out asking her why she cares so much and then finish up by telling her to suspect the females she hangs out with. Why would she care so much then either? In fact, she should do no such thing, because harping and insistng on such poppycock in a fantasy world is about as absurd as driving to the middle of a desert and whining about the distinct lack of redwoods and weeping willows that you feel should be visible everywhere. When are people going to figure out that real people, real gender, real whatever stands a far more likely chance of being encountered in the real world, dump the entitlement thing they've got going that told them SL was waiting for them to show up and yell "jump" so it can ask "how high", turn off the computer and step outside. Problem solved. Anonymity in SL is not a bug. It's feature. U mad?
  6. I get it all the time. Now every time i log in. It always seems to be my hairbase and my jeans misbehaving. Nothing works to fix it - not rebaking, not replacing entire outfit, nothing. And trying to take off the hairbase results in it not coming off. Same with the jeans. Oh, and this occurs across every V2 or later viewer I have. My latest issue is that I cannot get any of my shoes or boots to load properly because the foot alphas do not hide my feet. Prior to V3 this was not a problem, and I had better performance with the rest of the cloud problems too although they did still exist and I know a lot of it was packet loss with the godawful Time Warner Roadrunner service. But since the only other choice is 3MB AT&T and a nearly equal amount of buffering on videos due to bandwidth instead of line quality, I am stuck with these losers. Sigh. I have not been fully dressed in SL now since last year. My exes consider that a good thing. Me? Not so much.
  7. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Of course, I'm serious. There is nothing that substantiates the article. No proof was provided, only rumor. It's way to sell news. But, even if Israel did offer to sell arms, I don't see how that has any bearing of the issue of what is going on within Israel. You pretty much just dredged up an unsubstantiated article for the sole purpose of trying to find some kind of black mark, that really is quite irrelevant. http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9632-background-israel-offered-to-sell-nuclear-weapons-to-south-africa-in-1975.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents How much proof do you need to see? As to how this has bearing? You cannot claim to be considering the bombing of another country to prevent their starting an arms race and proliferation when you have in fact, already started it. In similar fashion, you cannot berate another country's supposed refusal to cooperate with UN inspections when you yourself have refused to cooperate with the same inspections for decades, and in fact have not signed the non-proliferation treaty that your opponents have already signed long ago. It's called hypocrisy, and as it happens, possessing said weapons and refusing inspections is also called a violation of UN law. It's impossible that you truly cannot see the relevance here. Evidently, spreading nukes around to countries of dubious responsibility is only bad when the West is not doing the spreading. This goes double for America. I've never mentioned Iran in any of this discussion. Nor, do I watch "ABC" news in RL, I don't even own a TV. In similar fashion, it is impossible to exclude Iran from any current discussion on Israel. NATO leadership has seen to that. Yes, I've seen you pointing a finger at the US. I was not talking about the US when I said I am trying to get you to see both sides. I was referring to Israel. You implied directly that I was pointing fingers only at Israel, which was not true. However, with respect to concentrating on Israel, the point of this debate from my direction is to dispute, and ultimately debunk any implication that Israeli leadership has earned any immunity from criticism. To do that, we must examine Israel's warts. To dare to do that, in the Western world, is to be labeled a racist, and I reject that on its face. Nobody is above review and it has become a fad in the West to claim Arabs have been mindless barbarians who deserve whatever justice Israel metes out. I would demand to see where history supports that assertion, given the fact that international law gives any occupied people the right to fight said occupation to the death. Hmm, ok. You're entitled to your opinions about US and Israel leadership. Although, your position on this has already been well revealed. I see, you don't trust Israeli leadership. Got it. My opinions on both are justified by well documented history. We teach people how to treat us. Western government has taught me to treat it with extreme distrust. It does not exist for the betterment of its people but for the continuation and facilitation of its own interests. In the US, that is a direct violation of Constitutional mandate and when such violations cost citizens their lives, it enters the category of treason. Uh, there was no nation of Israel before the 1948 declaration by the United Nations and the Great Britain. After the declaration was made, war ensued. It cannot be any plainer. http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/independence.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html Five countries attacked Israel. The armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq all invaded Israel, with in one intent to destroy it. You are probably not old enough to remember the attacks on Israelis at the 1972 Munich Olympics, or all the other attacks on Israeli citizens that have occurred world-wide. The war against Israel has been waged both at ground zero (in Israel) and anywhere there are Israeli citizens. (or even just people who happen to be Jewish) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre The Arab League funded the PLO, which waged terrorist attacks and murder all over the globe. (aimed at Israelis and Jews) http://middleeast.about.com/od/terrorism/a/dawson-field-hijackings.htm http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html "On October 7, 1985, four members of one of the PLO's factions, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak persuaded the hijackers to surrender, but not before they shot to death a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger from the United States named Leon Klinghoffer, dumping his body overboard." Considering the constant attacks on the nation of Israel and Israeli citizens (or anyone who is Jewish) all around the world, and with Hamas at declared at war with them, Israel was shown great restraint. You're right. It can't be any more clear. You are refusing to acknowledge that a) hostilities began before the state of Israel was declared. b) Assuming the UN "owned" Palestine to give it to anybody, General Assembly declarations are not binding, and that's exactly what transferred that land c) The PLO and anybody else who was opposing the occupation of their own land could be expected to do just that - oppose. Or should the French have simply baked croissants for SS troops in cafes on the Champs Elysees indefinitely? You don't get to walk into another people's land, squat, demand the land owners recognize the collective group of squatters as its own country, and then attempt to throw those owners off their own property after some third party moderator says "sure you guys should be a country". What you don't seem to get, is that you have only made negative comments against Israel and it's citizens. Your first comment which I responded to, and your subsequent ones, have all been of the same nature. You have decried Israel as "bad", and held up the Palestinians as victims. I have written that the world is not black and white, and there is no simple thing as pointing fingers and saying "they are bad guys". When in reality it is much more complicated. No, why should I "get" that? I haven't made a single negative comment about the Israeli people since I joined the conversation. In fact, I've separated the people from their leadership many times, and placed the blame for the initial problem exactly where it belongs, which is on the powers that currently make up NATO along with Germany who slapped immigration quotas on and dumped hundreds of thousands of Jews on Palestine which was guaranteed to cause crowding and issues. It is clear that it was not the Israeli people who attempted the land grab and the eviction of Arabs from Palestine. It was the Zionist subset. The same group of jerks who are screwing around now. It is ironic that you tell me the world is not black and white, because according to those throwing the anti-semite flag around, it most certainly is. Either agree to the censorship of all criticism of Israel, or you are motivated by racial hatred. There is no third option. Classic false dilemma, which is exactly, by definition, "The Black and White" fallacy. My links do not conflict with those events. Those events happened prior to the declaration of an independent nation of Israel. Those particular events do highlight the meddlesome mess that Great Brittan created, and the repercussions of British Colonialism. Yes dear, that's exactly what they do. How do you acknowledge that and yet still attempt to call Arabs the cause of the problems circa 1948? They clearly were not. What you are doing is similar to blaming a homeowner for coming home, finding some stranger in his house claiming "possession is 9/10ths of the law", and attempting to throw him out of the nearest window. I agree with all that you've written above. So, we both agree it's two fighting factions. It's not that Israel is evil, or that the Palestinians are evil. It's the unfortunate situation. But, how a situations is handled, can either escalate or de-escalate matters. Considering that the ongoing position of the Palestinians and Hamas, and most of the Arab nations is to eliminate Israel, it's hard to make peace. I agree. And there is a very simple solution to it isn't there? Israel, come into compliance with international law. Stop attempting to fill occupied territory with Jews, thus forcing out Arabs. You came to an agreement with the PLO/PCC in which the sections of the Palestinian National Charter that actually refused to recognize a state created on their territory by force (which is not actually the same as saying destroy a recognized state), would be dropped and all would be good pending an official recognition of Palestine by Israel. I guess Israel is waiting for a drumroll then? I'm glad you asked about the fact that the Palestinians are not welcome by their Arab neighbors. It is a terrible thing, to be born in a country like Lebanon, yet be denied citizenship there. The reason I have mentioned it, is it illustrates the manipulative nature and tactics that many of the Arab nations have taken against Israel. By denying citizenship, even to those born within their borders, neighboring nations keep a group of Palestinians in limbo, and keep them hostile. That is what I meant by the Palestinians are being used as tools in the war waged against Israel. The sad fact is that the losers in that tactic, are the Palestinians. They are the ones who suffer. This is basically an assumption that other countries should sign off on the same thing that was forced on Palestine - namely, the immigration of thousands of foreigners who will then demand the same rights and such as embedded citizens. Why should they? The party does not in fact, start as soon as "they" walk in. Hence the uproar in America over this suggested blanket decree of amnesty for illegals from Mexico right now. That is the sort of thing that causes civil war Celestiall. And it has. And it should. Every single time. What is a terrible thing is that Palestinians should even have to try and obtain citizenship somewhere else because of illegal occupation preventing them from settling in their own homes. That is what is happening. You've got the sad part right, but you are blowing right past the wrong that created an opportunity for things to become sad. Eviction due to forced occupation is not okay. Ok, we both agree about the going around and around. *smiling* I did not see you mentioning things in just an even keel before, and I am happy to see you do so, in this last paragraph. I'm sorry that you hate the people at the top, although I'm still not quite sure who it is that you hate. I think we can both agree, that people the world over, would like to live in peace. For all our sakes, let's hope that more peace can be attained everywhere. The ones who I hate are the greedy corporate interests for whom the rest of humanity is little more than a game of Risk. Those who would lie, subvert, cheat, and steal their way to continuation of power and who actively undermine the future of our children and their children and so on. Those who have made money their god. They've got theirs coming and one of my greatest regrets is that I may not be there to see their faces when it arrives. I'm not a hateful or malicious person, but I can deal malice with the best of them when its time is at hand, and to those who have truly earned it. But I assure you this is not the Jewish people. They have been set upon, and post Hitler, the worst of it is being done by their own leaders. The difference between them and the American people is that the Jewish don't fist pump the machinations of their own demise.
  8. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Hmm, you found an undocumented online articles suggesting that Isreal "tried" to sell nuclear arms to South Afirca? So? The US was selling arms all over the globe then and now, EU nations were also. The former USSR, China, etc. It's how arms get around. Surely you know this? What does that have to do with anything? If you're using that as a judge of something, then you had better point the finger right back at the US...as a major seller of arms world-wide. LOL. Are you serious with this?! ABC News now is using "undocumented" sources? But then their warmongering poppycock and claims of Iranian sponsored hits all over the world are "ironclad" like the rest of mainstream media's? You're going to have to make up your mind. And, at this point? The only way one could have missed the fact that I have been pointing the finger at the US (yes, a Western Power like Israel and England), all along in this thread, is if one was blindfolded. As well as high. But for the record, this dispute has never been about whether or not the US leadership was full of lying hypocrites. That's a given. It was about the ones leading Israel. If the claim from them is they fear nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and it is, then they are full of it. And considering the entire crux of the Western argument against Iran's nuclear program is fears that it will kick off an arms race and lead to proliferation of weapons into the hands of factions not proven to be trustworthy with such hardware, do you really want to be asking me what Israel's illegal nuke possession and proliferation attempts have to do with this? If I had $10 for every time those exact faux fears have come out of Ben Nettensharpton's mouth, I'd be reading this thread on the heads up display in my new Lamborghini right now. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: What claims have I made? What you have listed are only things you want to have seen from the view point that you take. Do you want to see a list of attacks made upon Israel for a time line? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisrael.html http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/uk-israel-security-embassies-attacks-idUKTRE81C1DM20120213 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.4465801/k.972/Timeline_Terror_Attacks_by_Hamas_Since_Israel8217s_Gaza_Withdrawal.htm http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm Open those links, and click on them, read through for the magnitude of constant attacks upon Israel and Israeli citizens. And once again. "Lookit." The implications you made were that Israel bore no responsibility for the attacks made on them - that they were largely unprovoked. That is a fib. To sell that story, you in multiple posts claimed that the start of the fighting between the Arabs and the Israelis occurred in 1948 after the Arabs refused to compromise and divide territory. That is incorrect. In doing so, you obfuscated the fact that there were two earlier attempts at compromise which were turned down by the Jews and that fighting between the two sides was already occuring locally 20 years or more before the armistice that you mentioned. israel's current attempts to flood occupied Palestine with Jews and push Palestinians out is a violation of the Geneva Convention and classified as a war crime. Considering they've been doing this since the 40's...well. What you don't seem to get is that I never even implied that the Arabs have not attacked the Jews. I said they did, and so would any other embedded population when faced with innundation and imminent eviction by foreigners. You have two choices here. Either one of your links debunks the 1929 Palestine Riots, the 1936 Arab Revolt, the 1938 Woodhead Commission proposal, and the White Paper proposal of 1939, or none of your links do, in which case their inclusion is equal parts red herring and the debating version of the funky chicken. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Situation between Islam and Jews....hmmm what are you referring to? Please write a more detailed explanation , as I think you're getting confused. The reason I have mentioned Britain, is because the greater British empire had control of the land where Israel and Palestine now are. The had taken control some time before, and were trying to figure out what to do with it, and decided to partition it, and create Israel, and Palestine, each as separate independent states. When they declared the independent state of Israel to be officially recognized, that is when the surrounding Arab nations invaded and attacked what was known as the newly created state of Israel. I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "mislead others for your own ends". Uh, what the heck are you talking about? What ends? Once again. Fighting between the two factions began well before the UN creation of the state of Israel (because the British had washed their hands of it). Everything that befell the Jews that put them in a position to be usurpers of the embedded Arab population was a direct result of the Germans, the British, and the US, the latter especially because of the 1924 Immigration Act which slapped quotas on Jewish immigration to America and forced Jews from Russia and Germany down to Palestine. It's all documented history. If you want to undocument it, allow me to at least borrow the blooper reel of your attempts later. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: That's just it Kascha, I've studied this history for years, and I know what has happened. I have no "denied" anything, but I have instead pointed out that the facts do not make Israel out to be some bad aggressive nation. Israel is trying to survive being surrounded by nations that want to eliminated their existence. Can you imagine what that must be like? In addition, they have the Palestinians, who will not abate from their terror attacks, and cannot become citizens in neighboring Arab nations nations. That is why I said they are being used as tool of war. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1881651,00.html " Like the rest of the 400,000-odd Palestinians in Lebanon, they cannot legally buy a house or apartment and remain barred from some 70 professions. Lebanon's fragile sectarian political system, balanced between Christians and Muslims, has been unable or unwilling to absorb so many Muslim refugees. So neither Sulhani, nor his children, nor his grandchildren, nor his great-grandchildren have Lebanese citizenship, despite the fact that all but the family patriarch were born on Lebanese soil" http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees2.htm One would actually have to know what happened and when in order to know where to start excluding, wouldn't they? And you keep mentioning how the Palestinians are unwanted everywhere. Is that not the same thing that was such a travesty when it was happening to the Jews? Why the different tone? Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I suggest you take up studying history as a serious pastime. When you do, you'll find that we actually live in a wonderful, peaceful, blessed, time right now, in comparison to any time point in the past. We have better communications, less war, more and better lifestyles worldwide then anytime in history. The current world status and it's political leaders actually have less danger, and less corruption than in the past. History already is a serious pastime of mine. All the way back to the Triassic Period in fact. It is impossible to find value in reaching a destination if you've no idea from where you've come. As to this time being comparatively better than others? I would have to disagree. The lack of personal responsibility at all levels of existence has never been higher, nor has the amount of self centeredness. There has never been a generation of people whose arrogance has been as puffed up by smug pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo answers for everything that they became completely disdainful of learning. Never so high a level of entitlement. Society has advanced fastest ironically in diametrically opposed disciplines. The science of dealing death, and the science of saving life. It has made a conscious decision to foist the former and withhold the latter based solely on financial gain and has placed the world closer to the brink of annihilation than it has ever been in its history. More animal species have gone extinct in the last 300 years than in the entire remaining history of the planet. And when faced with that fact, as many people make excuses as make changes. Unfortunately, like tooth decay, life left untreated does not get better. It gets worse. Enough. We can go around and around on this forever. I think at the crux of the misunderstanding here is the fact that you must have missed my assurance that I see a separation between a people and their leaders. I tried to illustrate how both the Arabs and the Israelis were victims of the imperialist pieces of you know what commonly known as the Western Elite, but I guess you're not making the connection, hence your refusal to see why I find it unnecessary to justify or explain away Arab attacks over the years. The same powers have been running the show ever since Celestiall, and as you basically told me about my brothers, war is hell. People die. Often, without deserving to. The point is, calling out Israel for its dirt is no different than calling out the US, Britain, or any of the other elitist garbage that has betrayed its people. It is not hatred of Israelis. They don't even want a war with Iran. War with Iran is war with themselves. This is about the people at the top. And yes, I do hate them. Very much.
  9. Rene Erlanger wrote: The problem wasn't so much the native Jewish people that resided already in that part of the world......they've lived alongside the Palestinians in that region amicably for 100's if not 1000's of years. The problem occured when Zionism a Jewish Polical Movement in its broadest sense, supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. They scoured the world map, trying to determine where this "Homeland" should be....until they finally decided on Palestine. It is based on historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. From Wikipedia : Throughout eastern Europe at the time, there were numerous grassroots groups promoting the national resettlement of the Jews in what was termed their "ancestral homeland", as well as the revitalization and cultivation of Hebrew. These groups were collectively called the "Lovers of Zion." The first use of the term is attributed to the Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, founder of a nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, who used the term in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) Readings of the founders of Zionism shows that they lived in the same Europe which spawned fascism and Naziism, and they adopted the anti-Jewish view that Jews did not belong in Europe as the core of their ideology. So thus began the migration of Jews worldwide although predominantly from Eastern Europe ...notably Russia. Once in Palestine they adopted the policy of buying up as much land as possible (land grab) and driving local Palestinians out. That's when tensions between the Jews and Palestinians began. (i.e mainly with these Zionists, not the native Jewish folk) In this modern day world (i.e 20th cc)..not many folk can relate to being turfed out of one's homelands, hence a degree of sympathy towards the Palestinians not just from the Arab nations. Governments may take certain positions regarding Israel....but that doesn't mean it's citizens hold similar views to it's Politcians. But you can't even really put it all on that actually. That sort of implies that the initial migration was more to do with Zionist shot callers than outside influences. There were a great number of Jews that arrived at the area fleeing the Russian conflagration. But you also had tens of thousands of Jews who were forced to immigrate there, or really, were dumped there by Germany in its attempts to clear Eastern Europe of Jewish presence. It was the sudden influx of Jews from this action that prompted the British to impose immigration quotas, given that they were already having problems with infighting between the established Arab community and the incoming Jews. At a certain point, Jews were banned from owning property in the area as well, but that was certainly nothing that lasted. Once the immigration numbers got over 600K-700K there became this movement towards independence. With property bought up and industry brought into the area and/or developed. But that independent state was intended to be sans Arab. As you've said and I agreed with, nobody on the planet would have put up with that. Prior to the treaty attempt that was made in '48 after the Jews fought the British who had no stomach for it after WWII, there had been two other attempts in consecutive years (late 30's) to divide the area. The last attempt was designed to allow co-rule by Arabs and Jews. Neither were agreed to by either side. The Arabs were never presented with a suitable proposal. They refused to be subjugated to Jewish rule. So rather than keep trying, everyone threw up their hands and put it on the UN, who created Israel via magic wand. Of course there was an immediate attack. This was the equivalent of flipping the Arabs the bird. And it was wrong. Technically all that needed doing was for the property ownership bans on Jews to be removed, the Jews remained living among Arabs as Palestine, and nobody would have had a reason to get butthurt. Instead, a small group of enterprising Jews got big heads and decided to make things racial. The rest is history, and since to this day the problem has not been either rectified or copped to by Israel, there has been no forgiveness or forgetfulness by the Arabs. And Israel is still overtly attempting the same evictions to this day. Now, to add insult to injury, the same UN has refused to grant independence to the people who should have had it in the first place if not for Britain. No recognized Palestinian state. What's the next step that accompanies and yet worsens a bird flip? Because that's it.
  10. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Actually, Kascha, you're the one who has put a spin on history. You first made a comment that only had Israel as the aggressive bad-guy. When I called you on it, you then wrote two more comments, each with Israel as the bad-guy aggressor. But, reality is not black and white. You left out all the parts where Israel, has been under official and non-official attack for over 50 years, from Palestine and neighboring Arab nations. Historically, in war and conflict, there is often no clear-cut good or bad guys. It's a struggle for land and power. The entire United States was formed with this method, of forcing out a local population. Do you live in the US? If so, do you plan to give up your home and State so that Native Americans can have it back? Because that is what the neighbors of Israel want them to do. The whole world and all the countries were founded by mobile groups of people migrating, warring, and taking, etc. There is no place on Earth, where this has not happened. Do we turn back the clock and reverse time? To what time period? Who gets to stay on land, that multiple nations have control in different time periods? Thus, there is no easy solution. If we here in the US can sit on land that was murderous taking from Native Americans, and no one forcing us to give it up, then I don't see why Israel should give up the land they now have. What about the UK? I hear that some people in the UK still chafe from the aggressive wars and murder that happened to "unite' the United Kingdom. Who gets to decide? The Timeline only marches forward, not backward. The only solution is to try and make peace, and that cannot happen as long as their are still people and nations that have the desire to eliminate Israel. Because, Israel are not going anywhere. Also, I will address your comment regarding your brothers on ships in the Gulf. Your brothers are adults, and knew full well what type of military assignments (if they are in the military) that the US does. Please do not use that as an excuse for directing rants toward Israel. Anyone who signs up for military duty is quite capable of understand risk, and deciding for themselves if they wish to serve. They could be in other areas of the world, or here stateside, and still be in danger, such is life. Two wrongs don't make a right, btw. Bringing up one of the two most pathetic domestic atrocities in US history as a justification for excusing what you now admit was in FACT, an invasion and ethnic cleansing of Palestine to result in the creation of the state of Israel is in a word, absurd. And I can assure you that if the Native Americans had the guns and the numbers the Arabs do we'd have been dealing with them 24/7. As we should. They most assuredly would not have lain down for tyranny. I did live in the US. I have moved. It is no longer a country I can excuse or defend. You are lecturing me about moving forward while slapping me with labels that are mired in deeds of the past. Irony, I have seen thy face. And it might be time for a lift.
  11. Oops. There goes that arms race mumbo jumbo. Now why on Earth does South Africa need nukes sold to them during apartheid by Israel and how are we going to find a way to blame Islam for it? Sort of explains the sort of reasons why Israel won't sign the NPT doesn't it? Here's the reality check passage from that article: "Being found out as being a proliferator never helps anybody's case for taking the higher moral ground on nuclear weapons" More "hate" speech and "diatribes", am I right? And why ask how much farther back in history 16 wants to go and then turn around and fail yet again to go anywhere past 1948? I already outlined the fact that hostilities were going on 20 years before that. Dates, skirmish names, everything you need to see how ridiculous your claims are. I see you bringing up Britain all over the place now that everyone else has and yet you refuse to turn the corner and admit that it was in fact Britain, the US, and Germany, and NOT the Islamic citizenry, that was responsible for the situation between Islam and the Jews. Through ethnic cleansing on both ends. The Jews in Europe by the Germans, and the Arabs by the others in Palestine VIA the Jews. You can check 50 other sources than mine and you'll find the exact same data. It doesn't actually disappear if you refuse to look at it, and to deny that this is exactly what the agenda was is to mislead others for your own ends. The bottom line here Celestiall is that we can either be part of the solution or we can be part of the problem. If you are solution based and unbiased you should be able to look at history, accept it for what it is, take its lessons, and move on accordingly - not deny and make excuses. There is a plague of resistance to accountability in this world right now on levels from the individuals to the top of world government. A world of bystander apathy and cowardly inward facing ostriches. It is about to get a whole lot of people murdered, and the continuation of the species put in serious doubt. It may be the hardest thing in the world to call our own onto the carpet for their crimes against survival but call them we must. This is not about hate. When your time comes, make the decision to tell it like it is. Not how you'd like it to be.
  12. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Kascha Matova wrote: Two ! Anti-Israel diatribes....with her feathers clearly ruffled, even though she may claim otherwise. Yup. I called it alright. lol Nothing like being indestructible in your own self assurance is there? So long as we both acknowledge the tumbleweeds and crickets that result from a more complete review of the events of history, I've absolutely no problem at all with your unfortunate belief that a poisoned well is a suitable equivalent to refutation. I will however, wonder aloud how you figure that your attempting to spin truth which has been in history books for the better part of a century would ruffle the feathers of anyone whose entire investment here is the time taken to open a book and read it. Why would it? Should it ruffle my feathers if you told me I hate "the East" because I'm not afraid to admit the sun sets in the West in the presence of those who wish it weren't so? What does concern me is the well being of the family members I have over in the 5th fleet who may have to pay for such half-truths with their lives. But that's an entirely different thing to be ruffled about than people who can't deal without non sequiturs and false dilemmas in debate. Like I said earlier. If you plan on passing out any more history lessons, make sure you're thorough. That's all...
  13. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I see you doing a preemptive strike against anyone who might see "antisemitism" in your many comments. Isn't that interesting. On page six of this thread, you've re-written the history of Israel. Your comment on page six, reverses reality, and has Israel as the aggressor which illuminates your views, rather than the truth. What actually happened is that, one day after Israel is declared an independent state in 1948, Arab nations invaded and attacked. There has been aggression towards Israel non-stop since that time. Ironically, the initial attack upon Israel was because the Untied Nations and United Kingdom (UK) had proposed a partition of land areas for Jewish and Arab peoples in that area. Independent states for Israel and Palestine were the original proposal. This was proposed to reduce conflict in the area. So, the very type of proposal that was rejected by Arab nations in 1948, is now what they seek. Of course, back then it was rejected because the only solution for the Arab nations in that area, was to eradicate Israel. Which has been their goal ever since Israel was invaded in 1948. Surrounding Arab nations would not allow Palestinian refugees to become citizens of their neighboring nations, because the Palestinian people were being used as a tool, for the continuing attacks upon Israel. Neighboring Arab nations, felt it better to keep Palestinians fresh in their hatred, rather than give them refuge. Now, after all this time, death and destruction, this past year, in 2011, Palestinian president Mahmound Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake, and that he intends to rectify that mistake. Oh, and if you want to tell me how some of your best friends are Jewish and live in Israel, I'm all ears. *smiling* Shalom Oh. My fault. In the excitement, I completely forgot to address your claims that I "re-wrote" the history of Israel. First of all, if you are going to attempt to post history, post it all. Like for example, the fact that the UN creation of the state of Israel was not in fact, the initial cause of hostilities. The immigration of hundreds of thousands of Jews into Palestine after the British decided to allow it in the 20's and it increased as the Jews fled Europe over the course of the next 20 years was the impetus behind hostility, and at least two riots, and that was over two decades before the state of Israel was made official. Much of that immigration was illegal. In defiance of British quota. You mention the 1948 refusal of Arab nations to accept partitioning. Funny you skip right by both the 1938 Woodhead Commission and the 1939 White Paper both of which attempted to partition the area and in the latter case, attempted to have it co-run by Jews and Arabs, which were both rejected by Jews and Arabs. The reason for these was because a solution to the Arab Riots, which was itself a reaction to forced immigration as a result of Nazi 1933 decree needed to be found. I'm going to assume that you not acknowledging that the Jews turned down or otherwise failed to support two separate attempts at a subdivision themselves before the Arab refusal you mentioned is "an oversight", rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the Jews own refusal to coexist. What we really had, when you consider the entirety of what happened, is completely unchecked immigration into an Arab land by Jews, who then rejected multiple proposals to coexist on their own and then as a result of their sheer numbers in the area demanded the right to call themselves a sovereign nation with all that this entailed, including ruling and property rights. A claim which Britain was not cool with, and so the Jews formed a resistance and effectively went to war with Britain shortly after WWII, at which point the issue was turned over to the UN. You speak on Palestinian "refugees", which is interesting enough in its own right. If I were to take the above story, replace "Jew" with "Mexican" and "Arab" with "American", this would clear up a lot of conjecture about what people think should have happened. Because essentially, that is what is happening right now in Northern America and there has already been talk of Mexico "taking back" it's territory for years. Do you really think that if illegal immigration into the US from Mexico reaches a large enough number that the Mexican population in the US should be able to declare itself a sovereign nation? Would you be surprised to find out that the American response to becoming "refugees" would be to immediately go to war with said "nation"? You frame the refusal of neighboring nations to allow Palestinian refugees in a very disingenuous fashion. The formation of the Arab Liberation Army, made up of fighters from all over the Arab nation pretty much does away with any implication that the rest of the Arab world had a problem with Palestinians. But that you expect anyone to forget that there has always been tribal conflict within Islam and believe that such immigration problems had nothing to do with that? The Arabs did what any other nation would have done had some world power stepped in and unilaterally declared illegal immigrants in their country to be a country of its own, with no recognition or consultation by the former. They resisted it. The next day, a week later, whatever. Any other nation on the Earth would have done the same. As for new consideration of partition proposals from "yesterday", could the refusal of the UN to recognize the independent state of Palestine last year have anything to do with it? Hmmm. Perhaps 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing? What happened in that area between 1917 and 1950 was population destabilization due to forced and then illegal immigration. An uprisal by the in place populace that led to a forced UN truce in June of '48. A truce Israel broke a month later and continued to land grab until another truce was made, which they broke in turn two months later and continued their land grab until the Armistice ended the fighting. And then the eviction of between 50% and 80% of the Arab population from Israel's newly captured territory. Not sure what history you're talking about. Or why any embedded population would be expected to stand there with their hands in their pockets while another population moved in and threw them off of their own land. But seeing it for what it is, which in any other region would be called "an invasion", is unbiased reality. No hate required. Which brings us finally to the true irony of the situation. You refer to the Arabs as "tools", and accuse me of flipping the situation and re-writing history. The truth is, the Arab people are not deserving of the blame for what has befallen the Israelis. They are simply the indigenous people of the area who were taken over, subjugated, and finally forced out. If Israel wants to blame somebody, they should be blaming their elitist buddies in NATO. It was the British who controlled Palestine, the British who allowed the immigration that led to upheaval, the British who enforced the quotas on immigration, and the British who refused to honor UN attempts to settle the issue after WWII. And today, it is the exact same people, the British and the US, using both the Arabs AND the Jews as tools to do the same thing they've always done. Strip mine the Middle East, force their method of government on the Arabs that don't want it, and ensure that those Arabs never again possess the military might to have a say in any of it.
  14. Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Kascha Matova wrote: PudgyPaddy wrote: Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Someone implied I was a racist because I happen to be a registered Republican (the link was that Republicans are full of racists so, therefore, I was one too). But isn't your venom a little Anti Semite? That's about as close to being as racist as one can get without being an actual racist. Think about it. This ^^ Who didn't see it coming. People who have no reason to force criticism to be synonymous with hatred perhaps? I dunno. I personally feel no need whatsoever to defend calling Israel out for the bullying hypocrites that they are. They have become what they claim to despise. An oppressive rogue warlike regime practicing racial cleansing while crying victim to the rest of the world and expecting everyone else to send their children to die for their regional imperialism. A pompous world power that thumbs its nose at the same world organizations that it is running to begging for crackdowns on other countries that it fears are doing the same nose thumbing they do. And the US is right there in hypocrisy with them. And for the record, I will also call the anti-semite label out for what everyone else seems to be scared to call it. A race card. Just like the one that tons of these same Western warmongers accuse blacks of throwing out for complaining about the exact same thing the Jews are. Oppression, racism, villification, and antagonism. Ironically the best thing blacks could do to help themselves is convert en masse to Judaism. What a show that would be. How many heads in this world would literally explode as their owners tried to figure out whether blacks should be called out for playing victim or supported no questions asked by NATO bombing runs on "The Man"? As to the other point, party affiliation has nothing to do with racism. That's not even worth the effort of debating. I see you doing a preemptive strike against anyone who might see "antisemitism" in your many comments. Isn't that interesting. On page six of this thread, you've re-written the history of Israel. Your comment on page six, reverses reality, and has Israel as the aggressor which illuminates your views, rather than the truth. What actually happened is that, one day after Israel is declared an independent state in 1948, Arab nations invaded and attacked. There has been aggression towards Israel non-stop since that time. Ironically, the initial attack upon Israel was because the Untied Nations and United Kingdom (UK) had proposed a partition of land areas for Jewish and Arab peoples in that area. Independent states for Israel and Palestine were the original proposal. This was proposed to reduce conflict in the area. So, the very type of proposal that was rejected by Arab nations in 1948, is now what they seek. Of course, back then it was rejected because the only solution for the Arab nations in that area, was to eradicate Israel. Which has been their goal ever since Israel was invaded in 1948. Surrounding Arab nations would not allow Palestinian refugees to become citizens of their neighboring nations, because the Palestinian people were being used as a tool, for the continuing attacks upon Israel. Neighboring Arab nations, felt it better to keep Palestinians fresh in their hatred, rather than give them refuge. Now, after all this time, death and destruction, this past year, in 2011, Palestinian president Mahmound Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake, and that he intends to rectify that mistake. Oh, and if you want to tell me how some of your best friends are Jewish and live in Israel, I'm all ears. *smiling* Shalom Again you confuse me with someone who feels a reason to fear labels tossed around about anyone who expects the state of Israel to earn the get out of jail free card they've been expecting by default for decades. It's not going to happen, and I'm not the one. I know the difference between hate and criticism, that they are not inseparable, and in fact that one has absolutely no dependence on the other. In light of Israel's 40+ year failure to adhere to the same principles that it demands Iran adhere to lest they be bombed, your implications that anyone with my views is an anti-semite is an ad hominem as well as a non sequitur. If Israel wants to change minds, then they need to sign the same paperwork and allow the same UN inspections they are trying to use as an excuse to attack Iran. Period. And until they do, they have nobody to blame for a Middle East arms race but themselves. As for the real story on the ground in Syria, which is the latest of a string of Middle Eastern countries that Israel, the US, and the rest of the Western powers has lied about to cover their imperialism, well that can be cleared up right here below. Who are these poor downtrodden "freedom fighters" that Assad is mercilessly attacking? Who were the poor set upon Libyan rebels that the UN and NATO supported with bombing runs? Who are the hypocrites who are REALLY sponsoring terrorism and are REALLY rogue terrorist regimes? Congrats. Go ahead and spin that. With understanding that the Israeli government has been as loud with the BS on Syria as have US State Dept. liars. Pimping their war agenda. Claiming that Iran is the terrorist sponsor contributing to the Syrian mess when it has been the Western powers all along with a little help from their shill otherwise known as the United Nations. Yes, that same org that's been shrugging its shoulders on Israel's outright nuclear defiance for 4 decades while crying in mock frustration about what cooperation they haven't gotten from countries that aren't in the club. Ordinarily I hold that there is a very well defined difference between a populace and its leaders. Most do, although those who throw out Jewish race cards want to pretend that those they throw them at don't see a difference. Proof of which can be found in your line about me having Jewish friends. I have Persian-Jewish friends right here, and they have family in Israel, sure. And why wouldn't they? In fact, the whole support of Iran is hatred of Jews line is just more BS, given the size of the Jewish population in Iran. And you know this, yet you still attempt to force hate and criticism to be synonymous. When people begin ignoring truths about their leaders that are indisputable, it is at that point that all separation between them and the evils their leaders do disappears. So it is with Americans already, and so it will be with anyone else who beats these war drums and I don't care what temple they pray at. As for my Jewish friends? You actually don't want to know where the racism comes from in their relationships. Particularly my girlfriends who are not dating Jewish men. It wouldn't do your theories any favors. The fact is I'm not about hate, despite more than a few justifications in life to be about it. I don't even hate people who have hurt me personally. Physically even. But I also do not tolerate lying or hypocrisy from my government, or the governments of any country I am being forced to support through my tax dollars at the expense of my country's domestic needs. I have two brothers on ships in the Gulf right now. If they are going to die it damned well better be legitimate and not over lies about somebody's land and power grab.
  15. PudgyPaddy wrote: Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Someone implied I was a racist because I happen to be a registered Republican (the link was that Republicans are full of racists so, therefore, I was one too). But isn't your venom a little Anti Semite? That's about as close to being as racist as one can get without being an actual racist. Think about it. This ^^ Who didn't see it coming. People who have no reason to force criticism to be synonymous with hatred perhaps? I dunno. I personally feel no need whatsoever to defend calling Israel out for the bullying hypocrites that they are. They have become what they claim to despise. An oppressive rogue warlike regime practicing racial cleansing while crying victim to the rest of the world and expecting everyone else to send their children to die for their regional imperialism. A pompous world power that thumbs its nose at the same world organizations that it is running to begging for crackdowns on other countries that it fears are doing the same nose thumbing they do. And the US is right there in hypocrisy with them. And for the record, I will also call the anti-semite label out for what everyone else seems to be scared to call it. A race card. Just like the one that tons of these same Western warmongers accuse blacks of throwing out for complaining about the exact same thing the Jews are. Oppression, racism, villification, and antagonism. Ironically the best thing blacks could do to help themselves is convert en masse to Judaism. What a show that would be. How many heads in this world would literally explode as their owners tried to figure out whether blacks should be called out for playing victim or supported no questions asked by NATO bombing runs on "The Man"? As to the other point, party affiliation has nothing to do with racism. That's not even worth the effort of debating.
  16. PudgyPaddy wrote: Rene Erlanger wrote: Nice twist....Iran has nothing to gain by closing the Straits of Hormuz.....sorry i'm not inclined to believe the State Dept propaganda machine.....it's as credible as the WMD stories used to attack Iraq the 2nd time around. Europe buy their Oil from a variety different Oil Producing countries including a lot from war-torn Libya. We're not paranoid over Iran as the Republicans are. Again, Iran is not an aggressor State.... I see the U.S more of a threat to world peace, by throwing it's weight around in the Middle East when it really isn't needed. They need to stay out of that region...which has already witnessed 4 wars in the last 20 years. Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran. Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [iraq] from threats in the region." So much for US State Department propaganda, huh? The US is throwing its weight around cleaning up the mess left by the British and French after their attempts at colonization failed subsequent to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It's fairly ridiculous to truly believe that Iraq's next door neighbor, with millions of people sharing a common religion and groups/tribes spanning the border, could not find even one person to help them see the truth behind such claims. I wouldn't put so much weight behind the words of a man condemned to death who frankly would say anything to earn himself even one more day of life. Especially when the source of such quotes is the FBI. ESPECIALLY when such quotes conveniently provide another excuse to get thousands more of our kids killed on foreign soil. These two are part of one of the oldest cultures on the planet and any bickering has been the direct result of tribal philosophical and religious differences. Something each has dealt with without nuclear missiles since inception. Such absurd claims are about as believable as some kid running around a playground suddenly claiming to have a gun for protection against another kid he has been arm-wrestling to a standstill for the last five school years, because the other kid "isn't right in the head". It's poppycock. Sorry, but there is a point at which the refusal of a populace to admit the truth about what a blight its country has become to the rest of the world approaches closely enough to criminal that they can no longer expect to be seen as separate from the regime they've elected repeatedly into power. The American public has reached that point. It is true after all. People really do get the government they deserve.
  17. Peggy Paperdoll wrote: So we are going there. Israel is looking out for itself. They nukes and they did not sign a nuclear treaty. Why would they do such a thing and have the United Nations tell them what they can or can not do to protect themselves. And if Europe doesn't feel threatened by Iran why are they so eager to settle this recent threat of Iran closing (or attempting to close) the Strait of Hormuz? The US can take care of itself should Iran do such a thing......can Europe? Actually, my question should be would Europe? The US gets none of Iran's oil. The lose of Iranian oil would mean little to us except that it would put pressure on the price of oil worldwide...........we're in better shape than most should oil prices sky rocket. Our economy would suffer but not completely collaspe. Can you say Italy, Spain or France would survive? It would be a hope and prayer at best. Without leverage to negotiate you (Europe more than the US but all of us) you are at Iran's mercy..........give them a nuke and after Israel you're next on the targeting priority. It's about oil (unnecessarily) but 10% of the oil controled by a fanatic with a nuke is a recipe for disastor. You can't isolate yourself in today's world. The CIA and covert interventions are much different than an overt nuclear attack against a country and it's population. Iran as stated numerous times it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Such a bold and blatant threat has to be taken seriously. Allowing the country that make such a threat a means of actually wiping a country off the map is foolish. You are argue all day and that won't change the facts. I really don't think Ron Paul would completely pull back from a situation like Iran and their nuclear desires but he has hinted that he would.........and that is my only concern with him as President. I'm not here to discuss Iranian nukes. It was an example of my concerns. You seem to be trying to make it a US caused problem.........and it won't wash with me. Politicians are a sleazy bunch (in a general way.......not all are baffoons but enough are that it spoils the bushel). Ron Paul seems to be one of the least sleazy in this country........but being a nice guy is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to national defense ("War is hell" is not just slogan......it's a fact that must be faced with strength and the will to be just as mean as your enemy). And again, see? This is the conundrum that continually gets neocons like Obama and the Republican base that "opposes" him in trouble. Flip flopping and hypocrisy. What we are suppose to accept then is that Israel's right to defend itself trumps international law, but Iran's doesn't. BS. The US cannot take care of itself in the face of an Iran led oil shortage. You really need to avail yourself of a better understanding of global finance than this, because such statements are impossibly naive. To break down the entirety of the import-export ramifications of a world shortage of the #1 export and energy source on the planet is beyond the scope of this thread but suffice it to say, not sure if serious. For a true understanding of how absurd that is, review what Obama has done with his shiny new NDAA power in direct response to what our government calls "an attempt to destabilize world finance" by Iran in their decision to start taking currencies other than the petrodollar for oil shipments. It's been declared as a threat to national security which under the NDAA, allows Obama to declare war without Congressional order. Do leaders with nothing to fear commit treasonous acts against their own Constitution like that? What's funny is the irony. If we were the Isolationists Paul opponents claim he wants us to be, and were backed by a commodity that could not be devalued out of existence like gold, instead of being up in everyone's business trying to cram our worthless currency down their throats, we would be in a far better position to survive the destruction of the dollar. But I can assure you. What you buy oil with is what you buy everything with. How much gold or foreign currency do Americans have, and how much can we exchange our worthless dollars for after the largest holder of them dumps them on the market and switches to gold and their national currency for major international trade? When you understand how that works, you understand the real reason we need to get rid of Iran. Doing that removes the last Middle Eastern oil rich country capable of displacing the American dollar in the oil supply. And with the NDAA in place, we aim to be able to do it without UN approval, and without Congressional order. You can argue all day and not change the facts - this is right. Which like I stated before is why the "wiped off the map" thing is a non-starter. That's not what his translated words meant, the translation has been made available by native speakers many times, and US media will not report the actual translation. It will not disappear when you close your eyes. Everyone else will still see it perfectly. As for covert operations not being the same as overt nuclear strike, what is your point? This is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that Western warmongers are using refusal to submit to UN inspections as an excuse for war on Iran, while one of their main members has refused inspections for over 40 years. Deference to the UN is claimed to be a big deal, yet covert troops in foreign countries without UN decree is an international crime and there are British troops on the ground in Syria, right now. Do you think Spetznaz and Revolutionary Guard are headed to Syria right now because they had nothing to do on Saturdays? They are going to counter Western specwar teams that are on Syrian soil illegally. If you are not here to discuss Iranian nukes then what is your raison d'etre at all in this thread? The main myth floating around about Paul is that he is indifferent to US security abroad and that Imperialism and forced regime change is a necessary component of domestic safety, Iran is an example of that, and Paul's views on Iran are dangerous. You don't want to discuss Iranian nukes because there aren't any Iranian nukes in the Middle East. Only Israeli nukes. And that blows every argument being used to justify sanctions and war. And if you truly believe war is hell then from where does such a cavalier indifference to starting another one come? It is very difficult to claim the motivation of the West is compassion while claiming we need to be as heartless as we accuse our enemies of being. Perhaps the new slogan should be a re-imagining of "kill them with kindness"?
  18. Peggy Paperdoll wrote: There is no difference in Iran having a nuclear weapon and North Korea having a nuclear weapon...........zero, zilch. North Korea has nuclear weapons already and it's a huge threat to the world. So because of that and North Korea having the weapon we should just throw up our arms on Iran? How about Vensuela and Hugo Chavez.......lets shrug our shoulders on that too. How about Syria? I could go on but you get the message. When you countries run by tyrants who have no regard for human life you just can't sit idly by while they threaten to destroy anyone they disagree with. Isreal, Pakistan, India, France, the UK, Russia and China at least have some regard for their citizens and have some working relationship with the world at large....they are not likely to indescriminately toss some nuclear bomb at one of their adversaries. Iran has openly vowed to wipe Isreal off the map and there's every reason to believe that they will as soon as they believe they can do it. In Iran's and North Korea's case you are not dealing with rational people. North Korea is a problem but there's nothing we can do about it now except deal with it.........Iran would be another problem but there is something we can do about it. We should have learned from our experiences in North Korea (but we wanted to talk about it and that's how well that worked out). I'm afraid Ron Paul would want to talk about it.........that worries me. But over our present President, I'll take my chances with Dr. Paul any day. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase here. What's going on with Iran involves real concern about nuclear weapons for one reason and one reason only. A nuclear armed Iran prevents Western powers from forcing regime change. For Israel, it puts the relationship squarely into the category of US-Russian relations since the Cold War - esssentially, a policy of mutually assured destruction. Just so happens that this is the best argument FOR a nuclear armed Iran that there could be, as the only reason nobody has been nuked since 1945 is because the countries that would be nuked would nuke back. There can be no raping a country for oil without forced regime change. No funneling its populace into the consumerism of the usurping country. No strategic foothold on territory within critical striking distance of China and Russia. No Middle Eastern monopoly for the West. That is the reason Iran is a "problem". You claim that in Iran and North Korea you are not dealing with "rational" people. What you are dealing with in Iran is people who have not invaded a neighbor in 200 or more years. People who have had chemical weapons in their inventory for years as well - yes, WMD. How many of those weapons have leaked to the open market? Where are all the "irrationals" who bought VX filled bombs and went to town on enemies like Israel and the U.S.? It hasn't happened. Not one time, and the same people who control the chemical weapons in Iran would be in control of the nuclear weapons. This so called risk of a nuclear weapon from Iran falling into the wrong hands is no greater than the same thing happening with a warhead from one of the nuclear superpowers. In fact, there are still nukes unaccounted for as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Weapons grade Anthrax from U.S. facilities disappeared just a few short years ago and has not been accounted for. You've never heard a thing about Iranian WMD's that "were just here a minute ago". That such problems are a certainty is poppycock fearmongering by NATO. No matter how many times Western media and its viewers attempt to spin what was said about "wiping Israel off the map", it will never change the literal translation of what was actually said, to the dismay of those who spread this myth. Curious though that nobody ever spins it as "Iran wants to wipe JEWS" off the map". Why? Because the largest population of Jews outside of Israel is in Iran. Apparently, the only time there's difference between talking about wiping out bad leaders and wiping out civilian populations is when it's the West doing the talking. Nobody with any understanding of Israel's behavior over the past 45 years would ever be contrasting them with a country they wanted to criticize for attacking everyone who disagrees with them. That is all Israel has done since inception; land grab, practice apartheid and low grade racial cleansing against Palestinians, war with their neighbors. They have done it unilaterally and they have done it constantly and they have also committed every offense credited to Iran that is getting Iran labeled a rogue terrorist state in search of nukes. Assassinations, attacks on neighbors, 40 years of refusal to sign the NPT and allow UN inspections of their nuclear facilites, maintaining close working relationships with known terrorist orgs, including training, logistics, finance, and equipment support. They toured US inspectors through a fake nuke plant to placate the UN after refusing international scrutiny. Who is the "problem" again? And with all of the West's concern about such proliferation, Israel has never been taken to task for illegally starting a Middle East arms race. Never. US presidents won't even answer questions about it. I agree that we should learn from North Korea's handling. That is, to be reminding ourselves of why forced regime change in a strategic area surrounded by our adversaries,facing a formidable standing army and a country with no interest in becoming another springboard for our Imperialistic globalist financial agenda is a fool's errand that will break us financially and bring our children home in body bags, if we're lucky. And if we're not, it will bring WW3. As the only country in the history of the planet to have ever used nuclear weapons irresponsibly, we need to get off our high horse. Americans need to start getting their foreign policy lessons somewhere else besides Team America World Police. And Ron Paul is not afraid to say it and mean it. It's him on the ballot or I write him in like last time. Or else I don't vote at all in this (faux) bi-partisan dictatorship.
  19. So then...the pointy ass remains? And once again, between myself and those who see me, "to flaunt ArrowAss or not to flaunt ArrowAss" is the question? Awww. :matte-motes-impatient:
  20. Carole Franizzi wrote: Susan Kenin wrote: Kyoka, I think that it is OK for people who like RP to be a different gender on SL. And, yes, SL is a good way for people to experience what, for some reason, the cannot experience in RL (mobility limitations, gender identity issues, etc;). Where I draw the line is people who enter an intimate relationship while deceiving the other person. It is one thing to be a different gender while engaging in activities where gender doesn't matter (most activities), but quite another to have sex while deceiving the other person about your gender. That applies to men who pretend to be female and have sex with another male (who thinks it is sex with a female) or men who have lesbian sex with a woman who thinks that she is with another woman. I know that on SL is would be difficult to verify gender. The forum I mentioned was small, so to gain access to a female only (or male only) section each person would have to fax a driver's license or prove some other way (eg. voter registration). Still possible to fake but it takes work. So on SL it is more a matter of personal honesty. It's not difficult. It's impossible without the person being verified volunteering "proof" - which can, as others have pointed out, be manufactured. This is supposed to be a fantasy platform. "Your world, your imagination", etc. Those are the makers' words. My suggestion is, if things such as gender, age, degree of attractiveness, state of health, etc. are important enough for you to feel there ought to be a means to verify relative claims, sign out of SL and sign up with a dating agency, because making personal honesty fit into a picture which is so heavily biased towards fantasy and imagination, seems to me to be a lost cause right from the start. It's not just lost, it's naive bordering on stupid, and it's predicated entirely on the overblown sense of entitlement that's worked its way into the social psyche everywhere. There is nothing wrong with preferring to participate in SL a certain way, regardless of what that way is, but when you start expecting unilateral redefinitions of the plainly stated nature of the platform for no other reason than to assuage your phobias because you refused to choose a venue that facilitated your preferences, then there is something very wrong. With you. Not with others who read the charter and actually joined believing in it. Each of us has the same opportunity to limit the possibility of heartbreak or upset by picking the proper venue. It is not for others to mold the venue to suit our whims. This is not reality where if someone is same sex oriented they are stuck with an unsympathetic majority that cannot be avoided or escaped, and it is both disingenuous and ridiculous for people to be implying they are similarly trapped by pretenders in an environment that shuts off with a button. For all the talk of how mission critical these relationships in SL are to RL and how suceptable people say they are to real life altering pain as a result of SL relationships, I've got to wonder what happens when either party loses their job and the DSL gets cut off. Are they unable to find the strength to face the days going forward? Because if so, that's got to be a hard way to live. RL gender matters about as much as one forces it to matter, based on the expectations of life and others that one chooses to maintain. Nothing about SL or what happens in it "must" be passively accepted or experienced, and that goes double for emotional pain if you accept what SL can and can't be.
  21. Peggy Paperdoll wrote: I think you are misunderstanding what the proposed law is all about. It's not to force people to disclose their real life names and information to others on the Internet. It's the make it a criminal offense to provide false names and information to the provider of an Internet service. It's already against most providers' terms of service but that has no teeth when fraud or some criminal act is encountered. Law enforcement has to go through quite a data chase to find out who did the fraud or criminal act with subpeonas to ISP's just to get to a likely suspect.............it's less than ideal for tracking down the criminal (not to mention time comsuming when time is of primary importance in both fraud and crimes such as child adduction). I'm not an advocator or making laws for the sake of making laws but this one seems to be a good one. The only "ammendment" I would demand is that the providers being required to up their data security and protection to a much higher level than most providers have in place now. LL has proven to me that they do take security quite seriously with the single breach that happened several years ago when everyone had to change their password before being allowed to log in.......LL forced that on us within hours of the breach (that gave me a lot of confindence in LL). And, of course, providers are going to use the information if they are so inclined. I don't have Facebook (never have, never been interested) but I have been in SL for quite a while........never have I had any spam or targeted ads crop up that can be attributed to Linden Lab. And as such the law is utterly useless. Just like gun laws that only make it more difficult for law abiders to have them while not even slowing down the people they are targeting for a second - since those people do not get the guns they rob banks or murder people with from ACME Gun Mart at the shopping mall. In similar fashion, criminalizing fictitious accounts will do absolutely nothing in the way of deterring the people out to do harm on the internet. It will merely add on a charge to the one they are already intent on earning. The only people who take a hit are the ones who can no longer anonymize their harmless presence on the internet and so can eventually look forward to being jailed for not making themselves 'GPS' findable on every sports or news board, etc. that they comment on. And I'm more than a little sure you know this. No pervy Chester hooked up under some fake account so he can hook up with 10 year old girls at the city park is going to call it all off because the guv'mint says lying to Farcebook is baaad. One more example of the government attempting to look busy. Clouds of dust, elbows, and when the smoke clears there's not a thing actually done except to pave the way for more abuse of power and BIg Brother crap.
  22. This below sums up the state of mind and spirit I hoped to create for myself every day I spent slavishly creating my home here in SL. Everything about it from the lyrics to the hypnotic icy quality of Aleah's voice. It's just such a beautiful song and makes me float away into a world of cool serenity reached and viewed through snow and a swirling mist:
  23. valerie Inshan wrote: Obvious. Coppola's Dracula. The most tragic love story ever. I'll bet you could pull off that hairdo Val! :matte-motes-big-grin-squint:
  24. RudolphUkka wrote: I am usually on for a foursome, but how do you feel about incest? *** Rudi *** ETA No, not golf! Oh wow, lol. Uhh that never really crosses my mind actually. Although it might have a lot to do with me and my RL sis telling our brothers they look like Eeyores all the time, haha! Sort of torpedoes the whole concept! I'm a really big Anne Boleyn fan though and during those times there was a lot of that going on in the monarchies. It's actually one of the accusations made against her by King Henry VIII that led to her beheading. That she was sleeping with her brother. The part where that was sexy never translated for me however...
  25. Delight Rang wrote: There is no doubt (at least in my experience) that it is far more thrilling to seduce a victim than to attack or trick them. Hence an "innocent" flirtation leads eventually (hopefully) to a very exciting act of turning and yes *gasp* sex. It can be very intense and erotic. I never have been into clans much but have enjoyed these types of turnings. Hmmm. I agree. And have to add that feeding multiple vampires would be my ultimate vampire fantasy. There was a scene in True Blood where a dancer was lured into the back of a limo by Bill where he, Nan, Russell and perhaps even one more vamp were waiting. After Bill bit her and the effect kicked in, she lay back while all of them joined in. Between the dazed look in her eyes, the shallow breathing and moaning, and eventual screaming, I found myself a bit too aroused to keep my dignity.It also happened while watching the girl get drained in the hotel room by Valek in John Carpenter's Vampires. Same thing happens every time I see a scene like this (usually with one each at the neck, wrist, and especially one biting dangerously high on the inner thigh). I don't even have to deliberately replace the victims with myself in my mind. I replace her automatically! :matte-motes-shocked:
  • Create New...