It would be total chance. Say if Cheat, the mods, and the top 10 most profound posters were banned, the forum might last 2 weeks minimum with maybe an extra 3-4 weeks depending.


However, if all the Rose alts went, then users who were already banned we might have an extra week or two.


But the Plug.DJ site would stand the test of time.

What were the bloody Jews thinking though... >.>

"Great! We get a country for ourselves! A refuge from the horrors of war and anti-semitism!


Probably.

Um, why the fuck did they pick Uganda then? That's a horrible location. It's densely populated (along with having a large population), small, and it's pretty much an island of (relative) stability in a sea of chaotic countries.

At this point I think Uganda was still a colony of some empirical country (might've been France or Britain, just guessing at this point), and the mindset of the Allies was "fuck the natives, just give these Jews some land (regardless of it's shitty-ness)", as shown by the current location of Israel.Obviously the Jews (or representatives of them) chose the creation of Israel in Palestine for religious reasons, being their SHARED holy land with Muslims and Christians.

I like you, you know your shit.

Thank you, I had to do an essay on Intentionalism VS Structuralism for History A Level coursework. I wouldn't be getting (hopefully) an A in it if I didn't.

1984 - George Orwell
Dark Matter - Michelle Paver
Finn Family Moomintroll - Tove Jansson (A childhood favourite)
Several fiction series done by Clive Cussler


Mostly I read factual books, so Max Arthur's Forgotten Voices of WWI & II, Steven Ambrose's historical accounts of D-Day and Pegasus bridge and Michael Herr's Dispatches about the Vietnam War I find interesting to read.


Currently reading a few books at once, I've got Citizen Soldiers to finish (Steven Ambrose), Clive Cussler's "Arctic Drift", and a collection of Sir Ian Fleming's Sherlock to go through.

SuperIrish: red or dead?

I'm gonna phone a friend for this one, Baconshelf:

I don't get why they didn't just let them A) return to their homes in Europe or B) give them a little patch of land in America, the Americas literally worship the Jews and it would have kept the middle east calm and not lead to a genocide of a people who have never harmed anyone, the Palestinians never even had an army for fucks sake.

Plan A would be a terrible idea. Europe didn't want them. Germany definitely couldn't have any back (and they had the largest refugees as they had been kicked out since 1934 onwards) as the population would be still brainwashed under Hitler (the rare few war veterans who grew up in Hitler's Germany still are today in some cases), half of it was under control of the Russians, and much of it was bombed out.


Plan B at the time was also a bad idea. The US had already accepted a few thousand refugees in the years leading up to WW2, and were largely as anti-Semitic as every other country ('cept Germany, obviously). Also, as many were German as mentioned earlier, they would be seen as "the enemy" by many, regardless of them being a victim throughout and before the war. A historian's term for this would be "Present-ism" i.e. people back then thought like we do now, which unfortunately is wrong to think.


While today we can say the idea of giving them a Jewish state in their ancient holy lands was probably the worst thing Britain and the UN did, we have the advantage of hindsight to see what happened as a result. I suppose the idea was to give a plot of land for them where they would be out of everyone's way (Everyone = Allies/Superpowers), and who gives a fuck about the natives, especially seeing as Britain owned Palestine at the time.


EDIT:
My personal suggestion for the present day's situation (as Israelis aren't going to just pack up and leave to America) would be to


A: Return the lost lands to the surrounding Arab countries, that means returning the Sinai Desert buffer zone in the south, Golan Heights in the north, and the other parts Lebanon and Jordan are owed, say pre 1967 borders.


B: Would be to merge Gaza, West Bank and Israel into one state, rename the new state a completely new name (No Palestine or Israel, with new name to be discussed by representatives of the 3 involved parties).


...aaaaand finally C: Re-distribution of people across the new state, and vote in a new democratic government under similar methods as Lebanon has (where seats and roles are given by proportionality of the religions in the state, e.g. ~47% seats would be Jewish, ~25% would be Sunni muslims, ~25% would be Shia muslims, 3% would be Allawhites and/or other minority religions in the region)._{(Those percentages were made up, but you get the point)}

They're both bastards. But I'd expect better from a country, rather than a terrorist organisation that is trying to broker for a deal (it may be the scummiest way of brokering by using conflict and civilian casualties, but seeing as Israel haven't responded to anything else...).

It's as if they put Israel in the Middle-East on purpose! Look at all the wars and money generated from such placement

I believe at the time they were given a choice: Uganda/African country or some areas of Palestine. What I really don't get is why they even suggested Uganda. Even if they chose there (leaving Palestine alone, although I suppose it would be like Lebanon or Egypt by now), Africa has a large muslim population and would probably have the same outcome but in Africa instead.


Plus back then, everyone had the feeling of "we should help these jewish refugees" whilst also thinking "they're not going in my fecking country", so I guess it makes sense why they just dumped them on a colonised land at the time, didn't ask the natives and let them sort their own problems...which they did. Badly.

I never had any before, and I don't have any after.

I'll just quote myself:

And for anyone who's interested, this is where they came from:https://www.behance.net/gallery/18362139/FUTURAMA-3D-part-1

SATS?


I remember hearing they were stopped in Wales just before I moved.Are they the end of Primary or Secondary education? (Or are they an entirely different thing I'm getting mixed up with?)

The problem, in your first point, is not so much the technology itself but the application of it. I haven't read too much into the subject, but HurtfulTurkey would've been the guy to ask about this stuff (too bad he isn't here) and I remember him getting into a massive debate on the environmental impacts of nuclear energy and waste. What it comes down to is the fact that the management of waste is sub-par, not the process of generating energy itself.

And there's the problem. The same reason we have fears of current dirty energy supplies is because of our sub-par management of the waste. It can't be ignored again with newer supplies, certainly considering it'll have worse short and long term effects for us.

As for GM crops? You certainly have a valid point. However, it would absolutely not turn into a monopoly. GM crops don't benefit us 1st worlders nearly as much as they could because they are regulated to the extreme, and the sheer quantity of them should they be used to their full potential wouldn't allow price gouging to exploit poorer nations. Regardless of that, the solution is to oppose the potential for companies to patent the seeds more than anything else. Just because there are a few (solvable) problems with a model, it doesn't justify rejecting it.

While you are right about GM not helping us as much as it should, I fear a growth in it with current procedures (as it's already too late to oppose patents for most of these GM crops) is going to be another fuck-up later on. Companies will lobby for increased GM use, leading to increased cost for farmers, leading to increased lobbying for farming subsidies. We'll end up footing the bill twice, as the food may be more abundant in the future but I doubt it'll be cheaper as a result.


...Wow-oh-wow. That coffee I had earlier is seriously kicking ass at the thought department today.

http://www.standwithus.com/online_booklets/HamasCharter/HamasCharter.pdf


Hamas wants to destroy Israel.

Palestine voted in and supports Hamas.

Therefore Israel has every right to fight them.

Palestine voted in a coalition I believe, with some group called Fatah?


It shouldn't be Israel's right to fight Palestine, but it's right to fight Hamas. Seeing as Hamas controls Gaza and Fatah control the relatively quiet (haven't heard about any rise in conflict there) West Bank, I think it's unfair to go out and attack all of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052300150.html


US Soldiers abducted and killed in Iraq.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011059/Missing-British-soldier-executed-Taliban-snatched-shot-head.html

Soldier abducted and killed in Afghanistan.



Soldiers do get kidnapped/abducted in combat.

The more you know...

I dunno...abducted gives an air of innocence surrounding it. Considering any conflict isn't exactly innocent, I wouldn't really use the term kidnapped/abducted unless it was a civilian. Might I add these articles are from the captured soldier's side, so of course a bit of bias to be expected.


I just find it odd how an invading force has it's soldiers captured in enemy territory during a war, and yet can still spin it to make the other side look bad (Just look at the articles you provided). Granted, Hamas certainly aren't "good" in any regard seeing as there was to be a supposed ceasefire when this occurred (ignoring the use of neutral/UN zones/hospitals/schools for weapon caches and whatnot...), but Israel has to be joking if they're trying to look like the good guys in all this.

I hate how Israel puts a spin on wordplay, simply by replacing a single word. i'm happy the Guardian put it to more correct terms.


Since when do soldiers get "kidnapped/abducted" during combat?