This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Super Irish
Pages: 1 ... 196197198 199200
5911
« on: August 07, 2014, 01:56:52 PM »
I think that may be Madagascar you're thinking of. Hitler's original plan was to move all of the Jews in Europe to Madagascar, but then the war happened and that became impractical. Hence the Final Solution.
No, no, no... this was after the events of WWII. Though you are correct, Hitler did have some idea of sending Jews to Madagascar (even sent an ambassador to scope the place out), but later after invading Poland it was impossible, so then he decided to send them all (Polish Jews included) to Lublin/Nisko as a super-scaled up version of the ghettos. But then in late 1941 he just gave up trying to keep them alive*, and decided to kill them along with the disabled, eastern Europeans and gypsys. * This is the Structuralist viewpoint of the events leading to the Holocaust, that he didn't intend to kill them, just migrate them somewhere else. Various historians argue that Hitler planned it from the start which is the Intentionalist viewpoint, but factually that is what happened before the Final Solution.
5912
« on: August 06, 2014, 08:57:55 PM »
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)
5913
« on: August 06, 2014, 08:44:01 PM »
Meh. I'm indifferent.
5914
« on: August 06, 2014, 07:58:14 PM »
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...).
5915
« on: August 06, 2014, 07:55:41 PM »
This certainly beats an AMA.
5916
« on: August 06, 2014, 04:18:27 PM »
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.
5917
« on: August 06, 2014, 12:21:31 PM »
I'd say Nuclear or Chemical.
When you see the old footage of the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you think at the very least "oh my". Now combine that with the fact that nearly every developed country has at least one, add on that America and Russia's supply could destroy the world...18? times over, and that if anybody fires one in aggression it'll escalate into almost certain death for all of us. Then there's the aftermath, which plenty of films in the 60's paint a pretty apocalyptic picture. It's only benefit is that if you are caught in a blast, you won't feel the pain for very long. Outside of the blast, a horrifying death by radiation poisoning awaits.
Chemical is a close second seeing as after it's use in WW1 you barely hear of it elsewhere (exceptions being Vietnam and recently Syria), and it's total banning under the Geneva conventions only shows how, at the time, how fearful they were of it's use. Also, most of the chemical weapons won't outright kill you, and even those that do, death by it must be agonizingly torturous.
5918
« on: August 06, 2014, 10:44:15 AM »
I never had any before, and I don't have any after.
5919
« on: August 05, 2014, 05:48:32 PM »
Not to be pessimistic, but in my lifetime I'll doubt we'll travel further than Mars (though we might come into contact with extraterrestrial single celled organisms...maybe). Unless the aliens are willing to do the legwork and come to us in my life, I just don't think I'll be alive when it finally happens, which is both sad but also relieving somehow.
But who knows? Maybe the Voyager probe has bonked off a couple of spaceships on it's way out of the solar system. Might not exactly be the intended form of contact, but it's "contact".
5921
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:53:44 PM »
Back pedaling in circles and drug use rivaling that of heroin addict did it for me.
5922
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:47:47 PM »
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?)
5923
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:49:03 PM »
I'm looking a bit under the weather and I'm about to be attacked by a Norsalis.
...Oh fuck.
5924
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:35:25 PM »
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.
5925
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:09:53 PM »
Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy. I don't see how agreeing to both those statements would be hypocritical. There are other forms of reliable clean energy than just Nuclear (and I wouldn't really count Nuclear as clean, considering what it gains in no CO2 emissions it makes up in radioactive waste that we have to dump somewhere for millenia, and has created arguably the most inhospitable places on Earth). There's plenty of others like Wind, Solar, Hydro-electric and Tidal energy, and the more abundant, efficient and less wasteful Thorium reactors (which can't be used to enrich uranium, which would help out Iran who need power but are strictly sanctioned by the US because they suspect bomb making by enriching Uranium in their nuclear plants).This kinda covers point 2, as most of these could easily replace dirty forms of energy over time. Also, you could agree with points 3 of both tables. I do think it is a problem that 900 million suffer from undernourishment globally, yet I could still oppose GM crops because only large corporations can create them, turning the agricultural market into a monopoly, bleeding 3rd world countries dry of their annual GDP's to buy GM seeds (as GM plants are sterile), which could be used for infrastructural and industrial development instead. Also, GM atm only benefits us 1st worlders as we are technologically developed enough to use it, leading to over consumption and has caused 1.8 billion people to be overweight. The problem is distribution. I should probably point out that I'm not opposed to GM myself, but your 'hypocriticality test' looks rather biased towards what I assume are your own beliefs on these matters.Spoiler Have I thought too much in to this? If so, I put it down to my Geography lessons. My bad.
5926
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:30:25 AM »
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.
5927
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:08:59 AM »
"Hitler and the Nazi's rose to power in 1934."
Hopefully no Godwin's Law comes up.
5928
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:04:46 AM »
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.
5929
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:45:26 AM »
When I get my LIVE back I'll be more than happy to play...unfortunately that's gonna be a week away.
5930
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:37:27 AM »
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?
5931
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:28:34 AM »
5932
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:27:49 AM »
The dead re-awakening from their eternal slumber isn't possible, period.
A modified rabies strain, or a specifically engineered psychological bio-weapon however... that's a different matter which is kinda where 28 days later and a few other films (I Am Legend and The Crazies, to an extent) went for on how "zombies" were created.
How TV/movies portray them as brain-dead, in advanced stages of decomposition is completely outlandish. Other than being brain dead (making them static vegetables rather than roaming cannibals), rotting muscles aren't going to sustain the weight of a human, if not at all then only for a short time (i.e. a freshly dead person)
5933
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:18:02 AM »
Still faster than Bungie's site for me.
And clearly someone has a grudge against us. Who knows? Maybe someone back at Bungie loves us and wants us back <3.
5934
« on: August 02, 2014, 09:12:03 PM »
I'm not so sure about Income Tax...
Before 1842, Britain did ok without it. Hell, the only reason it was supported at the time was because Robert Peel (the PM at the time) was doing social reforms for everyone, so it benefitted them the most. Presently, I have no idea what it funds, considering the large cutbacks on the NHS while large contracts on military hardware have been over-budget.
Can I ask why you think the Wealth Tax is bad? In my opinion, if it's taxing the extremely wealthy, it's hardly going to put a dent in their spending on yachts, expensive houses, cars, luxury dining, etc. Why not shave off a few which could (hopefully, assuming a decent government...) be spent on something more beneficial for everyone, i.e. improve education, healthcare and infrastructure, so more people can be wealthy, more efficiently, and feed into the system longer (and the cycle continues)
5935
« on: August 01, 2014, 05:31:13 PM »
Even though I've been part of the Flood for 4 years I still don't know what Rose has done besides spamming.
...and arguing with people back at Bungie. (From what I remember anyway)
5936
« on: August 01, 2014, 04:07:23 PM »
I wouldn't exactly it's much of a change from before.
Britain in general is the most watched country in the world with all it's CCTV cameras, yet only when we are told about it (in a poster reminiscent of war-time propaganda I might add) do we get mad. That said, I wouldn't say it's totally Orwellian... just yet.
5937
« on: August 01, 2014, 03:41:27 PM »
Because despite being taught in a Catholic school, my parents never encouraged religious belief. In fact in my teens my Dad explained that he didn't make me a Catholic because he went through the whole thing and was expected to believe without question, and he thought "why?".
He became an Atheist later in his life and thought it better that I start off that way instead of figuring out for myself. While that sounds bad written down, in my mind I'm thankful he did. as for other religions, I wasn't really exposed to them (I lived in the back-end of Ireland, Catholic Central. Even being Atheist is a bit "odd" there) so I wasn't exactly aware of other religions until I already was rooted in my own beliefs (or lack thereof).
5938
« on: August 01, 2014, 01:33:57 PM »
Rose.
Who is still here
He sent me a PM saying IP bans don't work.
No shit, he spends every day making a new IP instead of living an actual life.
I suck at computer stuff, but can't IP changes be tracked?
They can be, yes, but he is changing IPs every time he gets banned.
I am working on a way to make it very inconvenient for him to keep doing it.
I mean isn't it going to leave a blimp on government radar when you change your IP that often?
But then they'll just realise he's been desperately trying to join a relatively quiet site with nothing worth sending the SWAT party vans for.
5939
« on: August 01, 2014, 12:34:55 PM »
The "laws of physics" is only limited to our current knowledge. If we say we can't do something because of current limitations then we'd never exceed our current limitations and build new ones. Back before the Wright Brothers people though flight was silly, illogical, and could never happened. If we everybody had thought that then flight may never been invented
And before then, scientists thought a train going over 20mph would give the passengers nosebleeds. Today, they reach 160mph (maybe faster). I may not have learned much in my Physics lessons, but I learned that all the laws and stuff can be right, until someone comes along and de-bunks it or finds a better way of explaining the world around us, which apparently happens all the time.
5940
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:56:41 AM »
(Counting Ireland as "Default")
-Wales (8 years)
-England (A lot)
-Turkey (A week)
-France (3 days)
At least I can say I left the continent once, went to the Asian/Middle Eastern side of Turkey.
Pages: 1 ... 196197198 199200
|
Show Posts
