Rostere

What does the scouter say about his gullibility level? Really, there is greed to some degree behind the motivations of every government. The only thing you can do is to look at the different countries, and see which ones are awful, and which ones are OK. There are 206 states in the world, and just as many approaches to government. Russia does not score very high in my eyes. If you want to live under "king of some sort" then you are truly hopeless. It's because of people like you we have authoritarian regimes in the world.

On the streets of Jerusalem, during the war. Interviewer: Why do you think they are firing these rockets? Israeli teenager: I don't know. They have this motto: As much as we love... Uh... As much as we love... "As much as the Jewish [people] love life, we love death." Watch them call for new wars, and look back on previous ones, clueless as to the situation in Gaza, the motivations of Hamas, and the futility of war. So it comes as no surprise then, that Tel Aviv currently is full of protesters protesting against the cessation of hostilities against Hamas. Meanwhile, one of the few Arab MKs in Israel has been suspended, and is under investigation of "insulting a police officer". She recently made this statement: “Is it strange that people living under occupation and living impossible lives, in a situation where Israel kidnaps new prisoners every day, is it strange that they act this way? They are not terrorists. Even if I do not agree with them, they are people who do not see any way open to change their reality, and they are compelled to use means like these until Israel wakes up and sees the suffering, feels the suffering of the other.” which prompted 89% of the Jewish Israeli public to agree to that her citizenship should be revoked. Meanwhile these statements are completely A-OK: "Not only are the kidnappers [of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank on June 12] terrorists, Zoabi herself is a terrorist. The kidnappers and Zoabi, who is inciting kidnappings, should meet exactly the same fate." - Avigdor Lieberman, party leader of one of the nationalist parties in the governing coalition "They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists. They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists. … Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there." - Ayelet Shaked, MK of one of the nationalist parties in the governing coalition Yeah, you imagine the kind of society in which this is the stuff that the most popular mainstream politicians say. At least now after the war journalists and victims can begin recollecting all the atrocities, including the usage of Palestinian civilians as human shield by the IDF.

Meanwhile, in Belarus.

Look at it this way: They are not making a Pathfinder CRPG right now, even though they would want to. That means that the people who would be working with such a game are busy doing other stuff. What stuff is that? Can only be good stuff!

I would say that I know what it is like to be absolutely paralysed by depression, however I can't really say I know what it is like to be a depressive person, and know about yourself that whatever you are going through is not a philosophical reconciliation and might be due to a fundamental character trait. What I'm saying is that there is the rational mind, and then there are feelings. You can feel arbitrarily bad, but in the end, that's pretty irrelevant for the world. The values you act upon are in every case more important than what you might feel. Of course there's intuition, which is important, but feelings are really largely a remnant from a time when people weren't capable of reasoning about how they acted. Feelings such as hate, or love, or despair, have their evolutionary roots in a time when people fought with wild beasts and punched each other in the head with rocks for survival. Animals only have feelings to act upon, they have little rational thinking (and feelings are crucial if you lack capacity to reason). Feelings are tuned for evolutionary needs from about 5000 years back, and only slowly adapting to modern society. They are not "you". They are chemical substances released in your brain reflecting what has historically been evolutionary advantageous for your genome. They are an impediment to seeing things as they really are. Regardless of how depressed you are, it is possible to keep this in mind. It won't make you feel any better at all, but it can be guide for your actions. If you - or Robin Williams - held it to be true for even a second that it would be "good" with suicide, your rational mind could tell you that it would be better to use your life for good purposes. Even the man who has nothing, can still offer his life in service. Maybe Robin Williams committed suicide because he could not control himself, of maybe for egoistical reasons, but if I could have talked to him now through a crystal ball or something, I would have made him concede this point. I don't claim I know how to get rid of depressive feelings at all, in fact I'd say I am probably awfully lacking in that area of knowledge (but that's not what I'm talking about). What I am saying is that I think that you should not confuse the "self", which is built on values, convictions and logic, with chemical reactions taking place in your brain, in fact that you should keep in mind that there is an adversarial relation between the two.

Walsingham, I am not talking about how things should be, I am talking about how things are. It is a fact that in societies with unequal wealth distribution, the question of wealth is more a subject of stress than in other societies. Perceived well-being correlates with more even wealth distribution, shockingly enough not only among the poor. I could as well say that "War is the most stupid pile of balls. Why should two people fight, when the only one who is left laughing is the one who does not participate in the conflict?". It only reflect on what I perceive to be the ideal case by logic and not how people actually think. If we are realistic, we must take into account the process in which one person got so rich. If we have a finite amount of printed money at any given point (trivially and necessarily the case in all currencies), then one person's increased wealth comes from another's decreased wealth. So that is a zero-sum game. However, money is (typically) printed all the time, so the other possibility is that all the printed money ended up in the hands of the person who got richer. Now, inflation happens only through circulation of money, so the fact that I have a pile of money won't make it harder for you to buy your daily potatoes. A rich man typically needs only the same amount of food, say potatoes, as a poor man. Potatoes only eventually get more expensive when the richer man has bought stuff that he wouldn't have bought as a poorer man from those poorer than him, who otherwise could not afford as many potatoes as they needed. This obviously works transitively, and is in practice typically a chain. This is called the "trickling down" of money. The real inflation will in most relevant cases in Western countries happen in the field of very limited resources which everyone would want. Examples: Apartments centrally situated in capital cities Fine, rare jewellery and antiques (admittedly perhaps irrelevant) The best education, if there is an open market (by the Highlander principle, there can only be one "best" education, so education is in fact a finite resource on a competetive market) The best healthcare, if there is an open market Shares Even products that are in practice are in unlimited supply (stone) have a chain of delivery, are refined in plants with limited capacity et.c., so they are semi-finite by inertia. So the fact that 1% suddenly became 100 times richer is going to shine through in that poorer people can no longer afford any of the above. We will have increased segregation, less social mobility, in the end less intermarriage between what becomes a "thinking class" and the "working class" because they no longer will have any natural avenues of contact. Ways to combat this is for example by making education paid for by taxes, making extra fees illegal (at least to an arbitrary part), which heightens social mobility, but stifles competition in education. So the longer this system goes on, which created the huge income gaps, the more our society is going to become "us versus them", where your future is solely decided by where you were born, with different distinct social classes. This then becomes a source of illegitimacy for the wealth of the rich. Eh, this was in any case pretty much all off-topic. I don't really care. My post dealt with "work force inflation", not monetary inflation. There is a thing called universal values, and putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. As long as people regard accumulated wealth as legitimate, there is no issue. In any case, just observe reality.

The combat looks GREAT. I can say already I will have a lot of fun with this.

Another recruiter for the EU camp I see. Thank you Zhirinovsky, you do more than the EU or the US could ever do to push countries like Ukraine into the arms of EU and NATO, regardless of whether these want it or not. I'd like to do a Russian reversal paraphrase of a famous quote: "With enemies like these, who needs friends?" Russia is looking increasingly similar to North Korea with these ridiculous and self-harming outbursts. I fear what we are seeing is the ultimate resort to demagoguery for internal politics purposes, regardless of the damage it might cause to Russia's position in the real world.

At some point I came to the conclusion that suicide, in most cases, is an egoistic act. If you don't find any point in your life, the least you could do is to dedicate it to others who are worse off than you are.

This is like a debate on socialism, where suddenly someone says that Stalin killed so and so many people. What do you make out of that? Well, guess what, ideologies are never clear-cut and in any case there is good stuff and bad stuff in all of them. There's no point in debating unless you define what the ideology means first. Bruce should give examples of the feminism he espouses and then people can attack that if they want, instead of ridiculous straw-men statements. The usage of the word "feminism" becomes pointless when it means two different things to the people who are involved in the discussion.

Bill Gates introduces Mosquito Week. Ah, the victory of common sense over nonsense.

Is this accurate? If I'm reading this correctly 65 % of there exports are Petroleum based, I wonder where they are going to or rather how much goes to the EU which means Russia cannot afford to declare there own sanctions on the EU by not selling them Petroleum? That is pretty much the case, yes.

You probably shouldn't take that joke site too seriously

"Russia Bans Western Food Imports, Punches Itself Right in the ****"

So what is the failure of democracy (And would you hold this to be inevitable?)? Certainly states can collapse due to instability, bad times will wreck any country regardless of how it's led, but what exactly constitutes the failure of democracy? You mention certain counter-tax evasion policies and counter-terrorism policies as examples of this. Now, regardless of whether or not these are real examples of "failures of democracy", how would they not happen under a dictatorship? Would a dictatorship have better (in your mind) policies on these subjects? Would things be better under King Barack Obama of America, the first of his name, than under President Obama? Probably not. No. So maybe the failure of democracy as you put it (if there is one), is not a failure on the part of democracy, but a failure on the part of the people to uphold democracy, whether that comes from ignorance or laziness, or both. So why do the people fail? The world needs hope. Every human being needs hope to remain constructive, and not turn to a destructive path. What we are seeing right now in the US, and indeed in most Western countries, is a rapid development towards increasing income gaps. Globalization, while a net positive for world economy, has created both a global upper class of extremely wealthy people who are very well positioned to gain from increased global interconnectedness, and a global working class of poor and destitute people, who are subject to increased competition due to global interconnectedness. Previously, people were even poorer all over the world (in absolute terms - try to buy an MRI scan 1000 years ago), but now we are interconnected, so my shares, which produce wealth for me, might hinge on child labour in coltan mines somewhere in Africa to do that. Outsourcing of industries and raw materials collection has given us cheap phones and computers, and great wealth, but now we are seeing the twofold social effects: 1) Working, uneducated classes in developed nations will soon be no better off than their counterparts in developing nations, since they compete on the same job market. The number of unqualified jobs in industrial nations will shrink further. 2) Immigration to developed nations will contribute even more to competition for those few unqualified jobs. The problem is that with increased globalization in a post-Cold War (I'd almost say post-ideological...) era, in a developing country the poor will stay poor as their salaries approach those of the developing world working class (which closes in on them from below) while the rich get richer. Everybody gets richer in absolute terms, but those already rich are the ones who get richer relative to the rest of the population. We get a situation close to the one of urbanization during the industrial revolution (which also made the rich richer due to cheap labour, and kept the poor poor due to increased competition). This is bound to create unrest and support for extremist parties. We are having historically high levels of economic inequality. Thus far, this has resulted mostly in anti-immigration sentiments and nationalistic protectionism, but eventually we are bound to see far-left socialism as well. This is not a time when content citizens gather round the table, scholarly debating which of the latest reforms and initiatives might not fit 100% with a democratic state. This is increasingly a time when desperate uneducated people debate whether you should kill all the bankers, or kill all the immigrants. This is a time of both deep cynicism and hopeless apathy towards the state, which keeps this status quo in place. Sadly you can't have infinite progress (globalization) without some backlash. So, in other words, it's not the democracy, it's the economy, stupid.

We've had this discussion before. I've tried to explain how democracy is a more stable form of government than dictatorship. I've still not seen anything to prove me wrong... I'll just laugh when I hear you guys mention entropy... You know, if an arrow of time can be observed in historical forms of governance, it's in favour of democracy.

I'm sure the American army are not the best swordsmen or spearmen either. What was your point again?

d) the people who live in the country in question. Secondly, you disregard the possibility that the countries will align themselves with democracy and the West by themselves, because that is simply the sensible thing to do. See Algeria. It was "vacated" peacefully (in the end), and because of US support for it's decolonialization, it did not have to resort to Soviet support to achieve it. Compare to the protracted situation in Vietnam. You have got to realize influence in people's minds is what matter, and it is not due to military presence, rather the opposite. The Eastern European countries came under Soviet control after WW2, but still they almost immidiately withdrew from the Russian sphere and into NATO and the EU after the Soviets relinquished control. In spite of being under Soviet military control for almost half a century, their minds and public opinion were perfectly groomed for entry into the Western sphere, because of this military control forced upon them. This did not require any military effort at all, in fact not any effort of any kind. It only took these countries to come banging at the gate, asking "Hello, you're rich and not miserable and won't send your military to occupy us, can we join?". In similar fashion the West should retreat from whereever people do not want them, and intervene only when public opinion (over there) is favourable. Libya is a good example. The people said, "send airstrikes", airstrikes were sent, and now there is a gratefulness for that. The country is still in shambles (as any artificial colonial construct like it would be at this point) but now they have been given the best chance we could give them to develop their own democracy, and all we have to do now is to wait. Islamism is pretty much 100% a reaction to Western (Christian) colonialism and intervention in Muslim lands. They feed off conspiracy theories of Western malevolence, US wars and support for Israel. The more you leave them alone and support their own independence, the more Islamism will just deflate, until eventually it's like a flat balloon to be picked up and thrown in the garbage bin. This ISIS debacle is really the best thing which could have happened for US foreign policy - they get both to decimate international terrorist supporters and be a knight in shining armour who helps the poor Muslims when they come asking nicely. Obama should continue to be careful to not intervene until ISIS' victims really are screaming for help though, and stay completely out of occupying any territory.

I think Obama has been wise in showing restraint, but with IS taking control of the dam, and messing around about the Christian/Yazidi/Kurd parts of Northern Iraq where there are plenty of minorities to behead, it's very clear where to draw the line and administer some euthanasia from above for them when things get out of hand in this way. IS is no longer about an internal struggle in some Muslim country, it's an all-out genocidal campaign. You can only hope this will be done similar to Libya - ideally they would set up 24/7 aerial surveillance, block roads towards IS-held territory for commercial purposes, and bomb any military columns moving anywhere, and any heavy weaponry and military encampments which can be seen. The reliance on air force is crucial to avoid the image of an occupation and the clashes with locals that entails, as shown in Libya (when compared to Iraq).

Okay, so I played it through with two different sides. On the Palestinian side, it's about holding lots of speeches and constantly voicing your good intent, while using this goodwill to build your economy and a functioning security apparatus. On the Israeli side, you've got to quickly gain creds with the Palestinian leadership, and then milk them for security cooperation (and constantly patrolling with your own police), all the while reducing trade barriers and giving work permits to strengthen Palestinian economy. What are your strategies? I found it slightly harder to play as the Israeli side actually, even though you need a bit thinking in the beginning to figure out your plan as the Palestinian side. It's kind of like Hidden Agenda, but easier.

The US has a democratic system which works very differently from most democracies around the world. By game theory, it is only rational for two parties to exist in American politics, in the long term. In a representative system, the number of parties is decided by lots of other factors, chief of which is the percentage of support limit for representation in parliament. In a representative system, if you vote for a party, you increase their share of seats in the parliament, and these are later filled by people which are chosen from a list presented by their party before the elections, or persons chosen from this list by voters, through some algorithm. It is therefore a consequence that you vote for people who are on your party's list whom you did not choose yourself. In this system, it makes sense to kick people out of your party if they have the wrong opinions. In 99% of all practical cases, this will result in the misbehaving person leaving on his own behalf. I understand if you, as an American, do not understand "party politics" because it only barely exists where you live. It makes little sense for a Republican from Minnesota to try to kick a Republican from Maine out of the Republican party, because they are elected by different constituencies. If you get elected, that's good enough. In a representative democracy, it would make more sense, because you would need an ideal list/ ideal lists of candidates appealing to the part of the electorate your party seeks support from. In a representative democracy, it is vital to keep politicians in line with the party beliefs. I'm not trying to defend Hamas in any way. Hamas does not get 3 billion in military aid by the US each year. Hamas do not have a seat at the UN. Hamas is not inexplicably considered "the closest ally" to the US. If you would get to hear such things in the US mainstream such as "Hamas has the most moral army in the world", if Hamas would start killing thousands of Israeli civilians, if Hamas would get the US' support in the UN against human rights violations investigations, then you can bet your ass I would be upset and arguing on the Internet about it. As of now, nobody is giving them any form of support, and nobody is putting forth any ridiculous arguments about how they are the nicest guys in the world, so it's pretty much a non-question. We all agree on the matter. I do track Hamas approval ratings (as far as they are available..) and that is yet one more reason I know this entire massacre is hopeless. Every time Israel invades Gaza, those resisting with weapons will gain support. Every day they lock down supplies and only provide for small parts of necessary goods through to Gaza, those operating smuggling tunnels will gain support. The Israeli right-wing and Hamas are caught in a symbiotic relationship where Hamas acts as a sock puppet/punching bag for the Israeli politicians to scare the voters with and beat up for support, and Israel acts the scary monster only Hamas are capable of resistance against. It's a vicious circle. And yes, when massacres happen, Hamas support shoots to the sky. In peacetime, their support slumps. It is so typical that when we had just gotten a unified PA government which could hold new elections, and Hamas' support and strength had waned because of the peace and of outside circumstance, this **** would take place. Now we get Hamas for a few years more. Sigh. We have went through this before. Israel was excellently supplied and equipped compared to the Arabs and in numerical advantage. Yes, we count displaced Palestinians and Israeli Jews after the 1949 armistice. Anything else would be misleading. The British knew what would happen when they withdrew. But sure, I agree the Jews also had a certain right to immigrate in an orderly fashion, but not to declare their own state. Ask any country which receives immigrants of they approve of immigrants declaring their own state on their territory. Haha what? You really have no idea at all... Get a grip on history. How old are you? You should know better. Let me get this straight... Your point is that you are some kind of Indian and therefore entitled to tell me that ethnic cleansing can be justified? I'd like to see you in a debate against this guy. It is because of people like you who ignore injustices in favour of partisan considerations ("I like these guys more, I'm going to cheer for them") that atrocities can be enabled. It's because of people like you colonialism can continue, because who wouldn't sympathize with the "civilized man" over the "barbarian"? I guess I owe people like you some kind of thanks. Hundreds of years ago, when my ancestors and distant cousins were raping and killing your Indian ancestors and stealing their land, people like you made all of that possible. I can't say it feels very good now, but I'm sure you gave those old Europeans one hell of a good time in America, at the expense of all the Indians. I'm sure my ancestors did not call your ancestors "terrorists", but there must have been other words - "savage brutes", "filthy beasts", "barbarians" - words justifying revenge attacks on your women and children for resisting your ethnic cleansing. There must have been people advocating that the only way for them to feel safe from the savages was to kill them all. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian". Even though I hate it, parts of Europe's wealth comes from your exploitation, made possible by people like you, with your exact mindset enabling colonialism. It's because of people like you Indians live in bantustan reserves, and not have any nations of their own. That is exactly where the West Bank is heading today. In any case, by the mere virtue of your US citizenship, you've had more of a chance in life than these guys. You might be more miserable than me, but on a global scale, you're probably pretty well off with regards to opportunities. Let me correct you on a few points. The Jews moved to Palestine on their own, although the British colonial rule initially facilitated this, after 1939 the Brits tried to keep the Jews back. I don't consider displaced puppies an important part of the chain of events. Palestinians also committed atrocities towards the Jews.

No. I have not claimed that any person was representative of the entirety of Israel. I have claimed that a person belonging to the Likud party is representative of the people who voted for them. Since he has not been expelled from their party, it means that such opinions are acceptable. In fact there are lots of similar quotes and even worse. Likud is the party which passes for "mainstream right-wing" in Israeli politics, although party comparisons much more complex in Israel than in the US, due to the fact that there are so many parties. The political discussion there is filled with similar calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide. Here's from Ayelet Shaked of the Jewish Home party: "[...] Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there." Just imagine what cabinet meetings must be like. "Yo, I think we should consider razing more Palestinian homes, you know, that way they might move away so we can steal the land or at least have trouble raising so many children" "Yeah, that one is popular with our voters as well." "I think the problem with the previous wars in Gaza was that we did not raze enough houses and kill enough mothers..." The current generation of Israeli leaders at least pretend to follow UN war legislation. The next generation? I'm not so sure... 20 years from now, people will ask, why didn't anyone stop this madness before? Why didn't the UN send peacekeepers to Gaza and to the West Bank? Exaggeration of the day. I guess you would classify the latest war on Gaza, started by Israel, as a "war of extermination" as well? No. Show me a poll with how many people support Hamas, and by my "assbackwards reasoning" that's how many people I think share that point of view. Let's not be a crybaby, I showed you statistics, you were obviously wrong, deal with it. Sure, let's compare how many Jews were driven from their homes by Palestinians with how many Palestinians were driven from their homes by Jews. Arab terrorists attacked Jewish settlements, sure, after the Jews had made their intent clear to declare a country of their own in a land in which they were a minority. I know I have posted about this before, but remember how Arab leaders were very positive to Jewish immigration and a Jewish "homeland" before it was clear the "homeland" meant a Jewish state, and not just a country where Jews were allowed to immigrate and live together with Arabs. I don't know where you live exactly, but let's make a comparison so I can make my point clear: you live peacefully in whatever land you live in. Suddenly, there is an influx of immigrants to your region. They bring good news for the economy, but even as business is thriving and everyone is happy, rumour spreads that they are there to declare their own country on your soil. Eventually, there is a huge surge of immigrants and tensions result in clashes and terrorist acts by militias. The immigrant minority declare a country of their own on sizeable parts of the shared land. Are you surprised this led to a war? Attacks on defenceless civilians will always be a reprehensible crime, but do you think Pakistanis could declare a Muslim state of their own in suburban London? Can Hispanic Americans declare a Spanish Catholic state of their own in California without bloodshed? Where would this chain of events not lead to a war? Who is content with seeing their homeland snatched from beneath their feet? It is our moral imperative to prevent this kind of stupidity to happen. “Actually—and this was where I began to feel seriously uncomfortable—some such divine claim underlay not just 'the occupation' but the whole idea of a separate state for Jews in Palestine. Take away the divine warrant for the Holy Land and where were you, and what were you? Just another land-thief like the Turks or the British, except that in this case you wanted the land without the people. And the original Zionist slogan—'a land without a people for a people without a land'—disclosed its own negation when I saw the densely populated Arab towns dwelling sullenly under Jewish tutelage. You want irony? How about Jews becoming colonizers at just the moment when other Europeans had given up on the idea?” Quote by Chrstopher Hitchens.

Colonialism Must End. LOL. This I must say is a really low level of trolling. Those aren't weapons, those are tools. Sure, there were apparently some slingshots, but those are mostly harmless anyway. It was a wasteland, most of the country was barren following the Turkish need for wood for their trains. Do some research and you will see the development of the country in the last 130 years and the large immigration from arab countries into it. a 130 years ago it was a shadow of its former self from the times of the roman empire and Israeli kingdoms. This is a wasteland: I know, it's a question of terminology, but anyway. I see Israel is doing is best to preserve to Roman-era irrigation systems you speak of. Oh wait, no, they are destroying them, in order to steal more land. In any case, the argument is pretty crazy. The Ottomans cut down the trees in Palestine, so therefore Palestinians don't have a right to live in their homeland? I bet I could do a lot to increase efficiency in agriculture in random parts of Africa, yet I don't go there, bombing people to smithereens, telling them I have a divine right to the land (even though my ancestors lived there once, as all of our ancestors did). In fact, one of the themes of the 20th century has been the abandonment of that principle, the abandonment of colonialism. Everywhere except Israel now. A stone could kill a man as well, luckily the police in civilized countries don't just go around executing people who have stones in their gardens. "The USA is only enjoying exclusive contracts with Israel" Wow, you really turned that one on it's head, didn't you. But let's hear more. I'm not being rhetorical, I'm sincerely interested. And in the article: "After denying for over a decade that Pollard was its paid agent, Israel apologized and promised not to spy on U.S. soil again. Since then, more Israeli spies have been arrested and convicted by U.S. courts." And additionally, a lot of spying is being done without anyone being indicted, and/or done in cyberspace. I'm not really interested in any way in defending US intelligence policy, you know. The problem is that it is not a small segment. This is from the deputy speaker of the Knesset, member of the largest (and ruling) party in Israel: ""This is our country – our country exclusively," he says on his Facebook page, "including Gaza." Calling for the "conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters," Feiglin rants that Israel must "turn Gaza into Jaffa, a flourishing Israeli city with a minimum number of hostile civilians." Jaffa was ethnically cleansed of Palestinians by the Jewish terrorist group Irgun in an operation begun on May 13, 1948, the day before Israel declared statehood: most of the Arab population was driven from the city, and many were murdered in the streets, their homes looted. In another reprise of Clio’s wicked sense of irony, the 4,000 remaining Arabs were forced into officially-designated ghettoes – and the city was repopulated by Jews, who were granted "legal" title to what was formerly Palestinian property." In other words, he is openly calling for ethnic cleansing, and for a religious right to the land. It is needless to say that if a politician would have said anything similar in any halfway civilized state they would be chased out of parliament by a hailstorm of rotten vegetables. If the author of the quote above had been born in a different country, he would have been a member of BNP, Golden Dawn or Jobbik. It's the same policies, but in different nations.

Military research cooperation. No, really.

LOL. This I must say is a really low level of trolling. Those aren't weapons, those are tools. Sure, there were apparently some slingshots, but those are mostly harmless anyway.