Rostere

Wow, I would like to have one of these: http://imgur.com/gallery/gVXqYHR

What do you think about manned aerial drone carriers then?

Damn you, now I've watched that trailer five times.

In other news, Putin wins the award for NATO's best recruiter in Eastern Europe.

This was quite funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5nigZzgf4Y A short sketch mocking ISIS on Palestinian TV.

Wrong. If only the parts which had a Jewish majority at the time of the partition plan were to be allotted to Israel, they would receive only the sub-district of Jaffa and nothing else. The Negev had a population of less than 1% Jews, but was still allocated to Israel, as per the Israeli negotiator's demands. If you mean to say that we are not to take into account sub-districts, but divide the land into smaller units, the Israeli land would be even smaller. Others would disagree on that interpretation What you see is the logo of the the terrorist group Irgun, which would over time morph into the Herut and then the Likud party, the party of the current Israeli prime minister. Although he had nothing to do with the terrorist group directly, one of Irgun's top commanders was Menachem Begin, who later became Israeli prime minister. The logo depicts the entire Transjordan, which Irgun believed to be promised to them by their spaghetti monster god, and the British by the Balfour declaration. By 1939, the British explicitly did NOT want to give the entirety of Palestine to the Jews. Before that, it is a much more difficult question to answer what was "envisioned". The quote does not say explicitly whether it refers to the whole of Palestine or only parts of it. Certainly some of the British which drafted the declaration were against binding them to declare a Jewish state at all, and also against one necessarily on the entire area of Palestine. Nevertheless, other people, such the then-leader of Transjordan, spoke about Jews settling in all of Palestine, although interestingly he did not mention a specifically "Jewish state" at all. So at the time, a lot of people (especially Zionists) were definitely interpreting the Balfour declaration as an invitation for Jews to settle in all of Palestine. Even if the British did not intend that, that was the effective interpretation until 1939 (like I wrote earlier). I don't believe any Jewish "homeland" is needed, in the same way I don't believe in a Swedish "homeland" or a nation solely made for the purpose of one ethno-religious group. I believe on nations based on values, not ethnicity. I think the US is a very good example of a nation which is not based on any ethnicity. Nations everywhere should be based on similar principles. In any case, just who do you mean would be left in Ostpreussen to persecute the Jews? Taking the predominantly German (pre-WW2) lands and making that a Jewish homeland would be strictly better than Palestine. Especially Poland had pre-war the largest Jewish population by percentage, so that larger region historically has had the largest Jewish connection in Europe (again, relatively speaking. And I'm not necessarily talking about Ostpreussen in itself, but the larger surrounding region).

That's actually a very good question. The only thing you can say for sure is that it wasn't really in the end given to the Jews, strictly speaking (although in practice, it was). Here are the relevant background facts: In 1917, at the end of WW1, the British authored the Balfour declaration. The exact wording is this: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." At the same time, British and French divided territories of the Ottoman Empire among themselves pretty much arbitrarily according to the Sykes-Picot treaty. Absolutely zero consideration was given to the ethnicities of the peoples living there, and their democratic and human rights. We must remember that this was still the time of colonialism: at the time, the Middle East was simply a playground for Western imperialists, archaeologists and tourists. Today we form states on the basis of democracy - people should rule over themselves, and countries have a legitimate case for independence if cultural or ethnic national traits can be clearly confined to a certain territory. So The Middle East was divided between Britain and France, and a British puppet king was chosen to lead Transjordan, and later Iraq (which was the start of the dominance in Iraq of the Sunni minority, which is behind the current unrest in Iraq). Palestine was ruled according to the principles of colonial dictatorship by the British High Commissioner of Palestine. Later in 1921, the British still stated that "His Majesty's Government are responsible under the terms of the Mandate for establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people.". So let's look at the demographics. In 1850, 4% of the Palestinian population were Jews. In 1920 (almost at the time of the Balfour declaration), about 10%, almost all of which had moved there during the last 40 years, according to the League of Nations. By 1948 (at the time of the declaration of the state of Israel) about 32% of Palestine were Jews. So the British promised to "give" Palestine to the Jews at a time when Jews were only 10% of the population. Absurd, right? But let's remember that this was the age of colonialism, when unspeakable crimes were committed on a whim, and no thought was given towards what the colonial populations thought about anything. Giving a piece of land just like that to a foreign people was completely within what could be considered normal at the time. However, with the shift in world balance towards democracy and the US, away from the European colonial powers and authoritarianism, things changed. By the time of WW2, the British were very unsure how the heck they could resign Palestine to Jewish rule, when Jews were in such a minority. By this time, the British were trying desperately to restrain Jewish immigration to Palestine. This triggered acts of terrorism from Jewish militant organizations such as the Irgun and the Lehi (from which later two prime ministers of Israel came - Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin - worth thinking about for those who say "you can't negotiate with terrorists"!). The Haganah, the largest militia which was to later become the IDF, joined this struggle in 1945. In total, 338 British nationals were killed in acts of terrorism in Palestine, London and occupied Germany before Winston Churchill decided to withdraw, leaving Palestine to the UN - although in practice, the Haganah were the principal authority on the ground. At this time, the UN had made and voted on a partition plan - although Jews were 32% of the population, this plan allocated them 56% of the land. The Arabs objected to this, and said that Palestine should never be partitioned, but ruled as one state by it's inhabitants. The Jews then declared their state anyway, the majority satisfied with the partition plan. This was followed by a war in which a numerically superior and more well-equipped Israeli force beat back the Arabs who were trying to take control of all of Palestine, a war in which 10,000 Jews and 700,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes. So that is why Israel exists in it's current form. The British had the intent to give the land to the Jews from 1917 to 1939, when British colonial rule facilitated Jewish immigration. In the end though, Jewish insurgents chased the Brits (who had changed their minds) away and unilaterally declared their state. Since then it's pretty much this: Occupation and ethnic cleansing on a much slower scale. I don't believe in the notion that any ethnicity "needs" their own nation, but this would have made a way better place for a Jewish homeland than Palestine.

But how many people in Sweden, for example, know the runic alphabet? All of them have seen it in school, but I guess almost none know it by heart. Nevertheless, reading it is very simple. It's not a logographic or syllabaric writing system, so it's essentially just the latin alphabet with different characters. It's a bit like Wingdings in that sense. Obviously the spelling is very consistent, but still not too weird.

I wouldn't say Old Norse is that strange, over here you can often understand the inscriptions on runic stones - if you know the runic alphabet, that is.

Tally of the conflict so far: 0 Israelis killed. 9 (!) treated for light injuries. 88 Palestinians killed, and about 600 wounded. Meanwhile only one Hamas commander has been killed. The Hamas leadership have hidden themselves underground. Why does Israel keep bombing? 9 people killed as they were bombed sitting on a beach café watching the World Cup. A family was killed after the Israeli army phoned them and told them their house would be demolished. A first missile hit a structure outside the house and the family went inside again, only to be killed by a second missile shortly afterwards. Why were they forced to bomb the house in the first place? This is pure and sheer indiscriminate terror bombing. When you justify that, you should pretty much expect your opponents to respond with this or this. Between the Israeli army and Hamas, there is no one trying to hold the moral high ground. The game is just about killing as many as you can while evading international sanctions. Israel does it to beef up home opinion and gain right-wing credentials for the sitting government. Hamas does it... yeah, I don't even know. It's probably just a mind-numbingly stupid compulsive psychological reflex. I don't think anyone has thought longer than "Allahu akhbar". Other ****ed-up news from the Israel/Palestine region: Ben Gurion detention guard tells humanitarian worker she is being deported for ‘trying to change Israel and make it free of racism’, Death threats follow minister’s condolence call to family of burned teen Wrong. There is no justification for creating a "homeland" for the Jewish people or any other people on land which is inhabited by other people. The only state you can create is a secular state which treats all citizens equally. What if you should perhaps donate Texas to the Kurds, since they have no nation? What if China (Britain) occupied the US (Transjordan) and "kindly donated" (the Balfour declaration) Texas to the Muslim Uyghurs (Jews). Should you expect no violent resistance? Would the people of Texas lie flat on their bellies while their houses are demolished to make place for Muslim-only settlements? For Jewish settlements? Can we agree that the idea of an ethnocratic state is detestable? I don't believe in any god, but if I did, the ultimate Old Testament-style poetic justice would be if the Americans and the British got their land invaded by illegal immigrants who change their culture and balance of politics. Israel, as a Jewish ethnocracy, is a nation whose existence hinges on them not letting back millions of refugees who were ethnically cleansed, and which is continuously illegally seizing land in the West Bank to expand it's territory for religious and economic reasons. There is no way anyone can justify that. The only question is how you can stop this sick colonial experiment as quickly as possible while not hurting anyone. Israel could at the very least stop current dispossession of Palestinians. They could also do everything they can to let as many as possible move back, within reason of course. Unfortunately, Israel is going further and further the other way for every day. There could have been a two-state solution in the early nineties, but now I doubt it. fishy? yes. am glad you noticed. diane sawyer clearly doesn't know how to accessorize. look at those earnings. orange? with her coloring? ghastly. HA! Good Fun! For anyone who might actually be interested and not trolling like Gromnir here, the TV reporter is talking about "Israelis" while showing Gazans on a ruin (and by the way, there are no ruined landscapes like that in Israel...), and later a Muslim woman. The title is "[israel] Under Attack", but the videos at the beginning show Gaza being bombed. A mix out outright lies, and misleading pictures.

US media, why am I not surprised. Watch this between 0:00 and 0:20. Notice anything fishy? EDIT: I wonder how long it's going to take for Israel to kick in with the white phosphorus this time. It's like they are reading out of textbook of cartoon villainy at times. "Hey guys, let's enact Spec Ops: The Line Gaza DLC"

They should have had Krul as goalkeeper. :/

Argentina is really dangerous right now.

At least it's been more interesting football after the first 90 minutes.

I want to make a word joke about "Arjentinians" and how "Krul" is pronounced similar to "cruel", but I can't think of anything. Too bad.

Just read this, in an unrelated context: Quote from Bertrand Russell.

You could really feel Netherlands keeping the pressure the last three minutes.

Yeah, I thought he would get a free kick first.

Phew. That was close.

I love that Vlaar guy. The Swedish commentator are calling him "Concrete Ron" right now.

I wonder if has has some mystical attraction which makes all his opponents grab him like that.

.....aaaand Robben gets a free kick.

There's an Argentinian running around with a shoe in his hand...

I get the feeling both teams are playing it ridiculously safe. Someone get the penalty kick statistics for Argentina's goalies, are Netherlands trying to do to Argentina what Costa Rica tried to do to them? But really, I think in general that very many matches this WC have been very uneventful in the first half.

Here is a news update from Al Jazeera, which details the feelings from the Israeli side. You can get a look at how things look just outside Gaza. Meanwhile, there are 38 dead Gazans so far, with the Israeli government pledging escalation of their attacks on houses and apartment buildings where they suspect Hamas leaders live. Yep, that's American tax dollars at work. No Israelis have been killed thus far, although two have been lightly wounded (it's worth noting that "psychological trauma" sometimes is part of the definition of "wounded" when you get your news from the Israeli side). Palestinian leaders have asked for international humanitarian aid. I really wonder where they get their food from right now. By a twist of irony, the American cousin of the Palestinian teenager who was burned alive by Israel Jewish nationalists, who was about to attend his funeral, was himself seized and beaten up by Israeli occupation police (WARNING - very graphic images). In an even stranger twist, he was after this brutal and inhumane treatment sentenced my a military court to 10 days of house arrest without charges. Although the shocking thing here really is that if he hadn't been American, nobody would have batted an eyelid. Routine beatings like this don't even make the news in Palestine. Yeah, this is what happens when millions of people go to a place they've never been, try to ethnically cleanse those who currently live there, all motivated by thousand-year old religious books. The epitome of harmful religious crackpotism.