If they were really separated populations, that might be OK (immigrating to the Jewish held territories), but they weren't. The lived in the same areas for the most part, they just didn't intermingle so much socially (although WAY more than they do today).....but expansionist settlements were and are a major sticking point to resolving the conflict, so even if there was a Jewish territory to migrate to, they wouldn't stay in it, and that's a major problem. The governing body of the area didn't want them, and the immigrants armed themselves and fought that government (and beat it senseless), to me, invaders. Your feelings may differ, I get it, I think we understand each other and disagree...and that's fine.

I don't think the US was as closed as you imply (but certainly not open to everyone), but it was difficult and expensive to get here, so practically it wasn't an option for most, agreed.

Perhaps the Arab League's intent was truly expansion into Palestine, at least they were 'invited' by the government of the territory! ;-) I agree, their lack of cohesion doomed them before they started, and should be a national shame to all involved.

YIKES! OK, I'll just say that I, in no way, support Daesh or any of their actions, not almost, not nearly, just not. I can sympathize with a few of their complaints, but that's as far as it goes. The Syrian resistance is in no way tied to Daesh, as you mentioned they are fighting each other. I don't get how you go from support of the resistance to 'near yes' to supporting Daesh, especially if you support the Syrian resistance. Huh?

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

No, I did not know that...but it further supports my point that Palestine was the wrong place for them to go. If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%. My Texas-California comparison stands, and the theory they were trying to 'escape' the anti-Jewish sentiment of Europe also evaporates if it existed in Palestine too, more so if it existed there before the Nazis began their war against the Jews, which you seem to indicate it did.
Edit: they were right to be worried. How about a settlement where Israel pays Palestine for the stolen territory now?
It makes sense that they would do that...and again you're wrong about the immigration numbers, they were rising precipitously in the 20's and 30's. I would not be surprised to find that this set of rules was in response to the massive immigration already occurring, or that it only applied to immigrants. That would be perfectly reasonable, and is the case today in many countries....in fact, isn't that the case in Israel today, but reversed? The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has consistently been exponentially worse than the treatment they receive from Palestinians. As I understand it, non Jewish people can't vote in Israel, among many other rights lost.
Thank you for coming around to the fact that they were immigrants, not refugees. It's an important distinction....not that any nation is REQUIRED to accept refugees, but none of them accept uncontrolled massive illegal immigration.

I especially liked the repeating "clearly did not violate established procedures or tactics" part, but no indication that they understand that all that means is the established procedures and/or tactics need to be changed so they know they can't kick people who have surrendered and complied. It sounds a lot like they didn't learn anything and will be paying out more, and larger settlements in the future until the amount is large enough to wake them up.

I also liked the "Edwards acknowledged in his testimony that Wilkens had begun to comply with his commands when he landed the kick, but said he was unable to stop the kick because he “already had the muscles fired” in his right leg." part, like he still doesn't know there's video of him taking 2 steps forward then kicking all while the motorcyclist is going down to his knees. Just so much fail.

EDIT: Oh, I missed the brake fade part. I notice the hood dip, then rebound as he hits, then quickly lets off the brake, accelerates slightly, and turns right into the bike to ram it. Brake fade might let him roll forward slowly, it would not let the front of the car raise up like the brakes were released and accelerator hit, and would not turn the wheel in the direction of the biker. That wasn't brake fade, no way, it was an intentional ramming. I'm a bit surprised that wasn't brought up in court.

While not exactly admirable, it was her only chance to tell him all that face to sleazy face. So I personally cheer for her.

On the other hand what is the point of telling him all this, I mean does he not know all this about himself already?

He made a fortune on health care (some of it fraud, out of court settlement) and endorses Trump. Sleaze personified.

I know of one or two local politicians I might freak out over like that. And then I can think of many more local politicians who I would heartily disagree with over a beer yet have no reason to freak out ever, because they are respectable people, unlike this dressed up piece of... whatever.

Heh, upvoted for "c'mon everybody, let's go and ruin another settlement".

Um...no
The Jews that invaded Palestine were illegitimate because they were illegal immigrants invading what was essentially a British 'colony'.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the USA didn't take as many as we might have. Those are two separate wrongs.
Palestine was not invaded because it was 'safer'..it was invaded because they wanted to own it. If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries, not one single place all the way across Europe....kind of like the Syrian refugees are doing. If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...we would laugh at their faces as we blasted the shit out of them...why did we support Jews doing the EXACT same thing without a gun forcing (edit: most of) them out of their homes like the Syrians had?
Palestine did NOT have a SIZEABLE Jewish population, it was close to 5% before the invasion. It also wasn't closer by far than any other country in Europe. It only made perfect sense because their religious leaders told them to go there and 'take back their ancestral homeland'.

I never said those in the 40's were not that desperate, nor did I ever suggest we 'change history'. You need a reading comprehension refresher. I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming). I also say those in the 40's after the war and all those coming after that had NOTHING to flee.

The difference being that the Arabs had been there for centuries, living peacefully with a small Jewish population as part of their 'country', yes, peacefully. It wasn't until the Brits ignored their own immigration laws and allowed the Jews to invade by the thousands that conflict broke out. Today, non Jews are not full citizens in the land that the Palestinians lived on for eons, and what's left of the native Palestinians are held in a concentration camp.

If things being bad where you live is a legitimate reason to take another country, all of Africa should be taking Europe today, along with much of Asia. In fact, we may as well forget countries if that's the metric, all countries treat some group poorly.

The invaders gained more land than they had at the outset (they had NONE at the outset, they lived in what had been British ruled Palestine, and was now reverting to Palestinian rule...) but the Jews wanted their own Jewish country and stole it from the people who had never had an army, using American weapons purchased mainly with American money (or given to them for free) while the Palestinians were barely supported by their neighbors, who had never been their allies. It was not "civil war' it was an invasion. Those fighting came from elsewhere to steal the land, it was not just the native Jews fighting, it was mostly invading Jews.

Yes, of course they refused. If Mexico took Texas, then the UN said "OK, it's yours, just don't take New Mexico", yet the Mexicans were already settling in New Mexico with their army protecting the settlements, I really don't think the US would accept the UN plan either. It was ridiculous and a plan based on stealing from Peter to pay Paul back for somethin Ringo stole. WTF?!?

Yes, that counts as 'stealing land' using overwhelming force, then fighting over it, then stealing MORE land, then subjugating and dehumanizing the locals, then stealing MORE land, and more land, and more land, and whining and crying that they're the victims.

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.
When a 'smaller' invading force uses it's international contacts to become a violent racist bully, uses it's overwhelming force to steal land for decades, pushing the locals into the sea or concentration camps, kills tens of thousands and imprisons millions in horrendous conditions for decades and claims they want peace, yes, they need to return all the land they gained with their evil behavior or expect the leftovers of their genocide to strike back until one side is wiped out.

They were not a nation when they did this. They were an invading horde of Europeans trying to create a religious nation on someone else's land.

Military support of Syrian rebels in by the US has by all accounts been minimal, it's primarily been non-arms tactical equipment. Arms support has come largely from the Gulf states / Iran. The idea that the US fomented the Syrian civil war is also largely groundless. If you want to talk about the private military sector, let's not forget that Russia is a major arms exporter.

Meanwhile Russia has armed and provided direct bombing to support Assad directly, a guy who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on his people to intimidate them. His Putin's priorities are to protect his only Mediterranean port in the Middle East and to use his war footing to prop up his own domestic support the same way he did in Ukraine.

If he wanted to end the conflict he would have pressured Assad to step down in favor of a traditional government and have the successor negotiate a settlement and eventual elections with moderate rebels. Instead he's poured fuel on the fire. The longer these conflicts last, the more radicalized the opposition becomes. Now that he's let it play out and fanned the flames, he can blame the US for creating the mess.

1. Was he filming people's children at a playground? No, he was filming adult public servants in public. Please stop coming up with red herrings that have nothing to do with this situation, it just shows you know you have no leg to stand on with your argument.

2.God damn right I'll protect you if you're attacked for just filming people in a public place. Are you the kind of person who would see someone attacked by a crazed mob and just walk away?! I'm not.
And yes, I'll stand up and support your right to be acting legally and reasonably in a public place, and I'll even put in for your defense fund for a portion of the enormous settlement you'll get from the city.
Now, if you wear a trench coat and nothing else and act like a child molester while you do it, handing out lollypops and asking the kids to accompany you to the men's room, I'll think you're getting attacked for looking/acting like a child molester, not the filming, then you're on your own.

They pulled too close, fired way to fast, even the judge agreed. Yes, some blame falls on the parents, but how many cops are being shot and killed vs citizens at this point?

When does officer safety trump the fact that they are supposed to serve and protect, not shoot at the first option and sort it out later? They fired on Tamir within 2 Seconds of arriving on scene, 2 seconds...

What is even more disturbing about this case is, after shooting him, the police walked around the scene and looked for the weapon while the kid lay dying on the snow. Tamir laid there for 4 minutes bleeding from a torso gunshot wound until a police detective and an FBI agent who happened to be nearby came and rendered aid.

Both cops also had issues.

In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to concerns that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer. Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." It was subsequently revealed that Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann's personnel file from Independence prior to hiring him.

Garmback, who was driving the police cruiser, has been a police officer in Cleveland since 2008. In 2014, the City of Cleveland paid US$100,000 to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought against him by a local woman; according to her lawsuit, Garmback "rushed and placed her in a chokehold, tackled her to the ground, twisted her wrist and began hitting her body" and "such reckless, wanton and willful excessive use of force proximately caused bodily injury". The woman had called the police to report a car blocking her driveway. The settlement does not appear in Garmback's personnel file.

Amazing pieces of work, and both out there to take care of us. I feel safe, do you?

Fallout 1 was a technically antiquated VGA (that's right, 640x480, 256 colours) post-apocalyptic turn-based tactical RPG where you could not control you team mates during combat. It was a bit buggy (and so was F2). It was Mad Max, without cars.

And yet.

Fallout is arguably the best world-building work in the history of video games. People are probably going to dispute that, but most other games are built on pre-existing lore or works, or do not have that scope*. Fallout built its world pretty much from scratch, conflating a pre-war 1950's, golden-era, overly-optimistic world-view with the bleak desolation of the nuclear holocaust that ensued (to clarify for those who really know nothing about Fallout: in this universe a nuclear war happened in the 50s**. all that's left is from that era). Beside its content which was plentiful in and of itself, this created a contrasted, yet highly coherent and mature world (and by mature I don't just mean killing friendly NPC, I mean doing Morally Very Bad Things that don't necessarily result in graphic scenes). An open world that you could roam freely, be surprised by a new discovery that you made, and at the same time find these discoveries to fit perfectly with the game's logic. In most large games you just access new areas or are carried by the story, in Fallout you would go "Holy shit I'm in the middle of a city populated by centenarian ghouls!", shortly followed by "ho, of course it's full of ghouls, that's perfectly normal". There are not many games that have this mix of unexpected/logical and dark/humorous content.

Fallout 2 had the same ho-my-God-how-could-they-get-away-with-it VGA engine (so next to zero evolution there), but quadrupled the world map (with a minimum overlap with the one from F1) and brought it fifty or so years forward, expanding the world greatly (there are now rival quasi-city-states, and your action may influence their future), while also building on the first one: some antagonists 'classes' from F1 have now grown their own identity and became NPC, and some characters are still around -- a young character you saved in F1 went back to her settlement, became its leader, built it into a town, and is now in the process of expanding it into a new state...So Fallout 2 is basically the same game, except they did that one important thing: push the game world's boundaries even more. You could never guess what next city would be like, but you could bet it would have some crazy shit in it, and yet somehow still make sense.

That's why many people don't like Fallout 3. It is not in itself a bad game, but comparatively, it's kind of coasting. Also it's too damn easy.

I'm sorry, I got carried away, you were asking if you should play the previous ones? No, you 'should' not. But you could, and for F1 & F2 you would certainly not lose your time if you know what you're getting into. And if you don't, at least go and watch their intro on Youtube, they'll give you the feel of the world.

* Possible contenders in terms of "original video game world": Elder Scrolls (vast, but less original), Deus ex (not as large), Bioshock (same), Final Fantasy (original and vast, but not as complex). Any other idea?
** Technically not the 1950s, but in practice the 50s + a bunch of high tech gizmo.

Lmao. Do you live in Egypt, Lantern? Because clearly you're in.. Denial!

Who exactly are those assholes "protecting"? The elevator?

How do you know those kids are criminals?
What crime did they commit while waiting for the elevator?

And why the hell would the city settle a lawsuit for $50,000 if Jaleel Fields, the young man arrested, was some known dangerous thug/drug dealer those officers were "checking up on"?

Did you even read the article Radx post? You know, for like.. facts and context surrounding the video?

No? cause:

In the lawsuit, Fields accused the city and the two officers of violating his civil rights by falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting him and using excessive force.

..after the video was shown to the DA, all Jaleel's charges were dismissed.

First: disorderly conduct. Police claimed he obstructed "pedestrian traffic" by blocking the elevator doors, which is interesting because the only thing this audio-free New York City Housing Authority video shows absolutely for sure is that Jaleel Fields went out of his way to let people off the elevator.

The second offense? According to Grieco, the police cited Jaleel for telling one of his friends that he didn't have to talk to the police. They called this "obstructing governmental administration."

So "OGA" here presumably would be 5'7", 130-pound Jaleel Fields intimidating the two brawny officers out of performing the "official function" of messing with two other kids in the elevator of their own building.

A spokesman for the New York City Law Department.. declined to comment on the specifics of the case, saying only..

"After reviewing all the evidence, we determined that a settlement was in the best interest of the city."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/a-bad-arrest-on-video-jaleel-fields-20150526#ixzz3bH56yN17

Hah! So right, tell me again about how you're somehow totally-not-a-racist..

Even tho every assumption you just made here was based on stereotypes, prejudice, and your bias toward fellow boys in blue.

Did I mention that the city dismissed all charges and settled a lawsuit for $50,000 after seeing video evidence that literally everything those two officers said was a lie?

But incidence like this aren't worth talking about or being upset about because..
black people kill black people and Barack Obama is president, right?

lol, you asshat.

One word...bribes.*

*(They call them settlements, but when one pays a huge monetary 'settlement' in order to not be prosecuted, that's kind of the definition of the word 'bribe'.)