Please Sign In To Stop Genocide In Palestine

List of items needed to create world peace:

bold/italicized/underline text needs to be in all posts.
firing rockets at someone means you're enemies.
north and south Korea are not firing rockets
the USA is the literal biggest colony worldwide
the Jews can't be in "control" of all media outlets
Somebody finds a definition of "goy"
Italy wins the World Cup
France is positive on their wars won/loss ratio
Shut down Facebook and Twitter

Did I miss anything?

Edit: Paged, so here is some goy

Shut down Facebook and twitter.

I was actually a bit disappointed with Skyfall. I thought the theme music was better than the movie.

It was my least favorite of the D. Craig Bond movies, but I still enjoyed it.

I really liked Quantum of Solace and thought it was unfair it got so much bad press. It felt like a natural extension of Casino Royal to me.

The same people that rate Gravity as a movie that follows what we know about space, or similar?

I wouldn't listen to those.

Skyfall was really overshadowed by its main theme, I don't think there was a James Bond movie like that, despite the old very good themes.

Casino Royale is my favorite I liked Skyfall but it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.

So, what country doesn't have ***? French are elitists? 'Murica might want to look right back at itself.

Still gloating about Dubya dubya two, the last real war where ***wasn't economic or about empire expansion.

If there is one, it's in Asia.

The villain actually had a realistic plan! But this is a series that prided itself on deathrays, stealing gold from fort knox, sinking the globe, DIAMONDS!, escaping into space, asians morphing into white guys, firing nukes...

Quantum just seemed to never reach the heights Casino did. It flows right in from Casino but it doesn't ever come into its own. Everything seems to just middle out.

As for Skyfall, I liked the concepts but the movie was boring to me. The last act at Skyfall was dreadful, like Home Alone dreadful and the movie seemed to intentionally veer away too much from what makes Bond, Bond. You can get 'deep' but cmon, where is the fun?

So in short, I want more grand locations, epic chases, beautiful women, larger-than-life villains and less of a Trevelyan reheat. Also, Bond banging that throwaway sex-trafficked hooker was just... weird. Weird for even Bond. It's like they tacked her on to meet the Bond checklist.

I like the darker, deeper Bond.

Is it a bad time to ignite World War III myself by stating that Timothy Dalton is my favorite Bond?

Bleah Bond movies.

Pitcairn Islands.

People who like Craig should like Dalton. I mean Daltons Bond is Craig before the franchise needed Craig after all the *** of the Brosnan era. The Living Daylights is one of my favorites.

Connery is dated by our standards but he still commands suave on screen. I mean, try and watch You Only Live Twice without cringing at that Japanese ***lol or Connery bored as *** in Diamonds Are Forever. I try to pretend Never Say Never Again doesn't exist but at least by then he wanted to be Bond again.

I really dislike Moores run and thought Lazenby had a brilliant one-shot for a guy who wasn't an actor.

wonder what the next james bond movie be.

maybe involve something in the middle east or more eastern europe stuff

James Bond goes after Chinese currency manipulators.

for some reason I always wanted to see james bond be part of some super spy squad kinda like mission impossible but more spy-ish/counter spy stuff

Since it is the 24th Bond movie, it will be James Bond teaming with Jack Bauer to save the global from some random global bio-chemical attack, and having to go on the run from their own governments afterwards

jack bauer is james bond's long lost brother

Dalton was too dark for the 80s. The decade of MTV and upbeat pop wasn't ready for a Bond like that I don't think. Bronsan was an heir to Moore the way that Craig is an heir to Dalton. I'm with you on not caring for Moore at all. My least favorite Bond films by far.

Israel wants to expand and keep the land because of religion.

Hamas wouldn't bow down or surrender to Israel because of religion.

Religion is at the very core of this.

Don't forget that one side's religion requires stoning of non-believers. Which they are taking to heart, except using rockets instead of stones.

I suspect Israel's reasoning is far more logistical and financial than spiritual.

Hamas probably has a higher change of this being religious than the Israelis, but they're also just trying to keep their land/etc.

But again, it's all moot, as at this point they're all just being *** while trying to put on a front of good PR.

That said, saying religion doesn't play into either side of this is a bit short-sighted.

You guys arguing about "enemy" need to define "peace". It doesn't necessarily mean living a lovey-dovey life with others, it can simply mean cessation/absence of war or violence. A treaty can bring peace by ending a war. Egypt has been at peace with Israel for decades but the general population's sentiment towards the Zionist state has been nothing buthate. That definition fits Afania's point of view.

Technically speaking, they both do. Well, the Old Testament is more about stoning your own people for affronts to the Lord, I guess.

And all he said was, "that piece of Halibut was good enough for Jehova!"

But really. ***' holy books.

Yeah, well. These guys can't seem to agree to cease fire when they agree to a ceasefire.

So maybe they're the ones in need of figuring out how to define some of these words.

Really? Give us a citation for that stoning you're talking about.

Fine, challenge accepted!

Peace: The absence of violence, arguments and hatred towards others. Cooperation and acceptance towards others

Which means, no enemies in existence. Since enemy is, by definition, a hate of another.

So, since you want to defend Afania, how about you try to take a stab at "how can you have enemies during peaceful times"

"Lack of rockets" excuse has already been used though.