I "suffer" from the following terminal conditions:

Wanderlust: Noun: A strong desire to travel: "a man consumed by wanderlust".
"The art of perambulating for extended periods of time with the intention of reaching the destination of Nowhere In Particular."


Biophilia: The term "biophilia" literally means "love of life or living systems." It was first used by Erich Fromm to describe a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital. Wilson uses the term in the same sense when he suggests that biophilia describes "the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.” He proposed the possibility that the deep affiliations humans have with nature are rooted in our biology. Unlike phobias, which are the aversions and fears that people have of things in the natural world, philias are the attractions and positive feelings that people have toward certain habitats, activities, and objects in their natural surroundings.


Optimistic Realism: Someone who is able to look at the positive side of life while maintaining a realistic viewpoint; believes that the world is of a generally positive nature, but that negative events can and will still occur despite this. Understands the statement that "everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not yet the end."


Dissent: a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to a prevailing idea (e.g. a government's policies) or an entity (e.g. an individual or political party which supports such policies). "Dissent develops democracy."


Existentialism: A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. Experiential: derived from experience or the experience of existence.


Inquisitive: Constantly curious and inquiring regarding anything and everything.

Jumping to Conclusions

Had I fought the minds marginal error by staring into the glare of the granite counter,
I might have found myself to be haunted by the thoughts of misinterpretations as I cowered,
Hiding in fear from the thoughts I had misread;
Perhaps I'm too tired, or perhaps my body is made out of lead and has therefore rotted my mind to the core..
Something like an apple in the compost,
Or the composite measure of a lamp-post in juxtaposition from where I stood most often on the night that she died.

And I cried, and I cried, and I cried, and I cried,
But for the most part, it was irrelevant. For the hell of it, I didn't fight it, as the pain had hit the pit of that slit in my heart where I held her so close;
And for too long, my heart fell into a state of comatose, but I made the most out of all I had lost,
But nothing worth gaining can come without cost..
So it's for this reason I ceased measuring what I had gained, or how differently the furniture in my minds living room had been re-arranged by the causation of my future elation that, for the moment, was making me sick to my stomach...
As I found that inside of myself, comparison can only take away from my shelf of rational wisdom and heart to be handed.
Forever, your name on my heart has been branded, in a form I find quite candid in comparison to what later came to be,
The future love I didn't truly feel until I looked back in alarmed retrospect
And realized, I had just missed the border post where it was the point of my comma that they checked,
So as such, it appeared I was under-arrest,
But while my mind was in jail I toned my behavior to the very best and later broke the vestige of ignorance that had previously vexed that place in my mind I had forgotten to check.

And aw, what the heck, I'll blatantly honest.
I've always thought of myself as modest artist whose realized that the world can't be changed,
Only temporarily re-arranged;
And this current arrangement has gone completely insane,
So I'm waiting around for some revolutionary rain;
Cus the clouds are quite visible,
But our confidence is divisible by factors of 300 invisible and miserable Marxists stuck in a closet of oblivious self-denial.

All I know is this world is on trial, and if we don't march the final mile in less than awhile,
We're going to miss our chance to plant the seeds while the soils fertile.

So I'm ready.
Everyone, get ready.
It's time to make this world a bit sick and unsteady,
Because it's time for the furniture in our minds to be re-arranged by the causation of our future elation that, for the moment, is making us sick to our stomach.
And don't turn around, this is the worst time to turn back;
Just cut the slack; freedom is behind those great walls we have yet to attack,
So sit back and wait for the call of the words which we lack,
Cus they're coming,
And they're coming real soon.
So soon, I can already feel the monsoon sweeping across the exposed cityscapes,
Tracing the skylines shape in the clouds while I sleep.

Forever, Forever (or, the Smorgasbord of Endeavor).

You may not entirely understand the reality of a 'dank existence,'
As the ranks of society have used interpretive dance as resistance
To the lime-green light that illuminates that room in the brain,
Where interpretation of thought drives explanation insane.

You may not entirely understand what is real;
From the epilogue clearing fictions fog to what makes an orange peel,
As it's not a simple way to live every day,
But it's found that, quite obviously, it is the best way,
Lacking the patch of reality's seal,
It truly is the only real way to feel.
 
To say that my mind has gone mad without power,
Is like saying pop-rocks from '67 aren't sour,
Or a Peoples Republic won't rise like a tower,
Over Western metropolis, and the President's glower.

And to say that my brain is subdued within chains,
Is like claiming humanity never made it to space.
It's a possibility, but from any value of face,
The assumption is old, and conservingly fake.

Lets say we randomize all events in our lives;
From the time we wake up, to where we close our eyes,
And the constant adventure, as to 'where to go next,'
Finds that our past is quite static once the next second is vexed
And the constant thieving of the ideas that we steal,

Makes life an existentialists ideal meal,

With the past, and the present, and the future entwined,
It's a smorgasbord of endeavor drawn outside the lines,
And we love it.

My Bucket List: Part 7

51: Get stoned while staying the night in or around some ancient ruins (most preferably the Ancient City of Petra in Jordan).

52: Get my N within the next 5 months.

53: Visit (and explore) the city of Atlanta, Georgia in the United States.

54: Become a decently good cook.

55: Visit (and explore) the Greek island of Rhodes.

56: Explore sub-Saharan Africa (the Sahel).

57: Visit (and explore) the Solomon Islands.

58: Visit my grandfathers birth place Canterbury, England.

59: Become some sort of travel writer.

60: Visit the United Kingdom with my father (and my brother and any other immediate family, if they so choose to come along).

My Bucket List: Part 6

41: Go on a decently long underwater journey in a submarine.

42: Visit a very remote island in the Pacific and stay there for a week or two.

43: Visit the Azores.

44: See a great white shark up close while in a divers-cage.

45: Visit Malta.

46: Cross the Atlantic on a freighter.

47: Cross the Pacific on a freighter.

48: Explore a few islands in the Indian Ocean.

49: Visit (and explore) both Pakistani and Indian Hyderabad cities.

50: Become a decently good trance DJ.

'Arry Pot'a and the Deffly 'Allows Part Tew.

So I'm a Harry Potter fan.
I really am. I read all the books... I grew up with the first three being read to me out loud by my father every night before bedtime.
And I absolutely love them. Each and every one of the books is an incredible work of literary genius.

I can't say the same for every movie, however... the naive acting of the 10 year old characters in the Sorcerers Stone aside, the Chamber of Secrets and the Prisoner of Azkaban are cinematic gems.
The fourth movie sucked. I'm going to be blatantly honest. It all felt far too forced and rushed, and the movie does absolutely no justice to the size and scope of the book.
The movie adaption of the Order of the Phoenix felt similar, save for a lack of its forced feeling. Its run and character development were, to say the least, much smoother than the attempts of its immediate predecessor.
I absolutely loved the Half-Blood Prince, both the book and movie equally. It seemed that whatever the issues of size had done to inhibit the quality of the previous two was entirely absent in the 6th installment.

This is where we come to the Deathly Hallows.
For one, I believe it easily could have been achieved in a single movie. In fact, if they had simply made it as long as the average running-time for a single Lord of the Rings film, it would have been that much more satisfying. But beyond that, Part 1 certainly didn't fail to reach its full artistic momentum... as it shouldn't have, considering it was the first half of a single book.

Throwing all of this aside, I saw Part 2 of the Deathly Hallows tonight, in case you couldn't take the hint from the posts title. And I have to say... Voldemort's character fucking pissed me off.
Perhaps it was a character flaw that existed even in the book, but I failed to notice it because the text left it up to my imagination to fill in any gaps (which it did wondrously, by the way). However, if that's the case, he wasn't a character that could be effectively moved from the page to the screen as he was the only one who caused me to lift the suspension on my disbelief without a regret or a second thought to the contrary.

He had, at an absolute minimum, a thousand obvious chances to kill Harry. Instead, he pulled a 'classic villian' and simply stood there, telling Harry how he was about to finish him off, and exactly how he was going to finish him off, giving Harry numerous chances to escape... which he took, unlike Voldemort.

After their apparent 'final duel' within the thick canvas of the Forbidden Forest, Harry is left seemingly motionless and dead on the ground. Instead of double checking himself to make sure the very bane of his existence was finally gone after 18 years of trying to destroy him, he decides not to stride several feet forwards and instead sends a doctor of some sort (with her loyalty obviously waning) to check for him.
(**SPOILER ALERT**) This doctor then proceeds to ask Harry's perceptibly dead body if 'Draco is alive,' to which dead Harry nods yes. As if thanking him, she turns to Voldemort to announce that the Boy who Lived has now died by his hand. Yaaaay for Voldemort...

So without even touching the body himself, he and his troupe march back to Hogwarts tainted by the swag of ultimate victory, but lol guess what Harry isn't dead.

Whilst staring at Harry in anger as he leaps back to life and out of Hagrid's arms, he waits until he has entered a sheltered stone hallway before shooting off a dangerous mix of black magic. GOOD TIMING, PAL.
He then chases after him, and they proceed to fight each other hand-to-hand while slipping in and out of objective reality. At one point, Voldemort simply slaps Harry in the fucking face.

Dude.
This is the guy who caused your original downfall.
This is the guy you've been obsessively hunting for the past 18 years.
You'd expect you'd really, really just want it finish it at this point. Fucking jab him with your wand until both of his kidneys give out. It's not like you ever fought fair anyways, and slapping someone is most definitely not a lethal blow.
And what ever happened to that good old avada kadavra curse? You've got nothing left to lose at this point... maybe third times the charm.

Anyways, Harry somehow turns the tables, kills Voldemort, and the good guys win the day yet again.
It's the ending I was hoping for, yes... but if that were real life, I would have jabbed Harry Potter in the motherfucking kidneys till he died.

The end.    

On the Validity of Non-Violent Resistance

On a friend of mines status via Facebook, which was "Personally, I prefer the Army over the Marines," I made the pointed response of: "You know what would be cool? No army, no marines."
A person of pro-military sentiments responded just as pointedly, and this is the debate that ensued:
Pro-Militarist: There are wolves and there are sheople...
Me: There are dudes who like to follow orders and kill people.. sheople.. and the people who refuse to follow orders and kill people, because they see it as barbaric and pointless.. wolves.
Pro-Militarist: Keep living that dream.
Me: The only ones stopping me are the fools pulling the triggers.
Pro-Militarist: That's admitting that people that pull the trigger have some kind of control on your peaceful existence... no argument there...
Me: and vice-versa.. the people that don't pull the trigger have some kind of control on your violent existence. When the British were trying to consolidate their control over India following World War II, the Indian's took all of the abuse without fighting back in any way, shape, or form save for words and showing the world how the British abused them. Under Ghandi's leadership, the world rallied behind the peaceful and abused Indian's, and after not much longer, the British were forced to withdraw and grant India its independence due to the worlds growing hate for them.
Pro-Militarist: You forget, the world is a different place... QED someone pulled the trigger on Ghandi, took a great man and peace and morality with him...
Me: Not true.
Although Ghandi was killed, even after death he became the most powerful man in the history of the world. During the 1980's and the decline of the Soviet Union, the oppressed Polish, Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian peoples all read Ghandi's idea of non-violent resistance. Every night, they would gather, en masse, with candles outside every major church in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and then they would refuse to work the next day. Although the Soviet's attempted re consolidating their power militarily in each country, the populations would simply take the abuse in stride without fighting back. Eventually, the Soviets were forced to withdraw due to international pressure and the fact that the lack of co-operation in these countries was causing the Soviet economy to rapidly decline. This is the straw that broke the camels back, and caused the Soviet Union to dissolve in 1991, amongst other internal factors.

Pro-Militarist: Sweet, that's a pretty picture, too bad the UN was involved, a little NATO, Soviets of that time, the early 80s already had one front against a group allied and armed by the US... Reagan was president... he told the Soviets to tear down that wall...

Me: 

NATO and the Western Allies of the time had been trying to tell the Soviets to tear down that wall since it had been built. It wasn't NATO, the United States, or Reagan that caused the Soviet Union to fall. It was this non-violent resistance within the Soviet empire that caused the Soviet Union to weaken to the point that they finally listened to NATO and the Western Allies. Had it been NATO or the United States that caused the Soviet empire to fall, it would have fallen years ago.

Pro-Militarist: 

Russians have killed unarmed peasants for centuries...

Me: Different political regimes and different times play into the mix. It's not really fair to generalize the Russians. But don't get me wrong, they DID use violence to try and stop the non-violent revolts, and some people DID die as a result.. but they weren't gonna commit genocide and murder the millions in opposition to them. That was a tactic used during the Stalin years, which no one wished to return to. As well, had they attempted that, it's likely the West would have intervened in support of the protesters.

Pro-Militarist:  The threat of injury stops the most violence hence people don't go around spanking porcupines too often.

Me: In the case of non-violent revolt, the threat of injury only stops the coward. It's stronger to face the threat of violence with non-violence then it is to face the threat of violence with violence.

Pro-Militarist: You're just silly, if armies thought they didn't have the advantage they leave the field. You're saying you will allow yourself to be beaten to death without fighting back, guess you would non violently resist while they haul your family off in a truck to do whatever with them? Pretty fantasy world you have there... go to one of these countries in turmoil and help save the people, be their Ghandi, time to play this poker hand that's so perfect.

Me: Violence is necessary in very extreme cases.

In the modern world, very rarely is a government going to haul off your family.. and very rarely, if they did, are they going to kill them. Although modern governments don't seem too afraid to kill protesters, both violent and non-violent, they aren't going to find out who the protesters are related to and murder or imprison them. North Korea is probably one of the last places on Earth where the government would go so far.
For example, violent revolt to the Nazi regime during World War 2 was necessary, as the Nazis were not at the whim of international pressure or bad opinion.
But in most (if not all) of the conflicts worldwide since about 1993, non-violence could have (and has) been used effectively and with eventual success.

Also.. I would be very willing to do such a thing. And depending on what it was, I would be willing to be beaten to death without doing anything about it.. but honestly, it'd REALLY depend what it is, and I'll cross that bridge if I ever get to it.

Pro-Militarist: You say this while safe at home, take the chance.

Me: I've been wanting to for awhile. I'm considering, after I make some more money (as I just graduated recently), of going to Libya and documenting what's occurring there. It would most definitely be a huge risk.. but I think it's worth it. First, however, I would probably pay a visit to Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and see if there's any potential in non-violent protest there, as it seems violent resistance has only caused the vortex of vengeance to create a dangerously volatile stalemate between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Pro-Militarist: Now you're talking! But hey, how bout helping the Palestinians, the half million Israel pushed into the 13 camps! They have been trying to take back the Golan Heights which is their land unarmed being shot tangled in the barbed wire. They need food and education in those camps!

Me: Agreed. :)

This post will be added to if and when there is more material available.

On the Validity of Israel's Existence

A debate occurred today via a Facebook status of mine.
The status, which was 'Israel sucks,' was in response to the Israeli government not allowing Palestinian protesters to board a plane, en masse, to Tel Aviv in order to demonstrate against Israel's barbaric treatment of their people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
I will not be disclosing any personal information on those involved in the debate.
Pro-Israelite: God you are soo misinformed... just saying.   
Me: Haha, trust me, I'm informed. :P I've done looots of research. And I see the Israeli side of the argument as well.. they're afraid that if the Palestinian's had any sort of basic human rights, and were allowed to return to their homes in Israel proper, there would be a much greater amount of Palestinians than Israeli's, causing the Israeli's to become a minority in their own country. As for voting rights, if the Palestinian's were allowed to do that, Israel would probably be voted out of existence.
The thing is.. all of the above DOESN'T make robbing people of their homes, country, and basic human rights excusable, especially considering the Israeli's claimed they had a right to Palestine based on some claim from the Biblical era. If we're talking about who has a rightful claim over what, then Italy has a rightful claim over most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East as part of the Roman Empire.
Pro-Israelite: oh? So basically your saying that slitting the throats of babies and killing children and bombing public places are okay with you? you think you know everything Kyran, but you only know what you want to know and what fits in with what you believe in the first place. In fact, maybe you should do some research on "Palestine" and "Palestinians" seeing as neither of them actually exist in the form they're being presented.
Me: Yes :P that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously, that's not what I'm saying at all. 
Okay, look.. you're calling ME misinformed? The Palestinians and Israelis have been committing atrocities against one another for decades. It's not just the Palestinian's treating the Israelis terribly- as well, it's not ALL the Palestinian's partaking in such brutal acts. That would be like me blaming all the Jews in Israel for what the fundamentalist Zionists did when they started violently invading towns in the West Bank, and walking into Mosques to kill the Palestinian's praying within them. And yes, that happened.
You are generalizing the Palestinian's on the basis of groups like Hamas.

Look, trust me. I of all people look at all sides of the story- I got a lecture on it in History class, quite a few days in a row.. I read CBC, CNN, the Globe and Mail, all of which I know has a similar bias.. so I check out the Israeli news sources, like Haaretz, Arutz Shiva, and B'Tselem.. then I check out news sources that are totally under the radar, and uninvolved in any side, like the Real News Network and independent news sources from Tumblr and Blogspot.

And look at all the LAND the Arab nations have? :P Are you really that ignorant of the Palestinian side of the coin?
Although Palestinian's may be Arab in the loosest sense of the word, it doesn't mean they're NOT Palestinian, and it doesn't mean all Arabs are the same. Iraqis are Iraqis, Jordanians are Jordanians, Saudi Arabians are Saudi Arabians, and Syrians are Syrians. It's not like you could take away their country and make the argument; 'Look, you're Arab! It shouldn't MATTER that we took your country, just go live in another Arab country, you idiot. There are plenty of them!' 
And I see both sides of the argument, lol. It's not like the Palestinian's are saints, either. They've done absolutely terrible things to people- or their extremists have, however. 
The thing is, if you look back in the records to even prior to the Second World War, the Palestinian's had been settled in the area for close to 2000 years. And then following the First World War, there was a major influx of Jewish immigration into their land. At first, no one hated anyone else. They were worried, but not alarmed as of yet. They were still very much the majority, and at the time, the Jewish population wasn't doing anything wrong.
With the further rise of Zionism, and the increased influx of Jewish immigrants in the Interwar years, when the area was under British control, the Palestinian's began to become concerned- especially when Zionist extremists began attacking Palestinian settlements. 
This led to the Palestinian's getting revenge, and as such, the Zionists getting revenge for what the Palestinian's did in order to get revenge- and basically, it's been going back and forth, getting worse and worse, and greater in scale of atrocities on both sides since then. It was so bad, the British had to intervene using armed force, and put a cap on Jewish immigration into the area to cease further violence. 
Following World War II and the increased sympathy for the Jewish people after the Holocaust, the United Nations partitioned the country in two between Israel and Palestine. Eventually, the Israelites found pretext to capture most of the rest of the area (save for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) after a series of Arab nations threatened invasion.
They never returned even half of the Palestinian land to the Palestinian people.

Pro-Israelite: already know, there WAS no Palestine at that time. The country was actually partitioned between Jordan and Israel. "Palestine" HAS no history. It is simply a geographical region. Just like people living in British Columbia are British Columbians...It's the same thing. Jews have been "Palestinians" because they lived in that geographical region. Another thing you need to know is that Isrealites NEVER drove "Palestinians" out of their home. The Arab leadership encouraged the Arab people to flee their homes and then they would destroy Israel and bring the Arab's back to take of the spoils. But Israelites were already living there at that time. The Israeli leadership told the Arab's to stay! and about 160, 000 or so, DID. Those 160, 000 Arabs lived BETTER in Israel then many of the Arabs living anywhere else. You seem to have spent an incredible amount of time on this subject, but no amount of time you HAVE spent in your life could amount to people four times your age. I would like to suggest two books for you to find and read - "Philistine - The Great Deception" by Ramon Bennett, and "From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine" by Joan Peters. You seem to think you have all the information you need but I am seeing many misrepresentations being brought forth by your arguments. Another thing I will say is that if you trace back to Yasser Arafat (who was actually an Egyptian) he was related to the Mufti of Jerusalem who in turn was an ally of the Nazi movement. Again, There were no Palestinian people until 1967. Can you identify a Palestinian leader from before 1967 and Yasser Arafat? And Why would they name their country to begin with the letter "P" which they cannot pronounce and does not even exist in their alphabet?

Me: Dude, I'm sorry, but if this is information from your dad.. I really don't think it's valid. He wrote a book blaming homosexuals for Nazism and ultraviolence, which is absolute bullshit. 

Also, it was 'Palestine,' trust me. In 1939, at the outbreak of the Second World War, the Jewish population was a little over 11 percent of the regions ENTIRE population. How the hell does an incredible minority like that have a right to that land?

Pro-Israelite: That is not true. He co-authored a book exposing Nazis as the homosexuals they were. Do the research. and no, you didn't answer my questions... Give me the Palestinian leader from before Yasser Arafat.

Have you even read his book?

Me: Look, he co-wrote it with Scott Lively, the guy who is now is Uganda supporting the passing of the anti-gay bill into Ugandan law, which will make homosexuality a criminal offence punishable by death.

Reading that book would be like reading Mein Kampf.. I'm sure there's an argument supporting what Hitler thought and felt, and I'm sure it could be backed-up by facts twisted to work in his favor, but it doesn't make it right or true.

Also, they had local leaders centralized by the British prior, and the Ottomans before that.. as well as the Egyptians for a short time.
They did indeed see themselves as Palestinian, but since they were a part of different empires which provided security, it was a regional identity, and not a national one.
It became a national identity when they began to be pressed into a corner by the Jewish immigrants. You don't need to have some strong and obvious leader to be a certain kind of person. The Palestinian's didn't revolt against the British because it was actually in THEIR interests to have the British stay, considering the British were the ones keeping the newly-arrived Zionists from creating a state in the region that had been theirs for the past 2000 years. It was the Zionists that revolted against the British.

It's not about national identity so much as it's about the homes that were taken from the Palestinian people permanently. They continue to have no rights under Israeli law, and that's the issue.. not the technicalities relating to its history.

Pro-Israelite: I find it interesting that you continue to avoid my questions.

Me: Lol, I'm 100% sure they would say it differently in Arabic, just in the same way that in English, Germany is called Germany.. but in German, it's called Deutschland. The national identity is still very much there. You're reducing your argument to the pronunciation of the country's name.. not the actual country itself. 

To quote you, "You seem to think you have all the information you need but I am seeing many misrepresentations being brought forth by your arguments" applies very much to yourself as well.

And Yasser Arafat being related to the Mufti of Jerusalem does not make Arafat implicit in the Mufti's beliefs or allies, so I'm not sure where you're going with that, because that's blatantly irrelevant.
But yes, the Mufti WAS allied with the Nazi cause out of a hate for the invading Jews who were taking his homeland. He wanted Rommel and his Afrika Corps to break through British lines at the Suez Canal and invade Palestine in order to rid it of the Jews. I don't think the Mufti was right in how extreme his solution to the problem was, and I certainly do not agree with Nazism, but the Mufti was reflecting popular opinion regarding the influx of these Zionist foreigners who wanted to take away their country, home, and identity, and who had been violently attacking Palestinian Arabs since the end of World War I. The Palestinian's, in turn, were just as barbaric and violent.
Pro-Israelite: You are so incredibly biased. Read those books, Kyran.
Me: Haha, you're so incredibly biased, Miriam. Most rational human beings are somewhat biased, but you would be much more so, considering you have a background in all of this.
Pro-Israelite: Haha yeah well Kyran you're pro-gay, pro-nazi and pro-palestinian. Not saying there's anything wrong with gays.. The problem is that Kyran is using Red herrings and ad hominem attacks. But kyran, we've always been able to accept our differences right? :) Until next time, adios.
Me: Lol, the reason I'm using 'ad hominem' attacks, as you call them, is because that is where you GET your views, from your fathers influence- it's blatantly obvious. And trust me, I am NOT pro-Nazi. I am, however, pro-Palestinian, and pro-gay. I am also pro-Jewish, and I don't NOT endorse the destruction of Israel as a state. The Jews, I think, deserved, and still deserve a homeland. 
However, they have abused their position beyond belief, and destroyed their credibility as a decent nation. What SHOULD have happened was that half of the country should have gone (and remained) with the Palestinians, whilst the other half remained with the Jews. Instead, the Israelites selfishly took the entire area and indulged in their irrational paranoia regarding a potential Palestinian takeover, thus causing it to come true in theory due to their disgusting human rights abuses against the disarmed and now dissident Palestinian population.
Pro-Israelite: Well Kyran, if you must know, you're wrong. I do not get all of my views or information from my father. In fact, he ENCOURAGES me to do my own research and believe that which I think is right. And I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, you have no right to think otherwise or assume that I run to daddy every time I need to know something. Not to mention that I don't agree with everything he says either. Also, you seem to think that the Israelite people themselves are completely to blame for this. Look at the leaders. Are they the kind of leaders you would want for your own country? They don't have the best interests of anyone but themselves at heart and they project that onto the people they are leading. I'm not saying that Jews are saints either. There are many different types of Jews and many of them are not admirable nor do they represent the true meaning of being Jewish. It's true, however, I have more to learn and discover about the PLO and The Arab-Jewish Conflict and I guarantee I will be searching out the truth best I can. This debate won't be my last, but I appreciate the chance to exercise my knowledge.
Me: I do appreciate your last comment- makes for a good wrap-up to this whole deal.
Pro-Israelite: Agreed :)

Me: 

 Pro-Israelite: 

Me: ^That video had nothing to do with Israel OR Palestine. All it did was show how you stereotype Muslims and Islam based on a bunch of weird fundamentalists. Do you have any idea how many radically differing sects Islam has, and how LITTLE of a percentage the fanatic fundamentalists are in comparison to the rest?
Pro-Israelite: That's funny, I don't remember saying anything of the sort. This video was simply something I found interesting. And okay seriously, you can stop attacking me, it's only showing that you're aiming to beat me in this argument instead of finding out the truth. Also,you have STILL failed to answer my previous question. But I'm sick of talking about this, I'm sure we'll talk again, but at the moment I'm reading about the Arab-Jewish/Palestinian-Is​raeli conflict enough as is.
Me: Haha, okay, maybe I was quick to jump to the gun there. I assumed you sent it in response to my video. Regardless of your motives or the way you see it, whoever that Australian dude is, he's an uber-stereotyping ultra-Conservative.

This post will be added to if and when there is more material available.