EnderAndrew

Scientific proofs operate on observation. Given the observation that Hamas has yet to make a single goodwill gesture since the beginning of the conflict, but Israel has, it does not make sense that one more will suddenly change the tide, especially when that goodwill gesture is not directly linked to the demands of Hamas. Hamas has not said they want a Palestinian state or 50% of the land or anything like that. Hamas says they want every Jew to die. Have you ever tried negotiating with a zealot? Someone once said the definition on insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Given that definition, it is insane to expect Hamas will suddenly act completely in contradiction to their nature. Logic really doesn't support the pro-Palestinian arguement here at all. I have yet to see a single logical arguement here at all really.

You know those questions on SAT tests where you had to link one analogy to another? I'm guessing you missed those questions. You made an absolute statement, not I. Your statement is that employed men are never terrorists. Therefore, terrorists only come from unemployed ranks. That is flat out untrue as people with jobs have been suicide bombers. You made an absolute statement that was wrong, and you have no proof to back it up. And you're attacking my logic by drawing false analogies. You shouldn't ask for heated debate if you're not prepared to enter it.

I say make Palestine a state whether or whether not they harbor terrorists. And then we treat them like any other nation which openly supports terrorism. Let's see how much longer the Palestinian authorities continue to support Hamas.

You are wrong. The Geneva Convention operates as the law of war for the world, and killing civilians is always unlawful. Terrorist activities operate outside the purview of a recognized war anyways. They aren't part of any war. They exist solely as murder.

This coming from the man that directly linked unemployment to terrorism. What else are you going to do when your poor? I understand. It's okay. Well people are poor in Mexico as well in case you weren't aware.

Can you say that on a family forum?

Obsidian does it just to spite you Hades.

Is Hades calling someone contrary?

KotOR failed to explain some of the most important questions regarding Revan, such as what he would do once he had regained all of his power, and what made him turn during the war. One of those questions was answered in KOTOR:2. Still, with your logic we wouldn't get Fallout 2, or any host of other sequels. One could argue that Star Wars was a complete stand-alone movie upon release, and we would never had gotten Empire Strikes Back.

KOTOR had plenty of plot holes, to the point that a sequel didn't even answer them all.

I find the concept that genocide should be overlooked as appauling. But since we're talking about pure logic, you're wrong to think it would have no impact on us. Our allies were decimated in the war, and Germany was the ally of the country we were attacked by. If you think allowing Germany to decimate our allies wouldn't impact our way of life or economy, then you're the one who doesn't understand pure logic. Your arguement is weak from a moralistic and logical standpoint.

Overrated: Sex Underrated: Foreplay

I sent a message to all the players asking if they were comfortable with declaring a draw. And I have submitted moves.

The story didn't end as tons of questions were left unanswered. If a stopping point in a story meant that sequels shouldn't be made, we wouldn't get games like Baldur's Gate 2 or Fallout 2.

No, I've been very clear when I'm operating from logic and when I'm not. I noted that logic doesn't dictate society. For instance, if we operated on what was logical, then I'd push for A Modest Proposal. I outright said that in this thread. There is however a problem with Hade's logic. Hitler made it quite clear that he wanted total world domination, and that does affect the US on many levels including our economy, our idealogy and our national security. From a pure logical standpoint, getting involved earlier would have saved the lives not only of civilians, but also of soldiers. If we prevented Germany from economic gains, or the ability to build such a large war machine, countless lives could have been prevented. We would have saved lives and money. How is that faulty logic?

Obsidian could just leak it to the Restoration Project team and pretend that hackers stole it.

Quake has always been about launching rockets.

By golly you're right. The Nazis didn't attack us, so we should have left them alone! You can't argue with that logic!

Yep, we shouldn't have gotten invovled in WW2 at all. In fact, when the Nazis were practicing genocide, we should have all just let them continue. Yep.

Before the state was created, the Israeli people were blessed with a great deal of wealth. Much of that wealth was stolen from them during the Holocaust. Since when should Israel be forced to share their wealth? Next, we should argue that Americans should be forced to relocate out of California because of the growing population of unemployed Mexican immigrants, and that we should hand over any wealth we've accumulated as a country because we profit from wealth, and thusly we're punishing those who don't have it. The country was formed, and people were told to share. One side from the very beginning refused before economics or anything else was a factor. Before a single Jew was moved into Palestine, Palestine vocally admitted they had no intention to go along with UN law. Yet people here insist that makes the Israeli people terrorists and illegal occupiers of Palestinian land. So those that break the law are defended, and victims are villianized. Repeatedly I keep knocking down these arguements as they have no logical backing. So if the arguements aren't based off logic, then why make such a big deal to defend terrorism as a valid means of dealing with unemployment?

Why argue? You've established yourself as the type of player I would never want to be involved with in a game and now you attempt to misdirect blame and call me a liar? Let's examine this. You swear that you voted to reset the other game, as you claim you wouldn't want to push for a game that isn't fun for other players. What are you doing here? Contradicting your statements yet again. Which to believe? And I'm the liar?

The 9/11 terrorists held jobs. They went on a suicide mission. You maintain those that have a job won't kill themself and that unexployment drives people to terrorism. Then why don't we see terrorists everywhere there is unexployment? Maybe because you are completely wrong on the issue.

Since when does Israel want all the Palestinians dead? Your true colors come forth suddenly. But the settlers living in Gaza don't count as living in Gaza? You say, those living there should own it by living there but then you throw in the Six-Day War. Make up your mind. Which counts? Historical claims or current borders? And outside powers did not create Israel. Palestine was a colony of the UK and was under the purview of the UK. The governing body of Palestine said the Jews could move in. You say that Palestine refused to behave because peace didn't work? Why didn't peace work? Who attacked who? Next you're going to tell me that the sky is green, aren't you?

You bragged up your experience repeatedly, not just in one joke. Then you flip-flop and when called on it, you argue semantics. But there is no arguing that you were pushing one message, and then a completely contradictory one. The very art of back-pedalling is to fight over semantics so that it might seem like the two contradictary statements might possibly both be true.

You said: You made the distinction there that employment makes or breaks a person as a terrorist. McVeigh was employed, as were the 9/11 terrorists, and much of the IRA. Your Jack-Thompson logic of "I saw a criminal who played GTA, so thusly criminals wouldn't commit crime if they didn't play GTA" doesn't work. You know why? Because places like Africa or Mexico City have horrible poverty, yet don't have terrorism.