Rostere

I definitely agree, WW1 was the single most important event in the 20th century, Europe would never again look like it did before it. I think a lot of people take the changes brought on by WW1 for granted. What's also interesting is that a lot of the reasons behind the alliances (and grievances) in the war were personal and arbitrary rather than thought- out geopolitically. I made an experiment in a session of Darkest Hour where I started as Germany in 1914. Instead of allying with AH, I just let things sort themselves out in the Balkans. "WW1" ended up being a war restricted to the Balkans with AH and Russia as the only major powers. AH lost and was partitioned into Austria, Hungary, and so on. At this time Germany was spending all industrial resources to build yet more industries and all money to gain influence abroad, particularly in the Balkans. The government moved a bit towards democracy to facilitate this. By the beginning of the 30s I moved to invade and annex Austria and a few years later starting to turn as much of the Balkans into puppet states as I could (those who weren't already my allies) before Russia would declare war on me. Since I was politically rather close to France, UK and US none of them ended up joining Russia, which was still ruled over by the Tsar. By 1942 I had more industrial capacity than even the US and was steamrolling Russia. I don't think people really understand how gimped historical Germany was in many ways by 1936. If it was not for the theoretical breakthroughs on armored and mobile warfare, things would have turned out very differently.

I still thought it was real in the first few paragraphs. :S

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/22/sarah-palin-calls-invasion-czech-republic/

I've had great playthroughs of Arcanum. Some of the most memorable was roleplaying a dark elf follower (the traits are really great starting points for character ideas), playing a gnome with no tech and no magic, playing a thief and maxing that set of skills, and many more. Also, I wouldn't say tech is that inferior to magic (not counting the Harm spell), it just takes more player effort and knowledge of the game. If Harm didn't exist, people would complain about how imbalanced Molotov ****tails were. It so funny how the character advancement system in Arcanum is so great in many ways, but so broken in others. Every other person seems to have a found an own way to "break" the game.

So, I was thinking of updating this thread with some current thoughts and events. I think it's OK to revive a one- month old thread? Here's a story of a Palestinian who was released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange (that is, deported to Gaza), and recently offered $60,000 for throwing a grenade or shooting at Israeli soldiers. To me it's a fascinating insight into what motivates people into doing these attacks. I've always thought that most people were motivated by their beliefs and not by money, but apparently that is not always the case. I wonder how many of these attacks are actually motivated by money in part or in whole, at least we can tell that there's no shortage of money to buy them. Here's an article on the confusion about what really makes a "hawk" or a "dove" in Israeli politics, and the errors of having a "black or white" approach to this. For example, the Israeli PM who was the closest ever to achieving peace (in 1995) was a retired army general and the chief of staff who won the war in 1967. Israel's current president whom the media portrays as naive and dovish, was the one who originally initiated Israel's nuclear weapons program. Nationalist movements are trying to make the occupation of the West Bank seem like an issue of national defense, which it fundamentally is not - it's a human rights and international law issue.

Not. One. Single. Argument. Which is why I chose to "pwn" him instead. What's the point of discussing something with a sheep that regurgitates right wing drivel without an ounce of critical thinking? I don't know, I'd rather discuss such things politely. Even though I don't agree with most of the political stuff Monte Carlo writes (and I think our chief disagreement is on the subject of bikini chainmails), I think many of his posts are rather fun to read, and he has a unique perspective, so I'd rather see him continuing the discussion. Of course without posts like "I KNOWS THIS; STFU". It might be that he does not really want to contribute to the discussion, but I think that if you are still interested in it (?), you should not return that attitude. If we all act like the well- mannered gentlemen/ladies we would like to see on the board ourselves, we will definitely encourage the rest to do so as well. I'm sure nobody here would really want the general level of discussion to degrade into the equivalent of angry children throwing dog poo at each other in the kindergarten sandbox, if they think about it. (Yes, I also sometimes reply with just "wat" or "lolwut". That is a pretty safe indicator that I don't have the time to continue that certain discussion)

Pretty decent stats. I was awfully close to being Chaotic Neutral, though (points were basically split between the Chaotic and Lawful ends of the scale).

So you're just iterating that terrorists are scary and that you're sure of that? I'm sad to say this, but I don't think your post contains a single constructive argument as to why. Can we please also keep the proper meaning of some certain terms? A terrorist is a person who tries to intimidate and coerce the public opinion through violence. Since we have no idea about what might have been the thought behind these attacks, they should at this time correctly be called "(mass- ?)murderers". I'd actually say it's somewhat unlikely they're "proper" terrorists. The Al Qaeda- linked group they were thought to sympathize with even rejected them. The fact that there was no declaration of who was behind the deed until this day (!), no letter, nothing, speaks most of all. As a rhetorical question, I'm sure you'll also agree that Eric Harris of the Columbine massacre was a psychopath and not a Nazi terrorist. "Terrorist" has become such a meaningless word in the last few years. Let's try to restrict its usage to where it actually applies.

Ethnic differences and the emergence of "nations" in the Balkans and especially former Yugoslavia is really an interesting subject. The region has been ruled over by various other nations and empires throughout so much of it's history. It's really not strange that it all would blow up when the last occupier (the Ottoman empire) withdrew. I've got a friend from the region (I think he's a Croat, but I don't know) whose take is basically that since former Yugoslavia was historically a meeting point between Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and Islam, the people, who are basically the same, mistrust each other because of their different cultural influences.

My thoughts go out to the policeman and the MIT security officer who were murdered. I guess this morning when they put on their uniforms, they did not know it would be for the last time. Yet they fulfilled their duties, in spite of the knowledge that they faced armed criminals whose only known goal was to kill innocents, and ultimately made the final sacrifice in the line of duty. That's something to remember next time you see a police officer. I remember reading on the Internet, perhaps on CNN or some other American news site, that surveillance videos had shown a dark- skinned suspect. The day after, I read in a Swedish newspaper that a suspect had white skin. At the time I read that, there was no information on that matter on news sites. You could be wondering if they're just guessing, after all, if they aren't arresting a smurf there's a 50/50 probability they are correct.

From what I gather, these guys seem to be pro-Chechnyan independence. Still, I don't think that or really any other political reason was behind this attack. It would be pretty senseless and stupid to attack the US in order to try to achieve that anyway. The older brother apparently said "I don't have any American friends" (haven't got the source). They have lived for such a long time in the US as well. Taking "harming individuals in order to change the political opinions of a group" as the definition of terrorism, I think they were not terrorists as much as serial murderers. I don't think that their motive was to coerce the American public opinion as much as killing people they don't like in cold blood, thereby destroying (a miniscule part of) a society they disapprove of. The chilling insight there is that just being Muslim might be the spark which makes confused and angry people go over the edge and do things like this. With the attention given to Muslim terrorists, a Muslim living in Western society who is confused, angry and disappointed with society will have their easy solution on a silver plate: "No, it's not just me who is a miserable person, but Western society which is really beyond saving. This extreme group who preaches killing infidels is right!" The moderate Muslims, and indeed everyone else, who disapprove of killings like these will have to drown the public perception of a conflict between Islam and the Western world, and show how the killing of innocents in such a cowardly and despicable way is against their religion. It's a pity that for every murderer who claims inspiration from the Quran, a thousand credible Muslim voices must speak out against it in order to heal the wound in Islam's self-perception. Has anyone thought about that almost every Muslim "terrorist" or murderer since the 9/11 bombing has been educated, "westernized", even well-off with a promising future (like the younger brother from Boston, a medical student)? The bad guys are not foreigners who've just come from their homeland to kill. They are angry regular dudes with an inferiority complex who happen to be Muslim. When the West portrays a typical Muslim as a terrorist, Muslims who live in the West will come to adjust to that position themselves and believe that blowing themselves up or killing people is what devout Muslims should do when they're unhappy. I guess maybe LoF would be the only person to disagree?

The Russians would be cheering right now. When the US has also become a target for Chechnyan terrorists they can crack down hard on them back at home without risking much criticism. Sadly, that is how the psychology of the public mind works. It appears they were Muslim, but I'm still skeptic as to whether they were part of some organization or if they just freaked out and acted on their own. Apparently the older brother was a sportsman - a boxer. That would explain the idea to attack a sports event.

Yeah, I was wrong there... Suddenly it seems very likely they were politically motivated. Also, they were originally from Kyrgystan, having later moved to Dagestan in Russia (according to what I just heard).

It appears from a glance that they were indeed not Muslim fundamentalists. Also, the ricin letter dude was a mentally ill Elvis impersonator. From what we've seen this far, I guess the bombers were just like the Colombine shooters, and not motivated by any political ideology or at least not part of any political group.

I meant that the result of the bomb has so far been three deaths. I think you would be able to kill more people with guns. In that statement also lies the assumption that this was a typical outcome for a bomb of this type - I can only assume it is. I heard that the type of explosive was regular blackpowder? In that case we're really talking about a novice bomber, they didn't even bother with making something more potent like HMTD.

It does not really seem like the modus operandi of Muslim terrorists to attack a sports event. Wouldn't they also be inclined to blow up themselves with the bomb? And take credit for it all in some way? I also bet you could kill a lot more people with just using guns. The killer must have been trying to get away with it. My guess is that this was the work of a lone psycho, or maybe a small group of crazy people.

The quote function is seriously messed up.

WOW. And they say games are not art? I've never played a Far Cry game, but I will keep my eyes on this one.

I like annoying characters, as long as they can get into a fight with the other party members. Also the ability to kill companions as any other NPC is a must.

I don't really think we should strive for any composition. I think that we should approach all forums members equally, regardless of gender, though. You should not be defined primarily by your gender but through your personality and opinions. Although we don't see a lot of that here, it is important that we show that behaviour such as "get back in the kitchen" jokes are no more OK than "get back into the ghetto" jokes towards Jewish members of the board, for example.

I feel like an easily- impressed kid, but: YESSS!! TEARS OF JOY!!!!!! ****ING PERFECT!!!!

Thatcher was a passionate believer in liberty. She despised dictatorships of any stripe. She helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and brought down a tyranny in Argentina. That she had flaws is a matter of record, but your assertion there is epic in it's inacuraccy and offensive to the woman's reputation. Please, as this is the internet, provide some evidence for Thatcher's alleged support for totalitarianism. It's a very dubious claim that she helped to end the Cold War in any way (you should really know better...), except if stabilizing the situation in Britain counts as one. She definitely helped to bring down the Argentinian dictatorship through her stubbornness during the Falklands war though. One of many links to my claim is in my original post. I'm sure she was a passionate believer in liberty, where liberty means low taxes. She does not seem to have been so discerning about democratic rights and such when it comes to other countries. Search a bit yourself about Thatcher and Pinochet on the Internet. You really have to make an ass out of yourself in order to say I'm wrong. I know you like the other stuff she did but are you able to accept she was not a saint? Try to look at the facts. Here's an interesting Time article you should read as well. Check out the boot- licking speech she gave to the dictator Zia-ul Haq which is linked in the article. The "right of Afghans to choose their own government" was her way of saying that the Taliban were to be put into power. Ironic, isn't it?

I admire her for being stubborn enough to pursue the Falklands war. On the other hand I'm rather critical of her political legacy. I'm sure Britain was in dire need of shaping up during her early years, something which she handled to excess. In many ways I think her death mirrors the death of Hugo Chavez. They were both controversial, extreme politicians who succeded with a lot of what they set out to do but polarized their countries, with un unfortunate passionate love for dictatorships of their preferred colours. Here's a Chilean article about the death of Thatcher. Considering the different situations they were faced with during their time in power, I think they will both be remembered positively inside their respective countries. However I don't approve of either as individuals, as they were so keen to give their support to dictators and the killing of people with opposing political opinions, even if it's not inside their own countries. I think it's important for people who approve of Thatcher's political accomplishments to also take distance from her as a person because of these facts. In another situation, she would without a shadow of a doubt have been cheering along Hitler and Mussolini in the thirties. You must never idolize people, in case you wil get their unsavoury sides in the baggage as well.

MMORPG = Many Men Online Roleplaying Girls Too be honest, I must confess I fall to some degree in the category of not believing there are any female gamers. Although they are very few, I know several female gamers myself, so it's not the conceptual part which is a problem. Yet I find myself assuming that people with female avatars in forums and with female toons online are men for some reason. As a side note, about 50% of my own characters in MMORPGs (yes, I have played MMORPGs on occasion) have been female. I would really prefer if the Internet did not require you to define your gender in order for you to be able to interact. Obviously this is possible in forums but not in (most) MMOs. If I was I female gamer I would probably try to conceal my gender when posting online, in order to not be defined primarily by being female but by my opinions. I have once been in a workplace which was very dominated by women and although I was definitely not subject to any discrimination or any wrongdoing there was a really oppressive atmosphere. The few men who worked there kept almost entirely to themselves, maybe that is the case with female gamers as well? Do you by any chance live in a grimdark alternate universe?

There's been an incredibly childish backlash against what's really only a reasonable fight against unserious, unrealistic and immature portrayal of women in games. I bet the majority of those who are the reason behind the closing of comments are teens who feel insecure when their view on women is being put under scrutiny.