Zoraptor

It isn't an area he controls and by most reports has not controlled for a year, presumably they would have to take the pressure off while the inspectors were there. More fundamentally- and assuming he didn't do it- it seems likely that there are suspicions on the Syrian side about the timing in a more specific way than others might have, he may have concerns that despite not having done it there might be credible evidence that he had ie a proper 'frame job'; or that the inspectors may be biased. There's no doubt that there are groups arrayed against Assad that are capable of doing a frame job, in both the sense of not being too worried about Martyrs going to heaven and in terms of being able to provide the needed supplies and expertise. And, of course, there's the slippery slope argument. Vary their mandate to look at this incident, next it will something else and before you know it you have UN teams, potentially infiltrated liberally by western spies, all over the place looking at everything when there's no doubt at all that's there is stuff he wants kept secret.

You're not going to get a very thorough answer since it's 130 am here and my typing is suffering a bit... Perhaps a bit simplistic, but I suspect the fundamental difference amounts to you thinking that military stuff should be default secret while I think it should not be. So while you approach the release as asking "what justifies it's release?" I approach it as "what justifies it being secret in the first place?". So you expect me to justify the release while I expect you to justify it being secret at all. So from my point of view having someone say that the stuff released was inconsequential in terms of potential damage done to military operations by itself justifies releasing it- if it's inconsequential, why is it secret? And the answer I tend to come up with is that this 'inconsequential' stuff gets classified frequently not because it is dangerous, but because it is merely embarrassing and used to regulate the message and information rather than protect operations. Nobody disputes that some secrecy is required just as nobody disputes that there are enemies who need monitoring from the NSA/GCHQ or whoever, it's just that the opinion on what is reasonable in terms of secrecy and in scope differs. Something like an enemy's bombs not detonating, per the Falklands, fine. It's definitely militarily important and knowledge of it would give an advantage to (well, remove a disadvantage from) an active enemy. Lists of civilians killed when your spin doctors are insisting they haven't been? That's spin and information control for the domestic market, the Afghans and Iraqis already know the truth. The Collateral Murder killings probably weren't murder themselves as asterisks happen in war, but equally they knew very soon after that they'd asterisked up, yet publicly insisted they hadn't while classifying the evidence. And I'm not a fan of chain of command as an absolute concept at all. The worst thing that can happen in any army is absolute unquestioning obedience to all commands, because those commands are issued by humans and human institutions which are inherently flawed, you have to have leeway for questioning, refusing and in some cases actively resisting orders. Again, that ain't a recipe for refusing all commands or complete breakdown in discipline, just a recognition that sometimes you just have to short the circuit rather than run through the same series of wires and switches again and again.

Jordan needed a jackbooted editor more than anything, someone willing to tell him when things weren't necessary, if not actively counter-productive. I actually think he planned the series out decently enough, there were very few inconsistencies and plenty of stuff set up in early books that came to fruition in later ones, all signs of good planning. But from the beginning he used about 20% more words than necessary, and from about book 6 he also had about 20% more plotlines than necessary and that really messed with the pacing something terrible because the extra plotlines tended to compound rather than resolve- so the whole thing got hugely unwieldy.

It's a bit of a dichotomy depending on who was being talked to- when talking to the press it was all blood and thunder, at other times the damage was described as 'minimal' and similar terms. But as an example of the latter, from a source that is not exactly sympathetic to Wikileaks, and in a (quoted) form in which if Gates were lying he would (theoretically) get into Big Trouble. I'd dispute the article's assertion that the leaks were of minor interest, but agree they were of minor worth from any 'enemies of the US' standpoint.

Actually, I'm saying they're irrelevant. Maybe he leaked the stuff because he was gay, confused and bullied, what he is saying now. Maybe he leaked it because he was disgusted by the lies and brutality, as he said then. Most likely it's a bit of both. But we cannot know the real reason why, and saying one, now, gets him less time in prison, saying the other gets him more. I'm not saying one or the other is true, I'm saying that I don't really care if he's emphasising certain things now to get a reduced sentence, a situation that happens nearly all the time because it is the defence's job whether it's Manning or not I'm also well versed enough to know that important stuff is given high classification which basically none of Manning's stuff had, and that the best way of learning contextual information by far is to be actually fighting the enemy not trolling through tens of thousands of pages of stuff looking for that one time, in Kandahar Camp, potentially years ago, where something relevant happened. This was a war where the Kemp who wasn't in Spandau Ballet, a Prince of the Realm and various others got themselves embedded with journalists throughout the course of it, no doubt there was important operational info given out there too, if you're looking for it. The vast majority of the stuff he released dealt with stuff that was not really (military) secret, just embarrassing. I doubt the US's views on Sarkozy came as any surprise to anyone, least of all the french, and the Iraqis/ Afghans knew that the US regularly shot up civilians and then obfuscated the matter to cover it up using the "we shot up militants, for defs.. maybe we'll investigate.. OK, just getting round to the investigation.. everyone forgotten yet?" method- the Iraqis know when civilians are killed because it's their civilians and people know them as something other than a short paragraph on page 47 of the NYT. But some people would simply believe the first part of the narrative- the whole point of having it in the first place- anything to shake their confidence and complacency is of benefit to society as a whole. You cannot show death and destruction caused by Manning and we both know it, which makes the whole thing an irrelevant appeal to emotion. "Something didn't happen in reality, but if it did then the person would be bad, wouldn't he?". Well yes, he'd be bad, and if Pope Francis is a child killing cannibal he'd be bad, if Valve powered Steam by the tortured cries of a million baby bunnies they'd be bad and if Graeme Smith won a cricket match by beating his opponents to death with a set of stumps then he'd be bad. But none of those happened though (well, not sure about the Steam thing) so they aren't bad.

Steve Erikson .. The riddiculous cases like Jordan and in a lesser extent Martin aren't so common. Hang on there a minute, for a second I though you were implying the Erikson had a well planned series. Say it ain't so, Malekith. His series has some of the most massive continuity errors of all time! Of all time! I'd be pretty certain that both Jordan and Martin planned their series as well, sticking to the plan on the other hand... Sticking to the plan is probably one thing the game story development process does better than the book process.

Shrug. Most of the people tried by Stalin 'confessed' and asked for forgiveness when the vast majority of them did nothing at all. He did the 'crime', the only thing he had left was going for mitigation and as low a sentence as possible. His only options were standing up and saying he was proud of what he did, and getting the book thrown at him, or saying what needed to be said and getting out sometime relatively soon. There's nothing cynical about that, and everything sensible about that. All that could be asked of him was not to drop others in the asterisks to save himself, and he did not give the US what it wanted on Assange. Most of the time being a martyr is stupid, not principled- unless you have no choice. He owed no one, not me, not Assange and not the US public he served so well decades of his life just to prove some sort of point. putting the lives of thousands of people at risk? Post Proof Or Retract. That was one of the more amusing things about the whole situation. The whole "sky is/ isn't falling" depending on what and who was being talked to. If they were going after WL then it was a horrendous travesty and jihadis would be camping on the Whitehouse Lawn in time for bicentenary of those northern barbarians burning it thanks to all the horrible secrets contained within, but other wise "no sensitive intelligence sources or methods were compromized by this disclosure." Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence

His defence team is tasked with getting him a minimum sentence, they'll do what is best for that as every defence team does. If that means emphasising his personality problems or whatever else then fine, he didn't do the really easy thing that would have got him a really reduced sentence and lie about the role of Wikileaks and Assange as the US wanted. He's already done more good than most people ever do, I wouldn't begrudge him reducing his sentence from 90 years to 35 years. Hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, it would be far more deserved than certain recent recipients.

Yeah, foreign elements of the rebels seem most likely. Using chemical weapons with inspectors in the country would be utter madness, let alone that the place where they are supposed to have used them is completely unsuitable for their military use- relatively close front lines, and close to areas you hold yourself including absolutely crucial areas; not vs human wave attacks like Iran v Iraq or trenches like WW1, it's certainly not some outright terror/ extermination attempt like Anfal, and the Syrian army is winning without needing to resort to chemical weapons. Either desperate use as a last resort, or calculated use by the rebels seems likely. It wouldn't have to be deliberate though, chemical weapons have always been prone to own goals if weather conditions change and it is likely that any chems used by the rebels would not be... reliable, but there are certainly groups that wouldn't care even slightly about killing some civilians for The Greater Good (the greater good).

I suspect that the reticence shown by the military was related to two things- firstly they didn't mind democracy, so long as it didn't interfere with their power base either in terms of their independence or economic interests and secondly they wanted to maintain their military aid despite the inconvenient 'coup' stipulation. Little c conservatism, basically, which is more or less how they're described in the quotes. Once it became clear that Mubarak would be pushing Gamal (who'd never win in a democratic election, neither would his dad either) as his successor he became disposable, and once it became clear that the only way he could keep power was a bloodbath it became inevitable.

My government is actually passing its mass surveillance law at this very time, as some inconvenient, corpulent German and a recalcitrant judge- god bless her- managed to show that our spy agencies had broken the law 80 odd times over the past few years. It won't be mass surveillance, though, because despite having nothing written into the law to prevent it (and given the way other countries have used their unlimited legislation to target reporters and Iceland with their Al Qaeda volcanoes, Banks and MMOs) the PM- who presided over the 80+ law breakings- has promised it won't happen, much as he promised he wouldn't raise GST and the like, and implemented a strong new oversight policy of him and someone directly appointed by him; having already installed an old school friend as head of the GCSB (=GCHQ, for you) and claiming he barely knew him. And anyone who has looked at the Snowden leaks knows he's flat out lying because New Zealand is listed as using PRISM etc on the slides Awesome Ed leaked. It'll be passed, with the help of two MPs who are only in parliament because the ruling party did not campaign against them. There's literally no point writing anything to any MP about it except Peter Dunne, and he won't change his mind because he wants to be minister again and wants no Nat campaigning against him. He's also got no party... except it got reinstated recently, along with the allowance he gets for it. The Nat MPs will lose their job if they vote against it, the two other MPs will lose their seats if the Nats campaign against them, everyone else is already voting against, every single opinion poll shows it's already opposed by a strong majority, and every expert asked has opposed it so much so that the government has not been able to provide a single local opinion besides its own supporting it. The really ironic thing is that Dunne had his emails and phone records illegally seized when he leaked a report on the GCSB which is why he's no longer a minister, yet is so concerned with saving his own skin and getting the ministerial post back that he'll still vote for it. I guess there's some sort of plus in that it didn't get rushed through as part of the emergency response to 180 odd people dying in an earthquake, as they did last time, but if not using the tragic deaths of your countrymen to pass unrelated legislation with no oversight or submission process in an afternoon because it's unpopular and shonky law is a plus then the democratic barrel bottom has been well and truly scraped, and you're well through the floor below. And all to stop terrism, in a place where the only international terrist act was carried out by the asterisking French Government nearly 30 years ago. A fairly decent summation, from our online equivalent of the Daily Mail of all people, for anyone interested and made it through the diatribe. The whole thing is an utter disgrace and there is completely and absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it, short of praying for a politician to grow a conscience. Well, if you're going to wish might as well make it something truly improbable.

Can I enslave nations through necromancy? I've been waiting for that for, uh, Ages. Go on Bioware, mildly amuse me.

Bro, it is a junta. Just because Al-Sisi has appointed a civilian face does not mean that the civilians have any real control, much as just because there were theoretically independent judiciary under Hos that they were not also a rubber stamp. The civilians in the government were selected by and serve at the sufferance of the military. You may see some civilian's lips moving, but it's the military talking with the civilians being just a sop. The main reason the military dropped Mubarak was because he got too big for his boots and wanted to turn the presidency into a hereditary title for Gamal, something the military with its parallel power base did not want. Not some sudden crisis of conscience and discovery of democratic principle.

Because he was picking up material from a source, for The Grauniad. That that material was going to inevitably be embarrassing to the US, or Britain, is irrelevant unless you think 'anti american Marxist rags' are terrorist. The detention was under an anti terror law auspice, not anything else, and it clearly was not anything to do with terrorism. You could try imagining if it was Coulter/ Beck/ Hannity/ Limbaugh's partner being detained in that style and under those justifications, instead...

It's amazing how many people like her given that she was arguably the most ruthless and manipulative character in the game. A little cleavage and a lot of charisma go a long way. I think it has more to do with being a quality character. I like Jon Irenicus, as a character, he's well written and excellently voiced; that he screwed a virtual avatar of me over and was not a pleasant person is completely incidental to that. Neither he not Philippa are particularly sympathetic, they're just well written antagonists in a world where most game villains are cackling or moustache twirling cliches. (Well, arguably both the examples there are cliches too, they just have enough meat on their bones for it not to define them)

So, you're trying to prove that you won't and don't abuse your powers granted under the guise of anti-terrorism. How to do, how to do... I know, we'll detain the partner of a journalist for nine hours under anti terror laws, when there isn't even the slightest indication he's even tangentially related to terrorism That's sure to prove how responsibly we use our powers!

Yeah, that could work. Jane Fonda circa Vietnam or Sean Penn circa Iraq War copped a lot of flak over their stances. I doubt either was anywhere near as entrenched or influential as the monarchy in the UK, but it is fictionalised so some sort of Beiber/ Moore/ Penn/ Snowden (probably combination of one or more) populist might work quite well. It'd be a bit of a shame if more aren't made, the Urquhart story trilogy had some very nice symmetry to it.

Well yes, but how is the situation now actually different from that? I rather doubt, for example, that the current regime is going to allow the courts (heh, like they'd need to worry about the Mubarak appointed judges anyway) to limit their power and not rule by decree, they look set to release The Hoz from custody and a bunch of other reactionary and counter revolutionary stuff too. I'm not sure why removing the prosecutor general is exactly bad except that it's Morsi doing it- that PG was presumably the one who presided over rampant detention without trial, torture, and rubber stamped and wrapped Mubarak's rule in its veneer of respectability, and was appointed by Hoz as well. If El-Baradei had won the election and done the exact same thing he'd have been applauded for 'sweeping away the last vestiges of totalitarianism' and the like, and the only reason would be that he could be relied upon to put someone with his political slant instead of Morsi's into the job, he'd still be doing the exact same thing. There will only be elections if the military can guarantee the right people get elected. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, same as the older boss... probably back to before Khufu. Well yes, I can see how Nobel Laureate El-Baradei might say that. I wonder what failed presidential candidate, who didn't even make the second ballot, El-Baradei has to say on the matter? I will give him credit for bailing on the junta when they killed >650 people in a single day, but people would not take a tweet from Barack Obama- also a Nobel Peace Laureate, lest we forget- saying that Republicans in the US would reinstitute serfdom as being anything other than a political stance because he's also Barack Obama, POTUS.

A right can still be a right if it's granted as a matter of course. Driving a car is a right, but you wouldn't want habitual drunk drivers, those who are sufficiently bad drivers to fail a test repeatedly or the blind to be able to drive- as others have the right to safely use the roads as well. It's all in the application of the law but so long as it doesn't end up with something ludicrous like "asians have a disproportionate number of crashes, don't issue them licences" or similar it works fine and pretty much everyone agrees it's a good idea. Whether owner licencing/ background checks would work well in the US where there are more guns and a lot more illegal guns is questionable though, as it would rely on most gun owners being responsible and reasonable and a lack of illegal alternatives.

I was actually going to use Thatcher as a comparison- since, from a certain point of view, she ruled using parliamentary tyranny with 43% support of those who voted, went after and specifically targeted groups and regions that didn't support her, had policies benefiting those who did support her, was running massive deficits and inflation, had a precipitous collapse in support; up until the Falkland's War, and still had enough antipathy towards her that people came out and celebrated her death despite her being out of power for two decades. And, of course, from another point of view she was a hero who saved Britain.

Yeah, I've never understood the urge to take an interactive media and put everything about it on rails. I guess they look at CoD and the like and decide that the on rails sells, and it makes designing easier as you don't have to try and anticipate players going away from what you wanted. For certain games it is a valid approach but for Thief- even Deadly Shadows, though the small level sizes hurt it a lot in that regard- they always gave you a bunch of tools that you could use any time and goals that you were free to tackle as you saw fit, with certain qualifiers usually at higher difficulty levels. Sometimes you'd fail at it, but that was part of the fun and made actually succeeding all the sweeter. The cutscene in which Garrett loses his eye didn't need full mocap and QTEs to make it memorable, all it needed was the investment in the character made over the previous levels, a modicum of imagination, and the ability to recognise a holy asterisks! moment when you see one.

I doubt many constitutions have a mechanism for peaceful removal of a president when his party controls the legislative branches. eg the US system is effectively approval by both houses of congress, if I remember the (laughable) Clinton impeachment correctly. Certainly, in a situation in which the judiciary has been appointed by Mubarak you cannot rely on them. I have no doubt at all that the violence is not entirely one way and it often isn't peaceful dissent in the way that most western marches and the like would be, but equally it's clear that the protesters are not- generally- armed and there is a lot of 'counter dissent' from pro military groups who aren't exactly being peaceful either. Then again, I also have very little doubt that the Syrian protests were not quite as peaceful as they were made out to be.

Meh, I'm not having a go at you particularly and no doubt I sound grumpier than I actually am so I'll have a go at rephrasing- though I do tend to grind my teeth at the term 'islamofascist' as being loaded and cheap- much as some loathe the term 'Bliar' as being loaded and cheap (which it is, of course). We even agree on certain things, quite apart from the religion in state issue I doubt anyone here supports shooting unarmed protesters. The poll thing is intended as a counterpoint, every politician has drops in popularity, sometimes even precipitous ones yet that did not result in and would not justify a coup in those cases. Mainly I'm annoyed at the double standards in the media where democracy is sacrosanct- unless the wrong person gets elected- and a democratic mandate is sacrosanct, if it's in the west and unless someone tries to do something 'bad' with it. The military had by their own figures killed more people in a day than the Syrian conflict killed in its first five+ weeks, and the exact same excuses have been trotted out by the Egyptian authorities right down to the letter, yet one is brutality and the other is justified. And the general consensus among the talking heads is that Egypt didn't vote for an Islamist approach when they clearly did by dint of electing Islamist parties as the two largest by a significant margin, plus an Islamist president. I'd also say that we don't generally get a good view of what Egyptians really think, because everything is skewed towards the more liberal and pro west/ secular areas. A poor farmer or labourer has every bit as much right to vote and have their vote respected as someone who is net literate and can write well in english, and there are a lot more poor people as well, yet we can only hear from one group and tend to think that they represent the consensus as a consequence. There are only three things that can come out of this. A military dictatorship, elections which are outright fixed to make sure the 'right' people win (status quo circa Mubarak/ military with a civilian frontman) or elections which are soft fixed with the MB being banned, and the salafis getting even more votes as a consequence. None of those are any good for 'democracy', and make me think that people are far more interested in exporting western sensibilities than western values- the veneer and appearance of propriety, rather than propriety itself.

It ain't factual, it's an opinion based on an interpretation of facts, and one you happen to agree with. For examples, on the issue of polls, and also 'factual'... Approval rating for George W Bush 25%, on 3 occasions. Better coup him as he's under the critical 28%, clearly not fulfilling the mandate he was elected for etc etc. Dave Cameron? As low as 21%, hope the Paras step in soon to End The Madness. The poll results are facts (well, 'facts' given how easy it is to manipulate polls), that they'd justify anything is 100% opinion. Also: The 'religious loonies' AKA 'islamofascists' AKA the MB and salafists won more than 2/3 of the parliamentary seats, the presidency and the shura council which would be, for example, enough to write amendments into the US constitution (well, excluding states' approval, which Egypt doesn't have). They have as much 'democratic legitimacy'- might as well be roflcopter cred, for all that phrase is worth- as a western government. Again, when the constitution came to be written the MB could write it for the majority of the people who voted for Islamist parties- whose core belief is the integral role of Islam in government- or the minority that didn't. They went with the majority, which is democracy in action. Facts, with an opinion conclusion. Not actually one I agree with as religion should not be written into constitutions imo, but then I am a secular westerner. In Tiannanmen Square, some guy with shopping bags went and stood in front of a tank. The Chinese Army, well known upholders of human rights and fairness, didn't run him over or shoot him. Same thing in Egypt? Kapow, dangerous terrorist and religious zealot dead live on TV, good job, mission accomplished by brave defenders of freedom, high fives all round 1.5 billion dollars secured We Have Always Been At War With Islamofascists. Same thing happen in Syria? OMG BOMB ASSAD THE MASS MURDERER MY TENDER SENSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLIED WITH RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS OMG RUSSIA AND CHINA SUPPORT HIM EVIL EVIL EVIL. And that's a mixture of fact and opinion, obviously designed to justify a certain position. Though actually the Russkies should troll like a pro and submit the Libyan resolution to the UNSC with Egypt substituted, for epic lolz. Yeah, the MB is banned in Saudi as its type of islamism isn't extreme enough. MB is a Qatari client too, while the people who will benefit most from the MB's inevitable banning will be Saudi's own clients, the salafists. Good news all around for them.

Thief certainly seems to have been one of the worse managed games recently, and one where they probably would have been better doing what they wanted to do without the baggage of calling it Thief. Long dev cycle, multiple different visions and conflict over its direction, the whole Thi4f debacle. The only comparable title I can think of is the XCOM fps which has been relaunched three times and been in development since before Bioshock (1!) was released, let alone the XCOM strategy remake. And at times their PR has been downright bizarre.