Kaftan Barlast

Hols

Kreiah really was a bullseye in every way, when time passes and all memory of K2 fade but one, that one will be of this fantastic character.

i've never heard a bigger bunch of BS. it is being defined as stated by kumquat above. just because you seem to think differently does not make it so. those that we are calling "terrorists" are bombing civilian settlements, taking down public buildings, blowing up public airlines and committing other acts of violence in order to reach a political goal. in the end, however, their primary goal is fear. Kumquat listed a couple of official definitions of terrorism. What I meant to express was that the practical definition used by goverments today differs from this in its obvious subjectivity. If an act is deemed terrorism or not, depends as much on who performed it as on how it happened. Given that, the only real definition on what terrorism is, is "Whatever we say it is." Disabling the water supply for an city through by attacking the pumping stations with commando troops is not considered terrorism while attacking a military base with carbomb, is. Both cause civilian casualties but wether it is considered terrorism or not depends on who that attacked who. not by me or anyone else that thinks as i do. And yet it was listed by the UN as a terrorist organisation. sorry bud, but the palestinian is walking into a cafe full of civilians with a bomb strapped to his chest. the purpose of such an act is to create an atmosphere of fear. the very essence of terrorism as defined by kumquat. how you can fathom equating these things is beyond rational thought. of course, in order for such rationalizations to hold, little facts like the latter must be left out. not surprising. You are right, but it was not what I was talking about at all. I meant to say that on a general basis, if an act of violence is to be declared as terrorism, depends on who is the purpetrator and who is the victim. Years ago, there was a massive incident where an Israeli settler walked into a Mosque and opened fire on the defensless people gathered in prayer. This was not strangely enough not labeled as terrorism, even though it bore every characteristic of it as it is officially defined. Had the roles been turned however and it had been Israelis dying at the hands of a Palestinian, we can have little doubt that it had been called a terrorist attack.

That is essentially my point. It's so subjective as to almost be meaningless. But if I asked someone what a terrorist was, to break it down to it's core (not name names), I think you would get basically variations on the same answer. Hence, in our modern understanding of the word, I think you can be more specific and add the "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" to "Systematic use of violence, with little or no concern about who that violence effects, to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective". I think this better reflects what the majority of people would think the word actually means. Not that I'm for changing the meaning of words on a majority vote, but in this case it seems apt. It also draws a better line between acts of war and terrorism. I dont think that the term "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" simply because the terrorists are very clear about who and what they are targeting, and why. The attacks are always meant to carry some sort of message, and that is not accomplished by just random acts of violence(even if there is that type too, very definently Im not denying that). If we look at some examples that may seem to be just random violence to us(which is because we usually dont know the full story) for instance the bombing of police recruitment centers in Iraq. That's no coincidence, the terrorists are saying "If you side with the foreigners by assissting them in controling this country, you're going to get hurt." a very clear and understandable message. Another example is the bombing of an Israeli restaurant in the west bank a couple of months ago. To us it just seemed like the usual meaningles violence but the story was that this restaurant was frequented by both Jews and Moslems. It was a nail in the eye of an organisation that believe themselves engaged in holy war against the infidels, and to have Moslems casually socialize with Jews is sacrelidge to them. So they bombed the in order top say "dont mix with the infidels, we are at war with them and the only right solution is to kill them all. we can never have peace with them and if you think so then you're not a true moslem and you deserve to die." Terrorism is all about the who and what the violence affects. "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" is true for only a small percent of terrorism.

I just PM'd Phosphor about this whole issue of locking topics and I think that is the least preferable of options. Deleting separate posts or editing out offensive content is far better. It just takes one troll to get an otherwise good thread locked.

The actual meaning of the word Terrorism as it is being used today is more along the lines of: Violent or subversive acts by an organisation or nation, labeled and recognized as terrorists by the Western nations. Its essentially a highly subjective classification. Nelson Mandela's ANC was labeled a terrorist organisation before the break of apartheid, yet now they are written about as heroes that ended apartheid and brought justice to the black population of South Africa. That the west actively supported apartheid and thatwe considered them terrorists 20 years ago, is swept under the rug. Another example of the subjectivity of labelling something Terrorism; If for an instance, a Palestinian kills an Israeli settler then that is a clearcut act of terrorism. If on the other hand, the settler kills the palestinian then its just murder. damn, time'sup, Ill be back later. p.s People, try to keep serious and not troll this thread to closure.

What's really ironic is that these non-serious websites play right into the hands of the rightwing by presenting clear-cut cases of "leftwing nutjobs" that can later be used to undermine serious people by negative association, a very effective and commonly used tactic.

Whats rule number 6? Rule 6 is the "No politics, no religion, no controversy or anything that could be percieved as such" rule which is in reality, a ban on all forms of serious debate. If Obsidian pulls the same stunt, Im leaving.

Anyway Ive got the game and its quite fun, having "Carth" in your party adds a nice touch of nostalgia. The problem is that Im stuck on Geonosis in the final partlevel when you have a countdown sequence. Im supposed to blast my way through all that, reach the bridge, fiddle with the computer for one whole minute whilst not getting killed and finally escaping on the generous timespan of 5 minutes??!! Its insane! I cant even make it if I rush and only take out the most threatening enemies. ...or does the game remeber what you did before(the timer starts before) you step into the turbolift to the bridge, so Ive painted myself into a corner by wasting time and need to restart the mission?

Of course, its Swedish :D play it for the king.

If you like Sacred or Dungeon Siege or that abomination that ruined CRPGs for all future that begins with the letter "D", then you have bad or no taste, which in turn makes you a bad human being whose opinions deserve only scorn and mockery. ...and Ive never understood the fun of loot... or why it can be found in such ludicrous places like the inside of rodents or in the randomly scattered barrels that every dungeon interior decorator seem so found of.

Similar to what Phosphior said, there isnt really that much to talk about. The moslems want Lebanon to become an Islamic state with support from Syria, whilst most western states+Israel would avoid that since it would be detrimental to their geopolitical economic agendas. If a majority of the people of Lebanon want an Islamic goverment, let them have it. Phosphor> We're not going to have a BioWare rule #6 from now on are we? That would kill alot of interesting debate.

One ancient increadibly powerful evil Sith nailclipper to rule them all....

What's anti-american about Optimus Prime? :D

Ive said it before and Ill say it again: I cant read. In fact, I have no idea what you're typing, and much less what kind of message if any Im succeeding to bring forth by my random klicking of keys. That any coherence is achieved at all is simply by a stroke of increadibly unprobable luck. In a manner similar to this I read, or I think I read, JM Coetzee's "Disgrace" which has some remarkable writing.

happy communism in space.

Can anyone explain how Exar Kun, and mostly every dark lord of the EU, manage to get absolutely ridicilously powerful within such hideously short timespans? ...and dont give me that "the darkside is easier and quicker", if that was true Emperor Palpatine wouldnt have needed the Death Star, he could just have run around trowing solar cores or extinguishing the lifeforce of rebellious planets.

Im 24 too, we should start a club. Whats REALLY interesting though is that almost 80% of players are of mature legal age. That gets me thinking that maybe, just maybe its in fact wrong to tone down mature themes in games. Maybe publishers should cut the kids out of the picture and make mature games for the enormous mature audience. ...and Im not talking about nudity and coarse language, Im talking about removing the reality filter and let the grit come through.

I honestly think K2 is the greatest CRPG made this far, we have never seen such complex story and character interaction in any other western(as in non-japanese) game before. And if we throw in the conditions it was made under(the insanely tight schedual etc.) its nothing short of a miracle.

*adds a few extra nasty-pointy-thingies to his crude but efficient club*

Arent we supposed to be panicking now, declaring long-supresssed desire to eachother, confessing sordid experiences and generally behaving like madmen?

Naked people. Lots and lots of completely naked people everywhere.

I read the description at my dealers- my Hack N Slash detector went haywire and I hit the back button with a slight feeling of disgust. ...plus it was made by a bunch of bloody gerries, a nation of people famous for the highly creative story and enourmous character depth of games like FarCry "

I think you're taking this too far. I dont belive this has anything to do with Obsidian wanting to hush critiscism or LA putting their publishers foot down. Its: 1. OE dont feel like they have staff enough to manage the forums properly. 2. The point of a forum like this is interaction between fans and developers, if the devs dont have time to interact then why waste the bandwidth?

Too many cooks.. ? But it has more to do with WHO you get to spice up the old brew. If you take the old 70-80's SW comics, they stink. Take ToTJ, they stink but not as much. Then go to modern day clonewars-era comics and it knocks out the prequels completely. Problem is just that there are 11 hacks and one talented guy to a dozen.