213374U

Haha, I actually pity the rabid, foam-mouthed hardcore FO fan crowd. Because regardless of the actual quality of the game released by Bethesda, they will hate it for not being a carbon copy of a game that is almost ten years old. Who the hell would want them as a fanbase? I, on the other hand, will try it and enjoy it if it's an enjoyable game. And if Bethesda has learned anything since Morrowind, chances are it will. Carry on with the hatefest.

Matrix: Path of Neo.

You people are imagining things.

OMG AWESOME! This reminds me of that Family Guy episode where Peter gets his own soundtrack... :cool:

What can I say man, I actually collect requests for cyber...

Depends on the game, I think. For the Larry series dialogues and character design were really important. For a horror adventure, I guess it would be atmosphere, which is accomplished by art, level design and sound (including music). A good story and writing to go with it are paramount, though. After all, the first adventure games were just text, and ultimately it's that what keeps you hooked or not.

If it's not, it should be.

Yep, and that's why Everyone Must Die. )

The thing is, the tortures in Abu Ghraib didn't end in death for the most part. If you'd rather die than endure 3 months of torture, then I guess you need some professional help. Nice try at twisting my words. You know that somebody preparing an ambush might shoot at you, even though they aren't doing so in that exact moment. Are you trying to say that you should wait until they actually start firing? Have you been slamming your head against the wall a bit more than usual lately? That's warfare. Your inability to see the difference between the two words is appalling. According to the Wikipedia (couldn't find a more detailed source, feel free to correct or add anything), these are the tortures suffered by inmates in Abu Ghraib: Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear. Forcing groups of male detainees to **** while being photographed and videotaped. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and **** to simulate electric torture. Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture. A male MP guard raping a female detainee. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees. Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol. Pouring cold water on naked detainees. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair. Threatening male detainees with rape. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee. Now, how does the worst of that compare to having your head cut off with a knife? Tell you what, let's go to Iraq. I'll pretend to be a member of some militia, and turn myself in to the US troops, and you walk around some suburb until you get kidnapped. How 'bout it? The key is that several hundred years later, nobody needs to prove the Earth is round. It's an accepted, widely known fact. The same thing with the arguments facts I presented. You are welcome to keep the blindfold on for as long as you like, though. You make for some great target practice. Huh? It's the second time I personally put you to shame regarding facts. I'm sure I haven't been the only one. And still you keep going, your whole discourse entirely unaltered. Yes, you are indeed a reasonable person. You have proven as much. As for the rest of that paragraph, try making sense next time.

Well, there was nothing relevant to the topic at hand in this post: Yeah, well, that pretty much sums up your discussion technique, because to most people with a proper netiquette that's pretty important. You keep concentrating on the trolling and don't give a rat's butt if you construct the posts you oppose yourself. Kind of defeats the purpose of arguing, but hey, if it makes you happy. There's a reason why the words legitimate and target shouldn't be used together concerning human beings. A good read to get a grasp of the way language can be used to market a political agenda: Manufacturing Consent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Save for some link to a book I'm not going to buy. There was nothing I could say of relevance to the topic in reply to your post, because you have gone off a tangent quite some time ago. What a sad attempt at bailing out.

Hahaha. So, now torture is worse than execution? Are you sure the Earth isn't flat? Nope. Shooting back at people that is shooting at or might shoot at you is not execution. Execution has very distinct implications, which have nothing to do with warfare. None of the tortures carried out in Abu Ghraib are worse than being beheaded, period. I wouldn't really know, as I have never been beheaded, but from what I have seen, feeling how some guy holds your head while he cuts it off with a knife is not exactly "painless". Not really. After all, it's you who's trying to make a point from an exception. Would you really require me to post evidence to prove the Earth isn't flat? But hey, it's not really that difficult. I found these just from Googling "hostage executed Iraq". There are a few videos too, but I can't post them as it would be a violation of the guidelines. Italy confirms hostage executed. 2 Turkish hostages found dead, reports Al Jazeera. British woman executed. Bulgarian hostage executed in Iraq. South Korean hostage executed. There were quite a few more, feel free to look them up yourself. Nah, you don't discuss. You just spread your hateful anti-US propaganda, and keep going even when people toss facts in your face. Don't cry if you get flamed for living in a parallel reality. Yes buddy, you are a joke. The sad thing is you are not funny at all. Hilarious, even more when considering that removing the inexact quote doesn't substract a gram of validity from my post. When your feeble arguments get destroyed, you fall back to "netiquette". Whatever man. You're just so full of it. There's a reason? Really? And what is it? Go right ahead and enlighten me. Or is this another of your games to "sort out people" that aren't psychic? This just keeps getting better.

You underestimate the power of jurisprudence!

And curiously, I have yet to see a video that shows a prisoner being beheaded by US soldiers, or even evidence of illegal executions (I'm not sure, but have there been any executions at all?). On the other hand, there are quite a few of those nice homemade snuff videos by islamic groups going around. So, lay off the crack. LOL Honestly, you do realize that the "us" in "Us vs Them" is a pronoun, and not the acronym for "United States", don't you? "R00fles!" And on the other hand you have a multitude of cases that show that they really don't care where you are from, as long as you are western. You are making an argument based on a (possible?) exception that you can't even document properly. You are a joke, man. What means are necessary for what? War is not about killing. War is about winning. Often to win you need to kill, but it's only a means to an end. Slaughtering the enemy is not the goal in itself. Killing civilians usually does not place you any closer to winning by itself. In this particular case, it does quite the opposite, in fact. And well, I don't think it's a very common phenomena that civilian unrest during wartime has been severe enough to force a change in power. It most certainly didn't happen in Germany during WWII, and they suffered the worst bombings in a war, ever. The idea that killing civilians en masse is a good way to rally them for your cause is just ludicrous. But yeah, Hades. Everyone must die.

You tell that to the Nazi officials that survived the war and were executed for committing war crimes such as the one you are proposing (V-2 attacks on London, for instance). But still, if you don't want to accept the moral or legal considerations of this, I expect you to at least acknowledge the fact that from an efficiency standpoint, it's not an extremely useful tactic. Unless you want to mass murder just for kicks. Given your apparent low regard for human life in general, I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually the case, anyway. You have a strange notion of fun. Again, you fail to grasp the difference between abstract thinking and guessing your intentions. Judging from what you write, you probably don't even know what "abstract thinking" means. Most likely you just heard it from Papa, and you thought you would look cool and smart if you used it. Failed. Nah, you do that. You're the one using moral relativism to justify your stance. Boy, do I have to hold your hand every freaking step of the way? If you paid attention, you would have realized that sentence was part of a paragraph built around something called moral minimums. According to those minimums (which are easy to dismiss thanks to your wonderful relativism), a mass murderer can't be a hero of the people. And you are the one accusing me of not reading? You question my capacity of deductive reasoning? The irony is gleaming. Again, there is nothing wrong with the expression "legitimate target". There must be a way to differentiate targets that are valid from a legal or moral standpoint, from those that are not. You are wrong, once again. As for the "hahaha's", "ha" is an interjection meant to symbolize laughter, in this case. For someone so bent on dissecting the language, your ignorance of it is quite painful. Quite ironic, too. There's a huge difference between the terms bombs and weapons. Trying to put (moronic) words into someone else's mouth (post?) is pretty low, even coming from you. You will pardon me if I didn't search the exact quote. It wasn't my intention to twist your meaning (not that I could do a better job at making a fool of yourself than you do). I was just trying to save me the excruciating pain of going through that sad example of idiocy and ignorance you call a "post" again. 0 substance in your "post", as per usual. Try again.

Yes, that was the idea behind the strategic bombings that reduced the main cities of Germany to rubble in WWII. There were many factors that contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Third Reich (fuel draught, damage to industrial infrastructures, inadequacy of blitzkrieg for defensive purposes), but the massive civilian casualties caused by the constant bombing of the cities was most certainly not one of them. So, no. It's another idea that theoretically might work, but in practice doesn't. And even if it did, it's not a legitimate strategy. Legitimate, as in morally justifiable by today's moral or legal standards, anyway.

If you knew you were going to have to explain it, why didn't you make it clear the first time? Sounds to me like you are trying to look smart, and failing miserably, as per usual. Now you are going off on a tangent, trying to defend the laughably unrealistic statements that you seem to think that pass for arguments. It's not a matter of perspective. Civilians are not dependent on perspective. Targeting them is not a legitimate strategy, unjustifiable under any circumstances. Of course US soldiers are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they sign the form. Militias, on the other hand, are legitimate targets, even if they use civilians as cover. It's as much their fault as it's the civilians, as they play along most of the time. Yes, one man's hero is another's villain. A fallacious statement if there was ever one. Relativism is wonderful, isn't it? However, there is something you are deliberately missing. There is something called moral minimums, that place restrictions even on that kind of statements. People who lack those minimums may consider Hitler, Ben Laden, or Pol Pot heroes, but that does not make them so. Making blanket statements such as "there are no legitimate targets" or "there are no precise weapons" is not only inaccurate, it's nonsensical. It's the kind of pretty demagogy that is only good to help you sleep at night. Don't get all defensive when you're called on the BS you think is so deep. I will, for as long as you keep going on your kindergarten nap room rants.

Hades' specialty isn't making sense.

Did I mention that autarchy doesn't work?

I ain't telling you all my trade secrets, man!

Incidentally, I think you would make a fine mod... But whoever listens to me anyway.

Not sure. I think there should be, because "grammar" is the noun and it needs the article. If I'm wrong, then it's a prime example of what I was saying. :">

Nope. I never post when I'm angry. It prevents me from thinking clearly... I make enough mistakes (such as the whole deal with the Danish and the Dutch) when I'm cool, thank you. Yeah, I was thinking of changing it for Will Ferrell, but Vash beat me to it.

I know. I frequently mutilate the English grammar and possibly spelling too, so I never comment on that.

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you. No sense in trying to explain it now.

I expect you to hold to your word. It's hilarious how you fly off the handle when the mods hide your craptastic sniper thread, and then you come to other much less innocuous threads to push the newbs around. You go man, fight the good fight.