OT: - Real life dominions [Archive]

Endoperez

February 6th, 2006, 07:19 PM

PrinzMegaherz said:
Honestly... do you guys understand what's going on in the middle east at the moment? To me, this sounds like the beginning of something big, everyday I look into the newspaper it gets even crazier...

What do you think... is there an end to the madness?

People are crazy. Everywhere. Including you and me, because we're not actively trying to stop it. How long has it been since there was a decade without a war? A full year?

Not to talk about African HIV/AIDS situation, SARS, the nearing bird flu pandemic, Russian and Turkish human rights, etc etc. In a few years, someone will probably start rambling about armageddon/harmagedon/ragnar�k, read Bible, and decide that a person who got hurt at some point in his life (Revelations 13:3, fatal head wound and all that) is the devil, the beast, and starts a bloodshed as various groups try to kill the leaders of various other groups. Even that won't make it into the news if it happens in Africa/Asia. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

We live in a land of Turmoil, of Death and Drain... At least we don't have any Manticores or Wyrms. Doesn't make this world any better, though...

NTJedi

February 6th, 2006, 07:29 PM

Yes on Turmoil and Drain... but as time passes the worlds population continues to increase so I'd say we have a growth scale at the moment... at least in regards to the human race.

Ironhawk

February 6th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Are you talking about the cartoon riots, megahertz? If so then I agree that its crazy. I mean I completely understand that according to the tenants of Islam the cartons are gravely blasphemous. But... do we live in the stone age where someone says something you don't like and then you riot and stuff? It's pretty ridiculous.

Fate

February 6th, 2006, 11:19 PM

Well, you have to think of it according to culture. In our culture, different opinions are accepted and even encouraged, and while I do believe most mulsims have no problem with opinion differences, I believe it is against the islamic teachings to draw islamic icons.

Its like, hmmm..., some country came out condoning literature that didn't just trash everything you believe in (capitalism, democracy, freedom of the press and whatnot) but actually crossed those boundries. (I don't know, started burning books?) Think about the reaction you would have.

Cainehill

February 6th, 2006, 11:29 PM

No, we live in the age where you don't like something they say, and you use plastic explosives, incendiary devices, nerve toxins. Aren't you glad we're modern? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Ironhawk

February 7th, 2006, 05:05 AM

Fate said:
I do believe most mulsims have no problem with opinion differences, I believe it is against the islamic teachings to draw islamic icons.

I agree that most muslims wouldnt have a problem with differences of opinion. And as I said, I know that the cartoons are a grave blasphemy to them. But the fact is that there is plenty of stuff going on that is blashpemous to one religion or another. I mean think about the number of cows consumed worldwide.. and yet you dont see the Hindus out rioting in the streets, do you?

Saber Cherry

February 7th, 2006, 05:36 AM

I think we can all agree that the Middle East is at a strategic disadvantage. Quite simply, their gods don't have enough arms.

castigated

February 7th, 2006, 05:40 AM

they do have fear, though, so they have that going for them.

Humer

February 7th, 2006, 08:35 AM

Well, as the cartoons were published *in September* link (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/baggrund/article.php?id=3293352)
the whole incident should be put in different light. Why now? What's in it for anyone to pick it up now?

Gandalf Parker

February 7th, 2006, 11:37 AM

The pretenders in this particular game do seem awfully unbalanced. But if US is Ulm then BinLaden is Pangaea. Force of arms vs sneak tactics. Winning seems automatic but it can take alot longer than it would with another open force.

In fact, maybe he is Pangaea with Carrion Woods. You have to take out the religious leaders or else they can create an entire new army.

Gandalf Parker

Agrajag

February 7th, 2006, 04:52 PM

Just in case it doesn't show on the left, I'm from Israel.

I'd say we have enough gems to alchemize into 100 Astral pearls, as well as an Astral-9 pretender. An Alteration-9 researched. So atleast if Israel goes down, the rest of the world goes down with it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif ("Going Out With a Bang" =P)

Now seriously, those comics are just an excuse for them to riot. There's enough blasphemous and otherwise inappropriate material for:
1) Israel to burn down every arab country in the middle east.
2) USA to burn down every muslim country in the area.
3) Jews to riot and burn down nice portions of most of the western world.
4) Hindus to riot and burn down almost the entire world.
5) etc.
Yet none of that seems to happen.

Fate

February 7th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Yes, this is all true (especially who is what gods http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif ).

I think that how this really needs to be seen as is the stone that broke the camel's back. From my (poor) american perspective, the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades -or longer- and I think that the feeling there could finally just be a substantial population who "just can't take it any longer."

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to condone what is happening, I am just pointing out that there are reasons. Sometimes you just don't want to think about it, just do it.

Tom_Scudder

February 7th, 2006, 06:51 PM

Despite everything, these demos have not been very big (loud & violent, and very stupid, but not big), compared to eg the big demos & counter-demos in Lebanon last year, or the big anti-terrorism demo in Jordan just after the bombings this October (?)

A blog I intermittently contribute to has a big fat roundup on the whole danish insanity:

http://www.aqoul.com/danish.html

PDF

February 7th, 2006, 06:52 PM

Gandalf Parker said:
The pretenders in this particular game do seem awfully unbalanced. But if US is Ulm then BinLaden is Pangaea. Force of arms vs sneak tactics. Winning seems automatic but it can take alot longer than it would with another open force.

In fact, maybe he is Pangaea with Carrion Woods. You have to take out the religious leaders or else they can create an entire new army.

Gandalf Parker

Funny parallel ... But did you mean that US gets *no* chance to win (as would be the case in an Ulm/Pangea contest usually) ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Fate

February 7th, 2006, 07:54 PM

PDF said:

Gandalf Parker said:
The pretenders in this particular game do seem awfully unbalanced. But if US is Ulm then BinLaden is Pangaea. Force of arms vs sneak tactics. Winning seems automatic but it can take alot longer than it would with another open force.

In fact, maybe he is Pangaea with Carrion Woods. You have to take out the religious leaders or else they can create an entire new army.

Gandalf Parker

Funny parallel ... But did you mean that US gets *no* chance to win (as would be the case in an Ulm/Pangea contest usually) ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

If your taling about Dominions-esque total anihilation, I hope no one wins.

shovah

February 7th, 2006, 08:16 PM

i hope the UK wins http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif give the little guys a chance

Vicious Love

February 7th, 2006, 08:26 PM

So are we still overanalyzing this False Horror spam, or what? Flagellants will be flagellants, and the media will be the media.

Saber Cherry

February 8th, 2006, 05:27 AM

When I posted before, I forgot about the possiblity of Egypt teleporting Sphinxes. Anyone know the latest rules?

Alneyan

February 8th, 2006, 07:01 AM

Well, I wouldn't say the US are Ulm, really. Caelum seems a much better fit: they have flying hit squadrons and long-ranged fun (instead of crawling on the ground, they are quite wealthy and have an easier time building up their forces, they have some nasty firepower under their belt, and many players feel they are overpowered, leading to a "gang on them" approach.

Agrajag

February 8th, 2006, 08:47 AM

Fate said:
I think that how this really needs to be seen as is the stone that broke the camel's back. From my (poor) american perspective, the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades -or longer- and I think that the feeling there could finally just be a substantial population who "just can't take it any longer."

I'll remind you that most americans think that Israel is such a buch of tents and camels roaming in the desert (unlike the truth - just your average modern western country. Also, we have more cool intelligence technology than the US =P)
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

PDF

February 8th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Agrajag said:

Fate said:
...
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

Your post is bordering on open call to murder, it seems out of place here. It looks like bloodthirst is a human vice quite shared everywhere.
On the subject, saying that the turmoil in the ME dates back from Israel creation is no anti-israeli propaganda, but just plain fact.
Note that the other possibility would have been for the Arabs to wipe out Israelis, a more "mathematically logical" situation considering the respective numbers ... they tried, but couldn't, thanks mostly to the USA who funded Israeli army.

Cainehill

February 8th, 2006, 11:19 AM

PDF said:

Agrajag said:
..
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

Your post is bordering on open call to murder, it seems out of place here. It looks like bloodthirst is a human vice quite shared everywhere.

Edit: Incidentally PDF - your quotes are screwed up, as it wasn't fate who posted what you quoted.

Technically, the middle east has been on fire since the 8th or 9th century, when the muslim faith splintered over the issue of who should lead after Mohammed's death. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing one another since then, which was the main reason the European crusades were "successful" for a period of time - they could play the Sunni dynasties against the Shiite ones and vice versa.

Then, in 1917, Britain's Balfour Declaration proposed a Jewish state in "Palestine", and Britain proceeded to take control of the Middle East, carving it up into unnatural countries of its own design, (possibly in order to maximize turmoil for its own benefit), and hell on earth continued in "the promised land".

On the subject, saying that the turmoil in the ME dates back from Israel creation is no anti-israeli propaganda, but just plain fact.

True - it isn't anti-israeli propaganda, but it does ignore some 10 centuries of strife in the reason, broken by a few periods of relative peace such as during the reign of the Ottoman empire. But certainly - bloodthirst is a universal human trait, brought to the surface by : hunger, poverty, lack of education, and rulers / people who would rather blame someone else for their problems rather than take the responsibility for solving them themselves. Not just the mideast (which has some notable exceptions such as Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain) but south and central america, africa, and the USA's republican party. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Gandalf Parker

February 8th, 2006, 11:51 AM

People.. lets try to keep the thread in the half-hearted connection to the game please. Otherwise the thread itself could be endangered.

Hmmm as much as I play Pangaea I didnt think they kicked tail on Ulm. No I definately did not wish to paint the picture that BinLaden could win. Only that he could be a long running PitA without a chance of actually winning. The Caelum comparison I could go for.

But also maybe Man. I always thought of Mans strongpoints as being built around a paratrooper design. Obviously his mages and gems are meant to make heavy early use of both Call of the Wild and Call of the Wind. Stealth scout the location. Possibly move in some stealth rangers to be ready. Drop troops on the location for a surprise attack behind frontlines. Setup shop and hold it. All without creating province-to-province supply lines that the enemy can follow back.

Altho then the comparison might lag since, again, Im not sure if man vs pangaea paints quite the overwhelming unbalance that should be shown. I guess thats one of the "failings" of the game that you cant really paint such a picture of imbalance. The closest would maybe be Ermor (and Im not QUITE ready yet to paint USA as Ermor. Not quite yet)

Maybe we could do it with alliances? Man, Ulm, Arcos?

Gandalf Parker

Agrajag

February 8th, 2006, 12:17 PM

PDF said:

Agrajag said:
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

Your post is bordering on open call to murder, it seems out of place here. It looks like bloodthirst is a human vice quite shared everywhere.

WHAT?!
Its exactly the other way around!
What I said was that that reason is no reason to riot or kill.
It is however used as an excuse by some people.
Atleast, I can't see any sane person doing what they did because of why they supposedly did it. (And therefore, I conclude its just an excuse, and their reasons are different.)

On the subject, saying that the turmoil in the ME dates back from Israel creation is no anti-israeli propaganda, but just plain fact.

The same goes for saying it dates back to the conquer of Israel by the Roman Empire.
I'd also like to act a bit juvenile and say "They started it", after all, it was the arab nations that attacked Israel and started The War of Independance.

Note that the other possibility would have been for the Arabs to wipe out Israelis, a more "mathematically logical" situation considering the respective numbers ... they tried, but couldn't, thanks mostly to the USA who funded Israeli army.

I wouldn't give the USA all of the credit. It was the courage and strength of Israeli (well... Jewish) soldiers that helped win the war.

You could say Caelum gave us lots of gems, but our mages were the ones to cast all the cool spells =P

Oversway

February 8th, 2006, 12:28 PM

Start clamhoarding!

PDF

February 8th, 2006, 02:18 PM

Agrajag,
I apologize, not only I misunderstood you, but my reply wasn't even properly quoted... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Fate

February 8th, 2006, 06:55 PM

I am sorry if I brought this thread into too political a setting. I said "around four decades ago" because I am often wrong, and with subjects like this I don't want to offend.

Anyway, in connection with Dominions. Don't you think that there must be alot of gems in the mid-east (oil)? And therefore they should be some magic nation... I am not very familiar with many of the nations, so someone could supply one. Pangaea would make the most sense, I guess.

Gandalf Parker

February 9th, 2006, 11:50 AM

It would frighten me to make one of them a magic nation. Such as.. if Iran were to be considered as Arcos then their "we arent involved yet so just leave us alone while we research some things" takes on a very scarey feel.

KissBlade

February 9th, 2006, 12:56 PM

Cainehill said:

PDF said:

Agrajag said:
..
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

Your post is bordering on open call to murder, it seems out of place here. It looks like bloodthirst is a human vice quite shared everywhere.

Edit: Incidentally PDF - your quotes are screwed up, as it wasn't fate who posted what you quoted.

Technically, the middle east has been on fire since the 8th or 9th century, when the muslim faith splintered over the issue of who should lead after Mohammed's death. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing one another since then, which was the main reason the European crusades were "successful" for a period of time - they could play the Sunni dynasties against the Shiite ones and vice versa.

Then, in 1917, Britain's Balfour Declaration proposed a Jewish state in "Palestine", and Britain proceeded to take control of the Middle East, carving it up into unnatural countries of its own design, (possibly in order to maximize turmoil for its own benefit), and hell on earth continued in "the promised land".

On the subject, saying that the turmoil in the ME dates back from Israel creation is no anti-israeli propaganda, but just plain fact.

True - it isn't anti-israeli propaganda, but it does ignore some 10 centuries of strife in the reason, broken by a few periods of relative peace such as during the reign of the Ottoman empire. But certainly - bloodthirst is a universal human trait, brought to the surface by : hunger, poverty, lack of education, and rulers / people who would rather blame someone else for their problems rather than take the responsibility for solving them themselves. Not just the mideast (which has some notable exceptions such as Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain) but south and central america, africa, and the USA's republican party. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Sadly most Westerners don't recognize the bit of politics the British played there in carving up the Middle East and putting Israel smack dab there. Especially since at that time Britain was allowing "independance" in all their colonies at the time so in future, they can simply just say, "SEE? We went away and now there's chaos everywhere".

KissBlade

February 9th, 2006, 12:58 PM

Agrajag said:

Fate said:
I think that how this really needs to be seen as is the stone that broke the camel's back. From my (poor) american perspective, the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades -or longer- and I think that the feeling there could finally just be a substantial population who "just can't take it any longer."

I'll remind you that most americans think that Israel is such a buch of tents and camels roaming in the desert (unlike the truth - just your average modern western country. Also, we have more cool intelligence technology than the US =P)
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

Not only does your post reek of ethnocentric bias, I'd like to know where the reasoning behind this "logic"?

Agrajag

February 9th, 2006, 02:40 PM

KissBlade said:

Agrajag said:

Fate said:
I think that how this really needs to be seen as is the stone that broke the camel's back. From my (poor) american perspective, the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades -or longer- and I think that the feeling there could finally just be a substantial population who "just can't take it any longer."

I'll remind you that most americans think that Israel is such a buch of tents and camels roaming in the desert (unlike the truth - just your average modern western country. Also, we have more cool intelligence technology than the US =P)
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild".

Not only does your post reek of ethnocentric bias, I'd like to know where the reasoning behind this "logic"?

The logic behind this is:
If "ME is on fire" is reason enough for them to burn an embassy, its definitely a good enough reason to destroy all those threatning arab nations around us, whose sole desire is to see Israel wiped off the map.
But like I said, it obviously isnt a reason. And like I said, the comics and tension is just an excuse for some extremists to "blow off some steam", and burn an embassy.
Or do you really think its a good enough "reason" to burn an embassy?!

KissBlade

February 9th, 2006, 03:38 PM

You're asking two different questions here and trying to collude them into one. 1) How does that make it an excuse for them? and 2) Just because it's not a good reason, doesn't mean it isn't a reason still.

PS. I'd also hate to say it but your clearly anti arab stance is just as bad as theirs.

Vicious Love

February 9th, 2006, 04:19 PM

Double strawman! Double strawman! You're BOTH misinterpreting each other's arguments! And I love you both! Love you like my children! Furthermore, I appear to be channeling Spider Jerusalem in his "friendly/manic" mode.

Edit: For the record, I'm Israeli myself. And methinks the problem is, as with so many ill-conceived "empire of light" Dominions mods, the Search for the Good Guy. Too often we refuse to see just how bad the situation is, and so the moment one leader, or government, or unabashedly murderous military or terrorist action is found "unacceptable", we immediately assume the opposing side are the good guys. There's blood on everyone's hands, and not because it had to be done for the greater good, but because politicians were greedy, self-serving and/or hateful, and the public moronic enough to support them. Also, why does no one seem to grasp that individuals are not nations, and vice versa? Just because you aren't in the electoral majority, nor in the loudest and most violent mob, doesn't mean you're bulletproof when some nation or other decides to settle some score or other. Goddamn atavistic national anthropomorphization whatsit.

I mean, sure, executing a bunch of Kurds in cold blood is naughty. But bombing the flick out of some country so you can loot its corpse, stir up perfectly justifiable anti-pretty-much-everyone sentiment and leave its government even worse off than it was before, and having the audacity to pass that off as a humanitarian act? Not nice.
The Rape of Nanking=bad, one aspect of bad in a colossal, many-terraced continuum of bad. Nuking Hiroshima, "a military base", not all that nice either. Nor Nagasaki, for that matter. You know, Oppenheimer and company demanded that the Bomb be usedon an unoccupied island in Tokyo Bay, as a bloodless show of force. They were even polled, since the people responsible for the poll assumed they'd be in favor of nuking a few innocent civilians. When the results were contrary to what had already been decided, said poll was swept under the rug.

Getting back on topic, I'd be the first to call each and every one of these violent rioters a troglodytic waste of life. I'd also be the first to admit the Hamas are murderous scum, plain and simple. I'd also say the same about pretty much everyone in my own government who backed the Occupation. And I don't think all that highly of George Dubya, either. Say what you will about my faith in humanity, at least there's no nationalist sentiment here.

Yet another edit: Y'know, they didn't even give Japan any warning. Just the usual "surrender or be utterly pwn3d" announcement, then, bam, right on their civilians, for maximal Shock and Awe. That's just plain rude.

And another edit, for good measure: Whoa, I didn't know these boards had a profanity filter. Lemme just change that to "flick", so as not to appear to be one of those peculiar individuals who insists on using profanity, but can't bring himself to actually... well, use profanity. You know, the ones that spell it a**. I don't know what's up with those. I really should get some sleep.

Final update. Honest!: Sleep is for the weak and sickly. One rant begs another: Honestly, what's the friggin' deal with Pearl Harbor? The bombing thereof, I mean, not the actual harbor, or the movie. It was a perfectly legitimate strike against an almost entirely military target, with negligible civilian casualties. Also, by WWII standards, 2000 soldiers were also practically negligible. Does today's average American have any shade of a clue what Japan was doing in Manchuria at the time? Now that was atrocity. You know what else verged on atrocity? Staying out of World War II. When you consider that it just might have prevented Hitler remaining in power that much longer, and dispatching a few million more Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and whatnot in the process, I think there's no doubt the attack was ultimately a good thing, and would have been better had it happened sooner.

I'm still not entirely clear on why the attack is considered such a national tragedy, but I think it has to do with either:
A) It being a dishonorable sneak attack, or
B) It being a Japanese victory over the heroic, unvanquishable American navy.

I'm not sure which of the above reasons is more idiotically macho, nor which has less to do with the reality of warfare. I could expand upon the sheer stupidity that is national machismo, but I'm still too tired to be properly interminable. Hope what I already put down wa relatively coherent, and a welcome diversion from the flame war this thread was threatening to become.

Fate

February 9th, 2006, 05:09 PM

You know, i heard the so-called Japanese ambush on pearl harbour came a few hours after a diplomat arrived to declare war, but he was kept waiting so long (because of american bureaucracy) that the harbour got bombed first.

Anwyay, back on the pointless stuff. I am guessing this must be a game were the late-game spells are out-lawed, but not modded out. So then you have all these countries standing around trying to make sure no else casts the spells. AndI guess no one will play a game with North Korea again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

On the other hand, maybe (in game terms) the middle east isn't a side. maybe they are a bunch of indies with plenty of gems and everyone is checking to make sure no one else gets'm. -_^ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Agrajag

February 9th, 2006, 05:30 PM

KissBlade said:
You're asking two different questions here and trying to collude them into one. 1) How does that make it an excuse for them? and 2) Just because it's not a good reason, doesn't mean it isn't a reason still.

PS. I'd also hate to say it but your clearly anti arab stance is just as bad as theirs.

2) A bad reason is no reason at all, 1) and therefore it used as an excuse.
Understand now?
Just to take it to the extreme, I should now come to your house and murder you in your sleep because you disagree with me.
PS. Anti-Arab? I am "against" most arab nations that seem to condone terrorism rather than condem it. Is there something wrong with that? Or maybe you support terror?

Fate said:On the other hand, maybe (in game terms) the middle east isn't a side. maybe they are a bunch of indies with plenty of gems and everyone is checking to make sure no one else gets'm. -_^ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

If it isn't a side, then how can Caelum(USA) give out gems and gold to Middle Eastern countries? =P

Morkilus

February 9th, 2006, 05:56 PM

In the Artifacts game, I was unfortunate enough to witness an indie commander using the Winter Bringer against my own armies after my pretender dropped it. Sounds familiar.

Vicious Love

February 9th, 2006, 08:03 PM

Morkilus said:
In the Artifacts game, I was unfortunate enough to witness an indie commander using the Winter Bringer against my own armies after my pretender dropped it. Sounds familiar.

That's mostly the bits from that used to be in the Soviet Union, actually. Chilling stuff, that.

KissBlade

February 9th, 2006, 10:51 PM

Difference between "Terrorism" and "Freedom Fighters"? Semantics.

Also if a "bad reason" is no reason at all, then why are you calling it a "bad reason"? Makes more sense just for you to say then that those people are just using it as an excuse right? In which case, you still go back to needing ot prove how exactly is it an excuse? I'd like to state I support neither side but I don't see ANYTHING in this paragraph that differentiates your regular arab nation from the one that condones "terrorism".

"..
As for "the entire middle east has been on fire for the last four decades", if this was truly the reason, than because of exactly the same reason Israel should have wiped out all of the arab nations around, long ago. Its just an excuse for blood-thirsty people to "go wild". "

Zen

February 10th, 2006, 02:39 AM

I just wanted to throw this out. As long as this is kept in the spirit of discussion and does not degenerateinto a inferno of personal attacks and namecalling, Great. I don't see any reason to stop discussing this, unless people can't control their tolerance.

Agrajag

February 10th, 2006, 02:46 AM

KissBlade said:
Difference between "Terrorism" and "Freedom Fighters"? Semantics.

No. Its the difference between (putting it in lighter terms:) attacking civilian targets or military targets.

Also if a "bad reason" is no reason at all, then why are you calling it a "bad reason"? Makes more sense just for you to say then that those people are just using it as an excuse right? In which case, you still go back to needing ot prove how exactly is it an excuse?

You called it a bad reason, I called it an excuse.

I'd like to state I support neither side but I don't see ANYTHING in this paragraph that differentiates your regular arab nation from the one that condones "terrorism".

First of all, if you dub "Terrorism" as "Freedom Fighting", then you definitely are supporting terrorism.
Second, just tell me, which arab country openly condones terrorism and works to try and thwart it?

Gandalf Parker

February 10th, 2006, 11:47 AM

Which country has never used terrorism in the name of freedom fighting? Or even just blatant expansionism? or worse yet to try and change the government of a nation that they have no interest in ruling themselves (as the taliban do)?

But again, be careful people. You are safer making the effort to put things in dominions terms on a dominions board (as the thread started). If you dont make that effort then dont make noise if the thread goes away.

KissBlade

February 10th, 2006, 12:00 PM

Actually I don't know any arabic countries that openly condones terrorism so I'm not even sure which ones you're referring to here. The only ones that I can even guess at are the ones the media CLAIMS openly condones terrorism.

As for difference between attacking civilian targets and military targets. US bombs factories and plants that they claim are producing weapons, etc. Where do you draw the line?

Second, even if I dub "terrorism" as "freedom fighting", how does that in anyway support it? I merely find it contraversial that countries would keep pointing the fingers when they're guilty of the claim themselves. INciting uprisings isn't terrorism? Supporting a renegade military force to overthrow a government isn't terrorism? How does those actions not harm civilians, albeit even MORE so. One hundred or so civilians dies to a bomb (I'm being generous with the numbers here), THOUSANDS dies during an uprising.

And second, may I point out, I called it simply a reason. I am not choosing to sway it into the ambigious area of "good" or "bad". YOU were the one who first dubbed it officially as a "bad" reason. Not I.

Thank you,

Cainehill

February 10th, 2006, 12:01 PM

Agrajag said:

KissBlade said:
Difference between "Terrorism" and "Freedom Fighters"? Semantics.

No. Its the difference between (putting it in lighter terms:) attacking civilian targets or military targets.

No it isn't - as KissBlade said, these days it's semantics. When the USS Cole was attacked via suicide bombing off the coast of Yemen, the US Government (and a good chunk of the military) declared it an act of terrorism, despite the fact that the Cole was a military target (a destroyer).

Myself (former Marine) and some of the military I worked with disagreed with calling it terrorism - after all, suicide bombing has essentially been a part of warfare for at least 150 years - attempts with manned torpedos in the USA's "Civil War" (talk about semantics, look at the difference between what southerners call that war and what the rest of the country does, or the different names the British and Americans have for the "Revolution/War of Independence" of 1776), with explosive laden pinnaces (small boats) no doubt going back further.

Similarly - mortar attacks on US military camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism. Improvised explosive devices targetting military convoys? Terrorism. Troops not being given the armor they need and should have - terrorism. Whoops - sorry, that's our government / military screwing the troops and getting them killed, not terrorism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Point being - tactics the USA (and many other nations) have used in "legitimate" wars like WW1 and WW2 are now being called "terrorism" as a matter of politics and semantics.

The lines do get fuzzy sometimes - even against military targets, some actions might well be considered terrorism. Poisoning the food the troops are being served, or blowing up a bar full of off-duty troops (as per El Salvador). (Unless it's Halliburton poisoning the troops by serving them rotting vegetables and spoiled meat in order to increase profits - obviously this isn't terrorism.)

In Dominions terms : we have military suicide bombings, the amulet that blows up. And we have terrorism, Bane Venom charms used to poison the general population. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Morkilus

February 10th, 2006, 01:46 PM

now THIS is terrorism.

CoW Wiki (http://yarnspinners.improbable.org/Wyrms/index.php?title=Harvester&PHPSESSID=908f0bf3f588d5 4c2566e813d7a5b067)

Agrajag

February 10th, 2006, 04:53 PM

KissBlade said:
Actually I don't know any arabic countries that openly condones terrorism so I'm not even sure which ones you're referring to here. The only ones that I can even guess at are the ones the media CLAIMS openly condones terrorism.

Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?
Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)

As for difference between attacking civilian targets and military targets. US bombs factories and plants that they claim are producing weapons, etc. Where do you draw the line?

I'd say right there is where I draw the line. Destroying military resources (IE Factories) is borderline. Exploding in a bus and killing many civilians, is definitely terrorism.

Second, even if I dub "terrorism" as "freedom fighting", how does that in anyway support it?

Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.

And second, may I point out, I called it simply a reason. I am not choosing to sway it into the ambigious area of "good" or "bad". YOU were the one who first dubbed it officially as a "bad" reason. Not I.

Fine then, if you want to argue semantics... You called it a reason, while I disagree and think its not a reason at all.
Happy now?

Cainehill said:

Agrajag said:

KissBlade said:
Difference between "Terrorism" and "Freedom Fighters"? Semantics.

No. Its the difference between (putting it in lighter terms:) attacking civilian targets or military targets.

No it isn't - as KissBlade said, these days it's semantics. When the USS Cole was attacked via suicide bombing off the coast of Yemen, the US Government (and a good chunk of the military) declared it an act of terrorism, despite the fact that the Cole was a military target (a destroyer).

Well, I don't call that an act of terrorism.

Myself (former Marine) and some of the military I worked with disagreed with calling it terrorism - after all, suicide bombing has essentially been a part of warfare for at least 150 years - attempts with manned torpedos in the USA's "Civil War" (talk about semantics, look at the difference between what southerners call that war and what the rest of the country does, or the different names the British and Americans have for the "Revolution/War of Independence" of 1776), with explosive laden pinnaces (small boats) no doubt going back further.

Like I said, I wouldn't call that terrorism, just like I wouldn't call Kamikaze terrorism. But the examples you gave are of attacking military targets anyway...

Similarly - mortar attacks on US military camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism.

Like I previously said, I wouldn't call that terrorism.

Improvised explosive devices targetting military convoys? Terrorism.

Nor that.

Troops not being given the armor they need and should have - terrorism.

Sorry, what are you refering to here? (I'm asking this seriously, I don't know about what you are talking)

Point being - tactics the USA (and many other nations) have used in "legitimate" wars like WW1 and WW2 are now being called "terrorism" as a matter of politics and semantics.

And? All you're saying is that the term is wrongly invoked as a political move.

The lines do get fuzzy sometimes - even against military targets, some actions might well be considered terrorism. Poisoning the food the troops are being served

I wouldn't call that terrorism either.

As for dominion-terms, Berserk seems like an awfuly suicidle spell. If Im not confusing spells, then Pheonix Pyre is pretty suicidale as well!

PrinzMegaherz

February 10th, 2006, 06:42 PM

KissBlade said:
Difference between "Terrorism" and "Freedom Fighters"? Semantics.

Maybe not. Terrorism takes Freedom away from the people. What are the aims of modern terrorism? To force other people to live the way you want them to.

Freedom fighting is the other way around. You fight against someone that tells you what you should do or not do. A bigger version of puberty, and certainly more bloody.

And while both things are very close, I think there is still a distinct difference.

Edit

Or, in dominion terms - it's the difference between pythium and marignon

KissBlade

February 10th, 2006, 06:55 PM

Actually, the reason I point out why people say "Freedom fighting" is that it's just a spin on the words. They essentially MEAN the exact same thing. Ask any terrorist if they actually think they're a terrorist or fighting for their beliefs. What'd you think they'll reply?

KissBlade

February 10th, 2006, 07:02 PM

Agrajag said:

KissBlade said:
Actually I don't know any arabic countries that openly condones terrorism so I'm not even sure which ones you're referring to here. The only ones that I can even guess at are the ones the media CLAIMS openly condones terrorism.

Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?
Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)

As for difference between attacking civilian targets and military targets. US bombs factories and plants that they claim are producing weapons, etc. Where do you draw the line?

I'd say right there is where I draw the line. Destroying military resources (IE Factories) is borderline. Exploding in a bus and killing many civilians, is definitely terrorism.

Second, even if I dub "terrorism" as "freedom fighting", how does that in anyway support it?

Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.

I am assuming you're not understanding what I'm saying because English isn't your primary language. Let me clarify. First off, I'm implying that BOTH are negative since they are one and the same.

Second, allow me to point out that the US has "accidentally" bombed embassies in the past. Just as factories where there were "suspected" of producing weapons were attacked. Vietnam, napalm was liberally used to attack suspected military targets destroying many many innocent lives. Yes, it was war, so how do you differentiate between a military target vs. civilian target? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Lives, are lives, that's point. The distinction between a "military" target and a "civilian" target is purely a manmade conclusion. As you've well shown.

As I've pointed out before, you explode a bus, you kill twenty civilians or so. You incite a rebellion, you kill THOUSANDS. You displace a ruler, TENS of THOUSANDS dies.

Vicious Love

February 10th, 2006, 08:09 PM

Agrajag said:
Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?

I recall more than a few, but very few of them actually meant it.

Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)

Glib. Do you know of any Western country that profits from terrorism?

Unless you're sticking with your definition of terrorism as "a deliberate military attack on a civilian target for political ends". In which case, as Cainehill said, I can think of plenty of acts of terrorism openly perpetrated by Western nations, but that's where that semantics barrier comes into play again.

Assuming that's not the case, let me just hypothesize that, had they the entire freakin' US Military at their disposal, the Hamas would never have resorted to terrorism, either. Though they might just have indirectly orchestrated terrorist actions in hostile nations, and secretly sold guns to terrorist groups. But that's another one of those things that's in the distant, nay, ancient past, and could never happen today. Nope. Nosiree Bob. Because the world's voters are wiser, and less inclined to take things at face value, nor to elect someone just because he does a passable cowboy impression.

Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.

Just because they're murdering innocents and using utterly illegitimate means, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom. Nor even that the nation or pseudonation for which they're fighting doesn't deserve its freedom.

Still, this is another one of those often meaningless terms that gets bandied about pretty much at random. Ya just don't see that many terrorists fighting for freedom these days.