Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Thoughts on American terrorism.

2

Comments

  • XavonXavon Member Posts: 334

    Having now played both games for about a month each hers my opinion:

    EQ 2, simply, isn't a particualarly good game, a decent example of an MMORPG maybe, but it's js not that fun. It's as if they've tried to create an 'interactive movie', but the game just ends up feeling clunky and clumsy in many places.

    WoW is the first MMO I've played where I've felt, if the game were Offline only, it would still be a great game. The games content is exelent, the small amounts of Prachett-esque humour, the graphical style, the quest system and the classes all fit together perfectly. Altohugh, after a month, I can't see the game lasting as long as any Old-Skool MMO, while it lasts I can see nothing but good times ahead.

  • KiamdeKiamde Member CommonPosts: 5,820


    Originally posted by Xavon
    Having now played both games for about a month each hers my opinion:EQ 2, simply, isn't a particualarly good game, a decent example of an MMORPG maybe, but it's js not that fun. It's as if they've tried to create an 'interactive movie', but the game just ends up feeling clunky and clumsy in many places.WoW is the first MMO I've played where I've felt, if the game were Offline only, it would still be a great game. The games content is exelent, the small amounts of Prachett-esque humour, the graphical style, the quest system and the classes all fit together perfectly. Altohugh, after a month, I can't see the game lasting as long as any Old-Skool MMO, while it lasts I can see nothing but good times ahead.


    Hmm. A little off topic here.

    "Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"

    "When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman

  • DregaDrega Member Posts: 225



    Originally posted by Xavon

    Having now played both games for about a month each hers my opinion:
    EQ 2, simply, isn't a particualarly good game, a decent example of an MMORPG maybe, but it's js not that fun. It's as if they've tried to create an 'interactive movie', but the game just ends up feeling clunky and clumsy in many places.
    WoW is the first MMO I've played where I've felt, if the game were Offline only, it would still be a great game. The games content is exelent, the small amounts of Prachett-esque humour, the graphical style, the quest system and the classes all fit together perfectly. Altohugh, after a month, I can't see the game lasting as long as any Old-Skool MMO, while it lasts I can see nothing but good times ahead.



    I thought we were discussing the pros and cons of SWG and MxO?

    image
    This place is full of tree-huggers and tofu fartn' faeries...

  • DekronDekron Member UncommonPosts: 7,359



    Originally posted by Drega

    well 51% yes if you count all the dead people who voted for him.



    hehe so true.
  • AldaronAldaron Member Posts: 1,048

    "Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."

  • AldaronAldaron Member Posts: 1,048



    Originally posted by Vercades

    http://img132.exs.cx/img132/8472/americasworld5ji.gif
    lol



    lol. That was great.

    "Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."

  • DekronDekron Member UncommonPosts: 7,359

    And this is who people decided to elect:

    http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=156030

  • DregaDrega Member Posts: 225



    Originally posted by dekron

    And this is who people decided to elect:
    http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=156030



    yea...*sigh* yea...I wonder if I can still move to mexico..?

    image
    This place is full of tree-huggers and tofu fartn' faeries...

  • NihilanthNihilanth Member Posts: 1,357


    Originally posted by dekron
    And this is who people decided to elect:
    http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=156030

    *bangs head on desk*

    i still don't understand how anyone could vote for him, with stuff like that and his "sovereignty" speech....
    http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov

    i for one don't support the war. i didnt agree with what sadaam hussein was doing to his people, but i dont think that america has to be the world police and go around fixing everyone else's problems...especially not without more support from the rest of the world.

    Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
    Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
    XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239

    .... i wouldnt trust the UN to do its job.

    anyone who says u cant do anything without the permission of the UN obviously doesnt let its history affect their judgement,

    lets look at the facts after WWI ended in 1918 and the Guineva Convention was signed.

    and a seperate convention banning Germany from making weapons again. They simple ignored the situation even thought even the militia defense forces in the area were more then enought to desotry the infant nazi army.

    then when he started jailing political canadates and his persecution of the jews even before WWII. They did nothing.

    They also let stalin rise to power, and ignored his killing of more then 20-30million people. Combine that with the Criminal Neglicence of the UN in that minor case that couldnt possible hurt anyone called hitler.

    and the UN is criminall negligent for over 50 million deaths.

    Btw. if the US doesnt stand up for those two week to fight for themselves who will?

     

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • digitydarkmandigitydarkman Member Posts: 2,194


    Originally posted by Krang
    Why do American's think it's okay to fight terrorists, but not stop being the largest terrorist organisation on Earth?
    Definition:
    terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances.

    why dont you leave the US, then ill understand your argument

  • DregaDrega Member Posts: 225



    Originally posted by Vampyr

    .... i wouldnt trust the UN to do its job.
    anyone who says u cant do anything without the permission of the UN obviously doesnt let its history affect their judgement,
    lets look at the facts after WWI ended in 1918 and the Guineva Convention was signed.
    and a seperate convention banning Germany from making weapons again. They simple ignored the situation even thought even the militia defense forces in the area were more then enought to desotry the infant nazi army.
    then when he started jailing political canadates and his persecution of the jews even before WWII. They did nothing.
    They also let stalin rise to power, and ignored his killing of more then 20-30million people. Combine that with the Criminal Neglicence of the UN in that minor case that couldnt possible hurt anyone called hitler.
    and the UN is criminall negligent for over 50 million deaths.
    Btw. if the US doesnt stand up for those two week to fight for themselves who will?
     



    Um...ok...the UN was founded in 1945 after wwII. And, if the versi treaty was simply a weapons ban hitler never would have been able to rise to power. The versi treaty in essensce allowed france to gouge the german people into a pathetic state of poverity, leading to a semi civil war between the army, govermnent and radical factions.

    Now stalin, Stalin was in power long before the UN was even a concept and died only 8 years after is creation. If you add into the amount of money, lives lost, and strain of nearly 6 years of war. Its easy to see why people were hesitent to go after a nation riding on a very high power trip like russia. Also, Russia was one of the founding members, if they really wanted the UN to last, why would they start a war within the party right after its creation.

    And Im sorry to burst your bubble but the US is not the strongest military power in the world, it barely had a military before and and during the beginning of ww1 and ww2 (it disbanded a large portion of the army following ww1 and repeated again during ww2). Only after korea did the US really start to build a military as we know it today.

    image
    This place is full of tree-huggers and tofu fartn' faeries...

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239

    The league of NAtions is the exact same people as the UN with the exact same structure. 99% of historians agree on this subject.

    and the treaty of versi indeed it wouldnt have foribid hitlers rise to power in germany but it would have stopped his rise to power in europe. by not letting him have a miltiary.

    and even so one of the original mandates of the UN and the league of nations before it was to stop atrocities and human rights violations.

    but lets admit the fact that Saddam was a human rights violation and the UN never lifted a real finger to stop him.

    Even if you disagree on how bad it was then. now it is decadent fat and alzy. and has no sense of morals.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • CopelandCopeland Member Posts: 1,955


    Originally posted by digitydarkman
    Originally posted by Krang
    Why do American's think it's okay to fight terrorists, but not stop being the largest terrorist organisation on Earth?
    Definition:
    terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances.

    why dont you leave the US, then ill understand your argument


    Because the great thing about the united states is you have a right to have an opinion and speak your mind freely without persecution.. or did you forget?

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239



    Originally posted by Copeland




    Originally posted by digitydarkman



    Originally posted by Krang
    Why do American's think it's okay to fight terrorists, but not stop being the largest terrorist organisation on Earth?
    Definition:
    terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances.


    why dont you leave the US, then ill understand your argument


    Because the great thing about the united states is you have a right to have an opinion and speak your mind freely without persecution.. or did you forget?


    i think we need to re evaluate what you think he meant. He meant if its so bad and u bitch constantly stop bitching and do something about it. and the do something about it he is suggesting is leaving.

    anyway i think they need to add an amendment to the bill of rights about surveilance 99/100 places you go to have surveilance cameras. their is no privacy anymore.

    i want privacy added to the bill of rights.

    mind you europe especially england has 10 times as many cameras per square mile. but i think that we seriously need to stop bitching about the war, bush and things like that.

    AND GET OUR GOD DAMN PRIVACY BACK.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • NaosNaos Member Posts: 379

    *crickets*


    ::::04:: man its 05:07 here, too much coffee me thinks

    Does tea keep you awake? I hate tea..


  • DregaDrega Member Posts: 225

    Ok whats the difference between the LOA and UN, first no military trump card or cohisive force. It didnt have a structured charter, not all the nations who fought in ww1 joined (US for example). The LOA was mainly a jury of nations set up to defuse future conflicts between countries in a civilised manner. The LOA had no way to control frances insistance that the German people pay for the damage done by the war.  And if you consider that the four perminent council members (UK, france, italy, and japan) all of which still had dreams of rebuilding their former empires. It was doomed for fail.

    The versi treaty basicly banned all german development. Germany was forced into a debt it could never repair (primarly by france). By the time hitler became a powerful figure in the world stage, Mein Kampf being his launch pad to being a public figure. Most of the people were desperate for some sort of leadership that could atleast put food on their table. Which hitler did slowly but surely. by 1933 when he was elected the LOA has no power or any ability to stop him from developing weapons and his military. Now you add into the fact that you have an entire generation raised under the treaty of versi, who have a deep and unfortunetly justified hatred of the majority of europe. It wasnt hard for him to lead them into doing almost anything he wanted.

    And though saddam was a humans rights violater, he is far from the wrose that was in power and still is in power, and one of the least dangerous.

    image
    This place is full of tree-huggers and tofu fartn' faeries...

  • Bama1267Bama1267 Member UncommonPosts: 1,822



    Originally posted by Krang

    Why do American's think it's okay to fight terrorists, but not stop being the largest terrorist organisation on Earth?
    Definition:
    terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances.



     This is probably one of the most unintelligent post Ive seen in a while. Only to be topped by your 2nd post.

     

     Not much else to say besides that. If you could post intelligently, maybe you could get a more intelligent response. But I dont think that was the purpose here was it?

     

     

     

    ......Go play some games and get off the hate wagon you fool.

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239

    saddam was selected as a target for these reasons

    he is deserving of one.

    He is a easy target.

    and it sets a warning to kim jon Il, and the leaders of Syria, Iran, and saudi arabia.

    they know if they dont clean up their act bush will do all he can to get them.

    so i think bush has madea  huge leap in human rights.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • NaosNaos Member Posts: 379


    Originally posted by Drega
    And though saddam was a humans rights violater, he is far from the wrose that was in power and still is in power, and one of the least dangerous.

    Erm no.. he WAS one of the worst and he seemed pretty goddam dangerous to Iran,Kuwait,Saudi,Jordan,Israel,the Kurds,The Marsh Arabs and any Iraqi he or his family of nutters and henchmen didnt like.. and he nerve gassed men women and babies!

    But your meaning he wasnt dangerous to you.. yet, so he was an ok guy eh?


  • claithclaith Member Posts: 86
    lmao,We don't terrorize ,we just kill pieces of shit,cry me a river,hahahahahahahahahaha
  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239



    Originally posted by Naos




    Originally posted by Drega
    And though saddam was a humans rights violater, he is far from the wrose that was in power and still is in power, and one of the least dangerous.

    Erm no.. he WAS one of the worst and he seemed pretty goddam dangerous to Iran,Kuwait,Saudi,Jordan,Israel,the Kurds,The Marsh Arabs and any Iraqi he or his family of nutters and henchmen didnt like.. and he nerve gassed men women and babies!

    But your meaning he wasnt dangerous to you.. yet, so he was an ok guy eh?




    no he wasnt by far one of the worst hes just the only one stupid enough to get caught.

    Kim Jon il gets away with just as bad the only difference is he locks up the country and doesnt hit others so no one really cares.

    the same can be said about some middle eastern nations like saudi arabia, and syria.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • DregaDrega Member Posts: 225



    Originally posted by Vampyr

    saddam was selected as a target for these reasons
    he is deserving of one.
    He is a easy target.
    and it sets a warning to kim jon Il, and the leaders of Syria, Iran, and saudi arabia.
    they know if they dont clean up their act bush will do all he can to get them.
    so i think bush has madea  huge leap in human rights.




    Your right it did send a message to Kim, build up a real arsenal of WMDs and you have a better barganing chip. Which he is doing. He knows the US military will win a straight up fight with his country, all he has to do is look at his father for this. during the 1970s Kim il-sung was summoned to a UN conference, he called in sick. In reality the USs seal team walked into his palace and kidnapped him and told him to be a good lil boy.

    the Saudi royal family is under CIA protection, we dont need to send them a message, which is why they were part of the famous "Axis of evil". Iran is a country ruled by people who cant wait to get to god and hate us very much.

    Saddam was an easy target because we already controlled 2/3 of his country before we even started planing the invasion.

    Naos;

    And if you truely believe saddams military, if you can call whatever that was I fought threw in iraq, was a threat to the his neighors you need a serious reality check.

    image
    This place is full of tree-huggers and tofu fartn' faeries...

  • NaosNaos Member Posts: 379


    Originally posted by Vampyr
    Originally posted by Naos Originally posted by DregaAnd though saddam was a humans rights violater, he is far from the wrose that was in power and still is in power, and one of the least dangerous.Erm no.. he WAS one of the worst and he seemed pretty goddam dangerous to Iran,Kuwait,Saudi,Jordan,Israel,the Kurds,The Marsh Arabs and any Iraqi he or his family of nutters and henchmen didnt like.. and he nerve gassed men women and babies!
    But your meaning he wasnt dangerous to you.. yet, so he was an ok guy eh?
    no he wasnt by far one of the worst hes just the only one stupid enough to get caught.
    Kim Jon il gets away with just as bad the only difference is he locks up the country and doesnt hit others so no one really cares.
    the same can be said about some middle eastern nations like saudi arabia, and syria.

    North Korea, Syria and even Saudi are *****rs I agree, but not on the scale of Saddam.

    Interesting list though ::::02:: and we could add more but the winner of #1 (wanna mess as big as Adolf) Psyco who got what was coming to him (long overdue thanks for sweet FA again UN..12yrs!! ffs?) goes to Maddass er.. Saddam

This discussion has been closed.