In case it is warfare: actively targeting noncombatants is wrong, too.
The problem in the Israel - Palestine conflict is that it is neither official warfare between states (which has been regulated to a high degree), nor fighting between citizens of a state (which is regulated by the state's law). The fighting takes place in a legal "no man's land", leaving room for atrocities, and impunity for those who commit them.
I think you can see the parallel with the US War on Terror and the legal status of Guantanamo Bay.
Insufficient. The original claim, which I questioned, was that parents are
(1) the primary forces in stimulating fighters
(2) the fighters are suicide bombers (= certain death)
(3) it's encouragement before the act, not consent afterwards.
None of your quotes cover all 3 points.
Utter nonsense. A similar argument: Bush has willingly sent US troops to Iraq where 1000s of them died, therefore human life has no value for him, therefore he will happily let his kids be butchered if he's paid a tenner.
Wrong, as has been said earlier. Hamas wants to end the existence of the state of Israel, not extermination of all its inhabitants, let alone of all Jewish people.
On what sources do you base that? Do you really think that a Palestinian mother likes her son to blow himself to pieces? That the father tells him what target he should choose, and gives him some explosives that were left in the shed? Do you think the only role of Hamas and Hezbollah is to stand by and watch approvingly?
Yes. When someone commits a crime, it is not allowed to punish the relatives of the criminal, provided that they had no role in the crime. And if they do become the target of revenge, then they deserve support. At least, that's how it is in Europe and other civilized regions. Not sure about the US, though.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=406
For hotlaps, you can visit LFS World.
The thing with replays is that they become unusable after every incompatible patch.
For hotlaps, you can visit LFS World.
The thing with replays is that they become unusable after every incompatible patch.
My :twocents::
- List of conspiracy theories
- Study of conspiracism
- Clark's Law: Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
- List of conspiracy theories
- Study of conspiracism
- Clark's Law: Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Last edited by wsinda, .
That's merely humanitarian aid. The Israelis had (have?) the nasty habit of demolishing the house of any Palestinian involved in an attack (i.e. guy blows himself up => parents become homeless).
What keeps you from doing that? (Except the "moron" bit, perhaps.) If the pastor feels entitled to shove his truth into your face, he ought to have no problems when you do the same...
I heard they changed plans and are now routing it North, across the Pole into Canada. Phase 1 of construction is to quickly melt the ice caps, to facilitate laying the pipes. (If you thought Global Warming was a coincidence: you were wrong. :schwitz
As an inside job it was an epic fail. I mean, look what it brought them: only an invasion of Afghanistan, which is an utterly useless country, unless you dig heroin. To be able to invade Iraq, the Bush guys then had to invent WMD. Clumsy, very clumsy.
Sounds pretty scary.
However, with security concerns you should always ask what assets there are that need to be protected. I can think of two: your reputation as a racer, and your LFS license. The reputation has no economic value, but the LFS license does. Suppose someone is able to phish your OpenID identity, and use that to unlock S2. Then he can do that on a larger scale, and sell the stolen game-passwords. Or he could play LFS with a stolen license, go on a wrecking spree, and laugh at the bans that follow. That would do real damage, both to the people whose identity is stolen, and to LFS itself.
I agree that single sign-on across LFS-related websites would be nice, but I think two conditions must apply:
- The OpenID identity should not be sufficient to gain access to the sim.
- Users should be warned to keep their LFS identity separate from other OpenID-based identities they might have.
What exactly is the problem that OpenID is supposed to solve? So far I haven't seen any examples of big nuisances that can be improved with OpenID. And I can see at least one disadvantage: the LFS server becomes a single point of failure. If the server is down, then everything stops -- you can't even post a forum message to say that the server is down. Sure, the devs could create multiple servers, but who can justify the cost of that?
For now, OpenID seems to be a solution looking for a problem. (With respect to LFS, that is.)
For now, OpenID seems to be a solution looking for a problem. (With respect to LFS, that is.)
AFAIK there has never been proof that Saddam facilitated fundamentalists in any way. If there was any proof, the Bush administration would have trumpeted it loudly, to justify the invasion.
Besides, fundamentalists and worldly rulers (e.g. Saddam, Mubarak, or Assad) are uneasy allies at best, and quite often natural enemies.
Not correct. To the contrary, the Oslo accords were a change in the position of Fatah (Arafat's party), in that annihilation of Israel was removed from the party statutes. The accords comprised mutual recognition of the two states. But several PITAs were left out, including the Jewish settlements and Jerusalem. They were to be negotiated later.
The accords were supported by a small majority on both sides. IMO the accords died when Rabin was murdered, and the Israeli electorate moved to the right. There were other bouts of violence, too, like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. After that, the extremists on both sides won.
There were several periods of Muslim conquest towards the West. The first one brought the Umayyads to Northern Africa and Spain, but halted at the battle of Tours (732). The expansion that went on from 1300 until 1683 (battle of Vienna) was by a different empire, the Ottomans, and in a different region (Anatolia and the Balkan). In the centuries in between -- the "Islamic Renaissance" -- there was an equilibrium, more or less.
At least they had some legal rights. In the Christian world of that day, the "heathens" had none. To illustrate: after 1492 many Sephardic Jews fled from Spain to the Ottoman Empire.
Audiograbber works fine for me.
No, the Middle East was a cesspool of hate and oppression, perpetuated by the unconditional Western support for Israel and the need for oil. The invasion in Iraq just made it worse. A lot.
Yes, please leave Iraq, and Afghanistan too. Others will pick up the pieces. Go after the fundamentalists instead. Find out who finances them, and then refuse to buy oil from those countries. Go after the dictators. Stop selling them your weapons. Open peaceful trade, on equal terms. Let human rights and justice prevail over loyalty and economic interests. It would be nice, for a change.
FYI:
- Genital mutilation of girls is highly accepted among Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia.
- Genital mutilation of boys is highly accepted among Jews and among U.S citizens.
- Honor killings are or were highly accepted in many societies. Well-known examples from (non-Muslim) literature are "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and "Broken April" by Ismail Kadare.
This all is beside the point, BTW. We were discussing violence between religions, not the cruelty among people of the same faith.
To sum it up: you are drawing irrelevant facts into the discussion, you either fail to see the beam in Christianity's eye or you wrongly attribute cultural phenomena to Islam, and you don't get your facts right.
So because the BBC sees things differently they "don't have the balls" to tell your version of the truth? In that case I can state that you fail to see things my way because you're simply too damn scared. Can't I?
Some historians claim that in 1938 the German economy was at the brink of collapse. The Nazis saved their butt by invading and looting Czechoslovakia, which was industrialized and prosperous at the time. From there on Hitler continued fleeing forward until Europe lay in ruins.
Those leaders were more worried about the threat of communism, and considered Hitler the lesser of two evils, or possibly a useful ally. They were a bit slow to change their minds.
(The "red threat" continued to plague conservative minds, which has ensured support for the likes of Suharto, Marcos, and Pinochet. Talking about not learning from history...)
Last edited by wsinda, .
Reason : typo
Well, what can I say to that? Your assessment of the nature of Islam seems to be on par with your assessment of my nationality.
(In other words: if you turn everything by 90 degrees, you're getting close.)
Thanks for the link to FrontPageMag. Hadn't heard of them before. I still prefer The Onion as my news source, tho. They're more realistic.
I think the crusaders were clairvoyant, because they conquered Constantinople in 1204, some 250 years before the Muslims got there.
Last edited by wsinda, .
Not true. Christians have killed doctors of abortion clinics (USA), and anybody who thought socialism was a good idea (Chile, Argentina). Not that other religions are any better: Hindus have killed Muslims (India), and Shintoists and atheists killed anyone else (Japan and Germany, WW2).
Stupid generalizations? Yes, and so is yours. If you think Islam is such a violent religion, then please explain the centuries of non-bloodshed that preceded 9/11.
OK, that's easy to add. (I never knew that people were using the handbrake, except maybe in rallycross.)
My main gripe is the curbs in the chicanes. IRL taking them would damage your car, but in LFS you can take them full-throttle and gain lots of time (at the risk of taking out half the field).
Making them higher is not a good option, because FE would become too much of a stop-and-go track. Lowering the curbs is a possibility. But I prefer a change in the damage model so that you can take the curbs at most once or twice (otherwise you blow a tyre, bend the suspension, or lose a wing).
I have no problems with the curb height at the inside of turns (e.g. the 90 degree righthander in FE Club). Most of them can topple your car, which is at it should be.
Making them higher is not a good option, because FE would become too much of a stop-and-go track. Lowering the curbs is a possibility. But I prefer a change in the damage model so that you can take the curbs at most once or twice (otherwise you blow a tyre, bend the suspension, or lose a wing).
I have no problems with the curb height at the inside of turns (e.g. the 90 degree righthander in FE Club). Most of them can topple your car, which is at it should be.
Islam isn't needed to give religion a bad name. There has been plenty of cruelty committed in the name of Christianity.
On a more serious note, I think you should be very careful when attributing some act to religion, even when the actor says he did it in the name of his faith. Did the Crusaders go to war for their faith? Or were they eager for brawls, booze and babes? Probably all of the above, but it sells better if you say you're fighting in the name of your god. Religion is a handy pretext.
(And be equally critical when attributing good deeds to religion. Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa said they were religiously inspired, but others have done fantastic work without bringing up their faith. There may very well be a deeper reason, like "helping your fellow men", driving all of these people.)
@ Polyracer: Claiming to know THE TRUTH (preferably in large red capitals) and saying that folks with differing views should be "cured" has caused some of the ugliest crimes in human history.
I think the world's population is nicely balanced: one half worries about obesity, the other half worries about starvation.
Rubbish. (And, I'm tempted to add, that's what you get with a site that calls itself "The voice of Conservatism in Europe".)
There was no wedding, and no legal recognition. These 3 people went to the notary and signed a contract. This kind of contract is normally used for couples who aren't married but who need to legally arrange things like parenthood and ownership of their house. Only this time it was 1 guy and 2 girls. To them it felt like getting married, and they dressed and celebrated accordingly.
It wasn't a "civil union" as the article calls it, because that has a legal status comparable to marriage. This is just a contract between people, and I bet you can do this in most European countries.
In the Netherlands the law recognizes gay marriage, but not polygamy. Of course, it's possible to live together with multiple partners. The most famous Dutch case is the painter Anton Heyboer, who had 5 "wives".
To me it's more worrying if the state intervenes in this kind of relationship (provided that it's between consenting adults), which apparently occurs in the USA.
With Vista, you can drink coffee while it copies a 20kb file.
If yer right, them suicide bombers oughta wear a T-shirt with "Get laid, or die trying".
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG