The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Capitulation should be induced with minimal loss of life on the aggressors side, but only as long as the victim is safe.
EXACTLY
This is what distinguishes conventional warfare, especially AMERICAN conventional warfare, from terrorism. We make an ACTIVE EFFORT to minimize loss of life, we spend enormous amounts of money on precision weapons, we have shaped our ENTIRE MILITARY STRATEGY around precision strikes. The terrorists, however, try to cause AS MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN. And there IS a distinction between civilian and military targets - do you think many, or ANY of the people in the World Trade Center were providing services to the US military?
Skywalker, you have illustrated another crucial factor in the terrorism verse conventional discussion considering the US and other powers that have been subject to terrorism have enormous amounts of money to spend on precision weapons, air power, manpower, etc... To the point where it is IMPOSSIBLE for any smaller organization to combat it in a traditional sense.
This would be fine if stronger powers harmed no one and created no situations worth struggling against but that is not the case.
However, they DELIBERATELY target civilians. For terrorists, it is not an accident if civilians die. For America, it is. They are CHOOSING to kill innocents, and that is wrong!
Terrorism is not warfare, its a criminal activity. The effect of 9-11 was not that we in the US were weakened. We were angered, and now two governments have paid the price by being removed. Taking out governments is the product of a successful war. Terrorism will never accomplish that.
Terrorism doesn't accomplish any of the goals it sets. It doesn't change policy. In fact, it hardens the policy of those who are attacked to against the terrorists. I don't understand terrorism, it doesn't seem to work at all. It seems only to foment hate and revenge and in the end those who perpetrate these acts suffer the consequences.
I'm not specifically talking about America or WTC, but terrorism in general. Targetting civilians is wrong, but so are alot of things that governments do to oppress citizens. Restricting of rights, racist policies, ethnic cleansing(not only the mass murder kind but the systematic removal of an ethnic group from a locale) and such. All these things are wrong and I don't think by stepping over some invisible line like deliberately targetting civillians you should immediately be considered more evil and what you're fighting for discredited.
Originally posted by Frogman
Terrorism is not warfare, its a criminal activity. The effect of 9-11 was not that we in the US were weakened. We were angered, and now two governments have paid the price by being removed. Taking out governments is the product of a successful war. Terrorism will never accomplish that.
Terrorism doesn't accomplish any of the goals it sets. It doesn't change policy. In fact, it hardens the policy of those who are attacked to against the terrorists. I don't understand terrorism, it doesn't seem to work at all. It seems only to foment hate and revenge and in the end those who perpetrate these acts suffer the consequences.
I would disagree, the point is that terrorism does not achieve goals in the same way as conventional warfare goals have been laid out. The aim isn't to bring down governments, conquer land or defeat militaries. Its usually to focus international attention on the issue that is being fought over. It also expects and sometimes hopes for a brutal response that can gain the attention of international critics and critics within the home government. How much is a government willing to do before it changes its policies? Its a game of chicken.
A really good movie, and not to swayed to either side, is the Battle of Algiers. Its about a terrorist campaign in Algiers, the French were incredibly successful(and pretty brutal) in putting it down, a real victory. Yet they had gained international criticism and stronger discontent at home with the French presence in Algeria. A few years later France pulled out of Algeria. Right-wing people who comment on the resistance in Algeirs talk about how it failed, the French military was doing quite well against the resistance before it pulled out, but they failed to realize that the aims were not only military, but political and the troubles had a great effect on the politics and citizens of France.
Originally posted by gsmoove23
I'm sorry, but I'm really curious what this passage means, could I have a translation.
passage, by definition of Oxford dictionary means:
process or means of passing; transit. 2 passageway. 3 right to pass through. 4 journey by sea or air. 5 transition from one state to another. 6 short part of book or piece of music etc. 7 duct etc. in body.
But if you ask what means, BDSM then. It's an abreviation of bondage, dominance, sadism, masochism.
If you'd be more curious you are out of luck, because this forum isn't for deep discussion of this topic.
While my previous post could look as it has nearly nothing to do with this topic, I could be excused by argument that I seen photos.
Why should I be responsible for the mistakes of other people?
Who says it was a mistake? Perhaps your definition is a mistake (it probably is).
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
The thing with terrorism is that when push comes to shove two can play that game. When you start targetting someone's civilians you have to seriously consider to what extent you can tolerate someone paying you back in kind.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Originally posted by Alvaro
"
The US Army uses 5.56mm ammo which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention due to the nature of the impact (likely to hurt/kill more than one person with a single round).
Originally posted by Odin
Terrorism against millitary and government stuctures, and government officials is legitimite, targeting civilians intentionally is not.
not a single form , wheter its against military or civilian targets is legitimate , .....
Originally posted by Alvaro
The US Army uses 5.56mm ammo which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention due to the nature of the impact (likely to hurt/kill more than one person with a single round).
That's not quite true. The 5.56 round used in the M-16 is designed to tumble when it penetrates a body, imparting a great deal of its energy and ripping up a lot of tissue. Its predecessor, the 30.06 round was designed to rip straight through. Consequently the 30.06 will have much more energy remaining after passing through someone's body and will be much more likely to have enough energy to harm someone else. The Geneva convention banned ammo designed to especially to cause extra tissue damage. AT the time of the convention this included primarily hollow point and dum-dum ammo, both of which are designed to fragment on impact. The M-16 round might be considered banned becauise it too causes a disproportionate amount of internal damage due to the tendency to tumble that I mentioned above.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Comment