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
Obviously transportation sites are infrastructure. But to me "laying waste Lebanons infrastructure" implies a deliberate attempt to ruin Lebanons economy.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
You're half right. It's either seriously stupid or stupidly serious. It's clear that Israel has no real plan beyond the painfully unrealistic idea of reigniting the Lebanese civil war. The Lebanese Army (which is mostly Shia) is simply not going to do Israel's dirty work.
If Lebanon cant control its own territory, then it and the international community must allow Israel to protect itself as it must. Im not as pessimistic about what Lebanon can do, with international support, and if Hezbollah is cut off from its outside support. But IF Lebanons sovereignty is going to be invoked against Israel, Lebanon must assert that sovereignty.
Quite a peculiar view you've got there. Normal countries would start off with a bit of sabre-rattling, demands, diplomacy etc. War as a last resort.
What do you think has been going on for six years, since Israel withdrew from Lebanon? And especially since UNSC 1559 was passed? Plenty of demands, diplomacy, and saber rattling. The kidnapping wasnt the first act of war by Hezbollah. It WAS an attempt by Hezbollah to show it could strike with impunity, while Israel was distracted. It was important for Israel to show it could strike back EVEN while still engaged in Gaza.
Also, since its a kidnapping, it was imperative to strike while they still had some idea where the kidnap victims are.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Israel Defense Forces said Tuesday that Hezbollah was smuggling weapons
from Syria but added it did not regard Syria as a target for attack.
"In the last few days, the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon has continued," Major-General Gadi Eizenkot of the Israeli army command told a news conference.
"We don't see Syria or the Lebanese army as a target but at the same time we see the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon to be used in attacks against Israeli civilians."
Eizenkot said two trucks carrying weapons that had entered Lebanon from Syria had been destroyed by Israeli air craft on Lebanese territory.
The IDF has said it was a Syrian rocket that killed eight Israelis in the northern city of Haifa on Sunday.
Hezbollah claimed responsibility for that attack.
"The (army) is using enormous force against Hezbollah and we have hurt it...but the organisation has many more rockets," Eizenkot said.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by VetLegion
And the US supports Israel because?
We have half the world's Jews. That's a large part of it. There's also the fact that Israel is a lone [liberal] democracy in a sea of dictatorships, theocracies, and semi-democracies.
More recently, images of Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 didn't help - not that were weren't strongly pro-Israeli before.
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Technically, I guess one guy killing one guy could be characterized as genocide, but even if not, it's not something that breaks the principle, and the principle is: the intent to destroy the group is what counts, not how many of it you manage to kill.
I think "intent" also includes a planning component, spontaneous genocide is thus probably impossible.
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Theyre being quite serious, and not at all stupid. I dont have detailed info on how the Lebanese soldiers were killed.
I read in the WaPo today that it was in an attack on the radar installation used for the missile attack on the Israeli warship.
VetLegion, these definitions are always kinda debatable (or rather their use). In praxis there will be a certain interpretation when something should be called a genocide (by prominent political sides, US, UN, human rights orgs or whoever is important enough to bring his view through) which then get's either accepted or not - I think nobody would in praxis label the murdering of a single human as genocide.
For example nobody calls the WTC attacks "genocide" despite it was certainly aimed at a group (americans) and intendet to destroy them "in part" (kill as many infidels as possible). The definition isn't clear at all at this point, because that's all "killing members of a group". Otoh I fully understand that because you can't define genocide only as total extermination of a group (that would be stupid as well, meaning nothing would be genocide unless you really kill the whole group/people/whatever).
Of course, the definition is broad intentionally - so that powers that be can use it as they want.
I don't pretend to be an expert on it, I have merely looked it up some time back in relation to Hague tribunal on ex-Yugoslavia. Those responsible for ~6000 deaths in Srebrenica have been accused of genocide.
In this thread someone wrote that Israel killed ~200 Lebanese civilians, Echty (sarcastically?) replied "oh, no, genocide" and I replied that genocide is not about the numbers but about the intention.
The "in whole or in part" part of the definition takes care of that. You don't have to kill them all in order for it to be genocide.
You have to kill them specifically in order to reduce their number, I think that's the strongest requirement. If you kill them accidentally, or because they were in the way, or they pissed you off or for myriad other reasons, it's not genocide, though it might be some other war crime. I'll withdraw from the discussion now, I'm really not very knowledgeable about this.
Tweet
Comment