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
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How do West Bank palistinians differ from Gaza palistinians?
Anyway, this is the point. Is the PLO a good thing? Didn't they do the German Olympics? I really don't know what their history since then is so please enlighten me.
Decades ago. That's kinda like saying, "Hey, didn't Menachem Begin blow up the King David Hotel back in the days when he was a terrorist."
If you're looking for saints, you won't find them anywhere in the Holy Land.
Well most of them come form different tribal families, and even those who left Israel came from different areas of Israel. A very large population of the west bank is rural, which is not so in Gaza.
Gaza has been under egyptian cultural influence, especially relevant is the influence of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The West Bank has been under jordanian influence, and the much more moderate Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood.
Decades ago. That's kinda like saying, "Hey, didn't Menachem Begin blow up the King David Hotel back in the days when he was a terrorist."
The King David Hotel was a central command post of the British Mandate at the time.
The King David Hotel bombing was an attack by the right-wing Zionist underground movement, the Irgun [1] [2], on the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan, which were located at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[3] The attack, carried out on 22 July 1946, was the deadliest directed against the British during the Mandate era (1920-1948).
Mostly disguised in Arab costume, Irgunists planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and part of the British military headquarters. Telephoned warnings were sent to the switchboard by the hotel's main lobby, the Palestine Post newspaper, and the French consulate.
The building contained the British military command and their Criminal Investigation Division.[7] Security analyst Bruce Hoffman has written that the "Hotel housed the nerve centre of British rule in Palestine".[8] Specifically, the Irgun aimed at destroying the southern wing of the hotel, which housed the Mandate's intelligence records about Irgun, the Hagana, Lehi, and other Jewish paramilitary groups.[6]
How is that comparable with slaughtering civilians at a sports event?
Terrorism is terrorism; designed to instill fear and freeze your opponent. Technically, the athletes were members of the Israeli Army as were the coaches per the public funding process of the time. Nothing excuses 1972, but Zkrib's point seems to be that the current Fatah contains few people who had anything to do with that and old terrorists do reincorporate over time in some cases.
No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
"I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author
Terrorism is terrorism; designed to instill fear and freeze your opponent.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT wrong.
Terrorism is violence targetted at civilians designed to instill fear in civilian population.
Targetting a military command post falls under legitimate resistance (aka guerilla), even when Hamas / Fatah does it. Sadly, Hamas prefers to target innocent civilians 9 times out of 10.
Technically, the athletes were members of the Israeli Army as were the coaches per the public funding process of the time.
Do you have a shred of evidence to back up they were enlisted or are you running your mouth in hope to be correct?
Nothing excuses 1972, but Zkrib's point seems to be that the current Fatah contains few people who had anything to do with that and old terrorists do reincorporate over time in some cases.
Neither you nor Zkrib probably could name 3 people from the current Fatah without google, so I doubt this is his point.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Not much chance that Faah wants a two-state solution if Fatah accuses the Israelis of breeding and spreading giant rats through East Jerusalem to drive out Arabs
Why would Israelis need to breed rats for that purpose, when they can simply evict Pals via bulldozer? Silly Fatah propogandists!
The extremists - both sides - do not want peace, they want victory. The question is whether you can do it in spite of them.
Terrorism is violence targetted at civilians designed to instill fear in civilian population.
Targetting a military command post falls under legitimate resistance (aka guerilla)
What a pointless discussion. When is there ever legitimate resistance? In the end it usually depends on the eye of the beholder. Some will call them freedom fighters, others will call them terrorists.
That terrorism is violence target targetted at civilians is not necessarily true. Terrorism is better described as disrupting a society by means of violence with political motives. Instilling fear and chaos can be done in many ways. Planting bombs, even at a military facility, is terrorism just the same.
And besides, there have been recorded massacres of civilians on both sides, so your argument here detracts from the real discussion anyway.
"An archaeologist is the best husband a women can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her." - Agatha Christie
"Non mortem timemus, sed cogitationem mortis." - Seneca
What a pointless discussion. When is there ever legitimate resistance? In the end it usually depends on the eye of the beholder. Some will call them freedom fighters, others will call them terrorists.
Only an idiot would be honestly confused between the term freedom fighter and terrorist. "Freedom fighter" describes motivation. "Terrorist" describes the means to achieve such motivation. Those are two different things, and its a shame slimy politicians erase that difference, and its a double shame people repeat comments made by 2 cent political commentators on TV.
I expected it to be obvious that when I said 'legitimate' I meant legitimate tactics, and not legitimate goals. Obviously I don't agree with Hamas goals.
The main difference is, that attacking military and government outposts and figures is fair game according to accepted rules of war, and is in fact the legal way to fight off an occupation. Intentionally attacking civilians, on the other hand, is illegal.
That terrorism is violence target targetted at civilians is not necessarily true.
false.
Terrorism is better described as disrupting a society by means of violence with political motives.
interesting. the vietnam fiasco disrupted american society and it had plenty of political motives on both sides. were the vietnamese terrorists?
risking godwinizing this thread - were the nazis terrorists? were the allies? lots of political motives and society disruption going on there.
Instilling fear and chaos can be done in many ways. Planting bombs, even at a military facility, is terrorism just the same.
So WWII resistance fighters who blew up bridges and supplies are terrorists? really? that's a slippery slope. And a dumb one too. If you throw away important moral distinction you throw away any ability to make a coherent discussion.
And besides, there have been recorded massacres of civilians on both sides, so your argument here detracts from the real discussion anyway
I was correcting Zkrib on actual details of a historic event, as well as correcting his understanding of accepted terms in military ethics.
I've read more than one book on the subject and don't merely repeat cheesy CNN commentator catch phrases, about the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Anyone who has real trouble distinguishing clear cut terrorism from guerilla, lacks moral fiber and a backbone.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Only an idiot would be honestly confused between the term freedom fighter and terrorist. "Freedom fighter" describes motivation. "Terrorist" describes the means to achieve such motivation. Those are two different things, and its a shame slimy politicians erase that difference, and its a double shame people repeat comments made by 2 cent political commentators on TV.
I expected it to be obvious that when I said 'legitimate' I meant legitimate tactics, and not legitimate goals. Obviously I don't agree with Hamas goals.
The main difference is, that attacking military and government outposts and figures is fair game according to accepted rules of war, and is in fact the legal way to fight off an occupation. Intentionally attacking civilians, on the other hand, is illegal.
false.
interesting. the vietnam fiasco disrupted american society and it had plenty of political motives on both sides. were the vietnamese terrorists?
risking godwinizing this thread - were the nazis terrorists? were the allies? lots of political motives and society disruption going on there.
So WWII resistance fighters who blew up bridges and supplies are terrorists? really? that's a slippery slope. And a dumb one too. If you throw away important moral distinction you throw away any ability to make a coherent discussion.
I was correcting Zkrib on actual details of a historic event, as well as correcting his understanding of accepted terms in military ethics.
I've read more than one book on the subject and don't merely repeat cheesy CNN commentator catch phrases, about the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Anyone who has real trouble distinguishing clear cut terrorism from guerilla, lacks moral fiber and a backbone.
Don't worry, I don't watch crappy US 24/7 TV networks because first of all I don't have a TV and secondly they can hardly be described as reliable news sources.
In fact I think you're the one out there on the slippery slope. Bringing in morality raises all sorts of questions. How for example is destabilizing a country by means of bomb assaults any less 'terrorist' than the oppression, not only politically but especially territorially and economically.
I contend you could make a case for either side. Should you want to narrow down the discussion to the catchphrase 'But they're killing innocent Jews' then you're missing the bigger picture.
You know, I would bet you that the Vietnamese didn't think the American invasion in Vietnam was legitimate, but so what? Neither are Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli occupation. Neither side plays it by the books, so it's pointless to address the issues with 'morality'.
I'm in a bit of pessimistic mood right now, but still, my 2 cents.
"An archaeologist is the best husband a women can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her." - Agatha Christie
"Non mortem timemus, sed cogitationem mortis." - Seneca
In fact I think you're the one out there on the slippery slope. Bringing in morality raises all sorts of questions. How for example is destabilizing a country by means of bomb assaults any less 'terrorist' than the oppression, not only politically but especially territorially and economically.
Well anything is terrorist then and discussion is over. welcome to the wonderful world of post modernism and ethical relativism.
Terrorism is a definition invented to describe those who target innocent civilians using guerilla tactics. Any other action is called using different names. The whole "anything that is wrong in this is terrorism" slope is dumb.
The fact that aerial bomb assaults also kill people and destabilize countries does not make it equal to terrorism, much in the same way that while a gun and a heart attack kill people, they aren't the same thing.
It's useful having different words for different things. Helps you discuss ideas and especially useful for categorizing them and comparing them. Words
I contend you could make a case for either side. Should you want to narrow down the discussion to the catchphrase 'But they're killing innocent Jews' then you're missing the bigger picture.
I haven't mentioned that catchphrase at all, nor have I specifically mentioned Jews outside of discussing a specific event which Zkrib first mentioned. Thanks for playing
You know, I would bet you that the Vietnamese didn't think the American invasion in Vietnam was legitimate, but so what? Neither are Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli occupation. Neither side plays it by the books, so it's pointless to address the issues with 'morality'.
You are constantly proving yourself ignorant of 'the books' you point to.
You're welcome to open a book about ethics questions in warfare educate yourself. It has an ancient and interesting history. It resulted in several international conventions. They certainly judge certain things to be moral or immoral, despite the fact war kills people and is 'bad'.
Your arrogance is revolting, there's no need for sarcasm or insults here. So quit it thank you very much.
Anyway, let's check the meaning of the word terrorism in a dictionary
ter⋅ror⋅ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
or Merriam-Webster's version
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective
Well, my definition is more in tune than yours I believe.
By the way, I never referred to aerial bomb assaults, but rather to the occupation and economic strangulation of the Palestinian territory. There exists state terrorism, and there exists rebel terrorism, and each uses violence and fear according to its own resources and position.
In referring to that catchphrase I never said you mentioned it literally, but I boiled it down to that idea. Your juggling with words -and terrorism in particular- revolves around that catchphrase, in that Israel is without blame and is merely defending its innocent citizens against a cruel and barbarous enemy. That's just intellectual dishonesty. The same applies to your usurpation of the term terrorism. I'm just playing devil's advocate here: the word has a broad meaning, so at least have the courtesy to accept that.
And please don't lecture me on international conventions. This especially coming from someone whose government has consistently pushed aside conventions and the international regulatory bodies that attempt to enforce them.
"An archaeologist is the best husband a women can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her." - Agatha Christie
"Non mortem timemus, sed cogitationem mortis." - Seneca
Tweet
Comment