+ Log in or register to post
Results 111 to 120 of 142
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 06:12 PM #111
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
But I don't want to get too side-tracked. I don't feel that many people (potential customers) saying it's offensive and the makers changing the fictional background is the same as censorship. It's just common sense... if you offend and insult your customers, they won't buy your product.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 06:15 PM #112
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 07:36 PM #113
Scout (Lvl 6)
U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com) He routinely shot at our planes over the No-fly zone. And he frequently supported terrorists, giving money, arms, and training to groups, harboring terrorists, and paying the families of suicide bombers.
Every one of those is factual history, look it up.
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 07:57 PM #114
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
In other words, we knew about this stuff looong before we invaded.
O ye who go about saying unto each, "Hello Sailor":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 08:10 PM #115
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Wilson didn't find any evidence of such a transfer, and wrote an op-ed piece saying so publicly (though a Senate Intelligence committee later challenged Wilson's claims). Scooter Libby subsequently leaked the information that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent to the news media, ostensibly to "punish" Wilson for publicly disagreeing with the Bush White House.
Likewise, the yellowcake that was already found in Iraq had been there since before 1991, and was the result of some old, defunct attempts to generate nuclear power for domestic (Iraqi) consumption.
All of the above, and more, can be found on the page dedicated to this topic over on Snopes.
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 08:12 PM #116
Scout (Lvl 6)
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 08:18 PM #117
Scout (Lvl 6)
Sunday, 25th December, 2011, 08:29 PM #118
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
As for your other claims, it's that Saddam expelled inspectors from Iraq in the 1990s, after they had been caught spying for the US:
"Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99).According to theWashington Post (3/2/99),the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources,"wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99) FAIR ACTION ALERT: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
In the runup to the war, Saddam allowed inspectors to return, and those inspectors begged the US for more time to complete its work before the invasion in 2003. The only left (voluntarily), when it became clear the invasion was taking place irrespective.
"United Nations weapons inspectors have been advised by the US to leave Iraq, a sign that a US-led attack is imminent.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Monday: "Late last night I was advised by the US government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad."
ElBaradei is leading the nuclear weapons inspections in Iraq. He says similar advice has been given to UNMOVIC, the inspection body responsible for all other weapons and lead by Hans Blix." UN weapons inspectors told to leave Iraq - 17 March 2003 - New Scientist
I can go into more detail on your other points later, but I'll just say at this point that my original point stands. You got every point wrong.
The order to withdraw has not yet been issued to the scientists carrying out the inspections and Blix is scheduled to give a report to the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday that would call for them to be given more time.
Last edited by Remus Lupin; Sunday, 25th December, 2011 at 08:32 PM. Reason: Don't know what's up with those smilies!
Monday, 26th December, 2011, 03:46 AM #119
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
No. No one is discussing whether we should kill FFG or anyone associated with this game. Heck, no one is proposing annihilation of the blurb. The question is, should this blurb be the one blurb on the FFG game, which is fairly parallel to, should this person be the one person holding the title of President of the United States.This is, again, fundamentally wrong. A more accurate analogy would be to say that a candidate who doesn't agree with you on everything needs to be killed for it.
Intolerance to intolerance can be tyrannical. How many churches preach that their way is the only way? How many businesses ruthlessly crush their competitors? On the flip side, how many politicians would love to silence any intolerance towards their position?Intolerance is bad; taking a stand against intolerance is not bad even if you call it intolerant to intolerance.
How should they communicate that? I don't understand the distinction you're drawing here.I'm not saying people can't be offended by things - they can. I'm saying people have no right to expect the things that they're offended by to change for the sake of assuaging their sense of outrage.
If people never went to a business and complained about something, the world would be a worse place. The rude employees would never get disciplined or fired, and the places serving bad food would continue serving bad food. Unless, of course, they go out of business, which is a pretty drastic solution to a problem that could have been solved by talking to a manager.
Monday, 26th December, 2011, 04:34 AM #120
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Hence why I said it was an analogy. It's not literal.No. No one is discussing whether we should kill FFG or anyone associated with this game.
That's not the question. The question is, do people have the right to expect something to be changed just because they don't like it? That's analogous to someone expecting that just because they don't like someone for President, that person should be killed.Heck, no one is proposing annihilation of the blurb. The question is, should this blurb be the one blurb on the FFG game, which is fairly parallel to, should this person be the one person holding the title of President of the United States.
If you're saying that anything can be taken too far, or otherwise made into something harmful, then I'll agree to that. But the flip side is to stand around and do nothing while people are intolerant in the first place.Intolerance to intolerance can be tyrannical.
The first two are examples of intolerance, rather than intolerance towards instances of intolerance. The last example isn't relevant to the discussion we're having - it's not in the "wanting" that the intolerance is found; it's when that politician thinks they have a right to actually silence that person that things go too far.How many churches preach that their way is the only way? How many businesses ruthlessly crush their competitors? On the flip side, how many politicians would love to silence any intolerance towards their position?
The distinction is between communicating their offense, or stating why they feel that way. When people are making "I" statements, they're simply saying what they feel, which tends to be fine. It's when they start making "you" statements, saying what the other person "should" do, or "must" do, or "needs to" do, etc. that the problem comes.How should they communicate that? I don't understand the distinction you're drawing here.
Your offense is yours. You can talk about it, but you can't make it someone else's problem.
Again, this isn't what I'm saying. People should talk to managers and express themselves and say exactly how they were disappointed and why - but they don't get to decide what action (if any) gets taken, even if they demand that someone be disciplined or fired. It's not their decision to make.If people never went to a business and complained about something, the world would be a worse place. The rude employees would never get disciplined or fired, and the places serving bad food would continue serving bad food. Unless, of course, they go out of business, which is a pretty drastic solution to a problem that could have been solved by talking to a manager.
Last edited by Alzrius; Monday, 26th December, 2011 at 04:39 AM. Reason: Fixing tags and grammar clean-up
By Morrus in forum NewsReplies: 141Last Post: Monday, 2nd January, 2012, 12:07 AM
By Theo R Cwithin in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 34Last Post: Thursday, 5th August, 2010, 12:05 AM
By Crothian in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media LoungeReplies: 17Last Post: Tuesday, 30th December, 2008, 04:38 AM
By HellHound in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 94Last Post: Monday, 22nd May, 2006, 05:53 PM
By Darrin Drader in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 368Last Post: Thursday, 9th June, 2005, 03:54 PM