Jump to content

Ads

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ads

  1. Sounds like you're getting it at just the right time, PSN has been hacked... again.

     

    Seems its the same gimps who had a go at Microsoft last week.

     

    Uncharted 4 looks amazing. Funny how I am noticing Troy Baker a lot more now, where as I had never heard of him before the Last of Us,

  2. the allocation is normally 3300 but ive heard due to the nature of this fixture they have cut our allocation. strange but there you go.

     

    There used to be a lot of aggro at Filbert Street back in day.

     

    I thought there was quite a lot of police around yesterday and the chopper was up too.

  3. Both have scored 19 league goals in their best seasons for us. The difference is Yorke did that in a side that finished 4th, Benteke in a side that finished 15th.

     

    I would love to see a Yorke type forward play off Benteke, what a strike force that would be.

     

    One small Argentine aside, Benteke is by far and away the best out and out centre forward in the league.

    • Like 1
  4. Yeah, but the lightsaber hilt isn't feasible.

     

    An imaginery weapon has an element that isn't feasible? You'd have to watch you didn't burn through your hand, but having a Claymore instead of a Rapier without a guard for the lightsabre would stop any potential "aaaah you've just taken my hand off!" in a fight.

  5. I haven't played it in a while, but if I recall, Clickers only banjo you in one move if your health is quite low or if you're standing their trying to go toe to toe.

     

    Its a truly great game and one of my all time favourites. I like the Bloaters too Ponky and the panic they create of whether you have enough ammo to put them down, although there was one part of the game where I just legged it instead and that seemed to work!

     

    The bit at the start in Downtown Boston is bascially a training exercise in how to work the infected, by picking off as much as you can quietly before you need to go loud.

    • Like 1
  6. I think all fair points.  I certainly don't disagree that Religion has some part to play in it all.   I still believe it's more to do with flaws or traits in individuals and how they perceive their particular religion. Further, politics, especially for Muslim countries has a lot to do with it. 

     

     

    Yes and no. Wahhabism placed the puritanical veil of legitimacy on marauding desert raiders of the House of Saud to go and pillage the next village along, only this time they were cutting your head off in the name of Islam, you decedent Ottoman, rather than removing you bonce out of pure economics.

     

    That creed of Wahhabism, where the Saudi’s now see themselves as the defender of the one faith (and as a consequence the one king, one authority, the one mosque and so on) is very much the issue that is at the root for the problems in the ME, because it is reflected from the opposite side by Tehran. That sectarian schism between Sunnis and the Twelvers is by definition a religious issue, even if it is executed by men for varying motivations.

     

    There are exacerbating factors though of course; the billions of hydrocarbons the Saudi’s sit on for one.

  7.  

    Snowy; that's monotheism for you. The Zoroastrians in Sassanid Persia would have had a rough time of it under Islamic rule, just as they would have under Eastern Empire. That can work in all three directions as well.

    In essence, that's a no then? :)

     

     

    If we're being precise, then it cannot be a no, as Zoroastrians cannot be persecuted for heresey following the Islamic conquest of Sassanid lands because its a seperate religion. Those Twelvers who make up the baulk of Iran now though on the other hand.... :P (But I know what you're getting at).

    • Like 1
  8.  

    There is some historical naivety going on there I am afraid Omariqy. Islam was spread via violent conquest and in warfare that has always meant that civilians have suffered, especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration. The aftermath of sieges always saw a break down in discipline with spikes in looting and rapes.

     

    You also have to appreciate that there was no real concept of childhood as we know it today. Mohammed himself supposdily bedded his 9 year old bride after marrying her 3 years previously, presumably because she'd had her period and was therefore considered a woman.

     

    *Edit for my dippy spelling.

    So was Christianity. 

     

    The entire continents of America and Australasia say hi - you appear to be confusing medieval fuckwittery with religious fuckwittery.

     

    Every single crime you have cited has been perpetrated by peoples of every creed/faith/culture/whatever because its not about religion. Its about social development and evolution. 

     

    IS are not pissed off because they are muslims. IS are pissed off because the traditional mud hut power base is being eroded. Their kids have access to Western (not necessarily better) freer culture and they want a piece of it. The fundies don't want that because they lose control. If their kids are checking facebook wearing jeans and drinking coke they will start to question the relevance of the opinion of the bloke with the massive beard. They are the ultimate right wing reactionaries, they just happen to be brown and use religion as their excuse. 

     

     

    I am not confusing anything. I am well aware that violent conquest isn't a narrow issue of Islam and haven't suggested otherwise, so I am not sure where you are coming from? I make the general point that civilians suffer in warfare; Corinth to Badajoz, separated by almost 2000 years and the results tend to be the same.

     

    I was addressing the contradiction between the theological means of executing warfare and the actual historical reality. Its fairly apparent that isn’t an attack on Islam given I have generalised it to a level of “all warfare” executed, by anybody, so I am not sure why you have misrepresented what I have said.  

     

    Snowy; that's monotheism for you. The Zoroastrians in Sassanid Persia would have had a rough time of it under Islamic rule, just as they would have under Eastern Empire. That can work in all three directions as well.

     

    To go back to IS, you again cannot generalise as to the motivations of individuals. For the command, it’s certainly ideological and their 7th century wet dream is currently in play with slave markets mixed with all the trappings of soft government.

     

    But on the ground some of it is circumstance, but a lot of it comes down to money, as they pay their troops better than most.

     

    It worked in Anbar with the Sahwa forces for example, paying off people who had spent several years fighting US forces who subsequently once in receipt of the dollar, turned on AQI. Ultimately it’s a matter of necessity. Groups in Syria on IS sh*tlist will gravitate towards the central government, whether they’re Alawite or not because they’re in the sights of IS, so their future existence become intertwined.

     

    On the reverse of that, people want to get paid and people want to eat. To quote old Ned, winter is coming and most of the 1500 rebel groups are rag tag outfits barely capable of feeding themselves. The makeup of IS in Syria is distinctly Syrian, which suggests that as long as they don’t tick any of the reasons to be butchered by IS, they will gravitate to who can feed them and pay them, especially as JaN won't take any old Jihadi.

     

    .

    • Like 3
  9. There is some historical naivety going on there I am afraid Omariqy. Islam was spread via violent conquest and in warfare that has always meant that civilians have suffered, especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration. The aftermath of sieges always saw a break down in discipline with spikes in looting and rapes.

     

    You also have to appreciate that there was no real concept of childhood as we know it today. Mohammed himself supposdily bedded his 9 year old bride after marrying her 3 years previously, presumably because she'd had her period and was therefore considered a woman.

     

    *Edit for my dippy spelling.

  10. I think the control orders for the returning Jihadis are a good thing for intelligence gathering. For example, we lost a lot of human intelligence in Anbar following Barry’s hasty withdrawal, but this creates an opportunity.

     

    If you’re a non-Arabic speaker from Tower Hamlets whose experiences of war stretch no further that playing CoD and watching Takfiri head choppy porn, then the chances are you will return from your Jihad pretty disillusioned. Those with this sort of back ground and lack of applicable skills who don’t return will largely be because they’ve become human ordinance.

     

    This is the thing with IS, they increase their manpower rapidly through assimilation of other groups, without anywhere near the selection process of JaN. This exposes them to infiltration and that can be both in country or back home. Thhe attrition rates the have suffered around Kobane and more intensely elsewhere against the Syrian Army have been very easily replaced, so this swallowing of other groups whole, especially as winter approaches, wont change.

     

    Mi5/6 will be crawling all over Turkey putting a comforting arm around poor Little Johnny Jihad I would imagine. He will be so desperate to come back to Lahndan town for his Wi-Fi and his sugar coated cereal that you would imagine he’d be very amenable to security service handlers.

    • Like 2
  11. Islamist is too broad a term though and is like describing Westerners as Capitalists. The answer is yes, but the specifics are a lot more nuanced. A settlement to the Israeli and Palestinian question would be as beneficial to the region as settling the Turkish and Kurdish conundrum, but it is still merely a smaller feature of a wider sectarian problem that would be waged regardless. This is a local problem that requires local solutions.

     

    There is also a more Machiavellian point that Israel encroachments into Gaza, as an example, benefits Hamas by keeping it popular. It remains in power out of that popularity and is therefore able to keep the peace for Israel and keeps the lid on less desirable groups like IJ. Gaza needs head chopping Takfiri Salafists running the show like it needs another hole in its backside.

    • Like 4
  12.  

     

     

    Getting a bit scary. Can't see the stuff on Libya though? Also, what would happen if they enter Lebanon, Saudi or Israel?

    Lebanon must be concerned.

    Saudi exports them, it's not a case of being entered by them; Saudi is the source. US ally and valued UK export market Saudi, whose klepto princes are always welcome in Harrods, in Park Lane car showrooms, and in the kind of estate agents who don't advertise.

    Israel is not at risk, and welcomes them for the damage they cause to other ME states. Israel may even be funding and training them, wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

    Isis must be in support of Palestine though. Meaning Israel must be feeling pretty nervous right now. I can only imagine that the attacks in Jerusalem recently are from people who are pro Isis.
    I'm not aware that IS have done or said anything in support of Palestine or Palestinians.

    Why would they?

    And why do you equate a revenge attack in Israel with support of IS? What possible connection can there be?

     

     

    IS aren't keen on the Pals. They don't like their watered down Islamist nationalism and believe they should be shwacked to allow for a proper Jihad against the Jewish state.Hamas are keeping a lid on some pretty nasty folk, while IS have said similar things about Muslim groups in the Balkans too.

  13. Michael was a bit of a Tony Soprano character, a sociopath that you could like. This GTA was the first to make sense story wise, by having Trevor in it so you could maim to your hearts content without it being at odds with the tale being told.

    Niko Bellic was a walking contradiction.

×
×
  • Create New...
Â