Menchise

quote:Of course not. It is common knowledge that with them in power or people like them in power, they are going to force feed it to everyone around them, create terrorists, and oppress those with opposing views. They also oppress those who agree with the cause but disapprove of their methods. quote:Every action is spurred by some sort of motivation. Their motivation behind attacking us has not disappeared since 9/11. There was a "cease fire" prior to the WTC. The effectiveness of a cease-fire to do anything is non-existant. Of course a cease-fire on its own is not enough; I never said that it was enough. I was responding to Ravonaf's statement about the laying down of arms. Secondly, the cease-fire prior to WTC was not followed up with any attempt at negotiation. quote:Umm, it is culturally motivated. America's culture is pretty opposite their religion, while just about every government in the Middle East is religiously dominated by one form of Islam or another. That doesn't prove anything. There are millions of Arabs living in the USA who practice Islam, yet they do not conspire to attack anyone. quote:The United States has very little influence on the region except in a couple very important ways. 1. Israel 2. Iraq That's many steps behind Britain's influence. The United States has plenty of influence on the region. Apart from military aid to Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq, it also has military bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and it's always trying to increase its influence through indirect installation of authoritarian pro-US governments.

quote:The way to win this war is to make sure that the terrorists fear us more then they hate us. If they know that everything that they hold dear will be destroyed if they attack us, then they will NOT attack us. In many cases, everything that they hold dear has already been destroyed, so it's impossible to make them fear us more than they hate us. Please do explain how you expect to frighten people who are training themselves to become suicide bombers.

quote:Ok, after we replace the government of Afganistan and bomb them a lot, no other government of any other country, is going to want to be REMOVED. They want to continue to have power, and don't want the same thing to happen to them. That would be the motivation for them to unite for collective security. quote:Wrong. Terrorism is the actions by a non-nation group that carries out violent actions in order to impose TERROR. Terrorism is not imposing a wall through force, it is causing people to live in fear. Causing people to live in fear in order to impose their will. Get it? quote:Our actions in WW2, WW1, Revolutionary war, were not for the same goals as terrorists. The goal of the Revolutionary War was to end the British domination of American political life. The goal of the Middle Eastern terrorists is to end the American domination of Arab political life. Spot the difference. quote:Also, current war does *NOT* target civilians. Terrorism does. That's why what we are doing is not terrorism. Terrorists target civilians when they're incapable of attacking military targets. quote:Ok, peace is great, i'd love to hear a way to get it. There was no "escalation". The terrorists kept doing what they we're doing, and we finally got sick of it and are ending it. Just because it didn't happen on America's soil before doesn't mean it was an "escalation". It's arguable that US military bases and embassies are US soil anyway. They didn't just attack US soil this time, they attacked the centre of American trade and the offices of the Defense Department. That sounds like escalation to me.

quote:Menchise, youre views on peace, commendable though they may be, are another case of wishful thinking. I would say "it's not gonna happen" and you will quote that and answer "how come?" Would you mind not putting words in my mouth? quote:It's clear to anyone who has studied the subject matter, and clear to you as well, that there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no more Israel. Not true, especially if you examine the Israel-Palestinian negotiations of the past and how close they came to achieving a lasting peace. Both sides agreed to almost every term in the peace proposals except one: the condition that Palestinians who were forced to flee from Israel during the conflicts could return to their homes. Israel refused. That was the biggest obstacle in the peace negotiations. quote:Bin Laden has said that Israel is nothing more than an American outpost, and he want's the "infidels" driven from the Middle East. In order to do that, he would have to destroy Israel, but knows it is not possible while we support Israel. I don't think he was referring to the Israelis as infidels. If that were the case, then why isn't he attacking Israel? The fact that the US is supporting Israel would not stop him from trying if he's willing to attack the USA. quote:What kind of peace is there when everyone has the ability to attack everyone else? It makes for forced treaties and "my arsenal is bigger than yours" agreements. True stability and peace could only be brought about through force, until that one magical day when everyone becomes "tolerant" and "understanding". Ever heard of mutual advantage? That's when peace benefits both sides. That is a more true peace than the idea of forcing one side to follow the will of another, which sounds more like oppression.

quote:What's to prove? It's common knowledge. Common knowledge? You're kidding, right? If you think that the drivel spat out by Omar or Bin Laden represents Arabic Muslim opinion then you're dreaming. quote:And how do you suggest this happen? Do we go first or them? It will NEVER happen. Have you ever heard of cease-fires? quote:It's absolutely true. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike want us out. Not everyone. But as long as there are a few there will always be terrorists. That's one of there biggest demands. They don't like the influence our culture has. This has little to do with culture, despite the rhetoric of the extremists. It's about the influence that the US has on the economics and political structure of the region, which is one step behind the influence that the British had before they withdrew in the 1930s. That's why Americans are called imperialists in issues such as this. quote:Rubbish? Again. Name any peace that did not come about after war. Irrelevant. That's like me asking you to name any peace that did not come about before war. quote:The fact of the matter is the Terrorists will not stop until they are all dead. That's a fact. That is not a fact at all. The terrorists have a cause. Without a cause, they have no reason to fight. The nature of the cause seems to be what we're debating.

quote:I'm waiting for Menchise to start his thread on whatever he wants to debate. A thread has already been started by Captain Dread.

Why don't you just make a button symbol of a box with 1% Alpha and place it on a higher layer?

quote:Welcome to Survivor: The Interactive Review! The only review you'll ever read that's actually more fun than the game itself! ROTFLMAO!!!

I'm going to start posting all of the exchanges between me and Captain Dread that took place after the first post in this thread so that I don't have to repeat myself. This is the first one: My response to the first post quote:Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism. Reality: If you study a number of authors, you'll realized that it is maintained that personal freedom is more important than life. During United States slavery, all of the slaves were living in a constructed world, much like the Matrix. The fact that slaveholders let the slaves be free of work for 3 days, and instead let them get so drunk they were miserable, is an example of how the society was constructed to deprive the people of their freedoms, by making life SEEM good. That is what is going on in Afganistan and many of the terrorist harboring countries. Although I truly believe that US citizens are brainwashed to some extent by the media, it is worse in the Middle East. In many Middile Eastern countries, especially Afganistan, people are living in a constructed world. They believe the propoganda fed to them by the terrorists, Taliban, Islamic Extremists, and Osama Bin Laden. They are being completely brainwashed. If the people are being completely brainwashed into believing that life in Afghanistan is good, then why do hundreds of thousands of Afghanis risk their lives to leave the country for a better life somewhere else? This was happening long before the war started. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan don't believe a word that the Taliban says, which is why the government resorts to flogging people for disobedience. Secondly, even if the civilians were brainwashed, that is no excuse for their deaths. They are non-combatants, pure and simple. quote:Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism. Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them. The United States has tried to influence the installation of pro-West governments in the Middle East before. One of them was the Taliban. Almost every Arab government that the US has supported and attempted to pull strings with has either become a terrorist harbouring country, an openly hostile country, or both. The rare exceptions that America continue to support, such as Saudi Arabia, are also authoritarian regimes that suppress the people's freedoms and rights. There is little evidence that the new coalition government in Afghanistan will be any different. quote:Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan. Reality: It's a clash of ideals, they declared war by attacking the WTC, and Afganistan didn't hand them over. That's like saying we acted like Nazis for bombing German cities in WW2. Get out of my country you traitors! In case anyone didn't notice, the war started decades ago. This isn't the first time that the US has been attacked by terrorists in the Middle East. They destroyed a hotel full of US marines in Beirut in 1982 using the same methods as the attack on the WTC (except that a truck was used). The US has been sending military responses since the 1970s and the situation has only worsened. Both sides have tried to terrorize each other into retreat. Whether you call it war or terrorism depends on your point of view. In any case, it's destructive and does nothing but escalate the violence. quote:Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want. Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us. If Bin Laden did not want the US to send a full scale military response, then why did he make sure that they would? He's not a complete idiot: he knew that the US was going to react like this. He wanted to renew the war because he thought that he could win it. The fact that he's losing does not hide the fact that the US is doing exactly what the terrorists want. By destroying Bin Laden's organization, the US is only making room for another, more fanatical organization to take its place. The cause will still exist, and so will the terrorists, and so the war will continue until one side wakes up and sues for peace. quote:Notion 5: People who oppose the war are not for the Taliban. Reality: Think of an analogy. You steal someone's wallet. They punch you in the face. You don't do anything. They punch you in the face again. Now, common sense would tell you that there are two things you can do. 1. Give the wallet back, and hope they still wont be mad over it. 2. Disable the person's ability to punch you. Actually, common sense would tell you not to steal the wallet in the first place. quote:It's so disheartening, that's the problem with people today. People think "fighting is wrong", and never stop to think about all of the people who have spilt their blood and died fighting for the United States. Never thought about the people who died for what the United States stands for, and realized that the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror. The people did not spill their blood so that America could continue spilling more blood. Secondly, if the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror, then why did they support the Taliban's rise to power? Why did the government initially support the Taliban's oppressive regime? Why does the USA continue to support Saudi Arabia's government, a monarchy with no constitution?

Before I continue I must say that I don't appreciate the use of a post as a spring board without including the rebuttals that have already been written in response to it.

I'm going to make one small comment and then I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread (I'm trying to stick to one debate at a time). First, it is not illegal to have bigot thoughts or bigot opinions, which is why the KKK is not in prison. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to express opinions and for everyone else to criticize them. Of course, there are some restrictions in particular circumstances where any such expression can restrict liberty, but mostly it's legal. It's illegal when these bigotries are put into practice (the employment based on race issue is one example), because it directly infringes on the principle of equal liberty, and the great thing about that principle is that it points both ways: Black people can't refuse to hire someone because they're white either. So, unless the anti-discrimination law is not being enforced properly, any criticism of it that claims racial bias is unfounded.

quote:Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism. Reality: If you study a number of authors, you'll realized that it is maintained that personal freedom is more important than life. During United States slavery, all of the slaves were living in a constructed world, much like the Matrix. The fact that slaveholders let the slaves be free of work for 3 days, and instead let them get so drunk they were miserable, is an example of how the society was constructed to deprive the people of their freedoms, by making life SEEM good. That is what is going on in Afganistan and many of the terrorist harboring countries. Although I truly believe that US citizens are brainwashed to some extent by the media, it is worse in the Middle East. In many Middile Eastern countries, especially Afganistan, people are living in a constructed world. They believe the propoganda fed to them by the terrorists, Taliban, Islamic Extremists, and Osama Bin Laden. They are being completely brainwashed. If the people are being completely brainwashed into believing that life in Afghanistan is good, then why do hundreds of thousands of Afghanis risk their lives to leave the country for a better life somewhere else? This was happening long before the war started. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan don't believe a word that the Taliban says, which is why the government resorts to flogging people for disobedience. Secondly, even if the civilians were brainwashed, that is no excuse for their deaths. They are non-combatants, pure and simple. quote:Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism. Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them. The United States has tried to influence the installation of pro-West governments in the Middle East before. One of them was the Taliban. Almost every Arab government that the US has supported and attempted to pull strings with has either become a terrorist harbouring country, an openly hostile country, or both. The rare exceptions that America continue to support, such as Saudi Arabia, are also authoritarian regimes that suppress the people's freedoms and rights. There is little evidence that the new coalition government in Afghanistan will be any different. quote:Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan. Reality: It's a clash of ideals, they declared war by attacking the WTC, and Afganistan didn't hand them over. That's like saying we acted like Nazis for bombing German cities in WW2. Get out of my country you traitors! In case anyone didn't notice, the war started decades ago. This isn't the first time that the US has been attacked by terrorists in the Middle East. They destroyed a hotel full of US marines in Beirut in 1982 using the same methods as the attack on the WTC (except that a truck was used). The US has been sending military responses since the 1970s and the situation has only worsened. Both sides have tried to terrorize each other into retreat. Whether you call it war or terrorism depends on your point of view. In any case, it's destructive and does nothing but escalate the violence. quote:Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want. Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us. If Bin Laden did not want the US to send a full scale military response, then why did he make sure that they would? He's not a complete idiot: he knew that the US was going to react like this. He wanted to renew the war because he thought that he could win it. The fact that he's losing does not hide the fact that the US is doing exactly what the terrorists want. By destroying Bin Laden's organization, the US is only making room for another, more fanatical organization to take its place. The cause will still exist, and so will the terrorists, and so the war will continue until one side wakes up and sues for peace. quote:Notion 5: People who oppose the war are not for the Taliban. Reality: Think of an analogy. You steal someone's wallet. They punch you in the face. You don't do anything. They punch you in the face again. Now, common sense would tell you that there are two things you can do. 1. Give the wallet back, and hope they still wont be mad over it. 2. Disable the person's ability to punch you. Actually, common sense would tell you not to steal the wallet in the first place. quote:It's so disheartening, that's the problem with people today. People think "fighting is wrong", and never stop to think about all of the people who have spilt their blood and died fighting for the United States. Never thought about the people who died for what the United States stands for, and realized that the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror. The people did not spill their blood so that America could continue spilling more blood. Secondly, if the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror, then why did they support the Taliban's rise to power? Why did the government initially support the Taliban's oppressive regime? Why does the USA continue to support Saudi Arabia's government, a monarchy with no constitution?

quote:There are many many leftists in this country who "want to give peace a chance" and let the terrerists continue to have free reign. The 10% or so who oppose the war would be a perfect example. You've contradicted yourself. Wanting peace is the exact opposite of letting the terrorists have free reign. Terrorists want war, that's why left peace activists are against all types of terrorism (what I mean by all types is a debate for another time). quote:If you are not for this country then you are against it. If you are against this country you might as well be pro Taliban. Popular rhetoric, but the logic is deeply flawed. Here is an example of why: The US wants peace between Israel and Palestine. Does that mean that the US is against Israel and pro-Palestine or vice versa? Of course not! But that's the conclusion that would be reached by joining the 'for or against' bandwagon. quote:Look at Berkely (sp?) in California. Look at Hilary Clinton. She won't even say the pledge of alligiance and she's a US congressman. Another example of why the 'for-against' attitude is false: you're saying that Hillary is not only against America for not saying the pledge of allegience, she is also pro-Taliban.

quote:I'd fancy a deep rumble that put my subwoofer to work Why is it called a subwoofer? As far as I know, it's just one big bass speaker.

I have two small issues that I'm seeking some advice on. 1. I have encountered an intermittent crash that's very similar to (if not the same as) one of Taran's issues (page 4 of this thread). It involves the game crashing at two different points during startup (after the Safedisk check and after the logo animation). The error messages look like this: BCM caused an invalid page fault in module at 0000:65351397. Registers: EAX=002a001d CS=015f EIP=65351397 EFLGS=00010206 EBX=00000000 SS=0167 ESP=00dcf800 EBP=00dcf830 ECX=c17190d0 DS=0167 ESI=00bb174c FS=10bf EDX=81938868 ES=0167 EDI=653c7b10 GS=0000 Bytes at CS:EIP: Stack dump: 00000000 00bb18a8 653512f1 00000000 00000000 6534e4b0 653512cf 7ff6f0e2 653c79b0 00dcf850 00000000 00ba61a8 00dcf854 7ff4cfbb 00000000 020d8207 I tried re-installing the game from scratch, but the crashes still occur. I did notice something strange as I explored the issue: the crashes seem to occur in a very specific sequence. I tried running the game six times, rebooting the system, and repeating. This is the sequence that occurs every time: 1st run: Crashes after logo animation. 2nd run: No crash. 3rd run: Crashes after logo animation. 4th run: No crash. 5th run: Crashes after Safedisk check. 6th run: Crashes after Safedisk check. I discovered a partial solution in disabling the logo animation using the -n shortcut parameter. It did not fix the problem, but it did make the problem less annoying by changing the sequence so that I wouldn't need to run the game twice to get it working. Here is the new sequence: 1st run: No crash. 2nd run: No crash. 3rd run: Crashes after Safedisk check. 4th run: Crashes after Safedisk check. 5th run: Crashes after Safedisk check. 6th run: Crashes after Safedisk check. Any idea what's causing this pattern? 2. I have also noticed that every time I run the game, Windows Setup updates configuration files on the next reboot. Should I be concerned or is this normal?

quote:A Far Left liberal if you ask me. They know how to raise kids to be "tolerant" and "understanding" I guess. Think that's why Mister "Taliban" Walker praises the 9/11 attacks and fought against Americans. Call me overly sensitive or emotional if you prefer, but I am deeply insulted by the implication that leftists are pro-Taliban. It's total bullshit.

That's what I meant (my copy arrived). Sorry about the confusion. I've changed the topic title accordingly. Have you received confirmation from BMT yet? [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

It's here! Yippee! [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:I mean, what are these guys? Imperial Storm troopers?? Hehe. Even Stormtroopers know their way around, although you must admit that the marines do have better aim (they actually hit the intruders). [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

I have just discovered a new issue that I would like some feedback on. Apparently, there are some inconsistencies in the way that web browsers process CSS code, especially when DIV tags with borders and/or backgrounds are involved. As far as I can tell so far, IE 4 is more forgiving with CSS mark-up errors, including my mistake of setting the text colour within the body tag instead of the paragraph and heading tags, but Netscape 4 is more successful in doing what I want it to do when the errors are corrected, such as aligning the border to the centre and sizing it relative to the content inside (IE4 cannot seem to align it or properly size it without a defined width value). I'm curious about how other browsers (including later versions of Netscape and IE) react to the bordered area at the end of the test page, which is supposed to have the same text colour as the rest of the page, a slightly darker background, a light grey border, and centre alignment. My CSS code does not have a defined width value for the class, so the browser should size the border relative to the content.

Thank you, Simparadox. I agree with your opinion on the background and I have made some small changes to the test page. I reduced the level of blue to a mid tone (in terms of the websafe palette), but I decided to maintain the minimum level of websafe green (which softens the blue a little) because for some reason it makes the text stand out more, especially the visited links. My biggest concerns at the moment are with the browser settings issue that was mentioned in my first post and whether the Verdana font is on most computers.