139 Forum Posts by "MonochromeMonitor"
Right, because DLC existed back when the NES was new, DRM was a thing as well wasn't it? Boy I sure hated that time in 1987 when Ubisoft said if we pre order assassins creed 89: yesterday, we get a bumper sticker to put on our kids' trikes.
I hate DLC. I understand making multiple editions of the same game (like with the N64), but reserving content until after release solely to make more money? That's low. And don't even get me started on "Premium Content".
If you haven't seen this, here's an awesome Pitfall! Emulator
The industry is too busy catering to "casual" players and 13-years-old boys. It needs heart.
Dropping a nuke on Japanese cities, brings about the same result as gassing Jews, Poles, Slavs, and other undesirables: Death.
Just a minor correction. Poles weren't really killed by gassing (in extermination camps). They were largely killed by war crimes in Poland, usually through shooting. Slavic civilians weren't either, only a plurality of Soviet POWs were killed, and even then only after being captured (they weren't actively seeking to murder Slavs). The actual death camps were largely reserved for killing Jews and to a lesser extent Gypsies.
The Ottomans weren't even around in the 8th Century but I'm not going to pursue this any further
Lol you're right. I confused the Caliph with the Sultan.
This is actually not true. The Japanese were ready to surrender conditionally, the only condition being that they keep their Emperor. The Allies sought unconditional surrender and on top of that to limit the advance of the Soviets in Asia as the Soviets were gaining alot of territory in China and Korea and may have been able to hit Japan itself so they used the Atomic bombings to do so. And they ended up letting the Japanese keep their Emperor anyway.
They intended to surrender conditionally but some crazy zealots attempted a coup, and all went to hell. I agree that there were ulterior motives with the Soviets. And the victims were mostly civilians, which was awful. But we passed up targets with more cultural meaning, like Osaka, which I guess was kind of decent. I don't think the Japanese would have spared DC if they could take it out, though I'm not sure that's a defense for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And we did mean to terrify them—like we did the Germans with Dresden, where we attacked largely civilian targets. As isolated incidents these were immoral. But in a total war, people don't always maintain the highest moral ground. I wouldn't call this sort of warfare terrorism, at least not in the conventional sense. It had some military objective. For instance, making the Japanese surrender unconditionally. Compare that to Nazi crimes which often had zero military objectives. Is it terrorism? It's certainly violence meant to achieve political ends, but isn't war basically all about political violence then? That's why I'd argue terrorism is defined by context—a kamikaze attack would not be terrorism because the Japanese were at war with us, but 9/11 would be terrorism because whatever grievances they had with us, there was no precedent for murdering thousands of American civilians on our soil.
Agree about terrorism being similar to war, though war can often be defensive. Also, terrorists have much more control over whether they kill civilians (like in stabbing attacks) than F-16s do. Not that excuses civilian deaths.
Drone strikes aren't less terrifying that suicide bombings and the Atomic bombings weren't any different in motivation to 9/11.
Disagree. Drone strikes are largely a reaction to 9/11, and they have military purpose—while they may kill civilians, we are looking to kill terrorists, not to terrorize the population. We should definitely be more transparent when we kill civilians and stop pretending no civilians have died. As for the atomic bombings, the huge difference is that we were in a total war, and we warned them before dropping the bomb. Americans were totally unprepared for 9/11. For whatever reason, it's considered legitimate for nation states to kill people to achieve political ends—but not for a few lone wolves. This is because we understand nation states have the burden of safeguarding their population, and therefore we are more willing to condone questionable tactics if they pursue larger goals in our interest. Terrorists cannot claim that authority, so we see their killing as callous. This is why "we don't negotiate with terrorists"—we don't see them as representative of any authority in the first place. I'm not saying this mode of thinking is correct, but I certainly understand it.
This makes the term "War on Terror" translate to "War on War" which goes onto show how useless that term is.
Agree.
Muslims in the Middle East grew vengeful for the wars that the United States was a part of killing innocent civilians in fact Osama Bin Laden states that he grew inspired to destroy the WTC after he watched a video of the Israeli invasion of Beirut which was supported by US combat forces.
You assume terrorism against us is due to our own failings. In reality, most of the acts carried out by Islamists have no direct connection to America or Israel, and little or nothing to do with economic grievance (the majority of terrorists are middle class and educated). Take a lot at the Middle East and this is apparent. Muslims killing Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, etc. While this can be attributed somewhat to the flawed and outdated borders drawn by the French and British after defeating the Ottomans, (Sykes-Picot Agreement), these tribal and religious divides long predate World War I, going back to the death of Muhammad and the question of his successor.
Going back on the broader issue, the US has been all over the world in countries which they did not even approve an invasion of. The military has expanded its operations into places like Yemen and Somalia and is actually encouraged to. One of the big names is JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command, which goes wherever it sees fit and kills targets. While they were behind the famed death of Osama Bin Laden (although no body was ever found) they were also behind many raids where they ended up killing civilians. The issue with them is that they've become an intelligence gathering search and destroy team i.e. like the CIA but they have no oversight. The Senate knows little about them and doesn't even ask, they don't have to report to the rest of the military and are only accountable to the President. Is that ok? Because that's just like Al-Qaeda.
Is that okay? No. But is it like Al Qaeda? Certainly not. For reasons I explained above.
The US isn't the bastion of freedom against barbarism that is pretends to be, but it isn't "just like al Queda" either. The truth is much more nuanced.
On ancient Canaan, I don't want to talk about it because you are ignoring historical evidence. The Israelites were a sect of Canaanite. Even if they conquered the region by force, there's no recorded non-biblical history telling us so, and it would have been a Civil War. Completely different than the Ottomans conquering Jerusalem in the 8th century, which is a historical fact.
Were the atomic bombings then terrorist acts?
The atomic bombings saved lives. Millions of US and Japanese would have died if we invaded Japan by land (like the war on the Eastern Front), the bombs allowed us to "only" kill a few hundred thousand or so (no more than the conventional firebombing raid in Tokyo). It's the fault of the Japanese empire for not surrendering after we explicitly warned them. They started the war against us—we weren't at war with them until Pearl Harbor.
WMDs and war in general are horrific, but it pisses me off how people act like there were alternatives. They neglect to mention the crimes against humanity the Japanese Empire committed. They killed 300,000 Chinese during the Rape of Nanking alone, and killed tens of thousands more in horrific ways with their chemical/biological weapons program.
War sucks. Ideally, there would be no wars. But it's not idealistic to maintain a moral equivalence when there is none. It's obfuscation and it's wrong. There are some things worth defending.
What is there to talk about? yeah, ISIS is fucking terrible, but they ain't all automatically terrorists just because they pull a flag over a town
They're terrorists because they chop peoples heads off and put them on sticks. That's terrorism.
Gahaha! Even the Jews admit they were conquerors of the region now known as Israel. Several books of the Bible are almost solely dedicated to this fact.
Again, Jews are a sect of Canaanite. No evidence of any conquering/war, rather Canaanite culture evolved into Israelite culture. Archeology/linguistics proves this.
Anyway, the Israeli-Arab conflict can get really heated debate wise.
I'd like to talk about ISIS here. If you want to make a new thread, go ahead.
Clarification: By Arabs, i mean Muslims from Saudi Arabia. Arameans (Christians indigenous to the Middle East/Mesopotamia) were in the region since like 200 CE.
Clarification: Arabs didn't arrive in the region until the 12th century or so. The Ottomans conquered the Byzantines and they encouraged Arabs to immigrate to the region in the 19 century with really low land prices.
So thats why Palestine doesn't deserve statehood? Push off natives from their land because the Jews deserve a homeland? Its quite fucking clear there is a plot of land that isn't controlled by israel, is inhabited by a people NOT israeli citizens and doesn't want to be apart of israel, what fucking dimwitted idiot wouldn't believe there to be such thing as palestine, of course there is a palestine.
In what universe are Arabs natives to Israel? They arrived in the 8th century by conquering the Byzantines. You don't become native through conquering. The natives have always been the Jews, the only people who have ever had a state in the region. And believe it or not, "Palestine" has never existed as a state. "Syria Palestina" was the Roman word for the province of Judah, which they renamed after they exiled the Jews (to spite them, as their enemies were the ancient Philistines). This word was revived by the British imperialists who named the area "The Mandate for Palestine". Arabs called the place "Southern Syria", certainly not "Palestine". Arabic doesn't even have a P sound. Learn history. If you want to talk human rights, feel free to. But don't endorse revisionist history to deny Jews of their rights.
Right, but to say that it was a mere revolution and not wars between ethnic groups a massive revisionism which I highly doubt is supported by any evidence.
Except it is supported. It's not revisionism if we don't really know what happened. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah are a subset of Canaanite culture, linguistically and archeologically. They could have subjugated the (other) Canaanites, but that doesn't mean they were a wholly separate people.
Right, but then again it's even more doubtful that there was just some societal revolution against Paganism.
Not against paganism per se. But the late bronze age collapse was a tumultuous time. Shit happens.
What sources?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity
The "House of David" definitely existed. A kingdom of David may or may not have existed. Solomon is less substantiated.
Yes, after they migrated into Canaan! Just like the Arabs! Which means their claim to the land is on the one hand the exact same basis for the Palestinian claim and on the other hand completely meaningless because we really shouldn't be driven by illogical nationalistic standards!
The difference is Jewish connection to the land isn't just national/ethnic. Its cultural and religious, like Muslims and Mecca. And two millennia older. Arabs living in Israel have every right to, just as Christians, Druze, etc, but the right of return of the State of Israel is designed uniquely to protect Jews from persecution (being the opposite of the Nuremburg Laws) and ensure they have majority status in one state. If the Kurds get a state, they would likely have something similar for the Kurdish diaspora. And the Armenians... unless they already have a state. Um, the Tibetans?
Um the Levites were the Priest Class/Tribe of the Jews. And no, Jews do not identify their God with the ones from other religions neither do Christians nor Muslims.
Levites are the priest class, but some scholars believe they originated in Eygpt, ie having Egyptian (rather than Canaanite) names and practicing circumcision (an ancient Egyptian practice). It's speculative. As for identifying God with other Gods, I know that's not true with modern Judaism (which is generally very liberal compared to Christianity). If you believe in One God who is good, sure it's my God. That's basically how I roll at least. Meh.
To my knowledge no, Kurdistan is not officially recognized by anyone.
I just looked it up. Apparently Israel has recognized Kurdistan. As for Kosovo, they have an adorable website.
Well it's already a de facto region, but Kurdish politics is some of the most complex on the planet. The Kurds need to find solidarity on the issue before we can do that, it's not as easy as saying "this is Now A Thing." It definitely won't happen under Obama, there's too much work to be done.
Do you know if any countries have recognized them yet?
We should really recognize Kurdistan.
According to the Bible they were.
According to archeologists, they weren't. Biblical stories are only historical up to a point.
Now as for evidence for a massive war, that's true but then again that's probably because such evidence would be nearly impossible to find.
On the contrary, a "massive hate filled genocide" would certainly leave a trace. Archeologists have found a bunch of Jewish and Roman dead from the Judeo-Roman wars, for example.
There isn't much evidence that King David existed either or most of the stories for that matter.
Au contraire, the majority of scholars regard David/Solomon as historical figures, and their existence is substantiated in some non-Jewish sources. They disagree over whether they were tribal cheiftains or actual kings, though evidence is beginning to point to the latter. Obviously, Solomon didn't have ten thousand prostitutes and horses, though.
Now as for religion that's a tricky thing. Judaism isn't even monotheistic for much of the Torah.
You're speculating. Rejection of foreign Gods became more explicit, but that doesn't mean they weren't monotheistic.
This is exemplified in the fact that the Bible Creation myth is very similar to nearby creation myths like those of the Canaanites and the Mesopotamians, the Flood story being nearly identical in the Bible to the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates Genesis.
How does that prove anything? Cultures influence eachother.
Not to mention their names for God coincide with the other names for Canaanite Gods.
Like I said, Jews were ethnically Canaanite (and even if you consider Ur, one of the patriarchs married a Canaanite (or maybe a Kurd?), I can't remember which).
if I remember right Yehovah was the god of the Jebusites i.e. the original inhabitance of Jerusalem before they were killed or enslaved by the Jews
Actually, YHWH is an Israelite name for God, the Temple Cult was adopted from the Jebusites though. And again, there is no evidence of any war. The Temple Mount was purchased from the Jebusites.
and El was the supreme deity in the Canaanite Pantheon (some draw parallels with Elohim in Mesopotamian Theology).
That's why their religion was monotheistic. After being influenced by many cultures—Canaanites, Jebusites from Jerusalem, Levites from Egypt, etc., instead of worshiping many Gods they considered all the Gods to be the same one God by many names. Hence, monotheism.
But also other things changed too. Early in the Bible everyone went to Hell or Sheol, a word whose meaning has been disputed since some say it simply refers to a dirty graveyard, no matter how good you were.
Many ideas certainly evolved in the Tanakh, including the afterlife. However, Sheol is not disputed. It's the Hebrew word for "rest". It's supposed to be left ambiguous, and certainly is nothing like the Roman Underworld. There is no heaven/hell in Jewish thought, for heaven/hell is a Roman idea based off a belief in an immortal soul—which the Israelites didn't believe in. Thus, the true punishment was simply "death" (ceasing to exist), and the reward was resurrection (or getting closer to God).
Then when the Persians conquered Canaan they introduced Zoroastrian idea's which then heavily influence Judaism i.e. now it was more of a fight between good and evil.
Judaism isn't gnostic/dualist. Ie, unlike Christianity and Islam, there is no "Devil" responsible for the worlds ills, rather, good is considered to be like God and is evil considered to be the opposite of God. Also, humanity ("the flesh") isn't considered innately evil. You may be thinking about the Messianic ideal, which is more a final battle over the ultimate fate of the world and humanity than about Good/Evil.
Now the main issue I have is a "disdain for Paganism" which is clearly incorrect.
Well, they weren't allowed to use horoscopes, mediums, palm-reading, witchcraft, fertility rituals, basically everything considered pagan. The word that translates from the Hebrew as pagan means "superstitious".
For some reason the Jews have a hard time not worshiping other Gods in the Bible. While it's not clear why the Jews would be so monotheistic,
Because they were monotheists?
what's clear is that it was very difficult to do considering Solomon himself built several temples to other gods. Paganism wasn't an unpopular belief, quite the contrary.
Oh, it was a very popular belief in the region, even among the Israelites, which is the Prophets are so often depicted as chastising them about their unbelief. Solomon's temples to other Gods were "public diplomacy".
You are right that they were not consistently monotheistic, though that was the ideal.
But thanks for not continuing the discussion outside of that, I'd have to deal with so many appeals to emotion as discussions about Israel often introduce.
I do try to be rational.
Arguments like these are useless. Why not tell Britons to go back to Saxony and take their Germanic language with them? Why not tell Afrikaners, whose African history traces back over 400 years, to go back to the Netherlands? Why not tell Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders to all go back to Europe?
All true. However, Zionism wasn't a nationalist movement, it was a response to persecution. Britons, Canadians, etc, all have states where they are a majority.
It doesn't matter who was there first at this point.
I only point out that Jews were there first because it's a common anti-Israel argument to deny their attachment to the land. Criticizing Israeli policy is fine, but the freedom of one people is never won through appropriating the rights/history of another.
It's not 1948, where the existence of the Israeli state was brand new and its elimination not implausible.
Or 1967, or 1973, etc...
It's 2014, we need to accept Israel's existence, and move on.
Unfortunately, many still do not. Ie, Iran.
But let's get this back to airstrikes on ISIS.
Apparently the airstrikes are starting to take their toll.
Petting cats is proven to reduce stress.
*This statement was not verified by the FDA
Drugs? Do you mean illegal drugs? If not, try an SSRI or something. You could have a genuine anxiety disorder.
Maybe take a hot bath... Pet a cat.
Petting cats is proven to reduce stress.
But yah the Jews should give the land back to the rightful owners i.e. the Canaanites and go back to Iraq where they came from.
I just have to correct this. The "Canaanites" were not a distinct people from the Israelites as insinuated by the bible. Historically, Israelites were ethnically Canaanite—though religious separatists who branched off. Israelites were native to the land despite any intermittent enslavement in Egypt. There is no historical evidence of a massive war as framed by Joshua but rather a societal revolution (and subsequent disdain for past paganism which was projected onto the "other"). The Canaanite language is nearly identical to Paleo-Hebrew (like today's Hebrew but with its original Phonecian-like script rather than the modern variant of Aramaic script adopted in Babylonian exile), and there is a direct archeological link as well. Jews (from the southern Israelite tribe of Judah) are thus the heir of the Canaanites.
Just correcting a common misconception. As for Iraq, I'm not sure where you got that.
The people most opposed to this policy change are the Cuban exiles themselves.
The embargo has been obsolete for a while now though.
Which ones? Because the big one, the IAEA has said they're not.
First off, the UN is a joke, as signified by esteemed "Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights".
Second, the IAEA itself has stated that it needs more funding to monitor Iran and "cannot assure materials will be used for peaceful purposes" They've enriched Uranium past 20%. There are zero civilian applications for 20% U 235, but you can make a fissile bomb in relatively short notice. You may give them the benefit of the doubt, but the Israelis do not. They've suffered too many genocides for that.
Iran's leadership has realized that it would be more trouble to have them than to not.
How do you know that? That's a big assumption.
I would like for you to point me to a quote where they say they want to annihilate the nation of Israel and its people i.e. a genocide against Jews instead of ones where they say "destroy the ZIONIST REGIME in Israel" because that is an important distinction.
"The Zionist Regime" is their word for Israel. They think it against the natural order for Jews ("the descendents of apes and pigs") to exercise self-determination on formerly muslim (waqf) land (albeit one the Muslims themselves conquered from the Byzantines, who took it from the Romans, who conquered it from—you guessed it—the Jews).
Calls for genocide:
General Iranian Threats
Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy)
''If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.''—Nasrallah
Hezbollah likewise. Fun fact Hezbollah was temporarily removed from the list of terrorist organizations when it condemned 9/11.
You're arguing that Hezbollah isn't terroristic? Why, because they don't kill innocent people, they kill Jews? You do know that the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires was not a military target, correct?
Basically what I'm implying is that the only difference between what are designated as "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" is if they like America or not.
The fact that you've resorted to vacuous moral relativism means you've forfeited the argument.
In all seriousness, of course there are gray areas, but you've crossed them.
That ship has sailed. The FSA is becoming irrelevant, and even then they are in bed with the al-Nusra front and other al-Qaeda affiliates. Our best bet is to bolster the Kurds and accept the fact that Iraq will become a Shia-dominated state. That may shrink its borders but will strengthen its national unity.
Agree wholeheartedly.
There's actually little to no evidence that Iran is getting nuclear weapons.
The UN and several non-governmental orgs have affirmed Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Are they building them? Maybe, maybe not. But they are simultaneously developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and a heavy water reactor for Plutonium 239. Suspicious?
Also Iran has never stated that they want to destroy Israel, the closest they got to was a mistranslation attributed to Ahmadenijad.
You are correct in that specific quote was mistranslated, but Iranian leaders have called for and continue to call for Israel's destruction. It's not an isolated incident. While a lot of politicians in the Arab world invoke Jew hatred to appeal to the voters, officially calling for the destruction of another nation state is unprecedented.
Which makes it clear that the US doesn't give two shits about human rights.
Correct on that one.
Iran is at the very least fighting our enemy whereas our allies like the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia are actively funding them. It makes sense to me to at least approach Iran.
See that's where I disagree. Iran is funding our enemies. They're funding Hezbollah, a terrorist org, Hamas, a terrorist org, Houthis, a terrorist org... etc. They are backing destabilizing forces all over the region. The only difference is Iran is funding Shia terrorists rather than Sunnis.
That's exactly what they're doing. NATO is sending in helicopters to pick up Yazidis trapped by ISIS constantly.
The Syrians have needed aid for years. Far too little has been done for them. But something is obviously better than nothing.
The Legend of Zelda is amazing. Mario Bros 3 as well.
At 12/13/14 08:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: ISIS: Enslaving, having sex with 'unbelieving' women, girls is OK
ISIS wants $1M for Foley’s body
and the democrats are bitching about us waterboarding these fucks while this shit is being pulled..
I don't think that's what democrats are bitching about (at least not the far-left). While the majority of GITMO detainees are probably murderers who "deserve it", the problem as I see it is saying it isn't torture. It has always been considered torture—calling it by a new name doesn't change that. We executed Japanese as war criminals at the Tokyo Trials for waterboarding. Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is disingenuous.
I think if anything we should be opening relations with Iran. If we back the Iraqi government without warming relations with its buddy Iran we are not doing ourselves any favors. I think we need to ditch our Saudi-Pakistani "friends" and create a constructive partnership with Iran and Assad. Instability benefits no one, least of all the US because instability breeds extremists like Al-Qaeda. Yeah, ISIS is a pain in Iran's ass. But it's going to be a pain in ours too. Let's ditch this stupid antagonism that has benefitted neither of our countries. Plus we could muscle in on Russia's influence.
. Iran and Iraq aren't exactly buddies... there's a lot of strife between the two. We definitely shouldn't prop up more Iranian proxies for the sake of stabilizing Iraq. The last thing the region needs is another Iranian proxy. Also, opening relations with Iran would isolate the entire Sunni Arab world. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt—all rightly fear the influence of a neo-Persian empire. Not to mention Israel, which Iran continues to explicitly threaten with destruction. While I agree that the Saudis and Pakistanis are not our friends, Iran and Assad aren't either. The "antagonism" you describe is perfectly justified. Iran is a theocratic regime with an abominable human rights record—and currently seeking nuclear weapons.
My view is, whatever we do will make things worse, and the Arabs will eventually blame us for the outcome. ISIS is an idea. A global Islamic Caliphate—a return to the "golden days" of Islamic conquest—sounds much more appealing than cooperating with the infidel West. We can't fight this idea like we fought al-Qaeda. Instead of getting into a protracted war, the US should focus on humanitarian work. Help the Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Take the money we spend on bullets and buy food and medicine. I don't mean to be naive, just cynical. At this point the Syrian rebels can't be trusted. If anyone's worth supporting, it's the Kurds. Recognize and fund an independent Kurdistan, despite the bitching of the Turks and Persians. (Turkey is actively abetting ISIS, and Iran is the worlds largest sponsor of terror, so fuck those guys). The Kurds are genuinely peaceful and secular Muslims (and Christians and Zoroastrians) with a unique language and culture going back thousands of years. They are fighting their asses off against ISIS and deserve the worlds support, even though it's not politically fashionable.
You do know TASERs are very low current, yes? High voltage, very low amperage. They penetrate the epidermis to overstimulate skeletal (voluntary) muscles, cardiac muscle is completely different. And they only fire a limited number of pulses. Hence negligible physiological damage, definitely less harmful than a defibrillator. The majority of TASER deaths are due to preexisting heart problems, which cops should definitely be more conscious of.
As a young girl in a "JAPpy-ass" neighborhood (according to my mother), I've never had a problem with the police. Although my house got robbed a few years back and they didn't do shit, I guess because burglaries aren't a violent crime. Get insurance, guys. Anyway... people's emotions can get really heated about these things, and rightly so. With Ferguson specifically it seemed like everyone was ready to jump to conclusions before hearing the evidence. In the bigger picture, there are a lot of deep-seated problems that need to be confronted. Prejudice in America still exists, as it does everywhere against all minorities. The militarization of the police definitely needs to be addressed. No one should have to fear the people they pay to protect them.
