MajKrAzAm

Well, using the initialism PC as a verb is incredibly painful to read.

Look, it has recently become common to suggest that Muslims in Europe are coming increasingly under threat from a revival of nationalist sentiment. Some have even gone as far as to draw a comparison between Jews in Nazi Germany and Muslims in Europe today. I believe that this is false and that the reality is quite the opposite. There is no other demographic in Europe today that has had its ‘grievances’ addressed more than Muslims. Various institutions, legislation and committees exist to placate the concerns of this community. What is more chilling is the resurgence of anti-Semitism across Western Europe. In Britain there are six to seven times as many Muslims as there are Jews, yet if attacks on Jews were to be scaled up proportionately to reflect the Muslim population, then the number of attacks would be well over 3,600. A parliamentary report in 2006 found that a significant number of these attacks had an Islamist motivation. Rather than treating this resurgence of anti-Semitism with the seriousness it deserves the media has wholly ignored it. This is partly due to the fear of being labelled ‘Islamophobes,’ a dishonest word that is slowly infiltrating our vocabulary. The media have chosen to appease the feelings of the Muslim community by ignoring stories that might ‘offend’ them. This is all at the expense of the Jewish community in France and Britain whose continuous kristallnacht is being ignored simply because journalists are worried that they might harm the feelings of Muslims. What I find most sinister regarding the death of Marwa El-Sherbini – apart from the death itself- is the aggressive and rather warlike response from elements within the Muslim world. There have been threats issued from many leaders including dangerous demagogues like Ahmadinejad - as I mentioned in my previous post – calling for a boycott of Germany, and some have even called for violent reprisals against Germany. This reaction is not new, recall for example the Danish cartoon controversy, and the disgusting response to it. Denmark, a small democratic and pluralistic society with a free press was subjected to a global campaign of hatred, violence and lies. A pogrom was launched against this small country, 200 people were pointlessly killed, and its diplomatic immunity was violated by mullahs who invited the intervention of two dozen ambassadors to condemn Denmark for the triviality of publishing a cartoon that lampoon’s a religion. I think you may have slightly misinterpreted me. The murderer was quite simply, a bigot. I brought up Indonesia and India in an attempt to further condemn him. My point was that the murderer’s action was not a response to terrorism, rather he was driven by his own hostility to foreigners. He called the victim a terrorist because of his vile bigotry. I was responding to what I saw as a misleading point in Foxxieboy’s post in which he attempted to rationalize the murderer’s irrationality. In my forceful approach I attempted to show that this was incorrect by taking his rationalization to its logical conclusion.

How cheap of you to make such a smug and unintelligent comment. The surreptitious underlying slur that you’re trying to make by suggesting that it is typical of Germany to carte blanche censor their ‘shameful acts’ is ridiculous and untrue. I don’t particularly like the free speech laws of Germany for their somewhat restrictive nature. However, if there is one charge that cannot be levelled upon them, it is that they censor their ‘shameful acts’. Germany wholly accepts the stigma of its past and does not make any attempt to suppress it, rather discussion is openly promoted. The motivation of the murderer was pure bigotry. To try and implicitly suggest that if the murderer were ‘civilized’ and that he had known that not all terrorists are Muslim is to miss the point. Do you think it would have made a difference if he had known this? Somehow I don’t think that the murderer was particularly concerned over acts of terrorism in say India or Indonesia. Do I honestly have to point out that the murderer was a xenophobe rather than a misguided footman in the War on Terror? This paragraph is an example of a typical apologetic response to jihadism. I wonder how you're able to so badly double guess the motivations of Islamist jihadis, when they tell us them on a regular basis? Look, who are you, or I to say what Islam is when even the most learned scholars of the subject cannot seem to agree. The Grand Rector of the Sunni mosque in Cairo, cannot even make such a claim. There has been no concerted global effort from Islamic scholars to condemn jihadism because it is almost impossible to reach such a conclusion. This is because to do so would be to try and define an elusive set of ancient texts that claims to be the absolute revelation of the divine and secondly because the Hadith, clearly gives the Islamists canonical authority for their actions. It is not because of some skewed misinterpretation of Islam that someone decides to blow themselves up, rather it is directly because of it. (If I were to blow myself up then I would most likely want to research these things before I press a detonator on a crowded beach resort/bus/retirement home). The solution to this problem is not for apparatchik apologists to misconstrue the motivations of these scumbags. Instead it is for Muslims to outright reject parts of their canon, however here’s the catch 22: The Koran and Hadith claim to be the absolute divine revelation of their creator and so to reject any part of it would be reject an integral part of their religion and would mean that the Koran is manmade. I don’t think that this reformation is going to come about soon. And I don’t want to have to wait for another bomb to go off in London or Madrid or Tel Aviv before it does.

This incident is a tragic non-event. It has little significance, trying to extrapolate from it in order to condemn all of German or European society is absurd and should be ignored. The German media did not suppress anything. The media outlets that claim this show the great self-pity and wanted masochistic victimhood of the demagogic press in Arab and some Muslim countries. This is a tired old story which has existed since the ‘50’s in which they portray themselves as the victims of a vast Western or Jewish machination. The death of this woman is a terrible tragedy, but it is not indicative of some wider European sentiment. It should be left to the back pages of the local press to discuss. Instead it has been taken upon by populists in the Arab world to reinforce the view that Westerners are racist – and what more convenient place than Germany – given its history - from which to promote this view. Look at how Mahmoud Amadinejad has used this incident to condemn Germany, its judicial system and the response of the government. This incident serves squalid dictators by using it to channel anger towards the West rather than have the problem of having to deal with the many problems within their own countries. Those that condemn the slow reaction of the German government clearly demonstrate their ignorance and plain stupidity. They have no idea how the German government works, they make no attempt at understanding the German Federalist system and how a concerted response is slow and difficult.

Reading this thread there seems to be a lot of misconceptions regarding the insanity defence. If someone is found to be insane they are acquitted of all wrong doing. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity vitiates all criminal responsibility. Consequentially it would be erroneous to have them imprisoned – as they are not guilty – despite any wrong doing they may have committed. The defence is a question of law to be decided by the judge on the basis of medical evidence and is then left to the jury. Equality is upheld as the defendant would still be given a trial by jury, who would decide on the basis of the medical evidence presented to the court whether or not the defendant is unfit to plead. Someone who is legally insane would have committed the action element of the crime but would lack the mental element because of their ‘defect of reason/disease of mind’. Thus they would not be considered wholly liable (with the exception of crimes of strict liability e.g. driving under the influence). Essentially their insanity prevents them from being legally accountable. In a charge of murder, a court would be compelled to order indefinite hospitalisation. It’s not true that the defendant would be out on the streets a free man, he would be hospitalised for the majority of his life - except that he would not be considered legally liable for the death of the victim. This is why it is rarely used as a defence for murder, as the defence prevents you from being set free, instead you are hospitalised indefinitely. Diminished responsibility and automatism are more popular as they allow for lower sentences.

My vote was for navy. The way I see it, the navy, specifically nuclear submarine fleets, represent the ultimate political will of a nation state. The ability for a nation to project its influence abroad purely by the presence of its navy is daunting as well as admirable - in its ability to deter conflict. I recently read the memoirs of a West Point/Oxford educated Army Ranger called Craig Mullaney. The intensity of the armed forces as well as the intelligence of its servicemen is remarkable. Despite coming from a family of naval officers, I seriously doubt my own potential worth to service and so I find it incredibly commendable to see so many brilliant people on the frontline.

You have assumed throughout that I am defending the actions of states, again you show how fallacious you are, you have constantly assumed my positions and argued against them. Not to mention a lack of coherence or structure in everything you've said. It's hilarious that anyone would consider your viewpoints serious. Unfortunatley, they are becoming increasingly common on the pseudo-left and are accepted by a lot of liberal thinking people. They should be dismissed as trolling. And you should be out on the streets, shouting and waving a placard.

i think you mix my opinion with yours now... you try to justify exactly what you portray above by turning the downsides of the FED's and friend's actions against its victims This is beyond farcical. What a tautology. As amusing as it is to quarrel with you, I feel that I can no longer discuss this subject with you. You have clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge - or/and are being willfully ignorant of the murder of several thousands of Kurds. In either case I don't have the will to continue. Like I said in my other posts, your dogmatic anti-American world view has led you to filter subjects into highly reductionist talking points in order to support your various ridiculous theories relating to international bankers et al.

…I’m not quite sure whether you can differentiate between hate based on legitimate grievances and a psychotic anti-semetic crackpot ideology. In your posts you have repeatedly shown an apologetic tendency to justify terrorism through an American/ World Bank/ Federal Reserve prism that purports to maintain global hegemony. By doing so you have become stupefied by relativism, you have become an apologist for a brutal ideology that is genocidal, homophobic, racist, misogynist and imperialistic in its aims. To put it bluntly - you have, in your self-righteous babble, defended those that would in most likelihood want to kill you. They do not have the right to. Since when did the law supplant realpolitik for foreign policy considerations? Moreover, Saddam sacrificed the sovereignty of Iraq - when he: Committed genocide; removed all tools of accountability; invaded neighboring states; harbored and promoted international terrorism and violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What do you think? Does a country have the right "in all kinds of situations" to violate the territorial sovereignty of another state? :

You’ve misinterpreted me - various groups have called for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Making it “vanish” is exactly what they would like. Furthermore, I disagree with your point on Israel as a Jewish state. I do not believe that ethnicity entails rights in land. I did not compare the two. I suggested that the motivations of the perpetrators of 9/11 were not out of “hopelessness” and “grief” as you did. I maintain that they usurp the issue of Palestine and claim to be spokesmen for the grievances of all Muslims around the world. They represent a filthy and barbaric ideology that is fundamentally at odds with Civilisation and the values of liberal enlightenment. In that case I misinterpreted you - which is quite easy to do. Your second point is ridiculous - it is an apologetic attempt to justify Taliban rule. Stability does not confer legitimacy to run a region. In fact quite the opposite. By accepting stability as the status quo or asserting that it is a good thing - as you do - would entail non-resistance to criminal repressive but stable regimes . Piety and morality do not follow each other. To claim such a thing would be to say that our morality comes from religion. And it most certainly does not. Being pious is strictly abiding by a set of religious dogma. Thus your friends cannot be considered pious in any sense of the word if they were to eat pork or drink alcohol. Oil price meddling by Kuwait is not a legitimate casus belli for war. It is a frivolous justification for war that aims to portray the Kuwaitis as the aggressors in an attempt to annex their country. You have enounced various statements that I have not addressed and have no intention of, instead please reply to these following questions with a so that we can get a clear picture of what you are trying to say… Do you believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the United States government ? Do you believe that the United States government is responsible indirectly for 9/11? Do you believe that the United States government controls Al-Qaeda?

If someone blows themselves up in Israel proper then somehow I do not believe that they are seeking a peaceful resolution or compromise. When a British civilian purports to be a ventriloquist for the grievances of the people of Palestinian and Iraqi people and then proceeds to blow themselves up on London underground , somehow I do not believe that they are suffering from angst or frustration. They are deluded psychopaths and must be dealt with as such. When British Muslims from London fly to Israel to blow themselves up and murder civilians then I highly doubt that the emancipation of Palestine is their ultimate goal. Likewise the perpetrators of 9/11 were not impoverished and oppressed people. These groups have repeatedly stated that they aim to restore the Islamic caliphate and make Israel judenfrei. Jihadism is not caused by “hopelessness” or “grief” or poverty - it itself is the cause of these things. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a simple border dispute that has been exacerbated by the various religious extremists on both sides - the messianic settlers in the West Bank and the Islamist Palestinian thugs. The Taliban did not exist as distinct political clan/movement until after the Soviet war. And so were not victorious in any sense of the word, as you go on to state. They emerged as a fundamentalist tribe competing for power with the other warlords in Afghanistan and were successfully able to dominate large parts of the country through Pakistani support, who saw the Taliban as a useful proxy to control Afghanistan. What you call their “legacy” and ‘”rule set” was the most vile strand of Islamist sharia that repressed all secular forces, women’s groups What you’re doing is disgracefully conscripting the Vietnamese into your argument that aims to portray the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and various other Islamist thugs as some sort of third world liberation theology on par with the Vietcong and Hmong. The grievances of the Vietnamese are sincere and the Vietnam war was a quasi-colonial continuation of French Imperialism. It is disgraceful that you implicitly equate the Hmong and even the Vietcong to the repugnant Islamists. The Vietcong were justifiable in their aims, whatever one my say of them, they were a civilized foe acting reasonably in the context of their history. The comparisons between the Hmong and the Mujahedeen are unfounded. The Hmong have no plans for global dominance as some of the foreign fighters - including Al-Qaeda - that comprised the mujahedeen did. Support for them was reckless and short-sighted, not to mention foolish, but this does not justify their continued existence, they are a menace and must be dealt with. I don’t feel that I need anyone’s permission to hold someone to account to the b/s that they preach.

OK so these Arabs that you know, who eat pork, have orgies - are pious? What religion are they? From what you’ve implied they are certainly not pious Muslims. Unless of course they are being hypocritical - something that all faiths seem to share. Western thought, to the contrary, has some roots in the Islamic world. But to use this, as some do and you yourself certainly did in your previous post, is to suggest that the West would be nothing without Islam. This is nothing more than mere tribalism and intellectual blackmail that attempts to usurp the achievements of the West and claim them as Islam’s. I’m not going to dispute this, I also condemn the abuse of the law by the past administration. But to equate George W. to Islamist fascists as you did in your previous post is incredibly disingenuous. Although the tools of accountability have been rather feeble - GWB can be held to account by the American people via the judiciary/impeachment tools - unlike the various not state actors who do not have one iota of legitimacy to govern nor do they even have a state. They are totalitarian fascists without even a state or ummah to repress. The invasion of Iraq was a noble pursuit. We now know that had Saddam Hussein not invaded Kuwait he would now be in possession of a nuclear weapon. It is unfortunate that many seem to conflate actual nuclear stockpiles with capacity. This was a man who committed genocide on his own citizens, financed and harboured terrorists including Abu Abbas, Abu Nadal and Al’Zaraqawi, violated the sovereignty of neighbouring countries, fooled around with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and abrogated the rights of his citizens. I’m not sure how you have been “screwed” by this war. I and many others in the West have not had to sacrifice anything to rid the world of this dangerous despotic dictator. I find the civilian and military casualties to be abhorrent but this should not lend credence to the view that this entire enterprise should have been avoided. In fact we merely postponed his time of reckoning. Leaving Saddam in power in 1991 and imposing sanctions on him was disastrous, he was merely contained which had disastrous consequences on the Iraqi populace. The United States acknowledged this took the stand that coexistence with Saddam Hussein is impossible. A bill was passed in in Congress in 1998 calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and which provided support for various groups in Iraq. If I understand you correctly you’re implying that the Federal Reserve somehow controls the various Islamist outfits around the world? If you’re going to make such a preposterous claim then you’re going to need a lot of evidence to support this view otherwise you should be out on the street shouting and screaming your views with cardboard sign.

Arabs? The United States and the West is not at war with an ethnic group. You fall the erroneous belief that Islam is an ethnic group and that Arabs are all muslim. Both groups are not a monolithic block and are just as fissile and diverse as other religious and ethnic groups. Arabs are pious? I take it you have never tried the pork chops Ramadan special in the Amman Hilton, Jordan. Don’t make such absurd generalizations I know many active atheist Arabs in my university. Also, Piety is a word that I only use exclusively as a pejorative. Further, they certainly have the right to hold their views, as I too, also have the right to criticize and ridicule their views. The West is not indebted to Islamic/Arab thought as you and many others suggest. This is intellectual blackmail that amounts to mere tribalism. It attempts to usurp the achievements of the West and insinuate that we would all be living in mud huts had it not been for the spread of Islam. I too, am not a fan of the religious views of George W. Bush. However, the surreptitious moral equivalence that you’re implying here between the various Islamist riff-raff and GWB is sinister. The United States has a Separation of church and state, and so even if GWB held fanatical views he would be unable to propagate these views or use them as a casus belli for a crusade as some have suggested. What more, despite the shortcomings of the past 8 years the United States has checks and balances and liberal institutions that uphold accountability and the rule of law. He does not have the means to “really screw us all” as you suggest. The US has never and should not acquiesce in the placation of objectively inferior cultural practises. It cannot by definition appease a religion. From all your postings regarding "US military expansion" you seem to suggest that Bin Ladenism/ Jihadism is some sort of Third World Liberation Theology on par with Che Guevara or Ghandi which is merely responding to the Great Satan that is Imperial America. Wrong again. Neither, you, I or any Islamic scholar can condone or condemn suicide mass murder. The Koran and Hadith is said to be infallible and unalterable. They can be interpreted to support both views, and unfortunately neither the head of Sunnis in Egypt nor the Ayatollahs of Tehran have released edicts claiming it to be haaram. These actions are not done because they are a misrepresentation of religion or an exploitation of it. They are done because of it. Believe me I’m well aware of Thomas Jefferson. What you’re attempting to do is set yourself an impossible task in which you portray the Islamist menace as some sort of Third World Liberation Theology that is the result of US hegemonic imperialism. Let me reiterate that point again, the blowing up of the Bamyan Buddha’s or the ransacking of the Afghan national museum, or the destruction of Shia religious sites by Sunni fanatics is not the result of an attempt at US “Chomskyesque” global dominance. Go and look at the letter sent by the ambassador of Tripoli to Thomas Jefferson preceding the First Barbary War and you will see that this is not a problem that has existed only since the United States started meddling in foreign affairs. It has always been a problem and it is high time that it is confronted and eviscerated through fury and fire and not the accommodation of religious/cultural grievances by absurd human rights laws. In an attempt to filter all American foreign policy through your global political perspective you have inadvertly given tacit apologetic approval to the most vulgar, repulsive and vile ideology that is diametrically opposed to the values of the enlightenment and liberal thinking.

What betrayal? The Soviet Union was expelled from Afghanistan. That’s precisely what your insinuating if you follow the logical conclusion of your argument. If we created them –and we certainly did not - then all the more reason to rectify our error. Spare the cliché... Next you'll be saying the worlds a dangerous place.

What a ridiculous thing to say. The CIA are not "evil", they may be ne'er-do-well's but there isn't a thread of string to connect these two non sequiturs together. As for creating al-Qaeda, the US supplied arms to the mujahedeen but following the Soviet expulsion the US abandoned them and they were able to survive largely from support from elements in Pakistan - including the ISI that aims to control/colonize parts of Afghanistan through the use of these various proxies. Regarding your 9/11 point, what a lazy syllogism you try to make. The moral equivalence you raise between 9/11 and US actions is disingenuous. It is the same mentality that suggests that America is the root cause of all its problems and as a result should not fight back against these nihilistic and barbaric Islamist - dare I say - fascists. So, please do try and elaborate on how America is the cause of Jihadism and thus 9/11.

Jaysus, what I'm suggesting is that it is better that the CIA be disbanded than to have an agency that actively undermines and imperils US interests - and has done for since its inception. I'm assuming from your post that you seem to think that it is far better that the CIA exists than not. Well, I for the one believe that the entire enterprise is doomed. We are hamstrung by the continued existence of this disgraceful and incompetent organization. Sen. Moynihan (far from a kook) considered this and introduced a bill pursuing this. He felt that the CIA was beyond reform and that it would be necessarry to start again from the beginning by abolishing it. Something which should be reconsidered now following : WTC '93 Saudi US Barrack bombings '96 US Embassies Africa '98 Indian Nuclear Tests '99 USS Cole 2000 9/11 The existence of actual stockpiles in Iraq (rather than capacity) Ahmed Chalabi/ Iraq national congress fiasco Valerie Plame/ Robert Novak/ Joe Wilson Leak They underestimated Iranian nuclear ambitions (according to the National Intelligence Estimate) and thus prevented any joint international pressure to be placed on Iran Destruction of Torture Evidence Not to mention its blatant disregard for both domestic and international law. As well as the propogation of the ridiculous view that the CIA is beyond the reach of all forms of political accountability.

I hope it’s not precarious of me to say this, but from what I know the CIA is for the most part an enlarged OSS – except that it has none of the political accountability that goes with it being in the armed forces. It would be a terrible shame not to disband the CIA given its subversion of the rule of law and subordination of democratically accountable politicians. Not to mention its gross ineptitude in any actual intelligence gathering. They overestimated Soviet Strength in its last days and consistently failed to predict the majority of wars in the last century. Given its failures with Iraq and subsequent embarrassment it has become too dismissive over Iran to what would objectively appear as ostensible tacit approval of Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Yes they do. they loose some disposition to you when you do that, the morrowind equivelent of fear. Just tried that and no they don't maybe are you talking about when you hit them? Disposition is not the equivilant of fear in Morrowind it is how much someone likes you. EDIT: Hold on I just found that when you talk to a NPC while holding a weapon over their head it actually puts thier disposition up to 10! Then I tried on guards but it didn't work.

Some random facts Flame Atronachs die in lava. NPC can't sit down even though they have chairs. Guards don't help you when you get attacked but when you attack someone they'll come and attack you. Slaves beg for you to free them yet when you do they stay in the same place. You can eat diamonds yet they don't mess up your teeth! People don't get scared if you draw your sword and hold it other their heads.

I've only seen 1 trailer and it looks fun but I want to ask a question are you going to make a combo were you can throw a spear into someone and make it go through them just like the combo were the player shoved a spear up some Dunmers stomach. Just like I said I've only seen 1 trailer so I don't know if you've done this combo. -MajKrAzAm

Wow that helps alot Cmac, and I thought I had completed every quest in the game. This should get pinned. :P thanks :D -MajKrAzAm

Can you pick up any other objects? -MajkrAzAm

I am a Lv 38 Breton Battlemage. If we had that thing which was in the old foroum that told us what race we are then this kind of posts could have been prevented -MajKrAzAm.

Cauis Cosades hes just ugly why don't he but a shirt on to make him look less scary! -MajKrAzAm

How do you do that? thanks -MajKrAzAm :ph34r: :( :ph34r: