Jump to content

the rebel

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,808

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by the rebel

  9. MaGneT

    Posted

    Indeed Lord Fingolfin,because the same old will happen regardless...

    Anyways we was given the tools to make the game run however the majority community as a whole decided, so any problems of boredom etc is OUR fault for not doing anything to solve it. No one can complain and moan about what we the community created...

    If you dont like the treaty web mess ruining your fun and action then join an alliance on the outside or make your own and take no crap, the world is what you make it and shouldnt have to rely on other people to have balls in place of your own.

  10. MaGneT

    Posted

    I'm more in favor of a complete reset of nations then I am of increasing growth rates but I do like the thought of having a slight chance of getting to the top.

    The problem which would happen with a complete reset is a group of old timers who have had the same nation for years and got a mass of tech/warchest/wonders would just leave and never come back because it can take a year or two to achieve that and would of been a complete waste of time.

    I know of a handful of people who got deleted due to inactivity, remade a nation and totally lost interest of CN, which could become widespread through a reset and could kill CN for good...

  11. MaGneT

    Posted

    Why do we need increased growth rates in NS and tech? You will still end up with a mirror image of what we have here today...

    What would solve the boredom of the world is to agree to do a player game reset, all nations bloody each other down in like a free for all till everyone has below a 1 bill max warchest and below say 60-100k ns... then have a cap put on infra and tech amounts, because most people tend to want to grow to the high NS which in turn causes boredom in wars due to lack of targets. With a realistic cap in place there wouldnt be a problem of that and everyone has "fun"

    But since that wont happen... we are all talking to a brick wall because everyone has had ideas to "solve" the world, but its a world we created...

  16. Xiphosis

    Posted

    -snip-

    Tyga nice try but Art. 4 - Prisoners of war, has nothing to do with what you're arguing about which is Art. 3 - Conflicts not of an international character.

    Google it as even the supreme court says that Art. 3 covers this war, but i guess you know more than the judges who know and understand international laws :rolleyes:

  17. Xiphosis

    Posted

    That is the problem, The Rebel expects there to be a two-tiered set of rules for warfare. One that applies to Al Qaeda and one that applies to the US and any other Western nation that finds itself in combat against Al Qaeda.

    For the purposes of treatment of their fighters, The Rebel expects those fighters to be treated as though they fight for a sovereign state and therefore says that the US is obliged to treat them as per the Geneva Convention which covers wars between sovereign states.

    On the other hand he does not expect Al Qaeda to treat their enemies as per the Geneva Convention as he now classifies Al Qaeda as not a sovereign state to support his argument. The result of this is a belief that the US and Western nations in general are to engage Al Qaeda in conflict hamstrung by rules that he believes Al Qaeda have no requirement to abide by in the same conflict.Complete nonsense.

    No i dont believe in one set of rules for "them" and another for "us" just because america are dealing with a terrorist organisation doesnt mean every international law is worthless, since every country including america signed and agrees with those laws means they must follow them and not when it suits them.

    Just because a terrorist organisation dont follow the rules doesnt mean they escape the laws.

    And Tyga the Geneva conventions does cover the war with Al Qaeda and both should follow those rules; look at Common Article 3...

  18. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Besides, this was supposed to be a discussion about excessive celebration not an argument over America's foreign policy.

    Because when someone so hated gets killed/murderd/executed/imprisoned etc, people celebrate and the hate gets replaced with joy... Funny really, enjoy another term of leadership with Obama :awesome:

  19. Xiphosis

    Posted

    They were within their rights to kill him where they found him, which they did.Your attempts to apply two options in such a black and white manner shows you really are not interested in thinking about the situation. You hate the US and have made that clear to me on a few occasions so will believe anything that will back that mindset. To do that, you have to argue semantics and apply moral equivalence.By your words any soverign state who is attacked by a group that is not a sovereign state has no right nor power to defend itself and/or kill those attacking it.As for examples of sovereign states attacking terrorist groups. Israel has attacked Hezbollah and Hamas in reaction those groups; declarations of war against Israel. If I recall correctly, you don't believe Israel has a right to defend itself either.

    I dont particularly hate anyone, though i am English where we're meant to hate everyone including ourselves, i just disagree with the term in which war has been used it would of made sense if Bush used the phrase "war on Al-Qaeda" instead of "war on terror" which doesnt make sense historically or an other way either logically as every war creates terror. I also dont know where ive ever had a conversation with you where i stated i hate america, i might disagree with certain things they do but that doesnt constitute hate, ive even been there several times in the past :blink:

    Now you're twisting what ive said, every country/state has a right to defend itself from attack and i havent said anything that states otherwise, Afghanistan etc was the result of the terrorist attack... do you see me arguing about that? No

    Ah you brought up the Israel debate, i wasnt arguing that they couldnt defend themselves from attack, my main focus in that topic was the use of illegal weapons used by Israel, the bombing of civilian targets and UN buildings and blocking food aid being sent... Nowhere did i state they shouldnt be allowed to defend themselves from the rocket attacks. Also the Gaza Strip and Israel are both countries so yes it is a war by standards.

    Like it or not there are international rules of warfare.

  20. Xiphosis

    Posted

    The Rebel, if I'm not mistaken, bin Laden himself declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. So, you can hide behind your semantics all you like but bin Laden made the call and now he gets the consequences.

    If i remember correctly Bin Laden declared a jihad or "holy war" (which the west term it as) against the US, now only those that head of/or lead a religion can declare holy wars.

    Look at history find one war which involved a country/state declaring war on a group of civilians/terrorists? there is none apart from this one what Bush catchphased this global crack down on terrorism as.

    I'm arguing the wrongly used term of war here, because if fighting a terrorist organisation was classed as a war then the british would of flattened the Republic of Ireland over 40 years ago for habouring terrorists, since it isnt classed as war it didnt happen.

    But ok if you're so convinced that this really is a war then the Geneva convention applies and those special forces that shot an unarmed "combatant" dead should be tried for war crimes.

    You cant have it both ways Tyga its either a global crack down on terrorist organistions where they should be arrested where possible and put on trial for crimes or its a war where international rules of warfare have to be followed.

  21. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Bin Laden deserved to die. He deserved no trial, nor anything else. He invoked war to describe his struggle with the West and he was treated as a combatant; which is to say, he was shot in the head.

    1) Erm excuse me Bin Laden may of deserved to die but he also deserved a trial not to get murderd (which he was by being shot dead while unarmed) so he should of got put on trial for the indirect murder of 3000+ innocent people.

    2) This wasnt a war but a global fight to crack down on terrorist organisations.

    3) Because this was not a war (wars consist of two or more states/countries declaring war on each other... there is no such thing as "war on terror" and Bush was an idiot to suggest it, maybe to "rally" the population) so Osama Bin Laden was not an enemy combatant.

×
×
  • Create New...