Nice!
Now, if we can make it like platemail...
Makes me think of that Palladium's Rifts game we played years ago, had body armors and glitter boys... we probably won'T see any of that in our lifetime but I often wonder what war will look like in the future, the technologies involved etc.
Now if by nanobots you're talking borg and seven of nine, I could be a potential investor.
Boby armor would be the next evolution of infantry for sure.
Makes me think of that Palladium's Rifts game we played years ago, had body armors and glitter boys... we probably won'T see any of that in our lifetime but I often wonder what war will look like in the future, the technologies involved etc.
Are you talking about that weird game with dogboys, skull police and playable Canadian sasquatches?
Boby armor would be the next evolution of infantry for sure.
Makes me think of that Palladium's Rifts game we played years ago, had body armors and glitter boys... we probably won'T see any of that in our lifetime but I often wonder what war will look like in the future, the technologies involved etc.
Are you talking about that weird game with dogboys, skull police and playable Canadian sasquatches?
We didn't have all the expansions, so the dog-faced and skull police-natzies yep that's the one, the Canadian sasquates are unknown to me, but they sound good :D I liked how the author Kevin made Free Quebec the home of the rebellious Glitter Boys
Wolverine's a freak... although I respect a fellow Canadian, the guy's a bunch of problems... the other one with the adamantium skeleton is not much of a friendly fellow either...
Now if by nanobots you're talking borg and seven of nine, I could be a potential investor.
What has American pop culture done to you?
No fear my friend, like all things, I only take what's good ;)
Seven was never my favorite character, except for one episode where she plays the doctor in her body, I never seen her shine as an actress, I just liked her looks with the Borg ornaments, I didn't like her as much in Boston Legal, so maybe it's the geek part of me, the robot parts and all...
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Hmmm...quite true and it's probably one of the most common weapon systems used against them.
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Maybe the Isrealites should import this remarkable tech. It would be less bloody then shooting at Palestinian kids.
I'm almost certain they have access to the same technology, it's more about how you react to a rock being thrown at you.
EDIT: thrown at you by a kid.
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Maybe the Isrealites should import this remarkable tech. It would be less bloody then shooting at Palestinian kids.
It may repel rocks but I don't think it prevents retaliation. Of course, maybe just not attacking armed people would be a good idea too...
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Maybe the Isrealites should import this remarkable tech. It would be less bloody then shooting at Palestinian kids.
It may repel rocks but I don't think it prevents retaliation. Of course, maybe just not attacking armed people would be a good idea too...
It all depends on the persona and intent behind the attack.
It all depends on the persona and intent behind the attack.
Well of course if you have the will and means to hurt or kill your enemy then sure, but as a general rule of thumb throwing rocks at people with guns isn't the brightest idea unless you are really really sure about their reaction.
It is not always rational. Most of these kids are thought that Isrealites are the reason why they live crappy (euphamism) lifes and they see it with their own eyes when they are bombed or have to cross check points.
Of course it's not always rational, but that doesn't excuse it. If you elect a terrorist government that provokes a more powerful and better armed nation and then complain that you live in a **** area devastated by war and embargoes, I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for you.
Except that better armed nation took Palestinian territories by force and expelled it's inhabitants taking their passports so they cannot come back (or leave so they are stuck in refuge camps for decades). Check Isreal's and Palestine's history. You might learn that the Palestinian's terrorism is the equivalent of the Americans fighting the Brits for their freedom.
I have checked their history. Although Israel has been far from innocent throughout the affair, I don't think the situation compares to the American Revolution. I don't recall us sending bombers to Britain to murder women and children. A lot of Palestine's problems have been due to competition between various elements from within trying to gain power.
the US did that in Germany during WWII. It was a state of total war.
This is how Palestinians see this. I would probably too and from some of the comments of some of the American Patriots here, they would fight to death and kill civilians to get back a piece of their land.
Everybody did that during WWII, it was doctrine at the time. It was also due to limitations of technology. Bombs didn't have the accuracy that they do now. Civilian homes weren't targeted, but everyone knew they would be hit and the attacks were carried out anyway. On the other hand, Palestinians started targetting civilians with suicide bombers to gain more media attention and advance their political power plays (by which I mean within Palestine not in regards to the overall dispute with Israel).
Wut? Suicide bombing are made against Isreal.
You failed to comprehend what I said. The suicide bombings are launched against Israel, but they were not started with the goal of "winning" against Israel, it was so Hamas could advance its political agenda within Palestine.
And Isreal is not better, they use missile to target houses where families live and a suspected terrorist or political leader. Attrocities are done on both sides.
Israel phones families ahead of time. They have also called off airstrikes due to a disproportionate number of civilians being in the target area. Do they get the same in return?
I am just fascinated by how people do not blame Isreal for taking territories that aren't his and for exiling Palestinians. But I am talking to badly informed Americans who see the world as dichotimous.
Again, I never at any time stated Israel was blameless so don't put words in my mouth. But what are you talking about here? Do you mean the territory that was given to Israel to form their own sovereign nation or the territory that they took during a period of war? You know, that thing that happens sometimes when you are surrounded by people that want to see you destroyed.
Phone ahead? Yeah, great way to take out someone by surprise. Better check your sources.
Also check your sources for Hamas. The suicide bombings are a method to make Isreal crack... In theory at least.
Territories taken illegaly. The international community has issued blames to Isreal, but the US us their veto at the UN to protect them.
Maybe you should check your sources. Yes phoning ahead (not to the people they are trying to kill but chances are the other people in the building know who the target is and tell them) hurts their efforts, but so does the US restricting their rules of engagement in an effort to not kill civilians in Afghanistan. Now that's not to say that civilians don't get killed. Collateral damage happens, it's a fact of war. However, they have at least taken steps to reduce civilian deaths, which is more than Hamas can say.
Hamas needed a way to make itself stand out. It was in danger of being overshadowed by other groups. It needed attention and a way to make itself stand out from other similar organizations. Sure they were attacking Israel, but there were plenty of other ways to do that. The suicide bombings were for their own political gain. Of course it has caught on and is used by many others as well. I'd also have to go back and read through some of my material again to verify this but I do believe Hamas actually derailed peace talks as well to achieve their political goals of gaining power among the Palestinians.
Again, what territories? You say territories taken illegally, I assume you mean the ones taken during the war then? Well that happens in war. So how do you determine what is and is not legal? They weren't violating any agreements or treaties they were signatories to that I'm aware of. They weren't violating the laws of war. So on what grounds do you declare it illegal? A lot of people say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal but the term "illegal" generally seems to mean "I don't like it". Now as for the veto, the US has said it will veto any measure that criticizes Israel that does not equally criticize the terrorist organizations that attack it. That sounds reasonable enough.
Obviously you don't read a lot. Yes Israel phones ahead. They do. You don't have to take my word for it, go read up on it for yourself. Hamas certainly doesn't do the same when they launch rockets at Israeli cities or send a suicide bomber into a crowded area. Hamas also hides itself among the civilian population to make it harder for Israel to take them out without killing civilians.
The services Hamas offered was one part of its strategy. It was almost eclipsed early on and never would have had the chance to do any of that stuff if it hadn't found a way to catapult itself into the spotlight. You're looking only at very recent events and ignoring the deeper history of Palestinian politics.
Now annexing territories. Well it was a war. Borders often change during a war. Don't go starting **** and then complain that you got bit in the ass by it. Both sides are equally to blame for there not already being an independent Palestinian state, it's not at all fair to lay it all on Israel.
And it if both sides have their share of the blame, it is not 50/50. Isreal and the US are the real guilty parties here.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Are you saying terrorist attacks and targeting civilians is ok? I suppose I should expect that since you view seems be best summed up as "if the US supports it it must be bad".
They aren't doing terrorists attacks just for fun. They are fighting for their freedom. They are oppressed by Isreal. Isreal is the attacker. They are defending themselves. Americans woudl do the same if they were in the same situation. Many nations would.
Riiiight Religious Fanatacism doesn't enter into it at all. Families held at Gunpoint if you don't go blow yourself up to kill those mean old Israelites, they'll die doesn't factor in. Promises of Economic Prosperity, other forms of Black mail.
Goldo, I hate to tell you this, because since I'm American (and you are Racist against Americans) but not everything wrong with the world is America's fault. These people utterly Loathe each other. They want nothing more than to see everyone who's beliefs in God differ from their own needs to die.
These people are the KKK, Black Panthers, and the Wako nutjob all rolled into one.
I will say this, using your logic, everything wrong being our fault... means everything right is to our credit.
Now you are being racist by reducing them to religious fanatics. These people fight for their land and more, like you said you would. Didn't you say you'd rather die fighting then surrender? This is what they are doing.
And in the case of Isreal/Palestine, the Brits are the first one responsabile, then the US just continued when the Brits couldn't afford it anymore.
And this might surpirse you, but I am not anti-American, I am just a realist and I keep myself inform on what goes on in the world. Try it. You'll see a whole new world. Just do not use American information sources. Use better ones.
Not all of them are. Alot of them are Hostages to the Fanatics. Rule by the minority. Tyranny.
And yeah you are. Heavily. More correctly you're racist against those of "anglo descent". I use several sources, goldo. Some of which come from outside of my borders.
And alot of them come from second hand from people that actually lived in the places in question.
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
Nah, I have nothing against Anglo-Saxons.
And no, Palestinians aren't hostages of fanatics. They are hostages of Isreal, the real tyrant.
Well try to get better info, it isn't showing. All I see is typical propaganda. Very boring. Out of touch with reality.
Actually, while Palestinians may not be hostages of fanatics, they certainly are used by them. Palestinians have it pretty bad. Sure, Israel and its allies have been curb stomping Palestinians, but Palestine's allies are allies of convenience. They use Palestinians, not because they actually care about them and their plight, but because it allows them to say "hey, look at how bad these other people are. They are treating these Palestinians very bad. Let's get them."
Besides, Ownership, when it comes to countries, is defined by who has the military to keep it. That's how borders were created throughout history.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.
Makes me think of that Palladium's Rifts game we played years ago, had body armors and glitter boys... we probably won'T see any of that in our lifetime but I often wonder what war will look like in the future, the technologies involved etc.
Now if by nanobots you're talking borg and seven of nine, I could be a potential investor.
Boby armor would be the next evolution of infantry for sure.
Makes me think of that Palladium's Rifts game we played years ago, had body armors and glitter boys... we probably won'T see any of that in our lifetime but I often wonder what war will look like in the future, the technologies involved etc.
Are you talking about that weird game with dogboys, skull police and playable Canadian sasquatches?
Boby armor would be the next evolution of infantry for sure.
Makes me think of that Palladium's Rifts game we played years ago, had body armors and glitter boys... we probably won'T see any of that in our lifetime but I often wonder what war will look like in the future, the technologies involved etc.
Are you talking about that weird game with dogboys, skull police and playable Canadian sasquatches?
We didn't have all the expansions, so the dog-faced and skull police-natzies yep that's the one, the Canadian sasquates are unknown to me, but they sound good :D I liked how the author Kevin made Free Quebec the home of the rebellious Glitter Boys
Wolverine's a freak... although I respect a fellow Canadian, the guy's a bunch of problems... the other one with the adamantium skeleton is not much of a friendly fellow either...
Now if by nanobots you're talking borg and seven of nine, I could be a potential investor.
What has American pop culture done to you?
No fear my friend, like all things, I only take what's good ;)
Seven was never my favorite character, except for one episode where she plays the doctor in her body, I never seen her shine as an actress, I just liked her looks with the Borg ornaments, I didn't like her as much in Boston Legal, so maybe it's the geek part of me, the robot parts and all...
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Hmmm...quite true and it's probably one of the most common weapon systems used against them.
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Maybe the Isrealites should import this remarkable tech. It would be less bloody then shooting at Palestinian kids.
I'm almost certain they have access to the same technology, it's more about how you react to a rock being thrown at you.
EDIT: thrown at you by a kid.
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Maybe the Isrealites should import this remarkable tech. It would be less bloody then shooting at Palestinian kids.
It may repel rocks but I don't think it prevents retaliation. Of course, maybe just not attacking armed people would be a good idea too...
Current helmets are also known to repel rocks thrown by kids in Iraq.
Maybe the Isrealites should import this remarkable tech. It would be less bloody then shooting at Palestinian kids.
It may repel rocks but I don't think it prevents retaliation. Of course, maybe just not attacking armed people would be a good idea too...
It all depends on the persona and intent behind the attack.
It all depends on the persona and intent behind the attack.
Well of course if you have the will and means to hurt or kill your enemy then sure, but as a general rule of thumb throwing rocks at people with guns isn't the brightest idea unless you are really really sure about their reaction.
It is not always rational. Most of these kids are thought that Isrealites are the reason why they live crappy (euphamism) lifes and they see it with their own eyes when they are bombed or have to cross check points.
Of course it's not always rational, but that doesn't excuse it. If you elect a terrorist government that provokes a more powerful and better armed nation and then complain that you live in a **** area devastated by war and embargoes, I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for you.
Except that better armed nation took Palestinian territories by force and expelled it's inhabitants taking their passports so they cannot come back (or leave so they are stuck in refuge camps for decades). Check Isreal's and Palestine's history. You might learn that the Palestinian's terrorism is the equivalent of the Americans fighting the Brits for their freedom.
I have checked their history. Although Israel has been far from innocent throughout the affair, I don't think the situation compares to the American Revolution. I don't recall us sending bombers to Britain to murder women and children. A lot of Palestine's problems have been due to competition between various elements from within trying to gain power.
the US did that in Germany during WWII. It was a state of total war.
This is how Palestinians see this. I would probably too and from some of the comments of some of the American Patriots here, they would fight to death and kill civilians to get back a piece of their land.
Everybody did that during WWII, it was doctrine at the time. It was also due to limitations of technology. Bombs didn't have the accuracy that they do now. Civilian homes weren't targeted, but everyone knew they would be hit and the attacks were carried out anyway. On the other hand, Palestinians started targetting civilians with suicide bombers to gain more media attention and advance their political power plays (by which I mean within Palestine not in regards to the overall dispute with Israel).
Wut? Suicide bombing are made against Isreal.
You failed to comprehend what I said. The suicide bombings are launched against Israel, but they were not started with the goal of "winning" against Israel, it was so Hamas could advance its political agenda within Palestine.
And Isreal is not better, they use missile to target houses where families live and a suspected terrorist or political leader. Attrocities are done on both sides.
Israel phones families ahead of time. They have also called off airstrikes due to a disproportionate number of civilians being in the target area. Do they get the same in return?
I am just fascinated by how people do not blame Isreal for taking territories that aren't his and for exiling Palestinians. But I am talking to badly informed Americans who see the world as dichotimous.
Again, I never at any time stated Israel was blameless so don't put words in my mouth. But what are you talking about here? Do you mean the territory that was given to Israel to form their own sovereign nation or the territory that they took during a period of war? You know, that thing that happens sometimes when you are surrounded by people that want to see you destroyed.
Phone ahead? Yeah, great way to take out someone by surprise. Better check your sources.
Also check your sources for Hamas. The suicide bombings are a method to make Isreal crack... In theory at least.
Territories taken illegaly. The international community has issued blames to Isreal, but the US us their veto at the UN to protect them.
Maybe you should check your sources. Yes phoning ahead (not to the people they are trying to kill but chances are the other people in the building know who the target is and tell them) hurts their efforts, but so does the US restricting their rules of engagement in an effort to not kill civilians in Afghanistan. Now that's not to say that civilians don't get killed. Collateral damage happens, it's a fact of war. However, they have at least taken steps to reduce civilian deaths, which is more than Hamas can say.
Hamas needed a way to make itself stand out. It was in danger of being overshadowed by other groups. It needed attention and a way to make itself stand out from other similar organizations. Sure they were attacking Israel, but there were plenty of other ways to do that. The suicide bombings were for their own political gain. Of course it has caught on and is used by many others as well. I'd also have to go back and read through some of my material again to verify this but I do believe Hamas actually derailed peace talks as well to achieve their political goals of gaining power among the Palestinians.
Again, what territories? You say territories taken illegally, I assume you mean the ones taken during the war then? Well that happens in war. So how do you determine what is and is not legal? They weren't violating any agreements or treaties they were signatories to that I'm aware of. They weren't violating the laws of war. So on what grounds do you declare it illegal? A lot of people say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal but the term "illegal" generally seems to mean "I don't like it". Now as for the veto, the US has said it will veto any measure that criticizes Israel that does not equally criticize the terrorist organizations that attack it. That sounds reasonable enough.
Obviously you don't read a lot. Yes Israel phones ahead. They do. You don't have to take my word for it, go read up on it for yourself. Hamas certainly doesn't do the same when they launch rockets at Israeli cities or send a suicide bomber into a crowded area. Hamas also hides itself among the civilian population to make it harder for Israel to take them out without killing civilians.
The services Hamas offered was one part of its strategy. It was almost eclipsed early on and never would have had the chance to do any of that stuff if it hadn't found a way to catapult itself into the spotlight. You're looking only at very recent events and ignoring the deeper history of Palestinian politics.
Now annexing territories. Well it was a war. Borders often change during a war. Don't go starting **** and then complain that you got bit in the ass by it. Both sides are equally to blame for there not already being an independent Palestinian state, it's not at all fair to lay it all on Israel.
And it if both sides have their share of the blame, it is not 50/50. Isreal and the US are the real guilty parties here.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Are you saying terrorist attacks and targeting civilians is ok? I suppose I should expect that since you view seems be best summed up as "if the US supports it it must be bad".
They aren't doing terrorists attacks just for fun. They are fighting for their freedom. They are oppressed by Isreal. Isreal is the attacker. They are defending themselves. Americans woudl do the same if they were in the same situation. Many nations would.
Riiiight Religious Fanatacism doesn't enter into it at all. Families held at Gunpoint if you don't go blow yourself up to kill those mean old Israelites, they'll die doesn't factor in. Promises of Economic Prosperity, other forms of Black mail.
Goldo, I hate to tell you this, because since I'm American (and you are Racist against Americans) but not everything wrong with the world is America's fault. These people utterly Loathe each other. They want nothing more than to see everyone who's beliefs in God differ from their own needs to die.
These people are the KKK, Black Panthers, and the Wako nutjob all rolled into one.
I will say this, using your logic, everything wrong being our fault... means everything right is to our credit.
Now you are being racist by reducing them to religious fanatics. These people fight for their land and more, like you said you would. Didn't you say you'd rather die fighting then surrender? This is what they are doing.
And in the case of Isreal/Palestine, the Brits are the first one responsabile, then the US just continued when the Brits couldn't afford it anymore.
And this might surpirse you, but I am not anti-American, I am just a realist and I keep myself inform on what goes on in the world. Try it. You'll see a whole new world. Just do not use American information sources. Use better ones.
Not all of them are. Alot of them are Hostages to the Fanatics. Rule by the minority. Tyranny.
And yeah you are. Heavily. More correctly you're racist against those of "anglo descent". I use several sources, goldo. Some of which come from outside of my borders.
And alot of them come from second hand from people that actually lived in the places in question.
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
Nah, I have nothing against Anglo-Saxons.
And no, Palestinians aren't hostages of fanatics. They are hostages of Isreal, the real tyrant.
Well try to get better info, it isn't showing. All I see is typical propaganda. Very boring. Out of touch with reality.
Actually, while Palestinians may not be hostages of fanatics, they certainly are used by them. Palestinians have it pretty bad. Sure, Israel and its allies have been curb stomping Palestinians, but Palestine's allies are allies of convenience. They use Palestinians, not because they actually care about them and their plight, but because it allows them to say "hey, look at how bad these other people are. They are treating these Palestinians very bad. Let's get them."
Besides, Ownership, when it comes to countries, is defined by who has the military to keep it. That's how borders were created throughout history.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.