 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Action Games / Doom / March 2006Doom the movie. Has anyone noticed....
that imps, and all things 'hell' related....including hell... are NOT in this movie? Even the pinkie demon.... was a virally changed guy nicknamed Pinky :\ Other than that, pretty good sci-fi action movie with The Rock. Too bad it wasn't....er....Doom. McG. It was more like doom-3 than the original doom  Signaturepop is Mark Doing nothing makes me tired 'cause I can't take a break. -- > that imps, and all things 'hell' related....including hell... are NOT in > this movie? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > McG. On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: > It was more like doom-3 than the original doom > > Yeah but Doom 3 was still scary, and still had hell. I'd like to see a movie other than South Park that actually shows hell. Did anybody here see Constantine? There's something about the whole, albeit cliched depiction of hell with all the symbolism and candles and stuff that gets to me through my catholic upbringing. I will absolutely never forget the summer I spent at a camp run by this monastic order where this freaky camp counselor read to us from Dante's Inferno every night after lights out, I think I was 11. Scarred for life. Signature"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong" Richard P. Feynman Steve ¤»Inglo«¤ www.inglostadt.com > On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: >> It was more like doom-3 than the original doom [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Steve ¤»Inglo«¤ > www.inglostadt.com Didn't see Constantine. I have seen a few "hell" related flicks. There are lots of 'B' budget variations on the theme. After a bit of thought, almost all that I've seen seem to have a (so-called) catholic hell theme. The one that I've seen the entire series to that kinda breaks the mold is the Hellraiser movies. Yeah, it's still in the 'catholic hell theme', but with a decidedly Franciscan (dark ages) flavor. Have you seen these Inglo? It's a strong and loooong story. I think there are four, maybe five now. Jaws gave me nightmares. So did these for a while. Even Nighmare On Elm Streets Freddy Kruger is a bad apple out of hell. Doom3 was scary, but at a deep level for me. Seeing the woman lying on the floor, dying.... and the Lost Soul rips out of her head... that one got to me. The movie Doom had the right 'entry level' creatures. For the wrong reasons. The story was changed fundamentally. Call it 'Doom Lite', if you will. McG. On 2/18/2006 1:22 PM McGrandpa brightened our day with: > >> On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I saw the first Hellraiser movie at a drive-in a long time ago. I seem to remember that as being mostly S&M, kinky sex stuff in a demonic kind of way. From what I've read Constantine is not supposed to be that good of a movie but the visuals are supposed to be disturbing and scary. With the level of CG sophistication nowadays I think hell would be an interesting thing to depict in a movie. If you did hell right you'd end up with a NC-17 rating though. The scariest part of Doom 3 for me was fairly early when you walk into an office to get a pda and it's covered with blood and pentagrams and has candles burning, as soon as you pick up the pda, the cackling starts. Up until that point I'd been playing D3 late at night with all the lights out. What's I find interesting is that none of that stuff should really have an effect on me any more, I don't believe in any of it, yet it does. On the other hand a game like F.E.A.R., which was spooky enough, didn't come close to evoking the kind of response from me that Doom 3 did. Signature"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong" Richard P. Feynman Steve ¤»Inglo«¤ www.inglostadt.com > On 2/18/2006 1:22 PM McGrandpa brightened our day with: >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > to depict in a movie. If you did hell right you'd end up with a NC-17 > rating though. And everyone has a different take on *what* hell IS. You mentioned Dantes' Inferno. Brings to mind an impressionist painter of our time. Max. Some of the things he paints can be unnerving. rendition of the moveable feast, for example. or his idea of the last supper. I think the "noisome pit" aspect has been run to the ground. > The scariest part of Doom 3 for me was fairly early when you walk into an > office to get a pda and it's covered with blood and pentagrams and has > candles burning, as soon as you pick up the pda, the cackling starts. Up > until that point I'd been playing D3 late at night with all the lights > out. What's I find interesting is that none of that stuff should really > have an effect on me any more, I don't believe in any of it, yet it does. Our early teachings are very hard to walk away from, no matter what our sensibilities say. some of these early religious teachings become some of our most fundamental beliefs, and defy language. They're about feelings and memories. knowledge and understanding came later. On the other hand a game like F.E.A.R., which was > spooky enough, didn't come close to evoking the kind of response from me > that Doom 3 did. Well, same here, about FEAR not getting the same level of response Doom3 does. *STILL* does. I have ROE now, and will play it through as slowly as i did the main game. Fascinating application :) Yeah, common type elements, and you know the "bOo" factors ahead of time. They still spook me :) I feel the hair on my neck move, skin tingles....[THUNK] zombie hits me with a stilson. Their timing is great :) I *REALLY* want to see it totally maxed out, in Ultra quality, 1280x1024 and smooth as silk without any hitches. Got a 7800GTX256 now. The other is due by end of the week ;) Doom3 has an interesting idea of hell. You should see the first THREE hellraiser movies. You haven't been introduced to Leviathan yet....heh! With the first 3, you got pretty much all the good parts and info. They do 'explore' some of the stranger parts of the human psyche I think. There are some good stories and reveals you haven't seen. Pretty good as a whole. FEAR is more interesting now that i have a more realistic level of detail. McG. > The scariest part of Doom 3 for me was fairly early when you walk into > an office to get a pda and it's covered with blood and pentagrams and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which was spooky enough, didn't come close to evoking the kind of > response from me that Doom 3 did. I know exactly what you mean. Doom 3 scares the sh.t out of me every time I play it. Yet right from my very earliest childhood I was taught that there was no such thing as hell, no fire and brimstone or eternal torment or *any* of that stuff. FEAR is creepy, but nowhere near as much as Doom 3. Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx > On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: >> It was more like doom-3 than the original doom >> > Yeah but Doom 3 was still scary, and still had hell. I'd like to see > a movie other than South Park that actually shows hell. You probably can't depict hell in a modern movie as it will be considered insulting to some maniacal religious extremists. >> On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: >>> It was more like doom-3 than the original doom [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You probably can't depict hell in a modern movie as it will be > considered insulting to some maniacal religious extremists. Yeah, and sadly one of those extremists is running the US... so any depiction of hell like it was in Doom 3, the movie would probably be banned before release and its makers detained under the Patriot Act... Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >>> On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: >>>> It was more like doom-3 than the original doom [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > banned > before release and its makers detained under the Patriot Act... oh horsepucky BILL! gad! hell I'm leaving you folks and gwb alone. Meanwhile...TAKE clinton....PLEASE! McG. > "EvilBill" <quake2lives@gmail.com> wrote in message > > Yeah, and sadly one of those extremists is running the US... so any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Meanwhile...TAKE clinton....PLEASE! > McG. Gotta agree with McG. At least our current Commander in Chief is trying to do a job the former one ignored. > Gotta agree with McG. At least our current Commander in Chief is > trying to do a job the former one ignored. Sleeping with the woman he married? Oh wait, that's not entirely true; I'm sure Clinton wants to sleep with the woman GWB married, too... :-D SignatureChris Odorjan - codorjan@gmail.com - http://www.execulink.com/~bobnet/ >> Gotta agree with McG. At least our current Commander in Chief is >> trying to do a job the former one ignored. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >:-D Well, (with Hillary hot on the campagn trail) he does have a lot of free time on his hands.. Wonder if Ms. Anan's considered a "hottie?" :-0 Hey, what's not to like? Torture, gulags, an illegal war and the trashing of the constitution. It's all fun! G. >>> On 2/17/2006 7:45 PM pop brightened our day with: >>>> It was more like doom-3 than the original doom [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > banned > before release and its makers detained under the Patriot Act... >Hey, what's not to like? Torture, gulags, an illegal war and the trashing >of the constitution. It's all fun! > >G. Yeah, but all that's still better than getting your a.s blown to shreds just because you refuse to (be forced to) embrace another ethnic groups supposed deity. >>Hey, what's not to like? Torture, gulags, an illegal war and the trashing >>of the constitution. It's all fun! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >shreds just because you refuse to (be forced to) embrace another >ethnic groups supposed deity. Besides, the Constitution has been getting trampled (and sh.t on) pretty regularly *LONG* before this current Presidential administration took back the reigns of power, Einstein. Didn't your pathetic liberal public school political science teachers teach you anything, Brainiac? >:-( >> Hey, what's not to like? Torture, gulags, an illegal war and the >> trashing of the constitution. It's all fun! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > shreds just because you refuse to (be forced to) embrace another > ethnic groups supposed deity. And Iraq had exactly *what* to do with bin Laden, and exactly *what* capability to wage war against *anybody*? WMD my a.s. Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx > And Iraq had exactly *what* to do with bin Laden, and exactly *what* > capability to wage war against *anybody*? How about against it's own people? > WMD my a.s. Tell that to the Kurds. SignatureIf you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space. Linux Registered User #327951 >>> Hey, what's not to like? Torture, gulags, an illegal war and the >>> trashing of the constitution. It's all fun! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >capability to wage war against *anybody*? >WMD my a.s. Who T.F. said the above statement had anything to do with Iraq, Genius? Saddam sure as hell didn't fly those airliners into the WTC (He might have danced about it afterwards upon hearing the news of it happening though). Goddamn, you left wing Bush haters sure are a touchy lot. :-/ >>>> Hey, what's not to like? Torture, gulags, an illegal war and the >>>> trashing of the constitution. It's all fun! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have danced about it afterwards upon hearing the news of it happening > though). So why did we invade the place? As for bin Laden, he doesn't hate the West because we're not Muslims, he just uses Islam as a platform for his political views. He hates the West because 1) we aid Israel and 2) we helped engineer the circumstances that put Saddam in power. He and Saddam were mortal enemies after all, politically speaking. > Goddamn, you left wing Bush haters sure are a touchy lot. :-/ Blair hater, in my case, being British. You guys over there probably don't hear a lot about what's happening here, but we're having more and more of our civil liberties eroded, by a government that just kowtows to whatever the US wants. And turns a blind eye to torture and imprisonment without legal recourse, too. (Hell, they do it themselves, too...) Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx > So why did we invade the place? So we could end the sanctions and get our army out of Saudi Arabia. One of bin Laden's reasons for 9/11 was "a million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt". The presence of our military in Saudi Arabia was another stated reason for the attack. But we couldn't leave Saudi Arabia while Iraq was still a threat. > As for bin Laden, he doesn't hate the West because we're not > Muslims, he just uses Islam as a platform for his political views. Try searching for "bin laden caliphate" and you might change your mind. > He hates the West because 1) we aid Israel and 2) we helped engineer > the circumstances that put Saddam in power. He and Saddam were > mortal enemies after all, politically speaking. Read this and say that: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887 Now, when are you going to come over to TK's server and play some threewave with us? >> So why did we invade the place? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for the attack. But we couldn't leave Saudi Arabia while Iraq was > still a threat. Threat, no. Minor annoyance, maybe. In the end, nothing justifies the tens of thousands of innocent civilians bombed, tortured, blown up and gunned down there. Personally I suspect a surgical strike by the SAS could've taken out Bin Laden and his cronies *years* ago without all this destruction. To say nothing of the *British* forces that the US bombed during the initial invasion! :P >> He hates the West because 1) we aid Israel and 2) we helped engineer >> the circumstances that put Saddam in power. He and Saddam were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887 This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had nukes and nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, though. I'd sooner send my girlfriend out to fight in Iraq than believe anything they have to say. > Now, when are you going to come over to TK's server and play some > threewave with us? When I get around to reinstalling Q3, get some free time, and have the IP ;) Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had nukes and >nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, though. I'd sooner >send my girlfriend out to fight in Iraq than believe anything they have to >say. So, let me get this straight here then. Whatever facts the "warmongers" report as the truth regarding the invasion of Iraq is highly questionable and suspect, but whatever facts the "pacifists" present as the truth concerning the same subject can be relied on with 100% certainty? A-yup. :-/ >>This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had nukes and >>nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, though. I'd sooner >>send my girlfriend out to fight in Iraq than believe anything they have to >>say. > So, let me get this straight here then. Whatever facts the > "warmongers" report as the truth regarding the invasion of Iraq is > highly questionable and suspect, but whatever facts the "pacifists" > present as the truth concerning the same subject can be relied on with > 100% certainty? Yup, that's a good summary of the way the current Left-Wing liberal whackos think. It would almost be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. Everything is Bush's fault. Right... SignatureIf you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space. Linux Registered User #327951 >>> This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had >>> nukes and nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Everything is Bush's fault. Right... You know, I think you're all missing one crucial piece of information here: I'm not American, ergo not affiliated or going along with *any* of your political parties or establishments. <g> Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >> Yup, that's a good summary of the way the current Left-Wing liberal >> whackos think. It would almost be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. >> Everything is Bush's fault. Right... > You know, I think you're all missing one crucial piece of information here: > I'm not American, ergo not affiliated or going along with *any* of your > political parties or establishments. <g> You don't have to be an American to be a left-wing liberal whacko. SignatureIf you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space. Linux Registered User #327951 >>> Yup, that's a good summary of the way the current Left-Wing liberal >>> whackos think. It would almost be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You don't have to be an American to be a left-wing liberal whacko. True. But I don't think it's justifiable to call someone a 'whacko' for being opposed to unprovoked invasions and the removal of civil rights. (Guantanamo, anyone? Most of the people in *there* are innocent...) Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >> You don't have to be an American to be a left-wing liberal whacko. > True. But I don't think it's justifiable to call someone a 'whacko' for > being opposed to unprovoked invasions and the removal of civil rights. It is when the people making all the noise are doing it *ONLY* for political reasons, not their own beliefs, and doing nothing but attacking the conservative side (while offering no realistic solutions to anything). > (Guantanamo, anyone? Most of the people in *there* are innocent...) Perhaps *some* are, but I doubt the term *most*. Besides, you weren't talking about Gitmo in the earlier posts. SignatureIf you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space. Linux Registered User #327951 >>> You don't have to be an American to be a left-wing liberal whacko. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > attacking the conservative side (while offering no realistic > solutions to anything). Well, my beliefs are summed up quite nicely by this quote from - I think - Benjamin Franklin - 'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither'. The continual erosion of civil rights in the US and UK is utterly unacceptable. And in the wider world, isn't it odd that a lot more people hate us now since we started our rampage across the Middle East? As for Bin Laden (and Saddam, for that matter), IMO a surgical strike by special forces would have achieved the objectives of getting rid of al'Qaida and the Saddam administration far more quickly with a minimum of civilian casualties. Full-scale invasions and wars were not necessary. >> (Guantanamo, anyone? Most of the people in *there* are innocent...) > > Perhaps *some* are, but I doubt the term *most*. Besides, you weren't > talking about Gitmo in the earlier posts. No, I wasn't, but it is all part of the same situation. The four British prisoners who were eventually released, three of them were arrested in Pakistan after going there to attend a wedding (one of the guys was the groom!) and the other was there to attend an Arabic language course. (It seems as well that US forces were crossing the border into Pakistan to arrest these people. Isn't this a violation of Pakistani sovereignty?) Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx > As for Bin Laden (and Saddam, for that matter), IMO a surgical strike by > special forces would have achieved the objectives of getting rid of al'Qaida > and the Saddam administration far more quickly with a minimum of civilian > casualties. Full-scale invasions and wars were not necessary. You seem to be saying that our intelligence agencies are worthless and have no credibility, yet we know bin Laden's exact location and could take him out any time we like. But I like your stategy. One lone marine goes in and takes out the Cyberdemon, er bin Laden. It sounds like a great game! Or even better, one marine vs. Cyber bin Laden! Someone should tell Carmack to get to work on it. /me thinks about it... No, Cyber bin Laden should be the sequel. The first one should be regular bin Laden. >> This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had >> nukes and nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > present as the truth concerning the same subject can be relied on with > 100% certainty? Nope. I just don't believe what *anybody* says. That way I'm never disappointed when it all turns out to be lies, misinformation, propaganda or just plain wrong. Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >>> This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had >>> nukes and nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >disappointed when it all turns out to be lies, misinformation, propaganda or >just plain wrong. And you hate Tony Blair and George Jr. So, I stand corrected, British Left Wing wacko then. Care to explain Saddam's super cannon aimed at Israel and *NERVE* gassing the Kurds then? Wait, Saddam didn't have any weapons, did he? >>>> This is from the same intelligence services that said Saddam had >>>> nukes and nerve gas ready to launch at the West within 45 minutes, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And you hate Tony Blair and George Jr. So, I stand corrected, British > Left Wing wacko then. So I'm a whacko to believe that launching unprovoked invasions, while simultaneously taking away civil liberties (you probably don't know about the new powers granted to the police over here, which allowed them to, among other things, shoot an innocent man in the head, and detain an 11-year-old girl for attending an anti-war demonstration) is the mark of two governments that have nobody's interests at heart but their own greed? > Care to explain Saddam's super cannon aimed at Israel and *NERVE* > gassing the Kurds then? > > Wait, Saddam didn't have any weapons, did he? If he had them, he'd have used them on our forces during the invasion. Simple as that. The gassing of the Kurds was a very long time ago, and so was the whole 'supergun' thing. (I might note, the supergun was never actually completed anyway...) Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >> And you hate Tony Blair and George Jr. So, I stand corrected, British >> Left Wing wacko then. > So I'm a whacko to believe that launching unprovoked invasions, while > simultaneously taking away civil liberties (you probably don't know about Unprovoked? I guess you don't know about Iraq's not complying with UN sanctions for what, 12 years? That's OK? The near genocide-category killings carried out by the Iraqi government? The belief *at the time* that he had WMD and was about to use them? That all adds up to "unprovoked". I don't think so. > the new powers granted to the police over here, which allowed them to, among > other things, shoot an innocent man in the head, and detain an 11-year-old > girl for attending an anti-war demonstration) is the mark of two governments > that have nobody's interests at heart but their own greed? It's easy to find isolated (and fairly meaningless, therefore) incidents of police misconduct in any society. Your examples, while regrettable, don't really mean much. >> Care to explain Saddam's super cannon aimed at Israel and *NERVE* >> gassing the Kurds then? >> Wait, Saddam didn't have any weapons, did he? > If he had them, he'd have used them on our forces during the invasion. > Simple as that. Maybe. Or maybe we disabled his ability to use them with the swiftness of the strike. Again, you must remember that *at the time* it was believed he had them, based on faulty intelligence from multiple nations. > The gassing of the Kurds was a very long time ago, and so was I almost don't believe you said this one. How long ago was it? 10 years? 15 years? Whichever, not so long ago. Besides, would that make it OK??? Is what the Nazis did "OK" because it was a long time ago? Sheesh. > the whole 'supergun' thing. (I might note, the supergun was never > actually completed anyway...) It shows intent, whether it was ever used or not. It indicates a willingness to attack and kill. That's enough. SignatureIf you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space. Linux Registered User #327951 >>> And you hate Tony Blair and George Jr. So, I stand corrected, >>> British Left Wing wacko then. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unprovoked? I guess you don't know about Iraq's not complying with UN > sanctions for what, 12 years? That's OK? The sanctions were useless, it was only the Iraqi people that suffered anyway (the innocents that are mostly dead now... some estimates put the death toll at 250,000 now, the 40,000-odd 'official' toll only covers known, reported deaths and doesn't include suspected insurgents, other non-civilians or Coalition troops...). Saddam was still living it up in his palaces, the sanctions were pointless. I do know Iraq was violating the no-fly zones on a daily basis. But then, who are we to say what part of someone's country they can't operate aircraft in? Who are we to take the moral high ground? One or two nations shouldn't *have* the supposed moral authority to act as the world's police and I strongly believe that there is never an excuse to invade someone else's country. > The near genocide-category > killings carried out by the Iraqi government? The belief *at the > time* that he had WMD and was about to use them? That all adds up to > "unprovoked". I don't think so. That belief was not shared by the UN weapons inspectors. Who by their very nature *as* weapons inspectors (and thus experts in the field) would know a lot more about it than governments who had their own agendas. >> the new powers granted to the police over here, which allowed them >> to, among other things, shoot an innocent man in the head, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > incidents of police misconduct in any society. Your examples, while > regrettable, don't really mean much. Unfortunately, they're not isolated incidents. Another one was an 82-year-old man in the House of Commons - a lifetime member of the Labour Party - roughly bundled out and arrested as a terrorist, for muttering 'nonsense' to something one of the Cabinet was saying. A *lot* of people have similar stories. Another elderly guy was arrested for 'displaying anti-Blair sentiment' (that's what was written on the police report) for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. This country is being turned into a police state - these powers were explicitly granted to the police by the Blair government, to be able to stop and search at will and detain without charge or trial. >>> Care to explain Saddam's super cannon aimed at Israel and *NERVE* >>> gassing the Kurds then? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it was believed he had them, based on faulty intelligence from > multiple nations. I tend to believe that even if he did have them, Saddam wasn't stupid. What about the MAD deterrent, as the phrase was during the Cold War? He'd have known that if he'd ever launched something at the US, within minutes his country would've been turned into a smoking heap of ash with 20 million corpses... >> The gassing of the Kurds was a very long time ago, and so was > > I almost don't believe you said this one. How long ago was it? 10 > years? 15 years? Whichever, not so long ago. Besides, would that > make it OK??? Is what the Nazis did "OK" because it was a long time > ago? Sheesh. Of course it's not OK. But nor is it OK what *we're* doing. Torture of POWs? Tens of thousands of dead civilians? Not to mention the constant *posturing* and sabre-rattling our governments are doing which just makes the rest of the world hate us even more. (As an aside, our hands aren't clean when it comes to genocide, either. A hundred years ago the US did all but wipe out the Native tribes, and the British committed many atrocities during the days of the Empire, especially in India. So really, we're sat in a glass house, and we're throwing boulders.) >> the whole 'supergun' thing. (I might note, the supergun was never >> actually completed anyway...) > > It shows intent, whether it was ever used or not. It indicates a > willingness to attack and kill. That's enough. Well considering what the Israelis are doing to Palestine's civilian population in the West Bank, it's not surprising that other Middle Eastern countries want to kill them. Hell, we want to kill Muslims because of what bin Laden did to the WTC, don't we? Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx <snip a fairly reasonable debate> > Well considering what the Israelis are doing to Palestine's civilian > population in the West Bank, it's not surprising that other Middle Eastern > countries want to kill them. Hell, we want to kill Muslims because of what > bin Laden did to the WTC, don't we? I snipped the previous parts because I just don't feel like going through the debate yet another time, and this really isn't the appropriate place to do it, anyway. I'll summarize my position by saying that I don't really like where we are today with this mess, but 3 years ago things were different and I think we did the right thing then. I honestly don't know how to get us out of it, now. I would also modify your last sentence above to say "We want to kill Muslim terrorist a.sholes", not Muslims in general. Anyway, good luck over there on that side of the pond, and perhaps things will turn out all right in the end. That's my belief, and hope. SignatureIf you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space. Linux Registered User #327951 > <snip a fairly reasonable debate> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would also modify your last sentence above to say "We want to kill > Muslim terrorist a.sholes", not Muslims in general. Well, if I was to debate that, I'd open up a whole new can of worms about neocons and the religious right, and you're right, this isn't the place to do so. <g> > Anyway, good luck over there on that side of the pond, and perhaps > things will turn out all right in the end. That's my belief, and > hope. It's definitely my hope. Thanks :) Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >Well considering what the Israelis are doing to Palestine's civilian >population in the West Bank, it's not surprising that other Middle Eastern >countries want to kill them. Hell, we want to kill Muslims because of what >bin Laden did to the WTC, don't we? Hmm, the Israelites moved into the West Bank (which was a totally worthless strip of sand and rocks that nobody gave a flying fig about before they arrived) and turned it into an oasis. The Palestinians (seeing how they improved it (and maybe out of a bit of sheer jealousy)) decided they wanted it back from the industrious Jews. And you think the Jews are in the wrong here for wanting to defend it? And then you prattle on about some suspicious guy who was shot in the back because he started running when the British constables told him specifically to "stop" (hint, when someone armed (whether police or soldier, invading army or domestic peace officer) tells you to stop, it's generally a good policy to do so. (plus numerous other points you have been totally dead wrong on that I am just too lazy to root out and bring to your attention). You know, EvilBill, I admit I kinda started this to bait you. But like Dan C. says, I don't know if it's even worth it to do so. >> Well considering what the Israelis are doing to Palestine's civilian >> population in the West Bank, it's not surprising that other Middle [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > jealousy)) decided they wanted it back from the industrious Jews. And > you think the Jews are in the wrong here for wanting to defend it? I think they're in the wrong for killing civilians. A *lot* of innocents have died there. Personally I believe that no matter *what* the grievance, taking a single innocent life is too high a price to pay. > And then you prattle on about some suspicious guy who was shot in the > back because he started running when the British constables told him > specifically to "stop" (hint, when someone armed (whether police or > soldier, invading army or domestic peace officer) tells you to stop, > it's generally a good policy to do so. I'm talking about a different guy. The one I'm talking about was shot six times in the head while sitting on a train doing nothing untoward. > (plus numerous other points you have been totally dead wrong on that I > am just too lazy to root out and bring to your attention). > > You know, EvilBill, I admit I kinda started this to bait you. But > like Dan C. says, I don't know if it's even worth it to do so. Signature-- "I hope you don't object to my badgering the witless!" EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk yahoo: evilbill_agqx >>> Well considering what the Israelis are doing to Palestine's civilian >>> population in the West Bank, it's not surprising that other Middle [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >have died there. Personally I believe that no matter *what* the grievance, >taking a single innocent life is too high a price to pay. Maybe we should pose that question to the Jewish schoolgirls who live in mortal fear of the Palestinian thugs who harass them on a daily basis on their way to and from school everyday? True, the Jews continuing to occupy the area are not completely innocent, but somehow seeming to take sides with the Palestinians (who are *truly* by far not innocent themselves in inciting violent actions against the Israelis) seems the height of hypocrisy. Admit it, (as prejudiced as it may sound) all those people in that region of the world just love to fight (must have something to do with the hot sun constantly beating down on the top of their heads). >that imps, and all things 'hell' related....including hell... are NOT in >this movie? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >McG. A pretty good simulation of Hell seems to exist in wading through semi-serious political flamewars in games newsgroups...that and primetime network television. Or maybe not...I'm a bit agnostic about much of the Catholic concept of Hell myself...and now that I think about it, I'm a bit agnostic about American politics as well...same difference when you get down to it, I suppose. I wish I weren't so damn busy all the time. I miss you guys. ...well, most of you guys... NM :) I just got the Doom movie DVD... widescreen and unrated extended version...I hope it's not the same sort of thing as when I tell my wife I'm widescreen, extended, and unrated 'cuz that's usually total bullsheet. Apathy[AGQx] Ipsa Scientia Potentia Est>>===> Illiterate? Write here for help: http://www.p0rn0finish.org >A pretty good simulation of Hell seems to exist in wading through semi-serious political >flamewars in games newsgroups...that and primetime network television. Might as well fight about politics in the Doom newsgroups since the movie sucked a.s and the latest incarnation of the game is too dark to play. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.