OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

[Phoenix-D]

Atrocities said:
It is better served in an open forum where views on this subject can be more freely expressed. Having it locked away in one game forum deprives the other members of this site the chance to read it given the fact that many of them do not go into the Space Empires IV forum.

No one comes to the open forum except when you move threads here. Even if you move all the OT threads all you're going to do is force the SE4 people to click two different forums. Oh, very helpful.

[Gandalf Parker]

Phoenix-D said:

No one comes to the open forum except when you move threads here. Even if you move all the OT threads all you're going to do is force the SE4 people to click two different forums. Oh, very helpful.

Sounds good. A forum for SEIV, or Dom2, or Raging Tiger. OT discussion welcome enough, but anything way off or obviously trolling for a fight could be put where it wont spill over as bad. Up to the Moderators or developers in that forum of course. I dont think it was to bring people here as much as like a barkeeper saying "take it outside".

[Phule]

This Search Link will show you the Last 100 Posts, regardless of which forum. You can do it with one page.

If you like, that's customizeable:
200 Posts
300 Posts

[Gandalf Parker]

Phule said:
This Search Link will show you the Last 100 Posts, regardless of which forum. You can do it with one page.

I like to hit the search button and set it for all forums, 1 day, 99 Posts, and check the box that shows part of each post.
Thats a great way to keep up.

[Phoenix-D]

Gandalf Parker said:
Sounds good. A forum for SEIV, or Dom2, or Raging Tiger. OT discussion welcome enough, but anything way off or obviously trolling for a fight could be put where it wont spill over as bad. Up to the Moderators or developers in that forum of course. I dont think it was to bring people here as much as like a barkeeper saying "take it outside".

If its obviously trolling it probably should be shut down, not moved. Right now it seems to be only threads the Moderators dislike get moved, and that's a pretty crappy thread policy..especially if you're using it as a poor man's lock.

[Richard]

Okay guys, keep to the subject or I will have to lock this one down. The moving of Posts issue is being discussed and we will be back to you guys on that soon.

Thanks.

[Colonel]

tesco samoa said:
hi one question ?

Why ask this question ?

And then one more question

What is a terrorist to you ?

Why not ask this question, i thought about this and could figure a good answer so i posted it in a few places

Terrorists are by definition a Rogue Merk (Merceneray) who uses renegade militant tactics to get his (usaully pyscotic) point across

[PvK]

To me, "terrorist" is a word that has been so heavily abused by politicians and corporate media that it no longer has a clear and well-defined meaning.

In general though, I think it means someone who intentionally causes terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect.

PvK

[Will]

PvK said:
To me, "terrorist" is a word that has been so heavily abused by politicians and corporate media that it no longer has a clear and well-defined meaning.

In general though, I think it means someone who intentionally causes terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect.

PvK

"Terrorist", "terrorism", etc. has been very greatly abused lately... but I think your classification needs a bit more refining... mainly, "someone who uses violence to intentionally cause terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect." Because otherwise, Tom Ridge and the Bush Administration could be argued to be terrorists because of continually bumping national alerts to "orange" after quietly changing it back to "yellow", while never once brining the alert level below "yellow". Not saying that they are, only that it can be argued that way.

[PvK]

That's a good point. I wouldn't think the term would apply to people who cause terror without overtly meaning to have that effect. However, I would think a more appropriate argument might be made to say the US government behaved in terroristic fashion for publically test-detonating the "Mother Of All Bombs" and then using rhetoric and attacks about the "Shock And Awe" that the former Iraqi leadership would experience, followed by the corresponding strikes. Those could also be referred to assassination attempts, and be more fairly accurate. I mean those remarks just as attempts to fit definitions to examples, not as anything judgemental. Clearly the administration wanted to impress people with threats and deeds of violence. They hoped some people would think they were good for doing this, but then so do Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers. I'm not trying to vilify to US administration by saying this at all. I'm trying to point out that the label has been abused to become a label of villany, and no longer a descriptive term.

The difficulty is that the media and politicians have abused it to the point where it's a loaded term, and it loses its meaning. Not that it hasn't always been the case that one side's freedom fighter was the opposing side's outlaw murdering traitor scum, etc.

PvK