Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on March 14, 2005, 02:40:02 pm
-
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216
erm....wtf mate...
Can someone confirm this? I saw another article about it, but it just linked back to al Jazeera.
-
An0n started a thread on this a while back.
-
Buh.... erm...
-
I can't imagine news like that taking 4 months to break with all the foreign news crews keeping watch over the evil US there. It would have been on the wires long ago.
I love the slanted headlines in this alJazeera thingy... The Headline reads "US soldiers urinated on Bahraini detainee" However, the statement says that the guy felt liquid on him, but was unable to tell if they had peed or pretended to pee on him. Give me a break!!!
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I can't imagine news like that taking 4 months to break with all the foreign news crews keeping watch over the evil US there. It would have been on the wires long ago.
I love the slanted headlines in this alJazeera thingy... The Headline reads "US soldiers urinated on Bahraini detainee" However, the statement says that the guy felt liquid on him, but was unable to tell if they had peed or pretended to pee on him. Give me a break!!!
Thats the kind of crap you put up with if you listen to Al-Jazeera.
-
Well that would not be surpise, because Iraq war is out of control so US uses any means necessary to stop that. problem is legal means are running low so they are starting use Illegal weaponry
But i really hope that it's not happening
-
The Arabs have Al Jazeera, you have Fox. Get over it.
-
See?! I knew the weapons of mass destruction were somewhere!
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I can't imagine news like that taking 4 months to break with all the foreign news crews keeping watch over the evil US there. It would have been on the wires long ago.
Yes, exactly my thoughts as well. But isn't Al-jazeera a reliable, un-biased news source? :rolleyes:
-
You realize the napalm story broke during the actual assault?
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I can't imagine news like that taking 4 months to break with all the foreign news crews keeping watch over the evil US there. It would have been on the wires long ago.
I love the slanted headlines in this alJazeera thingy... The Headline reads "US soldiers urinated on Bahraini detainee" However, the statement says that the guy felt liquid on him, but was unable to tell if they had peed or pretended to pee on him. Give me a break!!!
Sure thing. Except one little detail. As far as I know, there was a grand total of 0 foreign camera crews inside Fallujah during the time of the assault, and I'm not even going to consider embeded reporters as journalists. The two biggest Arabic stations, al Jazeera and al Arabiya aren't even allowed into Iraq, much less a critical location such as Fallujah, and even when they were, they were routinely being shot at and bombed. So your case doesn't really hold up.
-
I've heard (from articles by reporters on the 'rise' of the channel; I think in the Glasgow Herald or on the BBC) that al-Jazeera is actually considered a fairly well-balanced channel; but it appears biased simply because it has (and presents) an Arab viewpoint, which western TV viewers aren't used to.
-
That man speaks the truth..
Now if only you would put on some pants, people might take you more seriously...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Now if only you would put on some pants, people might take you more seriously...
And wtf is that supposed to mean?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Now if only you would put on some pants, people might take you more seriously...
who are you talking to and what do you mean?
-
He's referring to aldo you Fox addicts. :p
-
Since he wasn't speaking to aldo in the first phrase..."That man".....wouldn't he have used the pronoun "he" then instead of "you" in the second?
Don't get me wrong....i would hope that was true rather than the alternative possibility that he was making a sexist remark or something...
-
Oh for the love of... it's a joke.
-
well the way that some of the people on HLP have been pushing her buttons, ie caller her a liar, exaggerator, or flat out stupid because her beliefs lie along a different path than than those of the politards, it's no wonder that she doesn't view anything on here as a joke. The sarcasm runs ramapant toward new people, she's not the only one. So when all you hear is sarcasm directed at you, it isn't a far stretch to see a remark like that directed at you.
i don't think we have ever posted a news story, or interview....from a source either unbiased or biased. On the other hand, while people claim to be posting from an unbiased news source, they are obviously biased, let's face it, all of the news sources are biased. The only ones that people call biased are the ones that go against what they believe, and not go with them. So let's look at that one for a second, we take an already biased opinion, and feed it from a source that is supposed to be unbiased, instead of presenting just the facts. Facts are boring and don't get ratings, ask jerry springer.
-
ie caller her a liar, exaggerator, or flat out stupid because her beliefs lie along a different path than than those of the politards
Umm... well... I, uhhh....
Never mind....
-
See this is why having married, cohabiting or other wise associated forumites is a bad thing.
-
guys...stick to the topic....it was a joke.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
this is also why not admitting that we treat our new people like crap is a bad thing. i'm not pointing a finger on it, i've done it too. Something that maybe we each need need to look into ourselves about. There has been more than one thread about this in a moderators internal forum.
[edit] we posted at the same time Rictor, and you are right, conversation closed on my end, with apologies [/edit]
-
Besides, pants on a woman are fine.
Now, as I said already this actually broke during the fighting. Hell I thought it was Rictor who posted the article then.
-
If it helps to settle an arguement, I didn't have 'pants' (in the American sense of the word - i.e. trousers) on last night, I had shorts.
Now if you excuse me, I'll be tearing apart my room to find hidden bugs.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
well the way that some of the people on HLP have been pushing her buttons, ie caller her a liar, exaggerator, or flat out stupid because her beliefs lie along a different path than than those of the politards, it's no wonder that she doesn't view anything on here as a joke. The sarcasm runs ramapant toward new people, she's not the only one. So when all you hear is sarcasm directed at you, it isn't a far stretch to see a remark like that directed at you.
No offense, but there have been other new people on here who have not been flamed or called names or whatever. Sapph is really the only person I've heard complaining about it, and let's be honest, if you don't want you or your political beliefs attacked you shouldn't be posting in a political thread. Tempers flare and civility is lost. It's the nature of any semi-controversial political discussion.
There is a problem with new member tolerance, but it seems to me that the best thing is to ignore what you can and report what you can't (if you're a new member). If anything, people are being more tolerant - at least in some cases - with Sapph. Had Kazan posted that last post, the next 5-10 posts would probably have been personal comments directed at him, possibly a warning from an admin to stay on-topic.
Anyway, that's just my (mostly off-topic) 2 cents. Maybe I missed all the bad threads.
Token on topic post - I wouldn't be surprised if US military forces had used napalm weapons. But I really, really doubt there was any nuclear activity. It would be extremely bad politically if it was discovered that the US had been using nuclear weapons in it war on terrorism and attempts to prevent the spread of nuclear arms to terrorists.
It is odd to not know what exactly your government is doing, though...
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Anyway, that's just my (mostly off-topic) 2 cents. Maybe I missed all the bad threads.
No, you're pretty much right. She has strong views counter to those of the majority of the forum, and gets a little crap for them. No more than normal, but SW is still compelled to defend her. It's like Vyper said - friendly forumites are never a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
It's like Vyper said - friendly forumites are never a good thing.
That's absolutely correct, you bastard.
:p :D
-
then we should leave
-
Right fine, stfu and let us get on with the matter at hand rather than directing it towards closure.
Question: Do you believe there is such a thing as free press in our respective nations?
-
No, I'm gone. That way you all can just go on with your little closed world.....delivering hate messages about christian beliefs and the USA and having the moderators rubber stamp. Have a nice life.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Right fine, stfu and let us get on with the matter at hand rather than directing it towards closure.
Question: Do you believe there is such a thing as free press in our respective nations?
Not in an absolute sense, as all press is 'tainted' by the society that it exists in, and the perspective that provides. However, placed within that context, some are more fair and balanced than others. Within the context of Western media, of all the Tv channels I've seen (which isn't much - ITV, Sky, CNN, Fox & BBC24 - and also a couple of european ones I can;t remember the exact name of) I consider the BBC the most balanced, and Fox the least balanced.
Of course, that it also a matter of personal perception.
Originally posted by Sapphire
No, I'm gone. That way you all can just go on with your little closed world.....delivering hate messages about christian beliefs and the USA and having the moderators rubber stamp. Have a nice life.
?
I haven't seen 'hate' messages about either on this thread, and offhand the only ones I can think of was Kazan on the odd religion thread, and he was banned from HL general for that. Whilst I've seen a lot of criticism or dislike of both the US (more appropriately, the US government and their policies) and religion in particular, I've not seen many (certainly not enough to be representative of the entire forum) that can be defined as irrational hate.
-
Hey I'll jump back on the topic and say
During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.
lol wtf
FACTS DO NOT STOP ME, FRONT PAGE AHOY
-
Thats technically what it does janos, remember you're 50-60% water.
This was all over the arab news back when the assault was ongoing, and iirc there were a few camera crews inside the city, al-jazeera had guys in there some of whom were killed or wounded, think the BBC had a stringer inside too. There were photos floating about of bodies with no obvious wounds but cant seem to find a link.
Aldo, to some people disagreeing with them makes you a "hater" Its way of convincing themselves they're right and the other person is wrong without having to actually defend their side of things.
-
so... napalm doesn't burn you to death like any other incendiary would, it melts you, like you were made out of ice or plastic or some other material that melted when heated suficently.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so... napalm doesn't burn you to death like any other incendiary would, it melts you, like you were made out of ice or plastic or some other material that melted when heated suficently.
It's special super napalm!
Seriously, napalm is just sticky stuff which burns in high temperature, makes pretty poisonous smoke (what, you think that standing near burning oil pool of dirt laced with aluminium is healthy?) and is nowhere near an accurate weapon.
How people don't understand this (and also claim that using 12,7mm MGs against human targets is against Geneva convention, what the christ) boggles my mind. It's not like it's classified information or anything.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
then we should leave
Oh, don't be silly. Nobody wants you gone. I think everyone realizes your respective positions, and nobody blames you for your opinions or holds them against either of you. You just need to get a little thicker skinned, which, in your case, is going to be difficult when you see what you consider to be insults hurled at your fiance. Which is a shame, coz you're really not gonna like this next part.
Originally posted by Sapphire
No, I'm gone. That way you all can just go on with your little closed world.....delivering hate messages about christian beliefs and the USA and having the moderators rubber stamp. Have a nice life.
Don't take this the wrong way - I don't want to see anyone houned out of the community, whether by the group in general or just their own personal perception of the group in general. But if what you've seen here (possibly with the exception of Kazan, who can cross the line at times) is what you consider hate messages, then I'm afraid you're living in a very sheltered world. There's a big difference between discussion and debate, which is generally what we have here, and outright irrational hate.
I'd also encurage you to think about the wording on that post. HLP has representatives from dozens of countries... it's a heck of a lot further from the "little closed world" that you've tried to cram us into. I...well, TBH I really can't finish this paragraph without getting insulting, so I guess I won't. And besides, there's a very good chance you'll not be reading this anyway.
Originally posted by Vyper
Question: Do you believe there is such a thing as free press in our respective nations?
That depends on how you want to define free press. I personally don't see much of a bias in my local news, but that's partly because of the nature of the area. The split between left and right wing ehere is nowhere near as significant as it is in other parts of the world - if we do have a bias, it's gentle enough that it's hard to notice. Also, we don;t have anywhere near as much news as other places seem to have, except on the ABC, which is the Australian Equivalent of the BBC and has always been seen as being very middle of the road. In that sense, the press here is free in that bias isn't a massive issue, and the government isn't hovering over their necks dictating details.
If, however, you mean a press that feels free to report and express opinion as it comes to them, then no, I don't feel we have that. The PC police are too strong for that just at the moment.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so... napalm doesn't burn you to death like any other incendiary would, it melts you, like you were made out of ice or plastic or some other material that melted when heated suficently.
I think a sufficiently burnt person would look as if they had been melted; IIRC (I've not exactly been studying burn victim photos, so this is strictly from vague memory) severe burns result in the skin sort of 'curling' back and flaking - combine that with the skin being burned away to the bone in places (I believe old napalm did that, so i presume this next-gen stuff does too), and the massive disfigurement from full-body burns, and I could see how the body could look 'melted'.
And this might be totally wrong, but wouldn't human body fat liquidize under a high enough temperature?
-
No, it'd ignite and carbonize in the presence of oxygen.
-
Ah, okay-dok. I should have known that, really......
-
Wonderful conversation, both lines. B-e-a-u-tiful! Keep it up, children! :rolleyes:
-
Napalm discussion relevant to the topic. Free press topic relevant to validity of original article. Hissy fits relevant to... HLP.
-
Getting away with blatantly calling someone a bastard..... priceless.
;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think a sufficiently burnt person would look as if they had been melted; IIRC (I've not exactly been studying burn victim photos, so this is strictly from vague memory) severe burns result in the skin sort of 'curling' back and flaking - combine that with the skin being burned away to the bone in places (I believe old napalm did that, so i presume this next-gen stuff does too), and the massive disfigurement from full-body burns, and I could see how the body could look 'melted'.
And this might be totally wrong, but wouldn't human body fat liquidize under a high enough temperature?
"Napalm" is an umbrella term. What people nowaday use is not napalm, but almost completely like it.
Napalm and variants are incendiary weapons. They are sticky, slow-burning, highly toxic (hey, they have gasoline/kerosine, magnesium, aluminium, some weirder stuff...) and have a high temperature (the napalm I was messing around with burned at variable temperatures, the peak being something roughly 3000 degrees celsius).
They stick and burn, and that's about it. They don't "melt" bodies, nor are they gases*, nor are incendiary weapons' use against military targets limited, as far as I know. What they do is, well, burn. Human fat ignites at those temperatures pretty well. Bodies become charred pseudo-skeletons, much like what you see in news or in Star Wars IV. It's not white phosphorous, but it's still repulsive.
US has used napalm-like weaponry against Iraq forces during the initial invasion, which is not a big deal. However, incendiary weapons are pretty goddamn dumb and using them in urban area with possibility of civilian casualties would require 1) dumb commander, 2) no one seeing it, 3) someone quickly clearing the mess, 4) no third parties nearby. They are pretty visible weapons - huge balls of fire, thick smoke and ruined city blocks are pretty visible.
*However, FAE and other air-bursting stuff actually do have gas. Upon detonation, the shell containing the hihgly inflammable gas explodes, a gas cloud is released and shortly afterwards the entire cloud is ignited, resulting in heat, powerful pressure shock and lack of air.
(http://img236.exs.cx/img236/51/faeanim3sa.gif)
Ps. the article is lol
-
NB: I never said they melted bodies, just that napalm (derivatives) can cause severe burns that could give the impression of a partially melted (not in the sense of liquidized, but like a wax candle) corpse.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Getting away with blatantly calling someone a bastard..... priceless.
;)
Somehow I don't think that'll make the commercials ;)
-
Lol at the technowafflers.
A simple google image search will turn up pictures showing the effects of napalm on humans, from minor burns to carbonised skeletons.
(http://www.primeiralinha.org/imagens/napalm.jpg)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Getting away with blatantly calling someone a bastard..... priceless.
Shut up, you bastard.
-
When someone who you don't like or dislike says something to you, you tend to blow it off. When two people that you respect say the same thing, you tend to think that there may be some merit in what the other person said. When that statement is congruent to "people who are together should not be at HLP" it shows exactly where people's heads are. The bottom line is, we have been told to get out. I would consider that to be something of an attacking statement. Of course you won't.
I know for a fact that I have apologized to everyone i have made a personal attack on, with the exceptions of Janos and Gank. Janos, your remark was truly tasteless, but so was my reaction, you have my apology. Gank...your opinion is valid, as an opinion. We disagree on it. Personnal attacks aside.
I say this, because people shouldn't have to have skin thick enough to endure the personnal attacks. I don't think any of us has a right to make them. I had always believed that our differences were strengths that made what we do here great, i've come to realize that it instead gives us the right to attack any person who does not share our beliefs. I disagree with most of Kazan's beliefs, yet i can't question his intelligence. I disagree with aldo's as well, yet again, there is no question of intelligence. In other words, there is no room for a personal attack based on someone's beliefs. Debate is fine, personnal attacks aren't, and that's why I've made it a point to apologize as soon as i got over it. We make these attacks and forget that it isn't just data, we forget that there is a person on the other end. Maybe some of us don't much care who we walk on in our quest to have our opinions validated. If that's true, then i feel particularly bad for those of you who do feel that. The personnal attacks have to stop guys. WE...need to stop it. Some of the best people we have ever had have left over this, and we are still pushing people out with the immature actions that we have all partaken in. I'm not pointing any fingers, because as a community we are guilty, me included.
sorry again rictor, i tried to let it die where we left it, but people wouldn't. For the rest of you, i'm sure that a good flaming is on the way. It doesn't matter though, because as long as we sit here and accept the fact that these personnal attacks do happen, then we are condoning them. Admin has finally put an end to the most blatant of these, maybe we need to pick that ball up now.
I think that's the last that i will say on it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Lol at the technowafflers.
A simple google image search will turn up pictures showing the effects of napalm on humans, from minor burns to carbonised skeletons.
Yes, well some of us have yet to have our tea.
-
[q]When that statement is congruent to "people who are together should not be at HLP" it shows exactly where people's heads are.[/q]
Sarchasm. I love it.
[q]The bottom line is, we have been told to get out.[/q]
I don't think that was ever said. Certainly all I did was tell you both to stfu.
[q]Yes, well some of us have yet to have our tea.[/q]
It's no better at 11am I assure you. Besides last night my father decided to recite the latest news story about a cannibal to me just before dinner - sufficed to say I was less than hungry.
-
Shadowwolf, that was completely unnecessary. there is nothing about "married, cohabiting or otherwise associated forumites" being a bad thing, whatever people might say.
i can name two examples: tiara and tco (the celestial one) are married. me and steak (setekh) are friends from high school. all of us have gotten comments on our personal relationships in RL from HLP but that's never actually had a negative influence on us _at_ HLP.
throughout life you're going to get personal comments and attacks. if you can't handle the ones here at HLP, which although they might be harsh at times are still impersonal in that they're not face to face, then you'll have trouble in real life.
as for that christianity thing sapphire, there are a few of us christians around and we manage to get along with all the atheists, agnostics, wiccans, evolutionists, etc etc etc outside the religion threads.
and i think tiara would back me up in saying that there has never been any serious sexism issues at hlp.
so if you're leaving for those reasons, then don't.
-
I don't think anyone was saying that you need to leave Shadow Wolf. You're reading a bit too much into Vyper and Black Wolf's comments. What they were saying (somewhat poorly) was that forumites who know each other are always going to steam in to "defend" their friend or partner if someone says something that upsets them. I think that's indisputable and I know that I for one would probably do the same thing myself.
I wouldn't read any more into it than if someone had said that having republicans and democrates talking on Hard Light is never a good thing.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
There was no Sarcasm there. please note the spelling for future reference.
For future reference:Sarchasm (http://www.unwords.com/unword/sarchasm.html)
And Karajorma is right - you're both going to feel compelled to defend each other (especially you, SW) because of your RL relationship. Similarly, you're going to see any slights (real or merely percieved) as far more significant than they really are, because of your obligation to defend your fiance. That was what I was trying to get across. I apparently failed. Now I just don't like where this is going because you're calling people cocksuckers and trying to play both the unfairly slighted innocent and the prick who has the right to call people cocksuckers when he sees he's not winning the argument. Not cool cobber.
-
Chill out and back to topic, or the thread gets it.
-
[q]The kind who would go out and get two blow jobs and then come to my house and give me one of them.[/q]
I'm keeping that for future use. :lol:
Anyway, to avoid the Brazilian hammer of justice:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/744/1/80
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MIR412A.html
-
oh so then, it's all about how we will defend one another...by that you must mean we will use the same amount of passion as i gave when defending aldo and karajorma in the hosted support forum, or cobra in grognards. So it doesn't hold water that way either. No matter how you look at it, it's a friggin bull**** statement. I was nice, i was prey, no more being nice. Looks like Kazan's way is the only way to actually get your point across in HLP, being nice about it didn't get the job done. I'd leave it there before they close the thread, because i am more than willing to keep going.
-
when will you people ever learn. Flaming one another never leads to anything but misery and others getting pissed off.
Haven't ever heard of the phrase "Learn from your mistakes".
I really hate to do this but thread closed until further notice...