prev <-> next
[2004-11-12 08:22:25] - I realize of course that it'd be stupid to have a huge terrorist group that doesn't do anything, but has 'hatred for the US' and the 'financial draining of the US' to date been worth all the dead al-quaeda operatives and being chased around like a hunted rabbit, from the terrorist perspective? -dave
[2004-11-12 08:21:05] - on the topic of the terrorist plan, is all this uproar and aftermath that the sept 11 attacks has caused, worth all the dismantling and destroying of al-quaeda people and resources that has been done? -dave
[2004-11-12 00:10:42] - http://www.xpovos.org It's Alive!!! -- Xpovos
[2004-11-11 17:52:11] - Travis: Except in this case, I don't see how the good guy can easily thwart it. -Paul
[2004-11-11 17:49:31] - paul: don't you know the bad guy always has to have some overly elaborate plan so the good guy can easily thwart it?
- travis[2004-11-11 16:51:56] - a: Is there a reason why "crazies" now takes ~10 seconds to load? - aaron
[2004-11-11 15:28:46] - Pierce: Well, I still think it's a silly plan, but to each his own. -Paul
[2004-11-11 15:18:58] - Paul: the contention is that they will if they believe they must in order to fight a greater evil (the U.S.) - pierce
[2004-11-11 15:11:34] - Pierce: And after overthrowing all the governments at the same time, all the ethnic groups who have hated eachother and waged war against eachother will suddenly decide to create one unified Islamic state with Osama as the leader? -Paul
[2004-11-11 15:09:05] - Paul: no, in the plan described by the article he will have polarized the masses to the extent that they'll do the job for him. - pierce
[2004-11-11 12:59:26] - Mel: np -Paul
[2004-11-11 12:52:34] - Paul: This is perfect. Thanks.
-mel[2004-11-11 12:49:38] - Mel: That's just something I found since I myself don't know enough to answer your question, sorry. -Paul
[2004-11-11 12:48:01] - Paul: thanks, I will read it. -mel
[2004-11-11 12:47:05] - Mel: http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/bridge_types.htm -Paul
[2004-11-11 12:45:41] - Pierce: He's going to have to take on those entrenched power bases eventually, even in the other plan presented. -Paul
[2004-11-11 12:42:53] - hey guys, what is the difference between a router, a hub, and a switch? -mel
[2004-11-11 12:01:07] - Paul: okay, we'll 90% (or whatever) agree then. Talk to you later. - pierce
[2004-11-11 12:00:34] - Paul: bin Laden would have to win that fight over and over and over again against people with entrenched power bases. Not a likely win for him. - pierce
[2004-11-11 12:00:24] - Pierce: I gotta go to a meeting now, but I want to say that I think I agree with you a lot more than I seem to. Mostly, I just have minor quibbles about the article and I think Osama's plan (if it's true) is a stupid one. But I do think us being in Iraq helps him and he is trying to establish a culture war of sorts with the US. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:59:58] - Paul: your winky face confused me a little, but what you just said is essentially the power struggle in itself. The man in charge can be eliminated, but so can the guy pulling the strings. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:58:45] - Pierce: The man in charge can be eliminate.
-Paul[2004-11-11 11:58:38] - and it's possible that in particular he wants himself or his family to be Caliph. If he has to fight the entrenched powers of the Arab world, that's a great deal less likely. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:57:00] - Paul: if bin Laden tries to subvert each arab government, he has to win dozens of power struggles to achieve the Caliphate. If he gets the people to (actively) support a Caliphate, then the power-hungry governments won't matter. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:55:25] - Paul: but if the "man in charge" isn't someone who supports a Caliphate in the long term, he's not going to give up his power for Islamic unification. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:55:05] - Pierce: I'm not sure I understand your point, isn't his goal to try to get us to kill lots of Muslims anyway? -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:54:19] - meaning that the "evil western nation" thing would be less effective as a propaganda tool. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:54:16] - Pierce: I think you could have it both ways. I imagine if Saddam was more competent and had the support Osama had, he could've escaped Iraq. He wouldn't even have to be the man in charge, as long as he was pulling the strings. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:53:38] - Paul: okay, you responded to that before I got to post, but I think you forget that we already have justification to wipe out anyone who's affiliated with him. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:52:14] - Paul: if he did that, he'd lose the "loosely bound cells" advantage of al qaeda. We could just go in and topple him (or his cronies-by-proxy) and be done with it. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:51:53] - And if the Western nations get involved to try to stop it, guess what? You have your "evil western nations waging a crusade against Islam" thing going. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:51:11] - It seems like a man with his resources and relative popularity could've easily subverted the government of a country and used that as a launching pad to subverting or outright conquering other countries. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:50:12] - Pierce: Yes, I think it would be far more effective to work to subvert the governments directly. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:50:09] - Paul: I mean, what else is bin Laden going to do besides the individual parts of this "conspiracy theory"? It's not like he's going to get a job as an accountant in Poughkeepsie or something. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:49:11] - Pierce: I was asked that? Sorry, to whoever asked it. Why not pay it with money the federal government has borrowed?
-Paul[2004-11-11 11:48:54] - Paul: as I keep saying, the whole is unlikely but failure of the individual parts does not result in a net loss for bin Laden. he's not gambling on a long shot, he's exercising a series of beneficial (to him) steps. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:47:38] - Paul: okay, answer this then... do you see a more effective course of action if your goal is the reestablishment of the Caliphate? - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:47:10] - No offense, but it really resembles more of a conspiracy theory type thing to me where each part individually makes sense until you consider how unlikely the entirety of it is. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:46:54] - Paul: did you ever answer where you think the money to "pay people back" the money that was taken for social security would come from? - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:46:08] - Pierce: Ok, well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree here then. I can see how it makes sense and how it could work, but I still think it's a very indirect and unlikely to succeed plan. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:45:16] - that's the point of the article. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:45:06] - it's not like he's taking a big gamble here: no matter what he does, if we act the way we have been, he benefits. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:44:18] - Paul: yes, and to reiterate: even if he's only partially successful in his efforts he still moves closer to his goals. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:43:20] - Pierce: So he's going to spend his life going from Middle Eastern country to Middle Eastern country, planning terrorist attacks so get the US to invade another Middle Eastern country and piss off Muslims there until they all decide to get together and elect him supreme leader? -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:42:40] - Especially since Iraq makes it clear that we'll attack a Muslim nation (in population, if not government) regardless of the validity of our justification. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:41:22] - Even if the other invasions were also "justified". - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:40:53] - On the other hand, more invasions would make it appear that the U.S. was systematically undermining the Muslim world. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:40:08] - Paul: I disagree. People in Arab nations could be conviced that it was a justified retaliation, and that the civilian casualties were unavoidable. Or at least, there would be enough doubt in their mind that they wouldn't be effectively polarized. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:39:59] - I get the impression that as long as we have justifiable reason for invading countries, that the author believes that it wouldn't be so bad. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:39:21] - Pierce: "The world was on our side -- yes, even France -- when we brought down the Taliban. If we had captured Bin Laden in Tora Bora and declared ourselves satisfied, we could have gained stature, even in much of the Islamic world." -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:38:15] - Pierce: Because it seems like most people who would've joined him because of us invading Iraq would've already done it. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:38:12] - Paul: invading Afghanistan wasn't a problem for whom? - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:37:38] - Pierce: Right, but if I understand the article correctly, invading Afghanistan wasn't a problem, right? -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:37:30] - Paul: yes, he'll need to prod America more. Which the article covers, in suggesting that he'll probably attack a major religious target in the U.S. next. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:36:52] - And regarding whether his plan is farfetched, there's no question that it is. But my point a minute ago was that partial completion is still good for bin Laden. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:36:11] - Paul: why do you imagine that his growth curve is decreasing? It seems like we're much less popular in Arab nations than we were four years ago. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:36:08] - So he'll need to prod america into doing something else, right? He's not just planning on solely using the Iraq situation to encourage a mass revolution against all the Middle Eastern governments, is he? -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:35:25] - Paul: what if we were attacked by people with strong ties to an Arab government? I mean, the criticism of the Iraq war is that it clearly wasn't the right target, but few people criticize the fact that we invaded Afghanistan. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:35:15] - Pierce: Right, I understand that. But obviously he doesn't have enough Muslims hating us yet and I imagine his growth curve is decreasing. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:34:30] - Pierce: Maybe the logic isn't fault in that these things can theoretically lead to his goals, but I still think it's a pretty far fetched plan if it's true. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:33:57] - Paul: the more Muslims who vehemently hate America, the more of them will be willing to join bin Laden against us. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:33:36] - Where does he go from here then? Does he attack America again and try to get us to invade another country? Somehow I just can't see us randomly invading another Middle Eastern country every time there is a terrorist attack. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:33:13] - It all kind of hinges on bin Laden telling the truth when saying his primary goal is to establish a Caliphate. Now, I know very little about the policies of the Caliphate, but would bin Laden himself be eligible to be Caliph? That may be his true goal. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:32:30] - Pierce: Right, I understand that in many ways attacking Iraq and Afghanistan is just providing more hatred of America, but I just don't see how this can work for him. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:31:42] - As I said before, these aren't the only explanations, but I don't think the logic is faulty. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:30:10] - Paul: he needs to make it so that Muslims think they need a Caliphate to fight the American menace, because their governments aren't able to do it on their own. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:29:19] - Paul: I think the article's point is that the Arab governments won't establish a Caliphate, that's why public opinion needs to be polarized to do it in spite of their government's wishes. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:28:28] - Even if public opinion in Muslim populations doesn't hit critical mass to overthrow the governments, it still garners him more support as he revises his plan. And even if the governments fall but don't form a Caliphate, it's still a much more unstable region and he can take advantage of that to try something else. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:27:29] - Paul: the point is, even if his "ifs" don't come to pass, they still help his cause. The U.S. attacking just Afghanistan still puts dead Muslim civilians on TV. Even if Europe supports the U.S., he can still demonize western civilization, just with less effectiveness than demonizing Bush alone. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:27:21] - Not only that, but it doesn't seem to have worked too well. Hatred of America might be higher than before but I see no sign that the governments of the Middle East are anywhere closer to establishing a Caliph. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:26:17] - I mean, he could be very well right that this is Osama's plan, but I just think it's a bit unbelievable to think that this would be a very effective strategy. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:24:43] - Pierce: Ok, that makes sense, but I think there's entirely too many ifs involved all around. Osama was gambling on America attacking more than just Afghanistan AND gambling that the Europeans wouldn't support the US AND gambling that somehow this will lead to the collapse of the governments in the middle east AND lead to the Caliph? -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:23:59] - Which I think was the point of bringing up Bush's "crusade" quote in the article. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:23:37] - Moreover, Bush's religious stances allow Osama to turn this war into Islam versus Christianity, rather than "A collection of nations with mostly secular governments" versus Arab nations. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:21:52] - Such as abu ghraib, for example (sp?) - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:21:34] - Paul: not to mention that America acting unilaterally is probably more likely to do the sorts of things that would look bad on al-jazeera than all the western nations combined. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:20:27] - Paul: I think it very certainly does, in the same way that Israeli soldiers as proxies of America aren't as useful an icon. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:19:32] - Paul: right, that's what I'm saying. He wants it to be just America at the moment, because although he opposes all the western civilizations it's harder to get people behind that cause. So he's trying to make it just the U.S. versus the Muslim world as a stepping stone towards the Muslim world versus western civilization. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:18:14] - Pierce: I'm not so sure the presence of Spanish troops dilutes the icon of Bush as the enemy much. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:18:05] - The image itself will become sufficient to polarize and infuriate people, which bolsters his support for extremist, fundamentalist Islam (with the Caliph as spiritual leader). - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:17:06] - Pierce: Judging from his rationale of the Spanish terrorist attacks, though, he DOES care that it's specifically against America. -Paul
[2004-11-11 11:16:50] - On the other hand, if it's just America against the Muslim world (or if that's how it's perceived), then he can just point to Bush as an icon of the enemy. Kind of like the inverse of Emmanuel Goldstein. - pierce
[2004-11-11 11:15:40] - Paul: (judging from the article) backlash against western civilization is a secondary goal for Osama. He doesn't really care yet whether the average Muslim hates America+Europe or whether they just hate America (he probably thinks the Caliphate would be able to take care of that once it was established). - pierce
[2004-11-11 10:31:27] - Weird - in FireFox, you can middle-click the back and forward buttons, and it opens the next/previous link in a new tab - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:10:58] - paul: Possibly true. - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:10:15] - Aaron: True, but I'm not sure the average uneducated Muslim (which I assume Osama is going after) would do much better (no offense). -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:08:58] - paul: You're right. I feel guilty! I'm going to go work really hard now. - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:08:40] - paul: Yeah, but that's largly 'cause america just sucks at geography in general - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:08:23] - Aaron: It only took like an hour too.
-Paul[2004-11-11 10:08:05] - Aaron: Exactly, but you still probably wouldn't trust him entirely, right? -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:07:34] - paul: Ok. Glad we reached an agreement, this is like a new aaron v. paul record - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:07:22] - Even though they are very different and were major enemies of eachother, most americans only see them as two Islamic filled Middle Eastern countries who hate america (or whatever). -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:06:50] - Then you can bet that the majority of Americans wouldn't care if Iraq and Iran were both against us because we see them as very similar countries. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:06:36] - Going along with your earlier analogy if Jerry Falwell was suddenly "Oh hey, gay people are alright with me, I was just kidding" and he got in a big argument with Ian, then I'd probably reassess whether or not I trusted him politically - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:06:15] - Maybe a better analogy would be if America was attacked by Iraq. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:06:00] - Aaron: Yeah, now that Europe has come out decently strongly against American actions, it's possible that the Muslims Osama is targetting would see a clear difference (not sure what kind of news they get over there). -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:05:59] - paul: Well yes they don't agree on "everything" but in this case it seems like they strongly disagree on the exact one thing that really matters - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:04:58] - Aaron: All I'm saying is that I don't think at the time the Muslim countries would see much of a difference between America and the Europeans countries because we are very similar in many ways. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:04:44] - paul: Okay that's cool. So you're saying their view of the European Nations as freethinking agents has changed over the past 4 years. I don't know whether to agree or disagree with that but it at least stands that we seem to agree what their stance is now (that they trust Europe at least a little more than they trust the U.S) - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:04:13] - But I think the U.S. and Europe still have a lot stronger cultural bond between them than most other countries. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:03:49] - Aaron: The U.S. and Europe tend to agree on more issues than they disagree in relation to other countries in the world. Not all southerners agree on everything and obviously the U.S. and Europe don't agree on everything. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:03:08] - paul: Okay. So you're saying at the time, Muslims didn't trust European countries because they hadn't demonstrated that they were capable of disagreeing with the U.S or something? - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:02:45] - If it happened now (European nations helping out) then I don't know what the reaction would be. Then maybe Osama would have problem radicalizing people. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:02:22] - paul: Right, because conservative southerners tend to agree..... whereas the U.S and Europe..... don't.... so I don't follow your analogy really - aaron
[2004-11-11 10:01:12] - We're all just western, mostly caucasian, christian, rich nations that have oppressed Islam at various times in the past which are coming back to do it again. -Paul
[2004-11-11 10:00:17] - Aaron: Very true, but at the time (before we invaded Iraq), the European governments hadn't disapproved yet. So if we HAD gotten their support and all gone in at once, I don't think the Muslims would've seen much of a difference between America and Britain and Spain, etc. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:59:03] - Blacks probably don't care if a million southerners or two million conservative southerners are against affirmative action but if a couple thousand liberals start speaking out against it, it'll make a much bigger splash. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:58:41] - paul: So it's more like Jerry Falwell and I don't know. Jerry Seinfeld. Two completely independent entities who just happen to agree and disagree sometimes - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:57:51] - paul: That's true, except that a good deal of Europe doesn't support american actions in Iraq, which at least shows that they're not just unwaveringly in support of everything the U.S does - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:55:34] - I'm just saying that there are diminishing returns when adding people who disapprove of something if all those people are very similar in terms of culture, values, etc. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:54:57] - Aaron: Not exactly, I'm saying that gays aren't going to care if Jerry Falwell AND Pat Robertson disapprove of gay marriage but they might care if Falwell and, I dunno, Ian McKellen voice disapproval over gay marriage. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:53:35] - paul: So you're arguing that people will make the same decisions whether 10 people disapprove of it, as they will if 100 people disapprove? - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:53:07] - Aaron: That's true, you might be right about it making it easier to recruit people if it was just one country. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:51:53] - Now, if we could get places like Iran and Saudi Arabia and such to actively be on our side, that might be different since it wouldn't be just another Western country but actual Islamic countries on our side. But I just don't think having Spain on our side is going to make anybody think twice. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:51:19] - paul: But now you're talking about people who are already really polarized. Like the article said, Osama's trying to polarize new people, people who only care about their daily lives and the day-to-day. If those kinds of people see that all of Europe are totally against them, I think that's way different than just the U.S... - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:50:56] - And I can just imagine whatever radical Muslims Osama is trying to recruit doing the same thing, "Oh, those western countries, always trying to oppress Islam." -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:50:28] - We Americans just roll our eyes and say "Oh, those European countries, always wussing out." -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:49:56] - So if Germany disapproves of our actions then it's almost expected that France and Russia and other European countries would also disapprove. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:49:10] - Aaron: See, I don't think it is a huge difference in terms of us feeling whether or not what we're doing is right because the European countries have such a similar culture that it's almost like one giant country over there in terms of values and such. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:48:14] - aaron: oh, yeah I definitely agree. That's what I meant by everyone would have had a 'different perception.' -dave
[2004-11-11 09:48:08] - I just can't imagine some Muslim who is fighting for Osama seeing a Spanish soldier and suddenly saying "Wow, another western government is fighting us too. Maybe it's not just crazy america. Maybe Osama is wrong." -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:46:36] - paul: But isn't that a big difference? If all of europe voiced their disapproval of US actions then I think that's a lot more significant than if it's just one country - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:46:18] - It's different, but at the same time you can almost write it off as just being the culture of Europe disagreeing with our culture. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:45:56] - Aaron: No, I understand, but I get the feeling that this backlash that the author claims Osama is trying to cause isn't just a backlash against America but a backlash against Western civilization. It would be like the difference between Germany disapproving their disapproval of US actions versus all of Europe voicing their disapproval. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:45:56] - If nothing else at least it's more different elected officials to hate
so they vent their frustrations during their own elecitions instead of hijacking ours - aaron[2004-11-11 09:45:15] - dave: Well I don't know if it's entirely fair to compare the first Iraq war with this one, but I can't imagine people in various countries in Europe would be as pissed at the U.S if their elected officials had also volunteered their own troops for the attack - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:44:00] - Aaron: Oh, right, he said that retaliation is necessary, but he never said that what Bush did might have prevented further terrorist attacks against the US (at least not specifically). -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:43:32] - paul: The more of the world that is supporting something, the less easy it is to discount it as "oh well this country's government is just corrupt" or "oh this country is totally evil, and they're responsible for it" because you have several "independent" governments reaching the same conclusion - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:42:09] - the whole thing -dave
[2004-11-11 09:42:06] - aaron: interestingly enough, I wonder how much of a diff. there would have been even if we invaded with global support. We'd probably have the same number of troops committed, and the same amount of financial burden (maybe less, not sure), but it's possible it wouldn't be all that diff...except everyone would have a different perception of -dave
[2004-11-11 09:41:55] - paul: Yeah, in the same way that it makes a difference to us whether it's just Muslim radicals who are against our invasion, or whether other European nations are siding with them as well - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:41:39] - Because it sounds like this is supposed to be more of a backlash against Western culture than against just a certain country and I'm not so sure the plan would get messed up if there were other Western countries supporting us. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:41:06] - paul: Yeah it was under question 10, he drew an analogy about being punched in the face - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:40:27] - Aaron: Do you think it makes a big difference to Muslims whether it's just America or whether other European nations were on our side too? -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:39:56] - http://www.betanews.com/article/Death_Knell_Sounds_for_Nullsoft_Winamp/1100111204 As in the link - Death Knell Sounds for Winamp (Nullsoft employees leaving AOL) -dave
[2004-11-11 09:39:12] - dave: Well I think Bush probably had to strike back in some way, but because he didn't wait for world involvement, that made it very easy to demonize the U.S. - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:37:23] - Dave: That's the problem with pyramid schemes.
-Paul[2004-11-11 09:37:13] - Aaron: Ok, I must've missed that part then. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:33:11] - aaron: so you mean he did the 'wrong' thing for the 'right' reasons? ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-11 09:31:48] - paul: In other words I think he explicitly said he thought bush did "the right thing", just went the wrong way about it - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:31:28] - Paul: hmm, yeah, I can definitely understand your dislike for a 'forced' 401(k) plan -dave
[2004-11-11 09:31:12] - paul: I thought the author of the article said that we did have to retaliate, but that we shouldn't have retaliated in a way which caused so may civilian casualties - aaron
[2004-11-11 09:30:56] - Paul: hmm, then the problem becomes, there is no money to 'pay people back' with -dave
[2004-11-11 09:30:38] - Dave: And I would be unilaterally against forced 401(k) accounts. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:30:15] - Dave: I would probably say pay everybody back what was taken from them but stop taking money for Social Security immediately, yeah. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:29:28] - Paul: and then forced people to have private 401(k) accounts -dave
[2004-11-11 09:28:47] - Paul: I think I might support some plan that just phased it out entirely, like just gave less and less benefits to people until some point that the plan could be more fiscally sound -dave
[2004-11-11 09:27:52] - Paul: hmmm, I'm not sure, maybe. Do you mean just stop giving people SS checks entirely, just right now? -dave
[2004-11-11 09:27:17] - Paul: although that logic seems flawed somehow, since then the terrorists could have as much fun as they wanted attacking us, without any fear of retaliation -dave
[2004-11-11 09:26:44] - Paul: I think I agree with you for the most part, but I think the argument would be that if the first attack failed to cause any reaction, then there might not be any reason to attempt further -dave
[2004-11-11 09:26:04] - Dave: Would getting rid of it count as privatizing it? -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:25:22] - So, in a strange way, that clearly liberal article is pointing out what a good job Bush is doing in preventing further terrorist attacks against the US by Osama.
-Paul[2004-11-11 09:24:51] - And perhaps the most interesting thing is that if that article is right, then Bush did the best possible thing to prevent further terrorist attacks against the US by Osama by doing what he has been doing. If he hadn't attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, then wouldn't Osama keep planning terrorist attacks against us until we did? -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:24:35] - and if you are against it, is there an alternate plan of reform you support? -dave
[2004-11-11 09:23:40] - And then he's counting on the attacks to galvanize Muslims to... what? Overthrow their governments and reform the Caliphate? That seems to be quite a stretch right there. -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:22:56] - Pierce: It just seems like his plan (assuming the article is correct about Osama's plan) has far too many dubious "ifs". He's assuming that a terrorist attack against America would incite us to attack countries with large amounts of Muslims (somewhat reasonable)... -Paul
[2004-11-11 09:20:06] - out of curiosity, what are people's opinions here on privatizing social security? -dave
[2004-11-11 09:03:28] - Pierce: at any rate, that article makes lot of good/interesting points, I guess I'm just not entirely sold on whether the methods will really work for the 'terrorists' -dave
[2004-11-11 09:02:23] - Pierce: the 'draining the US of all its resources' tactic definitely seems like a valid method of attack, but somehow Al-Quaeda has to survive the impending manhunt with enough power intact to still instill enough fear to tie up all those resources -dave
[2004-11-11 08:58:27] - Pierce: also, extreme acts of terrorism such as Sept. 11 tend to band the major countries together in an effort against terrorism. -dave
[2004-11-11 08:56:19] - Pierce: I guess what my argument boils down to, is that the Saddam situation seemed fairly 'good' in creating people who hated the US, much more than the new Iraqi govt, if it works out. So wouldn't that mean Sept. 11 and inciting the US to oust Saddam would be a bad thing? -dave
[2004-11-11 08:54:29] - Pierce: and the 'democratic' govt. will probably not fund anti-US groups half as much, if at all, like Saddam did -dave
[2004-11-11 08:53:41] - Pierce: because the furor over having the US in Iraq will eventually die down. And it's hard to imagine the 'democratic' Iraqi govt. fomenting more hatred of the US than Saddam did -dave
[2004-11-11 08:52:35] - Pierce: it is very debatable whether the Iraqi people will enjoy/like their democracy better than Saddam, but assuming that they DO like it better, the terrorist cause seems to be given a decent blow -dave
[2004-11-11 08:51:14] - Pierce: the idea is very intriguing, although I'm not sure having a 'democratic' Iraq is really all that good for 'the cause' -dave
[2004-11-11 08:50:11] - Pierce: yes, quite interesting -dave
[2004-11-11 08:13:25] - pierce: Interesting article. - aaron
[2004-11-11 07:09:54] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/11/11/japan.defense.reut/index.html Japs done being pacifists. Watch out! ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-11 07:03:56] - haha, thought you guys might enjoy this quote by Thomas Jefferson. Barbra Streisand mentioned it in relation to the election. "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles." -dave
[2004-11-10 23:30:34] - Paul: trying to incite war between the west and islam would only be a means to his end. His goal is to restore the Caliphate, and it's easier to do that if you have a single enemy to demonize. - pierce
[2004-11-10 22:14:18] - Pierce: I just don't understand how having the Spanish on our side hurts his cause. He's trying to initiate a war between the west and Islam, right? Well, Spain is a Western country. -Paul
[2004-11-10 21:54:29] - Paul: who said it would ruin the whole thing? it harms their cause for the U.S. to have allies, so it's beneficial to them to scare the allies off. And considering how we "convinced" our allies and how we've treated them since, it was a pretty tenuous connection to begin with. - pierce
[2004-11-10 21:24:08] - Pierce: So if hundreds of millions of Americans start attacking muslim countries then it'll cause them to band together but if a couple million Spaniards join in then it ruins the whole thing? -Paul
[2004-11-10 21:19:24] - but having allies in our military actions against arab nations dilutes the demonization of america by arab nations. Their presence would make more people in arab nations question the extremist actions, making it harder to form a critical mass of extremists. - pierce
[2004-11-10 21:17:30] - Pierce: Still, it seems like it would be a lot easier to overthrow the individual governments than to try to try to trick america into destabilizing the entire region enough to somehow get it to reform into one giant Muslim state. -Paul
[2004-11-10 21:16:14] - the best way of getting america to retaliate against muslim extremism is to carry out a terrorist attack. Inciting American retaliation serves to show the muslim world images of americans killing innocent muslims when there are inevitable civilian casualties. - pierce
[2004-11-10 21:13:58] - the people of the muslim world won't overthrow the independent governments because it would mean relatively little direct effect on their lives. - pierce
[2004-11-10 21:11:15] - Right now, the arab world is divided into independent governments that are either de facto or de jure muslim states. The relative stability of those governments stands in the way of the establishment of a Caliphate, because the leaders of those governments would compete with the Caliph for power. - pierce
[2004-11-10 21:07:20] - Paul: they're not the only valid explanations, but I don't see much fault in the article's logic on those topics. - pierce
[2004-11-10 20:01:55] - And what's wrong with having international troops there too? -Paul
[2004-11-10 20:01:38] - And the best way of getting America to invade is to carry out a terrorist attack? -Paul
[2004-11-10 20:01:02] - Pierce: It just seems like somewhat of a tenuous connection. The best way to create an Islamic state is to get America to invade some countries? -Paul
[2004-11-10 19:27:10] - Paul: what, specifically, do you think is off about his rendition of Osama's logic? - pierce
[2004-11-10 18:06:20] - Err... Osama's logic is a bit off, not his theory is a bit off. -Paul
[2004-11-10 18:05:59] - Or maybe I understand HIS logic and just think that his theory of Osama's logic is a bit off.
-Paul[2004-11-10 18:04:04] - Pierce: Maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be some holes in his logic. -Paul
[2004-11-10 17:55:39] - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557 really interesting analysis of the goals and methods of modern terrorism. - pierce
[2004-11-10 17:05:00] - pierce: Yeah, i know. It's not really a word, by he thought it was. - aaron
[2004-11-10 17:03:19] - a: You're right, I didn't notice those were negative signs and not positive signs. -Paul
[2004-11-10 17:02:02] - paul: what about south dekota and vermont? ~a
[2004-11-10 16:58:55] - And it's less of an article and more of a table of numbers. -Paul
[2004-11-10 16:56:54] - Pierce: Actually, the article said he gained in percentages of the vote in each state (not by numbers like I said). -Paul
[2004-11-10 16:54:19] - Paul: not that surprising... the political proportions didn't change significantly in each state (for whatever reason), and there were fifteen million more voters than there were four years ago. I don't know if that article covered it, I'm about to head out and haven't read it yet. - pierce
[2004-11-10 16:47:42] - aaron: isn't "index" the singular of "indices"? - pierce
[2004-11-10 15:58:56] - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2004-2000.html Interesting that Bush appears to have gained votes in every state comparing this election to the 2000 one. -Paul
[2004-11-10 15:08:03] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37916-2004Nov9.html VA business booming. Northern VA has 36k more jobs than it did at the peak of the 'boom' -dave
[2004-11-10 15:05:26] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38168-2004Nov9.html hydrogen pump installed at Shell in DC -dave
[2004-11-10 14:59:11] - pierce: Yes. Indece = one of many indeces - aaron
[2004-11-10 14:56:57] - it could be just as fun as those games, but nothing grand and revolutionary like you were claiming - travis
[2004-11-10 14:56:29] - pierce: it just wouldn't seem to be that special of a game, since it would exactly like star wars: battlefront (third person, you can ride vehicles, you have to take control of outposts to win the match) and other such games - travis
[2004-11-10 14:40:18] - travis: and what's wrong with that? FPS multiplayer is very popular, this could be a happy medium between people who just want to pick something up and kill some bad guys, and people who want to have some sort of level progression. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:36:13] - without any sort of character advancement, the game would just become a third-person version of king of the hill that's found in most FPS - travis
[2004-11-10 14:35:44] - pierce: i'm not saying they can't but starting those gang wars was a small, optional part of san andreas - travis
[2004-11-10 14:34:52] - pierce: yes. I think she'll actually make a great addition to the cast, I can totally see her clashing with Vic and Claudette (who I'm guessing she will steal the chief's position from) - vinnie
[2004-11-10 14:29:58] - a: what do 3:9 and 5:9 mean on the stats page? - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:29:40] - travis: and why can't these concepts be applied to human-controlled players? - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:29:04] - travis: an online GTA game could incorporate gang affiliation a little more closely. maybe you have a ranking within your gang, and the more people you get to join the more "advanced" in the game you are. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:28:17] - pierce: and you can actually start a battle to take over each area of the map so that your gang members will be there, which you couldn't do even if you killed every mafia guy in GTA3 - travis
[2004-11-10 14:28:10] - aaron: like the singular of indices? - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:27:22] - travis: it may have advanced in realism some, but adding multiple simultaneous human-controlled characters in a single city would be a huge feat. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:27:05] - hehe. One of my fellow programmers named an integer variable "indice". Took me a little bit to figure out what that meant - aaron
[2004-11-10 14:26:59] - pierce: there's some interactivity, the more respect you earn the more fellow gangmembers you can have follow you around, they'll even pile in a car and do drive-bys as you drive - travis
[2004-11-10 14:25:58] - one problem with developing a multiplayer version of GTA is what would be the point of playing? you're really just stuck with a) wandering around, b) racing, c) deathmatch. there are better racing and deathmatch games out there, the best part of GTA lies in wandering around a living city and the missions/story - travis
[2004-11-10 14:25:45] - travis: I don't really think that's the gist. I mean, about the same thing is accomplished by the knee-jerk mafia shots at your car as you drive through their area in GTA3. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:24:49] - travis: yeah, but you don't get the interactivity that would come if you were organizing a gang of human-controlled characters. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:24:10] - it's not controlled by other players, but the gist is there - travis
[2004-11-10 14:24:06] - Travis: Well, I had fun playing it for a week or whatever at Tech. -Paul
[2004-11-10 14:23:54] - pierce: to a slight extent rockstar made san andreas a multi-criminal environment, there are actual gangmembers roaming the streets that will fire at you and each other, the cops will chase after other people, and stuff like that - travis
[2004-11-10 14:22:55] - Pierce: excellent ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-10 14:22:25] - vinnie: did you hear that Glenn Close is joining the cast of The Shield? - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:22:17] - paul: from what i remember, the multiplayer modes in the original GTA weren't that good. there was a checkpoint racing mode and a deathmatch mode, neither offered much variety - travis
[2004-11-10 14:22:02] - Dave: the irony is killing me. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:21:12] - Pierce: hmm. well ok. Take out a loan...buy some weapons with the money, and knock over a few banks -dave
[2004-11-10 14:20:39] - Pierce: aww, but that's no fun ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-10 14:19:57] - Somehow I doubt they'd give a 23-year-old kid with no business or game development experience enough of a loan to develop and market a game of that magnitude. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:19:04] - Dave: or I could just get a job at Rockstar. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:18:23] - Pierce: I say you take out a loan, start a company, and make a winner ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-10 14:16:45] - Paul: The birds-eye versions of GTA were a bit too limited technologically to really make an immersive online evironment. You could be run over by a speeding car before you even realized it was on the screen. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:15:03] - I remember playing the first GTA multiplayer was kinda fun, even though I always got my ass handed to me. -Paul
[2004-11-10 14:14:24] - Dave: it could be structured like the single-player GTA games. The more progress you make (however that would be measured), the more access to hot vehicles and advanced weapons you get. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:13:56] - Pierce: if you want something with 'nothing to lose' then that's mostly things like counterstrike etc. But you're right, it's not exactly 'freeform' -dave
[2004-11-10 14:12:56] - Dave: I think the key is to mostly take out the "RPG" element. If people aren't trying to invest in the character, they won't mind the mayhem. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:12:45] - Pierce: but that's exactly it though. If you have no investment in anything, then the PK element is really moot, cuz there's nothing for you to really 'lose' -dave
[2004-11-10 14:11:58] - hmm, maybe the first "M" isn't the most desireable thing. I think the upper bound before it became too chaotic would be about 40-50 people in a city. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:10:57] - Dave: if the level-building time investment was less of a factor for AC, I don't think people would've minded the PKing so much. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:10:15] - dave: yeah, but most MMORPGs seem to focus too much on level building and story-like elements. A significant portion of the fun of GTA is how freeform it is. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:09:40] - Pierce: I heard from friends that the PK server of Asheron's Call was one big political mess. Exactly like a bunch of gangs, with gang wars and all that -dave
[2004-11-10 14:08:38] - Pierce: they are actually fairly frightening, as people are quite vicious usually -dave
[2004-11-10 14:07:59] - Pierce: actually, MMORPGs cover that to some extent. There are ones that let you build your own cities/societies and wage war on other ones -dave
[2004-11-10 14:06:54] - imaging = imagine. Damn web application again! - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:06:31] - imaging 20 other people wreaking havoc through liberty city with you, gang warfare with an actual (intelligent) gang... <drool> - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:03:57] - when are they going to make a MMO grand theft auto game? I think that would be fantastic. - pierce
[2004-11-10 14:00:58] - dave: ok cool. thanks. good to know. -mel
[2004-11-10 14:00:46] - travis: hehe, that's kinda cool. Altho I honestly don't really like hearing the voices of people I'm playing an online game with. I did that for a little bit with mmorpg's, but it was too freaky and didn't help much except when trying to organize large hunts -dave
[2004-11-10 14:00:16] - it's very cool to be running around the level and suddenly hearing someone else's voice to alert you that someone is nearby - travis
[2004-11-10 14:00:09] - Pierce: Gotcha. -Paul
[2004-11-10 13:59:48] - it's = its - pierce
[2004-11-10 13:59:18] - dave: and there's a team chat button so you can always talk to your teammates no matter how far away and you hear that in your headset - travis
[2004-11-10 13:58:58] - Paul: the xbox isn't a complete failure, but if MS hadn't had the financial security to bankroll it's tough times, it would have been a colossal failure. - pierce
[2004-11-10 13:58:52] - dave: about halo 2: haven't played single player, but like pierce said, the reviews claim it's short and ends with a cliffhanger, but the actual gameplay is great. multiplayer is awesome, and online the voices are proximity based, so you can't always talk to everyone all the time, but if you're close to someone you'll hear them through your tv...
prev <-> next