Fox Fire
-
Posts
3092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Fox Fire
-
-
Dude I assumed that. Let me recall what I said: "And actually you are wrong about "why Israel exists". It is more complex than you propose. If you want the ultra condensed version it exists because the British and French supported it and Jews legally bought large areas of land from the Ottomans. These are facts although they have little real relevance to today's situation."
It appears to me that you are drawing on some uninformed sources to formulate your argument. I am not a Zionist (sorry) I just oppose stupid statements and uninformed opinions.
Again, feel free to reply to my actual argument. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
The British and French supported it because of powerful self interests from back when it was just an idea. The Ottoman empire was forcibly divided and conquered and the source of all the middle easts problems is the Sykes-Pikot agreement. Part of that was the Balfour Declaration and specifically moving Jewish, Zionist settlers into Palestine to establish a Jewish state in a predominately Muslim area. Ironically, both the Nazis and Zionists had similar ideas to solve antisemitism in Europe. Both of them were stupid as !@#$.
-
1
-
-
I am kinda confused how to respond to you. You clearly are not a neo-Nazi. Yet this statement: "the accusations against the Jews (generally speaking) isn't exactly false" smacks of neo-nazism. Bottom line: no way is that anywhere near true. "The Jews" were not responsible for Germany losing WWI nor the great depression. Genocide is never a morally acceptable option be it Seminoles, Kurds, Jews, or the Don Cossacks. Wherever you were going with this is completely and almost dangerously wrong.
And actually you are wrong about "why Israel exists". It is more complex than you propose. If you want the ultra condensed version it exists because the British and French supported it and Jews legally bought large areas of land from the Ottomans. These are facts although they have little real relevance to today's situation. So, yeah, you do not sound like you know what you are talking about and actually do sound anti-semitic for the wrong reasons. Your facts are false.
Back to the strawman: There "are certainly some people in France who wouldn't mind systematically murdering millions of Muslims if they could." This is certainly true (your statement and mine). They are also irrelevant.
You have completely lost me on the rest of your argument which seems factually wrong or fundamentally flawed. Maybe you could rephrase.
BL: Yeah, you actually do sound anti-Semitic and your vision of history is fundamentally flawed at best. If you would like to reply to my argument above.... feel free.
Dude, I'm saying the Balfour Declaration, basically a corrupt conspiracy by foreigners, is the whole framework for the Israeli-Palestine conflict and a large part of the middle east problems. We are propping up a religious, nationalist group of people we deliberately moved in there and propped up in an area that is already highly Muslim, all because some powerful people had some self interests. Now days IDF snipers shoot shoot children as a right of passage and drop bombs like shooting fish in a barrel. We give them all the guns and support they need to do it. Something about that I just find disturbing. IDGAF if you want to be Jewish but Zionism is just stupid.
-
2
-
-
I would be suspicious of any country that recognizes Palestine as a state but doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide. If you think about it is largely the same logic but with a mostly different result.
I watched something very informative on Palestine not too long ago and it gave good detail about how fake Palestine is and it is merely victim movement to bring down the Jews/Israel. They don't want to coexist.
The area has been known as Palestine or various alternate names since ancient times. Palestine has been home to many civilizations since ancient times. The state of Palestine today may be more modern than Isreal, but it's a response to a literal foreign religious and political take over. Further more, "Israelites" or "Jews" may trace their most significant and influential parts of their history to this land, but that's like saying we should force Americans to move back to Europe and Africa or hand US political power to native American tribes. Israel is specifically a Jewish state. Muslims in the area desire an Islamic state, and they've been living and working there consecutively longer. I mean moving a shit ton of foreigners into any area is never a great idea. Especially when you have the worlds most powerfully corrupt !@#$ doing the entire shebang all because of a shady business deal from WW1.
Look, I know the holocaust was bad and Jews have had it rough, but so have so many other groups of people. I don't think that pissing off every Muslim on the planet is really worth a Jewish state. Neither side will ever stop and the only real solution is a single, very secular state.
So there is a difference between Israel the State and individuals. You said "Nazi Germany" which was a State. There are Frenchmen who hate Muslims this does not make France the same as Nazi Germany now does it? I suppose that is a strawman. So let me elaborate:
Israel as a State may very well violate the proportionality component of jus ad bellum and/or last resort. I would certainly entertain such arguments as valid, although a valid counterargument could also be made. Certainly it seems undeniable that individuals in every conflict that I know of have violated jus in bellum. It is perhaps possible that Israel the State has violated jus in bellum as well although that argument would be tenuous at best.
Whatever the results of those arguments it is basically impossible to argue that Nazi Germany did not intentionally and completely violate basically every single part of both jus ad bellum and jus in bellum. Israel does not. There is basically zero comparison between the two at least none that could not be made for every single State in the history of mankind.
Edit: added "did not" since that was silly without it =)
I'm not so sure that's completely accurate. Certainly the sheer scale of WW2 has never been seen since. The Nazis certainly went overboard and Hitler seemed bent on repeating the world war from the beginning, but the situation in Germany and all of Europe, really, was complex and the accusations against the Jews (generally speaking) isn't exactly false. That's why Israel exists right now and it's kind of ironic the way these two things are connected. Not to sound anti-semitic, but these are simply solid facts. I think there are certainly some people in Israel who wouldn't mind systematically murdering millions of Muslims if they could. Now Hamas and groups like them are just as terrible but Israel was forcefully carved out of area by foreign nations who sent ship loads upon shiploads of completely foreign people there under the arrangement that when these people eventually become the majority, we will establish a Jewish state in the area of Palestine. In exchange, the allies got a lot of financial and resource support from Jews all over Europe during WWI. Including German Jews.
IDK about you, but that just sounds like a messy, stupid !@#$ing idea. Next, we can take over Turkey and give it to the Orthodox Church.
-
1
-
-
I know you have a penchant to exaggerate but please.
There are plenty of valid enough reasons to criticize Israel but these types of statements are not just exaggeration but overly silly.
No, not really. I mean the amount of incidents of their soldiers or police blatantly beating or killing just children is pretty disturbing. Their society in general has a pretty well built in hate for Muslims, or just anything that disagrees with them really. There really is no shortage of people that openly express hate and extremist nationalism in Israel. Polls clearly show a deep social divide between Muslims and Jews. Yeah, not everyone is bad, but there is a disturbing amount of very Nazi-like Jews. Are the Arabs any better? On average, no, but they don't have a concentration camp called Gaza that they bomb every year. No no. In fact, they actually live in that concentration camp called Gaza.
-
1
-
-
A few years back, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul did interviews on Faux News and CNN calling for what they referred to as a "Libertarian-Progressive Alliance"; which was a proposed alliance of classical liberals and social democrats united in the aim of combating corporatism in American politics and economics. The two also found common ground in their advocacy of civil liberties and non-interventionism, as well as a shared disdain for the Federal Reserve; and later Nader published a book entitled Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance To Dismantle the Corporate State. This has recently created a small new wave of political libertarianism as well; referred to by it's few proponents as libertarian progressivism or social libertarianism (not to be confused with libertarian socialism). Although I am not personally involved in party politics whatsoever, I can't help thinking that this is exactly the type of coalition we need in the political arena presently. Finding common ground amongst these two groups might also act as a way of combining the better qualities of each, to create what MLK Jr. referred to as a "higher synthesis"; and introduce a wider audience to left and centre libertarian ideas. Thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTCr3dtDv1o
Libertarian Socialism for everyone! \o/
-
1
-
-
What do you mean even Israel, Israel is the only reasonably free country in the middle east.
If I had to live in the middle east then it would be Israel.
Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany. Only it's OK because they're Jewish.
Palestine isn't real and they aren't very good at genocide if you think that.
Palestine is just as real as Israel. Just because a few powerful foreign nations wont recognize their sovereignty means nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
I mean literally, the only people that don't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state are the nations that created Israel.
-
1
-
-
Today is a day that shall live forever in the hearts and minds of mankind for I, Metro, have ascended to Godhood. Worship me and obey my every word and a utopia will be declared.
Kill all heretics and drive them before you.
Destroy any and all nations perceived as neutrals or whom even harbor fleeting thoughts of neutrality.
Most importantly raise a 35% tax against anyone in your alliance until they convert or leave so you can destroy them.
Official response from Foxburos government: Piss off. *In a catchy British accent*
-
1
-
-
Since you think this game "requires you to keep full military", I would suggest studying the war module some more before you complain about it being unfair.
There is an advantage to attacking, but it is not insurmountable. The game is not meant to be played on your own. That is why alliances exist, and that is why alliances link up and defend each other as needed. This is not a flaw, this is intentional.
That's a moot point. An outmatched alliance won't help you very much. The point of the thread is that aggressors win wars. And they generally do. A whole shit ton of money that you could be earning must be placed into defence instead, simply to ward off attackers. It's a pretty aggressive game and doesn't have the war standards of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) where raiding is basically internationally banned.
-
Bro, you're literally barking up a tree that I have been barking up forever, basically.
Fact is: the aggressor always has the advantage because he prepared for war. That's not to say the defender can never win. In fact, I've actually won most of my defensive wars. But I definitely feel your frustration.
-
Here's a good anime I just remembered and haven't seen in forever: Wolfs Rain.
-
still athiest need to explain how universe come from nothing
Quantum fluctuations of vacuum gravity or a black hole multiverse paradox are probably the best explanations for what caused the Big Bang.
god is eternal and doesnt need cause
Correction: Existence is eternal and self justifying. Saying a God is required to create existence is just moving the goal post. You always end in a paradox of "what came first" when contemplating the meaning of existence. It's like asking what's north of the north pole. Perhaps nothing came first and there was never a beginning? Either way, the fact that you exist is completely illogical. If God doesn't need a cause, why does existence?
Proving gods existence is impossible. The same the other way.since its impossible to do that we have to concentrate on what we currently have:old religions screwing humans brains and logic.
Ban religion and establish philosophy.
The post is about banning all religion in game.because its man made and lame as it goes.
If there is god he is all that exists.So we are part of god.Being part of him doesn't let us conceive the absolute image of he's existence.So we can't grasp that understanding.
So any "laws" bibles Torahs etc are total bull.burn them all.
Burn all religion monuments. Destroy any sign of the abrahamic religions like they did to any humans trying to bring common sense:
Jordano Bruno
The inquisition
The pope
Jeasus Christ (who's REAL name nobody of you really knows)
Hypatia
And the thousands of years human kind couldn't evolve because of the creationists.
Its time to fight back and bring the NWO!
No nations,no religions,no capitalism.Sooner or later we will accomplish our goals(in game as well in real life-jyst to it up).
Hmm... I don't think religion is the word you're looking for.
-
As for nationalism, it's kind of stupid, but it's always going to exist. I'm not sure what makes you think America is not nationalist, because we are very nationalist. That has nothing to do with being a racist, homophobic !@#$ fascist. Those are two different things, Captain.
-
On the topic of Israel vs. Arabs
"If you mean who's side should we be on, Israel or the Arabs, then I would say Israel because it's the advanced, technological, civilized country against a group [the Arabs] who are completely primitive, savages who have not changed for years who are racist and resent Israel because it's breathing industry and intellegence and modern technology against their [the Arabs] stagnation."
As to why the Arabs are savages and not Israel.
"I don't resort to terrorism, I don't go around murdering my opponents, and innocent women and children and that is what I have against the Arabs. That takes the conflict out of civilized conflict and makes the conflict murderous private citizens who resort to force is a monster, which makes me condemn and depise them."- Ayn Rand
Israel is disgusting. There is nothing to be desired in their society. The Arabs are forced to resort to guerrilla tactics because a huge conspiracy of very powerful international interests from decades ago, drove them off their freakin land. The !@#$ would you do?
You just hate them because they have western influence and the fact that they are more developed then the other Arab nations.
Saudi Arabia is literally the worst nation in the middle east. I would rather live in Iran or even Israel.
You'll have to define more developed there. They're more backwards than a lot of Arabs no matter how many fancy buildings they get their slaves to build or how fancy their cars and suits their oil money buys them.
As for their influence most say is due to resources but thats nonsense, regime change could be done to get such things easily enough. The real reason I'd say is that the Saudis are nice agents against the Muslims, their worst enemy in fact who masquerades as the most devout of Muslims. A nice big joke that.
Believe me, the Saudis are very Muslim.
-
1
-
-
i would gladly see them go.
Saudis are all Salafists. Closer to your absurd point of view than most people Mr. SrslyAMuslim
pan arab nationalism would be a dream come true.
But you hate the actual pan-Arab nationalists?.... You are so inconsistent.
-
Foxburo would like a room, as we have a considerable Catholic population.
-
Don't be silly. The rich run this country.
-
Nukes have no effective counters. Aircraft can be countered with Aircraft, Ships with Ships/Aircraft, etc. But Nukes? All you've got is some lousy 20% chance from a ridiculously expensive Project. I'm new to this game, but I'm not new to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and unless Sheepy introduces more effective counters to Nukes then top-tier warfare will end up just like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), ie each side sits behind their big military and tosses a nuke at each other when the cooldown lapses.
Is there no counter to nukes in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Oh yes, it's called the SDI. Would you feel more comfortable if we increased the VDS to 60% chance? (I would agree with that but only with an increse in nuke damage).
I disagree. I find it convenient that units have names that easily equate to things in rl since it eases communication. However they have no relation to realism. You point out a fine example and we can keep using it. Ships do not fly and cannot "realistically" blockade a player in Kansas. But they do. And there is no problem with that in the slightest.
Missiles I assume equate to MLRs, SRBM, and MRBMs. Does that make you content?
Back to your more on topic point: nukes as they stand right now are designed to be end game. People are buying them and trying to apply them before their intended game point. The results are not ideal and they want to "fix" this non-problem by making nukes OP. I oppose this as it will push the game in a negative direction.
Alright. Make a decent argument and I may support this.
I do not think Sheepy's goal is or should be to "balance fairness and realism". His goal should be to keep the game healthy and enhance its longevity. The "make nukes OP" line of reasoning is a direct threat to that.
So I will bite. Why is non-conventional warfare non-conventional?
So then tell me why units in the game aren't simply labeled as 1, 2 and 3? I mean, according to your logic, there is no meaning in naming anything at all and we should throw meaningless numbers at each other all day.
However, I completely agree with the idea that people are trying to acquire nukes too early and that trying to offset their own early purchase with more damage is just a bias complaint that should not be fed. But even with that being agreed upon, I still think nukes should not be removed and making them OP is not unreasonable on the realistic approach.
I've had many ideas for nukes, but I've also come and gone. Pretty sure my ideas have been brought up before, like mass pollution and such.
Overall, I conclude that they should not be removed unless we equally remove missiles and make everything conventional across the board. That would do a whole lot more to balance the scales but also make things a whole lot less interesting.
-
Actually it is. Its all math. There is nothing "real" about the game. You could rename Soldiers to dirt clods and tanks to watermelons. As long as the math, in game formulas, are the same it would work exactly the same.
If you desire to think of your boats as flying battleships then it will be irrelevant to game-play. Actually they are flying battleships if you think about it. People role play, and seem to have fun doing so, in a wide variety of ways that are unrelated to 21st century technology so whatever..
Nukes are powerful "for a reason" but other than cosmetics it is unrelated to the real world. As identified earlier nukes allow players to hit over 2k infra cities hard. However, that benefit may very well be overshadowed by the downside.
My point is that the math is the way it is now based on RL concepts and aspects of said units. RL may not be the goal, but it does in fact influence this game and its mechanics. There should indeed be some relation to realism. Otherwise it just becomes a complete bullshit game. We could make a single soldier inflict the same damage as a nuke, but we don't, because there is a relation to realism to some extent.
Nukes in RL are basically end game. So they should be immensely powerful for the sake of consistency if nothing else. If any military unit seems stupid in this game, it's missiles. I mean what are missiles? Planes carry missiles FFS. Missiles just seem to be like a mini nuke at a ridiculous cost.
If we remove nukes, we should just remove missiles as well, not add anything else and make war purely conventional. Because conventional warfare is the only way to balance fairness and realism. Non-conventional warfare is non-conventional for a reason. And it's not because it's fair.
-
A solid counter argument to my OP five pages ago...
We could just leave the system alone - would probably be the ideal solution. In contrast to you, the more I debate the closer I come back to my initial position that it would be better for the game to get rid of the things.
Nukes being "OP in the real" world is irrelevant to the debate.
But it's actually not. I agree that realism cannot ever be attained in a game like this, but that doesn't mean realism doesn't or shouldn't play a role it its mechanics. I mean, we don't have flying battleships or laser death rays and nukes are powerful units for a reason. Not just because the name sounds catchy.
-
Airstrikes can do so if and only if you have already defeated your opponent. As SB points out, nukes do damage even if you have lost the war. So, what is the issue?
Well that's kinda how nukes should work. Unless we are hand delivering radioactive gifts rather than using say..... An intercontinental ballistic missile.....
The more I read in this thread, the more I think nukes should actually just be OP. Why? Because that's what nukes are, really. I mean either way, we're going to end up with either OP nukes or just larger missiles we call nukes.
Might as well make it hard and realistic. Besides, if we remove them in favor of chemical weapons, we'll just be back at this same exact table having the same exact argument the day they are added/removed.
-
I think the ability to forward a notification to another user would be beneficial in certain situations.
For example
Nation a attacks nation b
Nation a gets countered hard
Nation a claims they were espionaged by nation b a few days prior
Nation b claims this didn't happen
Nation a produces a screenshot showing it did
The problem with this though is screenshots can be faked very easily by inspect element changes. Aside from asking someone for a temporary password to go in an see for themselves there is not a sufficient way to prove this exists should one desire to.
It would be very nice if there was a built in feature to forward server generated messages to other users. Obviously copy/paste is a joke and inspect element can be changed to anything and look just as official
Alternatively an alliance notification system that reports the latest n number of spy and war notifications would serve this function as well, where min permission systems like the bank features could be used to access them
I find myself in a situation now where the inner sleuth in me is dying for something like this, so I figured this probably has happened before and the ability for vindication would be quite nice
Anyone who fakes a screenshot has no !@#$ life anyway. Faking copy/paste text alone is a pretty good sign of a no lifer.
I'm with Sheepy. This is not necessary by any means.
-
Ansom was a great member of this community and will be sorely missed. While I can not hope to reach his level of mastery, I have nonetheless prepared the following shitpost in his honor.
lkmjrea;osnjhael/;,khmjipbadm, 'ilogfnhe;hbton
The only thing to make that better would be Golem getting hit by a train. Unfortunately, our blood thirsty desires were not me.
-
Just for the sake of suggestions, is it possible to make the effect of nuke to change from Beige to the Government Type going to Anarchy.
We can keep a new government type of Anarchy which is selected only during a nuke damage and can be removed only after 5 days.
Anarchy reduces the citizen income and increases crime and disease.
No sir, this will simply be criticized by everyone from every corner for everything. Apparently.
-
Lannan13 claims Ireland.
Updated:http://i.imgur.com/xfK81xi.png
Kyro is Red, Foxburo is light green.
I thought he he said he wanted the British Islands though. I mean Celtic Islands/British Islands, same thing really.
If he want's Britain, give him that and let me keep my Emerald Island.
nationalism?
in General Debate
Posted
I'm just getting my facts from independent research. I mean you don't deny the Balfour Declaration do you? Yeah, sure. It was all done "legally", but it was also a foreign conspiracy that disregarded the will of the people living there that created the modern state of Israel. It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel exists because of foreign, self interested meddling. The same exact kind of meddling and self interest that created WW2, not because Jews historically call the area home. We have already fought WW2 over borders we demanded in WW1. How is it a smart idea to repeat this?
The support ISIS is getting from Muslims around the world has a lot to do with the Sykes-Pikot agreement. Similarly, the support Hitler received had a lot to do with the treaty of Versailles. Both of these agreements were specifically designed to divide a defeated nation with strategically drawn borders to ensure they could pose no threat to anyone. They were specifically designed to remove military competition, rebuild the victors and fundamentally cripple the defeated nations. After WW2, we supposedly realized that we had to play more fair, but that doesn't seem to apply in the middle east.