Parabellum
-
Posts
3,376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Parabellum
-
-
Thanks, DS! Do I get to wear a fedora, smoke a cigar, and carry a baseball bat?
-
Para, let us draw a big fat line under it all, its clear you have absolutely no views on anything remotely to do with conspiracy even to speak of it in terms of "lets just say there might be something in it" will certainly not come from your corner. So when or if I posted something or anyone else, will we have to go through all this again or can it be posted and talked about without knowing you are going to dismiss it as its absolutely and totally clear you do not see things in such a way. I think what im trying to say is, if this was a game thread and you dont like the game how much can you post about not liking it until its groundhog day? You need full evidence and you have the peers to back it all up, that's pretty much in the bag and that's the way things are done. this thread is clearly not about that otherwise with wouldn't be the subject matter of the title, can it be posted without being slammed forever and a day?
You and others come from the fact it can never be, I do not I come from potentially and theirs enough information to put it on the table as worth looking at and not fully accepting official source, and a thread like this "never be" = game over for the point of its existence. Can something be posted that you directly disagree with and we know you will not like it at all and know your views but you choose not to voice it? Or does this threads existence annoy you so much you could never leave it alone? And yet ive been indirectly asked maybe I shouldn't post because I dont have proof, that logic is strange in itself.
I'm sorry, Calius. I was under the assumption that this forum was a public discussion forum, and that thread was posted for evidence and discussion both for and against these theories. Clearly, I was mistaken. I'll try not to offend your delicate sensibilities again. You seem to want validation of your ideas, not discussion both for and against. You should have called it the "Conspiracy Believers' Thread" or maybe "Pro-Conspiracy Theory Thread" or something to that effect. You don't seem to appreciate people posting views contrary to your own. Not once have I ever directly or indirectly suggested that you not post if you don't have proof. I have only suggested that you reconsider posting controversial ideas if you cannot take criticism or rebuttal of your ideas. It won't matter what evidence anyone posts, you're going to believe what you want, even when that belief is clearly unreasonable. So, enjoy your conspiracy thread. I'd hate to upset you any further.
-
Thanks for the heads-up, Rocky. The wife and I have been on the fence about this one. We may go see it now.
-
You give countries back because occupation is unsustainable unless you remove the indigenious people and replace them with your own.
Unless you kick a country's collective ass so profoundly that they have no choice but to acquiesce. See WWII Germany and Japan for references.
-
Calius, my friend.... Let me use a simple example here. Two plus two will always equal four. Debating that fact, calling it a conspiracy, or saying that two plus two is actually five but the government doesn't want you to know about it, won't change the fact that two plus two does, in fact, equal four. Likewise, this silly hysteria over contrails, claiming that the government is spraying something on people, will not change that fact that they are, in fact, benign products of basic chemistry. You can debate the facts all you want, but you will not suddenly be correct, just because you say it enough. Truth and fact are not matters of concensus or opinion!
That really very cheap comment is just ludicrous.
I said, and I quote, "I really wish you wouldn't let some of these people influence your thinking so much." That's a very nice way of saying - which I've said before - you're clearly a smart guy. And yet, you're letting yourself be influenced by people who are obviously on the stupid side of the scale. You're also missing the point of what NoQuarter is saying in his previous post. He's pointing out some of the ridiculous theories that are out there. He's not saying that you believe in mind-control from the skies. He's saying that those are some of the theories.
Yet again, pick a point and jump. I will put this into context for you ... (I seem to do that a lot) .. within the time frame of 9/11 and a large amount of related happenings so to speak in such a short space of time which has = severe privacy and law changes based on this. Clearly theirs a myriad of things going back 100's of years which I wasn't basing it on as that's past and not future or of OUR time relative to the last 10 years that have introduced a lot of this. I like the way you took that and spun it to suggest im a some young "noob" or my condition is wrong, keep it up as it only comes back to you.
Here, you prove that you are, in fact, very short-sighted. You need to read about history. The changes in the past ten years are minor in comparison with changes that have happened after past catastrophic events. Need I remind you about Japanese internment camps during WWII? Would you like to discuss massive breaches in privacy or freedom? Imagine if the United States started rounding up masses of people of Arabic descent and placing them in internment camps after 9/11. That's exactly what we did to the Japanese during WWII. In the big picture, which you continually miss, changes in security policy since 9/11 are minuscule and much less invasive on privacy than those following past crises.
The middle ground between this and the gloops thick skyline mess you see with the chemtrails area is that they linger all day and spread wide over time, the time they linger is far from contrails that's the point, they are like 2 separate phenomenon in the same area, which is clear why they get mixed up or treated as the same.
What part of this didn't you understand?
...when a contrail fails to disappear within a minute or so, it doesn't mean that there must be some sort of chemical in there. Just that you have the appropriate conditions for cirrus clouds to form.
I could not care a less what you get annoyed with, it isn't going to go away anytime soon and coupled with the fact Its a relative thing to post in this thread. I ignore it "all", I have read pretty much everything, you seem to speak for me with this, you have no idea that I ignore it ALL. I checked the link you passed me and it speaks of testing and the like in the official sense, I can see that. The thing is for a period I would understand, a test over populated areas consistently for more than 10 years, a hell of a lot of an expense seeing as we are now in a financial crisis. Where are they getting the funding to fly all this worldwide? I check info from the BBC and most mainstream sites I then look at other sites and compare ... I have explained this a long time ago in the other 9/11 thread many times. I understand the official lines I can SEE exactly the points of both of them where else would I be aware of the official story to begin with the weeks it happened? Or any of the official source of subjects. Its not for me to convince people of this or my issue that others cant get their head around that either and get frustrated.
You're correct in on sense: It isn't going away. I believe it was Albert Einstein who is attributed to have said something to the effect of, "There are two things that are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. I'm not sure about the former." No, human stupidity isn't going away any time soon. People who are ignorant of facts and afraid of the unknown are going to concoct impossibly-elaborate theories to help them understand the world around themselves. A line from the movie Men In Black (even though I hate quoting pop culture) sums up the human condition well: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals..." I've found this to be very true. One boob looks up at the sky and says "What are those trails? I don't understand what they are. They must be a government plot to hurt us!" and then a hundred other people join in with him. Why? They join in because they suddenly realize that they don't know what they're seeing, and people are afraid of the unknown. Understand that I'm not calling you dumb, Calius. I'm talking about the bigger notion of conspiracy theories, and the collective human fear of anything that we don't understand, which drives the more wacky of these fanciful, if schizophrenic, tales of government gloom and doom. Asking questions is good, to a point. At some point, though, a rational individual must realize that he's left the realm of productive questioning, and entered the realm of unwarranted paranoia. Unfortunately, it's usually man's peers, rather than the man himself, who first realize that he's made that most fateful leap.
What I can't get my head around is how you come to such outlandish conclusions, Calius. You either ignore, misunderstand, or discard anything that conflicts with the theories that are voiced in this thread. Chemtrails used to spray chemicals down on us? For what purpose? That's a rhetorical question, the answer to which requires common sense to be invoked. There is no purpose. Fact after fact after fact is posted for you, and yet you discount them all. In some cases you completely fail to understand what's posted, Calius. Case in point: Contrails/Chemtrails. It was clearly explained that sometimes, contrails form cirrus clouds. This is what you see wafting through the sky. Yet, completely missed that. You continue to assert that there's something nefarious up there in the sky.
I check info from the BBC and most mainstream sites I then look at other sites and compare ... I have explained this a long time ago in the other 9/11 thread many times.
Why then, aren't you filtering out some of these outlandish theories (reference chemtrails)? Do you arbitrarily assume that every site out there has something valid to add? You're confusing "official" with "plausible and legitimately tested". Reference, again, contrails vs. chemtrails. Your posts lead me to believe that you assume that the "official" word is somehow invalidated, simply because it's posted by what you view as the establishment. You're completely ignoring the fact that rigorous, repeatable experimentation and peer-review has gone into explaining what contrails are, how they form, and how they behave.
I understand that on some level, you just want to debate things. That's fine. Debating the issues, however, won't change facts. Al Qaeda attacked the United States of America on September 11, 2001. Due to their actions, the World Trade Center's famous twin towers collapsed. The U.S. government did not blow up the twin towers. Empirical evidence shows that the twin towers did, in fact, collapse due to massive structural damage caused by the impacts and subsequent fires. No amount of debate will change that. Contrails are benign and harmless, with the noted exception of any engine exhaust. No amount of debate or hysteria will change that fact, either.
-
Keep reading, Rocky. There are several pictures where you can clearly see that guys are carrying AK's.
-
I thought you would post that Para
Nice and dismissive no debate required, nothing to see here, move along folks. To think I would not know about contrails before posting and just thought every white line is a danger isn't why i posted it. That 1 video of thousands, have a look at some more, unless you assume they are all idiots without questions so no need to bother.Truth is not a matter of debate, nor is truth a matter of consensus. You can debate the facts all you like, but they aren't going to change. To be honest, I think that some of these conspiracy nuts are idiots, because they believe such outlandish things. I wish that you wouldn't let some of these people influence your thinking so much. I'm getting a bit frustrated with you, to be honest. Others can post all the evidence they want, and you outright ignore it. Links, pictures, testimony from experts ... you ignore it all.
@ LongRange: I hope you're kidding.
-
Neither WikiLeaks nor the mainstream media are telling the whole truth. The journalists who were 'just doing their job' were embedded with militants who had just ambushed American forces. The short videos that get played more often don't show the whole picture, either. In the longer version, you can clearly see that some of the men surrounding the journalists were indeed carrying AK's and RPG's. A search of the area after the Apache strike showed that indeed, quite a few of the dead men had been armed. Imagine that. It's almost comical how much information these so-called 'journalists' leave out, just to get a sensational story. Don't want to get blown up? Don't keep company with ######ing insurgents after they fire on American forces.
-
Anything with Jason Statham is bound to be less than stellar, IMO.
-
Calius. Seriously? Come on man. Scientific Studies Regarding Aircraft Contrails and Cloud Formation. Contrails are nothing but water vapor or ice crystals formed as hot exhaust hits cold air. The hydrocarbon fuels create water vapor as it is burned and complete combustion in any internal combustion engine (yes, jet engines are internal combustion engines) results in nothing but water vapor and carbon dioxide being release. I'm sorry bud, but your latest post really pushes the boundaries of credibility. Whomever made that youtube video is an idiot. It took all of thirty seconds to realize that. I don't understand this need to take even established, scientifically-proven events, and turn them into some sort of bogeyman.
-
Parabellum your point is well taken and I understand where you’re coming from. But what you are looking for along with me and mostly everyone else, is a Sim style military game and you’re not going to find that on any console....
If I may be so bold, playing on a console is half your problem. Do I like consoles? Sure. Do I play shooter games on them, hoping for something that's actually tactical and somewhat realistic? No. Hell no. Consoles, with their simple controls, are better suited for arcade games. Always have been, always will be. While it is possible to play them tactically (I've seen Hatchetforce play Navy Seals on his PlayStation, and ... damn) consoles really aren't suited for 'realistic' military games.
Beyond that, most console players are children. There have been several studies done which prove that fact, and if memory serves correctly, we had some discussion on that matter here on these boards some time ago. The point there is that children typically (but not in all cases) don't have the attention span for games like Ghost Recon or ArmA. Kids like big bangs and "oh wow!" moments. Instant gratification. Since children make up the bulk of console users, it makes sense that the products are designed for their attention and interest. Hence, true tactical shooters have largely gone the way of the dinosaur.
-
You can either keep complaining about how you’re not gonna buy the game or you can approach it in a tactical state of mind and enjoy the game, cause truth be told 90% of the ppl dogging the game are gonna end up either playing the demo, renting it or buying it cause everyone else on their friends list is gonna have it. Keep it tactical!!
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I'm going to do so. Even Counter-Strike can be tactical if you play it that way. That doesn't mean that the game itself is a tactical game. GRAW and GRAW 2 were both standard-fare arcade shooters. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like Counter-Strike and CoD. I don't expect that FS will be any different. Why? Ubi's track record of making arcade shooters should be enough evidence to support my view there. GRAW didn't require tactics, for example. GRAW required manipulation of game mechanics. There's a vast difference.
-
Thanks DS!
-
Just check out this new community made mod -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u7E8a_5Ag0&feature=player_embedded
It's stuff like this that the Arma2 community and the games modability bring which just blow every other military game away.
ACE2 mod is another example.
And there are so many other brilliant mods its hard to keep track.
I saw one a while back - call in a chopper with AI to carry out a medivac when you have men down injured, You call in the chopper, then pop smoke at LZ, chopper lands, crew gets out and sets up defensive stance while you load injured into chopper, AI gets back in chopper and extracts. You continue mission.
You just can't beat BIS, Community, modability and Arma2.
And now comes Operation Arrowhead with dynamic villages that create themselves when you place the village creation icon on the map - where will it end?
Simple awesome!!
FYI LS, you don't need any mods at all to do that. The Secondary Ops Manager module gives you the ability to call for extraction, call airstrikes, artillery, UAV's, etc. The Secondary Operations Manager module also creates random secondary objectives for you. Things like first aid, ambient civilians, and ambient combat are built-in to ArmA2. You don't need ACE (which I honestly hate) to have a great experience.
edit
I forgot to mention that regarding ACE 2, I've found that it causes problems at the most inopportune times, specifically when calling in airstrikes. I was able to consistently reproduce a bug where the CAS aircraft would drop their ordnance on my team, rather than the target, when ACE 2 is active. Every time.
-
I'm cherry-picking here, but this statement sums it up well. "...I didn't expect the series to go that far into the future and in all likelihood, the Ghost Recon that I know is dead. In my mind, I have a feeling it won't define my PC gaming experience like the first one did..." The first half of the article is spot-on. The second half is far too kind to FS.
-
Age of Conan has a great soundtrack. As does The Witcher. The Faydark Theme from EverQuest II is simply gorgeous.
-
According to the caption, these are US Army soldiers tending to the wounded. I don't recognize the camouflage pattern or the plate carrier though. Are these guys soldiers from another country, or is the US trying out yet another new camo?
-
It's not Ghost Recon that's clear but if it's a decent TacSim then I might buy it.
I'll just enjoy Arma2 and OA for now and we'll see what Future Soldier brings.
+1 for ArmA2. I don't have OA yet, but I hope to get it soon.
-
1b. No chance. Call it something besides Ghost Recon: Future Soldier. Call it 'Future Soldier'. But this game isn't Ghost Recon. GRAW and its sibling GRAW 2 weren't Ghost Recon, either. They were lame attempts to recreate an action-movie feel. The only way that I'll ever buy another Ghost Recon title again, is if Ubi sells the franchise, and a developer who actually understands what Ghost Recon was about takes over. Until then, my money is staying in my pocket.
-
RE: Beowolf the game: The game sucked. Hard. If that is the kind of game that GR:FS is going to turn out to be, then it's going to be another huge, steaming pile of brown stuff. Without a doubt, it was the worst game that I've ever had the scathing misfortune to install on my machine. The CD did make an excellent target, however.
@ Rocky: That explanation makes sense. Thanks for that!
RE: GR:FS: I honestly don't think that Gabrielle has any idea what she's talking about. At approx 3:17 in the video, she says "What differentiates us is that we're all about the elite tactical unit gameplay...the story is much more micro-narration, it's about what happens on the ground." Every other shooter on the planet is about elite tactical units. Every other shooter out there is about what happens on the ground. What she seems to fail to realize is that making the game focus primarily on the experience of the character that you're playing leads to a game that feels small. The games that pull people in are the games that make you feel as though there's something more to the story; there's a bigger story to tell, and learning how your character and his team fit into that bigger story is what makes for an engrossing experience. Gabrielle's assertion that the micro-narration is more important than the story tells me that there's no depth to the game, honestly.
Then at 3:39, she starts babbling about four-person co-op, as if that's something amazing and astonishing. Memo to Gabrielle: Ghost Recon had .. what was it ... 9- or 18-person co-op, ten years ago. Operation Flashpoint and its successors have far more than that. Four-person co-op is supposed to be amazing? Please. I know that this is the XBox 360-specific forum, but let's not be deceived into thinking that four-player co-op is something amazing, even for the 360. Then she talks about how it's difficult to have a typical movie foil in this kind of a game. Why is that even an issue? Since when is having a side-kick important in a shooter? It isn't. Again, I don't think that Gabrielle has any idea what she's talking about.
Honestly, I lost any semblance of interest in the interview after that, because it's clear from what she'd said so far that GR:FS will offer nothing new. Everything that she's mentioned, other games have done before. Very likely, other games have also done those things better.
-
I don't get mad, but do have to just shake my head. Everything in the Ghost Recon franchise, from Island Thunder on, has been complete and utter rubbish. Gabrielle and co. need to go back and play the [Ghost Recon], sans mods again. Capture the essence of that game. Enough of this futuristic BS already!
edit -
Why does typing original and then Ghost Recon result in [Ghost Recon] being displayed? That's mildly irritating.
-
I've probably said this before, but I'm on the fence about this one. Having to connect to the internet doesn't really bother me, because I've been playing EverQuest II for years. I'm used to having to log in to the internet to play, even if I'm playing alone. That said, I can see how this is irksome for a lot of people. Hopefully, the reality of the situation won't be as bad as it's seeming to a lot of people right now. I say this not to support Ubisoft; but because I hope that by diminishing piracy, more great games will come back to the PC.
The situation probably wouldn't be received as badly as it is right now, if it were a company other than Ubi, in my honest opinion. They've shown themselves to be a senseless troglodyte of a company repeatedly, so that even if they do have a good idea (and I'm not saying that this form of DRMis good) a lot of people won't receive it as such, simply because it's coming from Ubi.
-
I think you should put the 'not' back in, Rocky. GRFS is looking worse and worse, the more that we find out about it. While you're doing sigs and watnot, could you maybe get rid of the GRFS guy in the banner? I'm sure there's something from Ghost Recon that would look better.
-
@ Calius: My contribution is simply to point out that a healthy dose of logic and reality is all that's needed to debunk 75% of these 'theories'. Why haven't I posted any evidence? I haven't posted any evidence because the people who believe in things like 9/11 being a government job won't believe any evidence that dismisses their theory. Yourself included. There is no open, honest discussion on the topics in this thread. I've posted evidence. NoQuarter and WK have posted evidence. It gets ignored, or skewed so that it can be re-explained as a part of this ever-broadening notion that somehow the US Government and/or the Jews planned and executed 9/11.
You want to know the US Government's true role in 9/11? Sheer, unmitigated stupidity. There were mounds of intelligence pointing to the fact that something big was going to happen, even before Bill Clinton left office. Long before that, though, the United States contributed to the mess that we're in by supporting the mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. The very same people that the United States trained, equipped, and funded turned Afghanistan into a safe-haven for religious nutbags and fanatics. We're now fighting against the people who we helped decades ago. The USA's aid to Afghanistan against the Soviets, and the collective failure of government agencies to piece together the evidence leading to 9/11 were this nation's contribution to the disaster. No vast government conspiracy. No Jewish plot. Stupidity and carelessness on the part of the flight schools and government agencies in the US was sufficient.
quick edit
In case anyone missed the sarcasm in NoQuarter's post: We haven't yet reaped any sizeable reward from our foray's into any of said countries. It's funny how Iraq was supposedly about oil. Yet, the price of oil has skyrocketed. Fears of shortages grip the market regularly. It strains logic to think that some people believe the United States government was somehow capable of manipulating some vast conspiratorial plot for years, and then suddenly became so inept that we bungled the execution of that impossibly-cunning conspiracy.
Conspiracy Theories
in "Off Topic" Posts
Posted
Oh, fantastic!