Why bother having standards at all if they're going to be set so low. All imposed leadership is critically unpopular because the leaders policies serve those that appointed him and not the population they were meant to represent. See also: the Shah of Iran. Be impressed if you want, at the end of the day it is nothing more than an inconsequential observation of a nothing video game.
Idk the installing the most unpopular president in history is a good start. If they enact martial law to quell how pissed everyone will be when he "wins" a second term then it would be quite accurate.
Played it and the sequel. The story is good, but it has gameplay issues. Watch a video of all the cutscenes if you're interested, but don't waste your money.
"militias have given rise to ever increasing domestic terrorism"
there is no such thing as domestic terrorism.
and people going to war is not terrorism. it's just war. anyone who calls violence terrorism is a cuck retard, who wouldn't dare call brown people in america or europe terrorists no matter how much violence they commit. they'll just say it about white people
Going to war with uninvolved CIVILIANS(for political reasons) is the actual definition(simplified).
No it is not, and that is the first time i'm hearing that definition. Also, that is not even specified in the video. Also, that doesn't make sense to be a target unless you're israel or the US attacking civilians in Russia or the middle east. These definitions always change to match whatever is convenient for the current topic, and even if i didn't ground my stance in outside arguments, you would still not win this debate due the the existence of these outside, grounding points.
If you want to go to war, you're gonna have to attack some soldiers, not starbucks.
You're also making the unstated assumption that the only targets are civilians; further, they haven't even thought of targeting military targets - that's a cringey, bad-faith demonization stance that is only known to exist in reality because of the doings of Israel and the United States. Most targets the US and israel have hit in russia and the middle east are food production facilities or anything facilitating food distribution - they're not bombing weapons caches with those airstrikes - ever.
I do agree with you the word is increasingly misused, which is why I try to keep in mind what the word really means
you do not know the definition of this word. and idk what nonsense trail you've been following for it to make sense to you.
anyways, the US and israel are prime examples that target civilians for the expressed purpose of striking terror in their victims, and in order to qualify as terrorists one has to be doing this for an extended period of time. It also doesn't count when the underdog is "left no other options" because the civilian targets are complicate much of the time due to the superior forces putting that cannon fodder in the way - it also doesn't count if those civilians are helping the war effort. That the IRA for example, that is not terrorism - the British just kept not leaving them alone and attacking their military with such force they couldn't get a jet plane to go bomb the british parliment, therefore all targets are fair game. The IRA is just taking out the enemy, not trying to strike fear into the enemy, even if some journalist gaslighted them into saying "we're trying to terrorize people". Israel is purposely killing people's children in front of them and leaving the parents alive for the expressed purpose to terrorize them, AND they've been doing it for 70+ year straight. THAT is terrorism. and they'll do the same thing in the USA too, once people get uppity. and since we have the underdog status, we cannot be terrorists just because we fight back against being slaves.... never in world history does your dumbass definition get applied. stop drinking that kool-aid
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 4280602 4 points 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 23:41:48 ago (+4/-0)
Watched the clip.
Saw nothing special.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1940593 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 23:51:44 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 4280602 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 04:31:00 ago (+0/-0)*
All imposed leadership is critically unpopular because the leaders policies serve those that appointed him and not the population they were meant to represent.
See also: the Shah of Iran.
Be impressed if you want, at the end of the day it is nothing more than an inconsequential observation of a nothing video game.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1940593 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 23:50:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2828408 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 07:42:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 20:43:28 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] SilentByAssociation
[ - ] SilentByAssociation 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 21:25:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 8328501 2 points 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 21:55:23 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 10:04:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SilentByAssociation
[ - ] SilentByAssociation 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 16:35:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 1042846 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 03:58:25 ago (+1/-0)
there is no such thing as domestic terrorism.
and people going to war is not terrorism. it's just war. anyone who calls violence terrorism is a cuck retard, who wouldn't dare call brown people in america or europe terrorists no matter how much violence they commit. they'll just say it about white people
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 10:07:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1042846 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 13:57:38 ago (+0/-0)
No it is not, and that is the first time i'm hearing that definition. Also, that is not even specified in the video. Also, that doesn't make sense to be a target unless you're israel or the US attacking civilians in Russia or the middle east. These definitions always change to match whatever is convenient for the current topic, and even if i didn't ground my stance in outside arguments, you would still not win this debate due the the existence of these outside, grounding points.
You're also making the unstated assumption that the only targets are civilians; further, they haven't even thought of targeting military targets - that's a cringey, bad-faith demonization stance that is only known to exist in reality because of the doings of Israel and the United States. Most targets the US and israel have hit in russia and the middle east are food production facilities or anything facilitating food distribution - they're not bombing weapons caches with those airstrikes - ever.
you do not know the definition of this word. and idk what nonsense trail you've been following for it to make sense to you.
anyways, the US and israel are prime examples that target civilians for the expressed purpose of striking terror in their victims, and in order to qualify as terrorists one has to be doing this for an extended period of time. It also doesn't count when the underdog is "left no other options" because the civilian targets are complicate much of the time due to the superior forces putting that cannon fodder in the way - it also doesn't count if those civilians are helping the war effort. That the IRA for example, that is not terrorism - the British just kept not leaving them alone and attacking their military with such force they couldn't get a jet plane to go bomb the british parliment, therefore all targets are fair game. The IRA is just taking out the enemy, not trying to strike fear into the enemy, even if some journalist gaslighted them into saying "we're trying to terrorize people". Israel is purposely killing people's children in front of them and leaving the parents alive for the expressed purpose to terrorize them, AND they've been doing it for 70+ year straight. THAT is terrorism. and they'll do the same thing in the USA too, once people get uppity. and since we have the underdog status, we cannot be terrorists just because we fight back against being slaves.... never in world history does your dumbass definition get applied. stop drinking that kool-aid
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3880852 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 23:53:55 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2399965 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 11:15:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2160203 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 04:56:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2615496 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 01:04:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2615496 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 01:05:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1091269 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 19, 2024 07:09:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 1660957 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 18, 2024 23:59:08 ago (+0/-0)