Sign into an existing account

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.

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.

I'd say the story and cutscenes are what made the game. Gameplay mediocre but not bad.

They take a long time to give you your first gun and by the time they do, you're really really ready to use it.
It was the last time I remember playing a game to get the next cutscene or story segment.

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 sub, anon