Y'all GOT to check this out..

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:43 pm

Hehe. A "berlin wall". Like it's in any way like that at all.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:18 pm

Banker wrote:
Yes, IF they have different knowledge bases and given a new fact..

But I said: the same facts/knowledge base, 2 different people. They might still have different views on lots of things, and they probably will.


No two humans have the same knowledge base. . . No two humans have exactly the same set of experiences and so we all operate from a unique knowledge base.



And last, humans are not computers, or programming languages, that is a pretty... weird example.


You were talking about being completely logical. I used a computer as an example because that is an example of a completely logical system. I was using it to demonstrate that even if a human could be completely logical it would not solve the issue of people comming to different conclusions based a fact.


As a piece of wisdom Ive read said: "Humans are not logical in thought, but instead capable of logical thought."
Wasnt spelled like that but I think you get the picture..
Humans vary ALOT between individuals, programming languges dont, Unix is always unix, basic is always basic, c is always c..


Which is exactly why I used the computer examples. In science you test a hypothesis by using control variables. You make certain variable constant and see if the phenomenon still happens or not. In my example I am using computers because that allows me to eliminate any irrationality (that is neccessarily present in humans). Then I used this perfectly rational and logical situation to demonstrate that these "perfect" machines will still come to different conclusions (or outputs) given the same fact. Thus logic is not the only variable controlling the conclusions that people or machines come to. I have proven if you will that the knowledge and experience a person or computer has colors the way it perceives that fact and changes how it responds to it.



An insult that's true isn't childish, its simply true, but maybe
"rude".


It is childish to assume you know the truth. It is one thing to say someone is being illogical (that is not an insult). It is another to say someone is stupid, that is a matter of opinion and has no connection to fact, thus cannot be true or false.


The "you're ugly, no you're ugly" shit is childish, true, but saying someone sucks at debating cause they arent capable of logic can (and should be if you say it) be both relevant and true, if someone is ugly (or similar stuff) isn't relevant even if it can be true, and therefore childish to bring up since it serves no purpose in making a point.


Saying someone "sucks at debating" is a matter opinion is the context you use it. Many great debaters are totally illogical. Many very knowledgable and logical people are very poor debators. Thus when you say someone "sucks at debating" because they are illogical you are stil just giving your opinion (they suck at debating), the fact that being illogical makes them a poor debator is also just your opinion (and one not based in fact or reality as it turns out). This is the sort of confusion that happens when you start using personal insults. You loose track of what is fact and what is opinion and treat both equally. It leads only to frustration and anger. Thus I believe it is better to seperate the two as much as possible.




Umm. . . The Israeli walls are "walls" first of all, just like the Berlin Wall. They are designed to seperate two people, again just like the Berlin Wall. In at least that much they are a like. You know the ability to make comparisions is generally seen as a measure of intelligence. What does it say when someone refuses to make comparisons at all?
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:23 pm

Look. Logic. The fall of 80% could be attributed to ANY factor that changed during the period since the wall was built. Even the weather. You can't say "terrorism fell by 80% since the wall was built, therefore it stops 80% of terrorism." Thats just stupid. It's like saying that aircraft deaths per mile have fallen by X since the introduction of inflatable sea-rescue slides, and hence sea-rescue slides saved X lives.

It's a wall. It was built through the middle of a country by a foreign power, officialy to increace security, but in reality to enforce a defacto border. It stops people from one side, occupied by one power, from passing into the area controled by another. If you attempt to cross away from controled checkpoints, you will be shot. If you attempt to cross and the guards feel you represent a threat, you will be shot.

Fortunatly, that wall was knocked down in Germany. The "security fence" is obviously nothing like that.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:04 pm

I give up with you and your pig-headed moronic attitude.

THEY BUILD A FUCKING ANTI-TERROR BARRIER, TERROR SUBSEQUENTLY DROPS BY EIGHTY FUCKING PERCENT WHEN IT HADN'T DROPPED LIKE THAT EVER BEFORE AND YOU SAY IT'S NOT THE FUCKING BARRIER.

You can't even provide ANY PROPER alternative suggestion as to what it might have been as every single claim you've made has been rubbished as being impossible due to the relative timing of events.

You made a fucking stupid, moronic, idiotic, illogical, piece of crap, useless, fucked-up and downright wrong and false 'point', and now you are arguing like fuck that you are right, despite a METRIC ASS-LOAD of evidence to the CONTRARY.

GUESS WHAT. EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE BARRIER BEING THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE FALL IN TERROR.

You admit you know shit about the situation. You give incredibly and indeed laughably incorrect information claiming to think it's 'general knowledge'. You have no idea about the history of the region including the souce of the conflict.

WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE, ARGUING THAT YOU ARE RIGHT?!

What makes YOU feel that you can claim that something you know nothing about doesn't do something, even when any right-thinking, logical person can see that it does.

Irrespective of any other argument about the legitimacy of the barrier, or it's position, it is indisputable and indeed ESSENTIALLY UNDISPUTED that it is keeping down terror. You're the first person I've ever heard who has made the claim that it's not preventing terror...

Moron.

moron wrote:It's a wall.


No, less than 5% of it is a concrete wall. Over 95% of it is NOT a wall, it is a fence. Do you usually call a fence a wall or is it only because of where it is and who's building it that you have now become blind and stupid and unable to distinguish between the two?

When you see fences elsewhere, do you call them walls? Because, I don't.

moron wrote:It was built through the middle of a country


This would be the country of....?

And even if you claimed that the West Bank constituted a "country" of some sort (which it doesn't), it is not being built 'through the middle'. A lot of it runs along the Israeli border, but it does indeed curl in to the West Bank to include settlements etc. But it would be very difficult to class that as 'through the middle'. Again, I contest that it is merely because of who is building it that you claim this.

moron wrote:officialy to increace security,


Does a fair job of it, as all the evidence shows. (Yes, I'm categorically ignoring your claim that it doesn't prevent terror, because frankly it's fucking moronic to claim so and you sound less like a retard if you don't claim so. I'm doing you a favour.)

moron wrote:but in reality to enforce a defacto border.


At final status negotiations the border will be discussed. Just because the palestinians claim Israel is creating a 'border' does not mean that it is in any way true. A peace deal and guarantee of Israel's security could see many changed.

moron wrote:It stops people from one side, occupied by one power, from passing into the area controled by another.


Hmm? You say it like the 'power' 'occupying' is a different power to the one that people are being prevented from passing in to.

I don't follow that statement at all...

moron wrote:If you attempt to cross away from controled checkpoints, you will be shot.


No. You might be shot. You'll more likely be arrested by border security or the army. And really, if you're attempting to bypass security controls, there is reason to suspect you're doing so for an illegitimate purpose...

moron wrote: If you attempt to cross and the guards feel you represent a threat, you will be shot


Er...no. In fact, virtually no-one has been shot like that. They may be arrested, or ordered to move away or surrender, but it is in no way policy to 'shoot any potential threat', otherwise you'd have dozens dead a day... What normally happens is that the person will be ordered to raise their hands and back away and to reveal if they are carrying a gun or bomb. They aren't just 'shot'.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:23 pm

Well then stews, good we got a few things cleared up..
Your last post would say that I never insulted anyone in
a debate like this then, it was all my opinons.. Thank you.
That's good enough for me. :lol:


And Curio, you really deserve an answer on the same intellectual level as those you post, but that would just be something like this:
"stfu! stfu!!1 stfu!!!!!111!!!11!!!1 u are idiot, me are always right, u are wrong, wrong, always wrong yup."
So instead Im going to reply with this:

Er...no. In fact, virtually no-one has been shot like that. They may be arrested, or ordered to move away or surrender, but it is in no way policy to 'shoot any potential threat', otherwise you'd have dozens dead a day... What normally happens is that the person will be ordered to raise their hands and back away and to reveal if they are carrying a gun or bomb. They aren't just 'shot'.


Is that just like virtually no palestinan protesters had their arms and legs broken as part of an israeli policy back in the day?
(Like the first intifada)
Or like virtually no palestinan houses has been demolished to create security zones?
Or just like virtually nobody has ever been mistreated by the Israeli army?
:roll:

Your "facts" are 1 out of 2 things..
1. You make them up yourself.
2. They come from a highly partial source, like the IDF, the army, or any other "totally non-partial" Israeli source....

Of course, Israel has never and cannot lie.
Their ambassador here in Sweden for example, told the truth when he said that 'there are no occupation!'
Just like Israel didnt lie when they claimed that Palestine was totally abandoned (sp??) when they arrived, and that there
were no palestian people..

Israel is also a country of great judgement and balanced, well-thought-over decisions, just like when they let the 2 palestianan camps Sabra and Shatila get massacrated (by some group I forgot the name of, I think you've heard of this anyways)...
The Israeli army let them enter the camps armed and everything.
I mean how could they know, the guys that did it just openly stated that they hated and wanted to kill palestinans at every chance they got!
It was totally unpredictable that they would do just that, who could have ever known? :roll:


Also, if 95% of this wall is really a fence, then how would that stop people from entering?..
I have climbed numerous fences myself, as Im sure some of you have too. Or are 80% of the palestinan terrorists confined to wheelchairs?

And of course even if you cant/wont climb a fence, there is always a lil something called pliers, or you could just dig and crawl underneath it, kindergarten-style! :wink: (Or even blow it up)
A fence doesnt stop people from entering, either it's a wall and you're talking shit, or the "security fence" got nothing to do with the drop in terrorist attacks.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:06 pm

The Berlin wall was also a fence for most of it's length.

This would be the country of....?


Germany.

The "security fence", on the other hand, bisects big chunks of Palestine. Back when it existed/will exist.

Just because the palestinians claim Israel is creating a 'border' does not mean that it is in any way true.


A wall has two sides. This one has PLA palestinine on one side, and Isreali-controled palestine on the other. When the negotations take place, the Isrealis will be "conceding" land on there side of the barrier: it will form the starting point for discusion. Which was one of the main reasons for building the damn thing.

They aren't just 'shot'.


I'm sure they feel much better for that. I was exagerating for comic effect. Have you never seen Hogans Heros? Very few people were shot in Berlin, either.

On a side note, you seem to be becoming very aggressive about this. I'm realy not defending a rare position; the vast majority people outside Isreal share my opinions. However, it's all at a remove, and so isn't that important to me. I am willing grant that you have more knowlage of this subject and let it drop.

I think I've made all the points I can. We're just re-treading old ground now.

edit:
Banker, you're not helping. "I've climbed over many fences myself." Sheesh. Were they 20 foot tall? Did they have razor wire, electrifed cross-cables and armed watchtowers every mile with 1/4 of a mile of cleared ground on each side? No? You do surprise me.

You can of course walk around any fence. This fence has checkpoints in it, so you don't even have to do that. You just have to have a cell inside Isreal (which with all the sympathetic arabs there is no problem) to provide the explosives, have your "candidate" take a "day trip" to the other side, bring the two together and... well.
Last edited by doormat on Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:09 pm

Banker: Firstly, could you point me to the dozens of palestinians who undoubtedly are perceived as 'posing threats' that are getting shot every day? Come on, there must be lots of them! If all those people posing threats are getting shot, is it not odd that over the whole intifada there weren't dozens shot every day at crossing points?
Well, that might be because that doesn't happen!
(But you have no evidence anyway...)

Moron wrote:Is that just like virtually no palestinan protesters had their arms and legs broken as part of an israeli policy back in the day?


So, you're asserting (with no evidence, as per usual) that it was Israeli policy to break the limbs of protestors deliberately?
Care to provide any evidence of this?

You have NO facts! You cannot back up a word you say with a piece of evidence, EVER!

Moron wrote:Just like Israel didnt lie when they claimed that Palestine was totally abandoned (sp??) when they arrived, and that there were no palestian people..


Israel never claimed the area was 'abandoned'. There were many Jews and Arabs living there, as everyone knows. Israel does deny there was ever a cogent, cohesive group of 'palestinian people' prior to 1967 and this is largely borne-out by the evidence. The 'palestinians' had never claimed to be a people, there was no 'palestinian' movement, in fact, there was nothing of the sort. There was a highly fluid, mobile population that never formed a cohesive group until they decided after 1967 taht it would give terrorising Israel more legitimacy if they made one. Evidenced by the fact that prior to 1967, all the "palestinian territories" of today were in Jordanian (West Bank)/Egyptian (Gaza Strip) hands and there was no movement by any 'palestinians' to declare independence or create a palestinian state. They did carry out attacks on Israel however...

Moron wrote:Also, if 95% of this wall is really a fence, then how would that stop people from entering?..
I have climbed numerous fences myself, as Im sure some of you have too. Or are 80% of the palestinan terrorists confined to wheelchairs?


It's degrading to have to respond to such moronic and badly researched and thought out 'points'.

The fence has barbed wire, electrified sections, trenches, advanced detection systems (Israel is one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth) and pretty much every other hi-tech anti-intrusion measure you can imagine.

This is not the sort of fence you can just 'climb' or even use pliers on, never mind 'tunnel under' - sensors would pick taht up the second you tried. But please go and try tog et through! Then when you are arrested by Israeli border police you can see for yourself, I'm sure they'll believe you when you say 'I was testing the fence!' And we can only hope you get shot trying, as you believe happens...

Anyway, why are you so fucking moronic as to question it. Go find the fucking pictures of it you dumb shit. If you did even the tiniest bit of research, you'd KNOW about all the other measures that support the fence. But of course, you assumed it was a 6-foot high fence that any able-bodied shit could climb...

Because that made sense in YOUR mind, did it?!

That Israel would rely, for its national defence and its citizen's lives, on something any fuck like you could climb.

You moronic fuck. You are the stupidest piece of shit I've ever met.
No doubt you'll come back with some equally moronic piece of shit that crumbles the second you introduce a fact or any simple logic.

You're an embarassment.

Moron.
Last edited by Curiosity on Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:36 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:23 pm

Idiot wrote:The "security fence", on the other hand, bisects big chunks of Palestine. Back when it existed/will exist.


"Palestine"does not exist as a state. Why do you discuss the possible impeding of something that has not been set up or have established borders yet? Why are you so busy in trying to predict the future of an ongoing problem? Can you see the future, or are you just speculating? aAuse I can do that too!

Idiot wrote:A wall has two sides. This one has PLA palestinine on one side, and Isreali-controled palestine on the other.


Can we get established that there is no 'palestine'. And the "PLA"? Is this some bastard hybrid of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) and the PA (Palestinian Authority)?

Idiot wrote:When the negotations take place, the Isrealis will be "conceding" land on there side of the barrier: it will form the starting point for discusion. Which was one of the main reasons for building the damn thing.


I'm glad that you can see the future! I'm also glad that you know why they built the barrier more than they know!

Idiot wrote:I'm sure they feel much better for that. I was exagerating for comic effect.


OH OF COURSE! You take a serious and highly controversial political issue which has much debate and lies told (specifically by one side) and exaggerate it for comic effect... You know the palestinians tell tales of Israelis poisoning sweets and giving them to palestinian children... An even grosser lie (it's far beyond "exaggeration") than yours, and people in the Arab world will swear blind that it's true...
When such shit is talked, don't exaggerate.

Idiot wrote:On a side note, you seem to be becoming very aggressive about this.


Because you are using falsehoods, misinformation and a complete lack of basic knowledge to attack something I hold dear. I am defending it.

Idiot wrote:I'm realy not defending a rare position; the vast majority people outside Isreal share my opinions.


I think the point that you quoted hideously incorrect misinformation as 'general knowledge' would be the point where we understand that...
Not forgetting the fact that a lot of the world is Arab/Muslim and thus inherently against Israel, combined with all the people in former colonies etc. who have been convinced that Isael is some sort of hated colonial power...
And if you've ever seen a BBC News report, you'd understand a bit more... They have reporters who cry over Arafat being ill and reporters who are married to palestinians providing their 'balanced' coverage. As well as employing palestinians to help them cover the stories in a 'balanced' manner. All major news agencies also do this.

Idiot wrote:However, it's all at a remove, and so isn't that important to me. I am willing grant that you have more knowlage of this subject and let it drop.


It's important to me. But then, some of us have close relations in the IDF...

Idiot wrote:I think I've made all the points I can. We're just re-treading old ground now.


And I'm yet to see anything valid. Or even true.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:32 pm

Curiosity wrote:
moron wrote:It's a wall.


No, less than 5% of it is a concrete wall. Over 95% of it is NOT a wall, it is a fence. Do you usually call a fence a wall or is it only because of where it is and who's building it that you have now become blind and stupid and unable to distinguish between the two?


So was most of the Berlin Wall, especially when it was first constructed. . . If you want to call it the "Berlin Fence" that is fine with me. The fact remains that they are nearly identical in construction and purpose.



The point I believe doormat is trying to make is that you cannot say for certain that the wall accounts for the 80% reduction of attacks. There are infinitely many other factors that effect the number of attacks. Certainly the wall does make it harder to attack the areas it protects. That has been acknowledged by several of the terrorist themself and it is just logical. However you can't really say the wall was the only factor in the drop in terrorism. It was certainly a major factor, but there are other factors to consider as well. However does it really matter if the wall is responcible for a 70%, 75% or 80% reduction in attacks, not really. It has been shown to be effective, reguardless.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:02 am

And that was my point all along. The barrier is effective at preventing terrorism. In contrast to doormat saying:

doormat wrote:You can't "keep the terriorists out" with a wall: they don't wear a uniform or drive in marked cars.


doormat wrote:It went along the lines of "the Isrealis say the're building this wall to stop attacks, but the number of attacks has fallen by 80%!". I thought it was nonsense then, too. It's the result of increaced activity in the peace process, engagement by the international community and the ailing health and death of Arafat. Not a wall (95% of which is actualy fence).


I'm very glad it's now acknowledged that my view of the barrier being effective against terror was right all along.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:20 am

I conceed that the wall works as a deterent and as a real obsticle to terrorism in the short term: I always did.

I took issue with the suggestion that it prevented 80% of attacks and was a valid solution all by itself. I also feel that the ill-will and resentment it creates in Palestine will in the long run outweigh any benift, but thats just my opinion.

The BBC is one of the most respected news agencies in the world. When someone claims that a truth is being hidden, and every news agency is "conspiring against it", it's time to question that truth. It's fine to find it valid, (in N.Korea it would be, for example,) but you need a pretty damn good, logical reason for the bias, and I can't think of one.

(I note also that over Curiosity's last few posts I have been upgraded from "moron" to "idiot" to "doormat". I feel validated. :lol: )

Oh and PLA. Yeah. Port of London Authority. Think about it. :oops:
I was typing quickly, and got a little muddled. I meant the PA, of course.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:44 am

Banker: Firstly, could you point me to the dozens of palestinians who undoubtedly are perceived as 'posing threats' that are getting shot every day? Come on, there must be lots of them! If all those people posing threats are getting shot, is it not odd that over the whole intifada there weren't dozens shot every day at crossing points?
Well, that might be because that doesn't happen!
(But you have no evidence anyway...)


Yeah, its so easy to pour evidence all over you when news reporters are kept out of the occupated areas..

Using your logic, someone could deny the holocaust, there are extremly little evidence of it except the testimony of those that were there, and using your logic they could be lying..
You remind me more and more of a neo nazi..

1. You demand evidence for every little thing you havent seen yourself, and everyone who claims it was in a way you dont like is lying. Just like a neo-nazi does.

2. You talk about some kind of palestinan plot to deceive the world, just like a neo-nazi talks about a jewish plot to do the same.

So, you're asserting (with no evidence, as per usual) that it was Israeli policy to break the limbs of protestors deliberately?
Care to provide any evidence of this?


It was years ago, I have NO idea where to find sources on this easily (on the net atleast), you can take my word for it though, or call a news agency (bbc is a good one) and ask for a documentary with history on the conflict, its been mentioned numerous times in those.


You have NO facts! You cannot back up a word you say with a piece of evidence, EVER!


Right, just like you eh? :roll:

Israel never claimed the area was 'abandoned'. There were many Jews and Arabs living there, as everyone knows. Israel does deny there was ever a cogent, cohesive group of 'palestinian people' prior to 1967 and this is largely borne-out by the evidence. The 'palestinians' had never claimed to be a people, there was no 'palestinian' movement, in fact, there was nothing of the sort. There was a highly fluid, mobile population that never formed a cohesive group until they decided after 1967 taht it would give terrorising Israel more legitimacy if they made one. Evidenced by the fact that prior to 1967, all the "palestinian territories" of today were in Jordanian (West Bank)/Egyptian (Gaza Strip) hands and there was no movement by any 'palestinians' to declare independence or create a palestinian state. They did carry out attacks on Israel however...


They did claim that. And this last stuff is propaganda, give sources to this evidence then.. (FROM A NON-PARTIAL SOURCE PLEASE)
Or maybe this is the case:

You have NO facts! You cannot back up a word you say with a piece of evidence, EVER!



The fence has barbed wire, electrified sections, trenches, advanced detection systems (Israel is one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth) and pretty much every other hi-tech anti-intrusion measure you can imagine.

Because that made sense in YOUR mind, did it?!


Hell yes I did.. Cause what dumbfuck would build a fence with expensive shit all over, electrified sections, advanced detection systems etc... WHEN A 4METRE HIGH AND PRETTY THICK CONCRETE WALL DOES THE JOB BETTER, FOR A SHIT SMALL PIECE OF THE COST OF SAID SYSTEMS?!?!

I am sorry for being wrong, I simply didnt realise the israelites were such a fuckin moronic people!

And no matter what cool toy systems you might have, you cant survey every fuckin meter of this fence, so it's still just to blow the shit up.. Cause no matter what tech you put on it, a fence blows up easier then a concrete wall..


And once again, who cares if the wall stops terror acts?
If the israelis are as stupid as you portray them then the terrorists are just doing the world a favor killing them..

The real issue with the wall/fence whatever the fuck, is that most of it's still built on PALESTINAN LAND.
Or do you need me to show you some sort of land-ownership contract to believe this?



As for the rest, keep your little feelings in check you crying bitch,
we both know you wouldnt toss this moron shit around in real life since you'd get knocked the fuck out so just drop it you fuckin e-thug, stop acting so damn bad behind that monitor...
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:33 am

I can't believe I agree with Banker, hehe.

I would say that, odds are, the fence is there to tempt them, where as they'd know they can't get past a 4 meter high wall - the objective is to arrest unorganised terrorists (eg I'd hazard about 80% of terrorist attacks are unorganised :wink:) - if they simply built a huge wall, they probably wouldn't try to get past it, and would remain potential threats. If the price is right, I don't know...

That is, of course, just conjecture...

edit - and before anyone else decides he's wrong for saying it ¬_¬

Banker wrote:Cause no matter what tech you put on it, a fence blows up easier then a concrete wall...
Well, ignoring that it's much easier to survey a fence (you can see through it), considering most of what the terrorists are likely to be armed with isn't particulary 'powerful' (read, specifically designed to be very hot to help with breaking/deforming metal structures), it's actaully much easier to make a largeish hole in a concrete wall than it is to do anything particularly substantial to a metal fence (even if you target support poles)

It's also much easier to replace a fence... (if you ignore the reconfiguration of all the security crap)
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:18 pm

I would certainly not agree that it is easier to attack a concrete fence than a metal fence. Most metal fences are all too easy to get through if you want, where as a concrete wall is much tougher, you generally have to try to get over it as going through it is rather tough generallly.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:36 pm

The biggest problem in attacking this fence would probably be the cleared ground on each side, the watchtowers, the IR detectors and the armed guards...

The fence could be made out of pasta: it would be just as effective. The wall exists because there are people enforcing it: not because of any structure.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests