RandomGuy

I'm supporting my local Hospitallers. That's close enough, right?

You know what? Screw it. I'm not doing this anymore, it's like talking to a brick wall. Hezbollah isn't cannon fodder. The SAA is cannon fodder. Hezbollah is, to put it simply, a highly competent light infantry force. They're extremely odd in the Arab world, where every military is inept. I guess that's because Lebanon isn't THAT Arab. That and they're a relatively small group of Iranian proxies. Speaking of which, the IRGC is also fairly formidable; they (+Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies) are one of the two main reasons that Assad's regime hasn't collapsed by now, the other being the $30 billion to $75 billion that the Iranians have basically given Assad. They manage to be extremely useful by embedding themselves as NCOs and commissioned officers to replace their awful, awful Syrian counterparts. I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: so far, Iran has spent (proportionally) more money on Syria since 2011 than the USA and its allies have on Iraq since 2003. This isn't even taking into account how much it must cost to actually deploy those forces. People should really stop paying attention to Russia so much when Iran has far more invested in Syria and far more to lose. Speaking of which, the number of IRGC officers killed in Syria reached about 146 recently, including at least four 1-star generals. More than 30 were killed in October alone, mostly around Aleppo. When considering the losses of 2011 and 2012, as well as any losses which the Iranian state media is not reporting... I think it's safe to say that the actual number is 200 or so. Overall, the IRGC has lost ~600 troops in Syria. 200 Iranians (almost entirely officers), 364+ Afghans from the Fatimiyun Brigade, and 21 Pakistanis from the Zaynabiyun Brigade. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria On those brigades. They're basically the French Foreign Legion: Iran Edition. They're recruited primarily from Afghan refugees in Iran, many of whom are former fighters with experience in the perpetual civil war. They join the IRGC in exchange for a salary and citizenship. Then they're given training and weapons, and are sent to Syria as part of those brigades, under Iranian officers. Iran occasionally denies that they're members of the IRGC, because their uniforms don't display IRGC insignia. This is despite them being paid by the Iranian military, equipped by the Iranian military, trained by the Iranian military, and led by officers of the Iranian military. They're even given state funerals. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-afghan-shiite-fighters-in-syria http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jun-30/304390-iran-admits-to-400-funerals-for-syria-fighters.ashx http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/meast/syria-afghan-fighter/ Meanwhile, the USA is deploying an additional 50 special forces operatives to Syria, to "advise and assist" local groups (most likely the Kurds, if the USA's supply priorities are any indication). These aren't actually the first US boots on the ground in Syria, as there was also the raid on Uqayrishah (killed 6 ISIL militants, failed to rescue the 1 hostage, no US casualties), the raid on ISIL commander Abu Sayyaf's home (Sayyaf killed, tons of data captured, unknown number of militants killed, no US casualties), and the small handful of agents overseeing the supply operation. The contribution of these few dozen boots on the ground have been small compared to the impact of the air campaign, which has killed thousands of ISIL militants in Syria alone, but they do still exist. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iran-idUSKCN0SN2Z620151031

As meelis said, this news is big for one main reason: it's the first step. The US will do this in baby-steps, but at least now they've actually managed to agree that persecuting people for Abandonware single player games is illogical. Plus, not that I don't agree that this is an issue, but it's really a downright tiny issue compared to you-know-what in the gaming industry. I fear that you-know-what will actually cause the death of single player gaming period, like it has in China. Or like what it's doing to the music industry.

No Dagon? No Hell Luau?

Except for that pair of guys at the missile silo that had their backs to him, he didn't want to attack until they got to the part where they were saying they were going to kill him on sight. He also repeatedly tested to see if things were non-hostile, so that he didn't have to kill them. IMO, he was just acting like an unusually well adjusted soldier in a combat environment. He also goes out of his way not to shoot some soldiers he bypassed in the rail chapter.

That's nice. So you don't have any actual evidence then? The numbers are informative and easy to understand. It's not my job to teach you how to count. Totally irrelevant and blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof. Do you have any actual evidence, Y/N? Only in the sense that they are both opposed to the government when they're not fighting each other. You still haven't addressed how this means ISIS controls them when Assad does the exact same thing. Only worse, because he actively targets their enemies while intentionally disregarding them and buying their stuff. That's again, not my job. You made the claim, you prove it. You were supposed to learn about this fallacy in grade school. Except I never said that. But whatever, you're clearly in La La Land at this point. Far be it from me to take you out. Then you are objectively wrong, like someone who believes that the Earth is flat. The rebels are not aligned with ISIS and Assad is not going to bring stability (on part of him starting this whole mess). But of course everyone in Syria who has issues with the government murdering them by the tens of thousands and torturing 11,000+ civilians to death in the prisons must be ISIS. Even when they fight ISIS while Assad ignores them, this is somehow not proof that they're not ISIS. No, you're right.. Screw the facts; reality has a well known pro-West bias, and simply cannot compare to your genius. Such is the strength of your arguments, that you don't even need any actual evidence to back them up.

I have a low opinion of those who make errors and/or lie, and then throw out insults instead of simply admitting they're wrong. It's very bad form, as is continuing to act smug and asking others to find your evidence for you. It's also not an opinion... "Assad effectively starting the war and murdering more civilians than all the other factions combined is alright because it's Syria", would be an opinion. "All Syrian rebel groups are ISIS and funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar" is getting things factually wrong. I can see why facts and figures are so scary and alien to you, if this is the way you think. I know a hell of a lot more about Syria than you, apparently. You lacked even the most basic knowledge about the situation, including who was at war with who. Or maybe you did know, and just tried to lie and assumed no one would correct you. I don't really care which. No they don't. ISIS is hostile with practically every other rebel group in Syria, as well as the government; in fact, they probably have the best relationship with the government, who bought their goods and had an informal agreement not to attack them for a while, and instead focus on their mutual enemies. Your reasoning makes no sense, even after some of the funniest goalpost shifting I've ever seen, and you still refuse to actually give any evidence despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that has been brought against you. I can only conclude that you're one of those types who simply must avoid admitting that you're wrong no matter what the cost (by dragging out a long resolved conversation with unsourced ramblings, xenophobia, and insults), even when all the facts say otherwise. Still waiting for the proof that Daesh controls all the rebels (despite them shooting each other) and that Daesh is funded by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Searching through dozens of articles for proof of your arguments isn't my job. Anyway, more Russian airstrikes hit Latakia, reportedly killing 45 people, including 15 civilians according to witnesses on the ground. Also in Latakia, on the same day, shelling killed 3 Russians according to a pro-Syrian government source, as reported by Reuters. The deceased were reported as volunteers fighting alongside the Syrian government, though I haven't seen it specified if they're volunteers or "volunteers". The Russian embassy said it had no knowledge of the casualties, while the defense ministry has not commented. Meanwhile, the Americans launched 146 more airstrikes against ISIS in the past week (Oct. 13-19), while the Canadian prime minister has announced that Canada will withdraw its 6 jets. A summary of the Russian air campaign.Several hundred airstrikes have killed 370 people from Sep. 30 to Oct. 19. The SOHR is basically just a guy in the UK who compiles reports in the field from 200 correspondents; not a great source, but trusted by the BBC and other mainstream publications, and as reliable as we're going to get with the current press situation. The numbers those correspondents give are on the lower end of total casualties too. Anyway, back to the airstrikes. According to the them, 1/3 of the people killed in the Russian airstrikes are civilians, and 1/10 overall are children. The death toll breaks down as follows: Combatants: 243 -ISIS: 52 -FSA/JAN: 191 Civilians: 127 -Women: 34 -Children: 36 -Men: 57

The profile editing/UCP tools don't appear to work.

There's your problem right there... Well, some would say that - on the left side of the Pond, of course! It's OK though. It's easy to see when they are lying by a little cross-referencing. They mostly don't, just misinterpret things sometimes... Exactly! Nor does a bunch of statistics. Statistics are reality, and they override vague supposition and anecdotes. This is pure nonsense. A. Every single source, even Russian ones (I would like to officially apologize to the writers of Russian propaganda, for comparing their work to your vapid dreck), makes a distinction between, at the very least, Daesh, Al-Nusra, and the FSA. Because they're, you know, killing each other. B. There are several documented cases of all the above groups fighting each other, with them actually fighting each other more than Assad fights Daesh. C. But because they sometimes don't fight, that means Daesh controls all rebel groups and all rebels are Daesh. You have provided absolutely no proof for any of your insane assertions. Your link doesn't even lead to an article. By this logic, Assad is a far more valuable ally than any other rebels ever were. He specifically went out of his way to avoid attacking Daesh, so they could become stronger.

You gotta appreciate that guy's audacity. He seriously thought it plausible that people would still buy his game in 2015, despite the game being decades old and not very good to begin with. There are... a LOT of games where you visit Hell. I'm still holding out hope for Dark Corners of the Earth to get covered this October (you visit a metaphorical Hell... underwater... shut up). If not, well, there's always next October.

Someone's "point of view" doesn't override reality. Very first post. It lists Qatar and Saudi Arabia as part of the anti-Daesh coalition which launched those air strikes and funneled those weapons, listed Daesh's civilian death toll compared to the Syrian government's, and draws distinctions between Daesh and other rebel groups. Vap, on the other hand, has failed to provide any evidence for his insane theories that all rebels are ISIS, any rebel group winning would mean more deaths than Assad winning, and ISIS is being supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He's free to bring up evidence if he thinks that the Department of Defense, for example, are making this all up. It's really not. And? What does this have to do with your assertion that all rebel groups are ISIS? Or that ISIS is being backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Or that the non-ISIS rebel groups winning would be worse than Assad winning? Or the current order somehow being embarrassing for the United States when all their enemies (Syrian government, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah, Daesh, Iran) are beating the crap out of each other at enormous cost, while the guys they're actually backing in full (Rojava, Peshmerga, Iraq) are doing fine? Speaking of which, the Syrian government's new offensive is another farce, with many tanks and other vehicles being knocked out by TOW missiles. Some examples from the village of Atbeen; note that Atbeen was taken by the government, then reportedly retaken by the rebels. rZE8mlHxGHA we6NRDPfHjA 7iwQrPCRJc8 COGk98IFqIo [Homs, BMP being destroyed by TOW] 1cJhvtaMET8 What's remarkable here is that a group of rebels took down half a dozen armored vehicles, plus some others, in complete confidence and then retook the village. Even with Russian air support, the morale and offensive effectiveness of Assad's forces are crap. According to the many, many clips that show them repeatedly having their tanks picked off by rebels in barely concealed positions, they don't have any situational awareness either; the rebs are just as bad, presumably, but what they're doing doesn't require as much skill and doesn't look as bad when they screw it up. Maybe that other offensive with thousands of Iranian "advisors" will do better, because clearly Hezbollah "advisors" and Russian air support are not cutting it. A handy little picture for faction relationships; not 100% accurate, but close enough:

Unlike you, I've actually studied this conflict and compared multiple sources for it. What you're saying is propaganda. It's almost word for word what you would find in RT. Your posts are filled with errors (I'll be nice and assume you aren't outright lying), such as the claim that ISIS is the entirety of the opposition and the claim that Qatar is pro-ISIS, and your response to these errors being pointed out is to use ad hominem. Accusing me of "patriotic fervour" doesn't change that (Russia doesn't deserve any of my fervor anyway- it's a fading power with a demographic crisis and an economy on par with California's). It's rather ironic that you'd accuse me of such while parroting RT yourself. I notice that you're not saying "oh, that was a mistake, sorry" or "actually, ALL the rebels are ISIS/subservient to ISIS, and here's proof" either. It's a great strategy to ignore facts and instead just launch personal attacks. The problem is that, unless Iran wants to just outright occupy the country, the main forces are still Syrians. Arab militaries, especially the Syrians (and Saudis), are uniformly inept, especially at offensive operations. Hezbollah is the exception since they're a small force of Iranian proxies, and as Lebanese don't suffer from the cultural issues of Arab militaries as much. The regime's recent offensive was a farce that resulted in them taking a small amount of mostly empty ground at the cost of dozens of tanks and armored vehicles. I'm not expecting much better results any time soon.

What's that supposed to mean? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, a post sounding like propaganda of any kind is bad, since propaganda by definition distorts the truth. But that was merely a statement of fact, rather than insult. What he's saying (all rebels are ISIS, GLORIOUS STRONK RUS forces will do with 30 planes what far more powerful countries couldn't with hundreds, Assad is the only viable option, etc.) is, almost word for word, how the Syrian conflict is being portrayed in RT.

Only as much as anyone spewing inaccuracies "touches a raw nerve" for anyone. No it doesn't, which is why distinctions are drawn between them on maps and Daesh is still actively fighting other factions besides the government. No it they aren't. This is pure fantasy. Saudi Arabia and Qatar back anti-ISIS groups and bomb ISIS. These groups they back aren't "good guys" either, but they're not ISIS. There's a distinction; all Islamist extremists just don't blend together. There is no subservience; the other rebels are still fighting Daesh, because unsurprisingly it's totally unpopular outside of certain areas. They've already launched 7,400 air strikes and given the Kurds hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons. Them abandoning the Kurds to the current enemy #1, and Daesh just outright overrunning everything when everyone is against them, is pure fantasy when they've already drastically weakened Daesh as an organization, despite Assad's attempt to make sure it remains the most powerful opposition group. Daesh is not the Draka. More propaganda. None of the rebels except Daesh have acted half as brutally as Assad has. There is a shortage of moderates, but that's mostly because Assad focused specifically on them just to get this kind of reaction. Your post is something I would expect to find in Russian propaganda.

This is all bunk. Saudi Arabia is on Daesh's hit list. The Saudis support other rebels in Syria, both Islamist and secular, while bombing Daesh (though, given the frightening incompetence of Arab militaries, this is not much of a help). Not all Islamic extremists are on the same side. This is total hogwash. The Kurds aren't going to get wiped out with the U.S. supporting them (especially since they've defeated Daesh at every turn post-US intervention), and the majority of the rebels aren't Daesh. Russia's own terrorist problem is under control (relatively; there were 600 civilian and 1,100 police/paramilitary fatalities in the past six years) as long as they keep the bribes flowing into the North Caucasus. Well, except for 2,500 Russian citizens from that region going to join Islamist groups in Syria, but eh, it's the Caucasus. The reason Russia is getting involved is because of dick-waving. Well, that and arms sales; the Russians lost over ten billion dollars worth of revenue in Libya after NATO intervened and bombed the government forces back into the stone age. And Assad is a much bigger client than Gaddaffi was. Neither of those are realistic options at this point. Nobody outside of the Sunni areas will tolerate Daesh, and no one outside of the core government regions will tolerate Assad. This war was raging for three years before Daesh involved itself; Syria as a whole (oh who we are kidding? There will be no real Syria after this) will not accept Assad. In any case. The war would've been long over by now, before Daesh ever entered the war, if Iran, Russia, and (to a surprising degree) Hezbollah hadn't propped up Assad. His government has collected basically no revenue for the couple years, and has been relying almost entirely on Russian imported weapons. Nothing is "ISIS-controlled" except ISIS. There are other Islamist groups that are linked to Al-Qaeda, but neither those nor ISIS make up the majority of the opposition (in fact, for the first two years, the opposition was almost entirely defectors from the army). Anyway, that's been proven to be totally wrong. Daesh's crimes haven't approached Assad's in scale at any point during their existence, despite them having 10 million people under their control at the height of their strength. Assad is the main cause of the instability in Syria; Daesh is just the a vulture coming to peck at Syria's corpse. The most likely result at this point is Balkanization. Daesh is primarily an Iraqi organization. Russia isn't doing crap; they've launched a token military effort as a show of solidarity to their allies and a show of force to their rivals. They're even making the Iranians pay for the weapons they give Assad. The actual aid they've given amounts to perhaps a few billion dollars worth of credit, weapons, advisors, and air strikes- proportionally far more than the USA has been spending on their intervention, but not enough to change the balance of the war. Daesh is already dying. Their advance in Iraq was stopped cold and they suffered tens of thousands of casualties due to the Western bombing in addition to losing a large portion of their oil production. They lost 30% of their territory in subsequent Kurd-ISF counteroffensives. They have fighters deserting left and right. They've been reduced to begging the Coalition not to bomb them (three weeks ago, they tried to trade some Kurdish prisoners for the capability to transport fuel and guns down a road without getting bombed; they were rejected). Oh, and why would we help Assad? He isn't fighting Daesh. He's actually one of the main reasons Daesh is as strong as it is. He specifically focused on Daesh's enemies, the more moderate elements of the opposition, to create a false dichotomy: "me or them". There are no red faces around. The U.S., whether it meant to or not, walked into a great position in Syria. Iran and Hezbollah are sinking in an ungodly amount of money trying to prop up an anti-American Russian client state*, which is inevitably going to fail, while also fighting Al-Nusra and Daesh. Meanwhile, the US-led air campaign has inflicted significant damage on Daesh and stopped it from attacking the areas that the USA actually cares about. They're happy just to let Assad, Al-Nusra, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Iran beat the crap out of each other. *Hezbollah has suffered about 1,000 soldiers killed. For such a small organization, that's huge, especially since those troops are likely some of their best. Iran has lost probably 200 special forces soldiers in Syria by now, including two generals. More importantly, they've sunk tens of billions of dollars into the Assad regime. Even assuming the low end estimates are correct, i.e. 6 billion a year... that still means they're paying an amount of money equivalent to 2/3 of their own military budget, every year. If the higher end of 15 billion a year are correct... well, that's the equivalent of the USA spending 680 billion. A year. And they're losing this while mostly fighting Daesh and Al-Qaeda (they fight the other Syrian rebels too, but they're more in common in those other theaters, since Al-Nusra and Daesh are on average more competent than the FSA).

Soooo, here's some information you guys may find interesting: Since this seems to be the general Syria thread around these parts, here are two interesting illustrations of the American involvement so far: Image: [that is a LOT of anti-tank weaponry] Caption: source: Operation Inherent Resolve's Facebook feed, October 5th 2015 Image: Caption: source: Special Report: Inherent Resolve Other info: 12,100+ ISIS militants killed in Iraq according to the Coalition, 3,378+ have been killed in Syria according to the SOHR. Of course, both those estimates are three months old. Some other fun stuff: Assad still kills way more civilians than Daesh: Image: On Iranian involvement, in case someone didn't already know: Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up Assad - Bloomberg View Other info: Iran currently has several thousand (no one is sure on the exact number) special forces soldiers in Syria, where they have been acting as "advisors" and shock troops to their incompetent as hell Arab allies. 121+ have died already, including two brigadier generals. Seems that they're quite invested in the Syria-Iran-Russia-Hezbollah coalition. 6-15 billion dollars a year is a LOT of money for Iran.

Scott: "Hey guys, I want some money. I'm not doing it on Patreon, I'm not really giving any prizes, I won't stop making videos if I don't get any, and I'm still not making Freeman's Mind 2 for a couple more years if ever." Fans: "Sounds fair. Here's $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 $13,000 $14,000 $15,000."

I donated a bit. Sounds like a better use of my money than another discount Steam game that I will never get around to playing.

Aww, I see the fate of this series has already been decided. Shame. I actually liked it, and enjoyed the humorous anecdotes as well as the occasional scripted bit referencing the whole "space" thing. Yes, it could have been better, and the game was kinda boring... but if anything, that just convinced me of the potential of future episodes.

Mass Effect 3 didn't do that. Its ending was total shit, so they released a DLC that retconned some stuff and made it partial shit. The ("Extended Cut") DLC was free. Unless you're talking about the Citadel DLC... I consider that to be the true ending to the game. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you were talking about. Huh. Ross seems to have a few relatively high profile fans. This guy, Notch, the SF Debris guy... Okay, now I'm wondering. Was that really Richard Dean Anderson? I think it was really RDA But like, is there any record anywhere of how that worked? Did the sixty-something film and television actor just turn up out of the blue like it was the most normal thing in the world, and no one said anything?

Huh. Ross seems to have a few relatively high profile fans. This guy, Notch, the SF Debris guy... Okay, now I'm wondering. Was that really Richard Dean Anderson?

"Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth" seems like something Ross would like. I'm surprised he's never mentioned it before, but I would love to see a Game Dungeon episode on it. It's a relatively low budget first person survival horror game based on the Cthulhu Mythos, released in 2005. It's got some uncommon mechanics and ideas (e.g. you do have weapons but spend half the game without them, you don't have conventional regeneration or health packs, you have a sanity meter, there are investigation sections), as well as a surprisingly realistic FPS experience (no HUD, only a handful of weapons, low health, slow movement, iron sights, emphasis on stealth, etc.). Plus a Lovecraftian story, of course (mostly based on "The Shadow Over Innsmouth"). It's definitely a mixed bag as far as quality goes. The graphics are bad, some of the levels are poorly designed with luck based segments, it's buggy as hell, and the puzzles are usually terrible, but I think the good outweighs the bad. Slightly. On top of all of that, it's not that well known. It seems like the perfect game for the show... well, besides Eternam, but it's not really fair to count Eternam.

The nitpicker in me demands that I be annoyed that you said "Grammr Russian Front" rather than "Grammar Eastern Front", or at least "Grammar Soviet Front" (ignoring Hungary, Poland, Romania...). Despite me enjoying that bit. Anyway, good follow-up. I particularly liked the segment about driving controls.

Nice interview. Interesting stuff here; I'm glad he didn't just unwittingly rehash the same few questions, like a few other interviews seem to have done. Oh, and since we're talking about Poland anyway, would you mind revealing what city you live in?

A lot of games are like that for me; not really bad in any way, but too generic to really hold my interest. My solution, if I still want to finish them, is generally just to play them while listening to a podcast in the background or something. But that's only when I'm not going to listen to that podcast for something else later. I actually have this very game sitting on my shelf, and still haven't played it. I was thinking about doing that this week, but this video says it's really bland, which has somehow made me even less interested than I was before. Anyway. Nice episode.