Bart.Jan

RalphWiggum's quotes are from Enemy at the Gates I mean quotes from post Posted: April 12 2002,12: 01

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">~45<span id='postcolor'>

To Longinius : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hope I never have to go up against the Czech Armed Forces because there seem to be some skewed views on the geneva convention and human rights. <span id='postcolor'> Czech Armed Forces, and other many other Armed Forces, don't have skewed views on the geneva convention and human rights. I gave you MY interpretation of these problems. Nothing illegal - but cruel as life can be. And Czech Armed Forces are defensive forces so I hope no one go up against us.

Make trigger : axis a,b = 0 activated by nobody once condition : (getdammage planeName)>0.6 on activation : pilotName action ["eject", planeName];UnassignVehicle pilotName

^ sorry posted 2nd time

To Longinius : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Another example are police snipers. If they have "green" they are allowed to shoot. They can accidentally shoot someone else they are ordered,shoot someone that doing some suspect moves and they can shoot even surrending suspect - it's risk of their profession - it doesn't do them criminals. (by word can I mean it can happened,not they can decide). Snipers have big trouble if they shoot somebody without permision to fire ("green")." Yes, shooting a surrendering suspect is a crime. Shooting a innocent bystander is not a crime but it will likely be the end of their careers, or atleast a noticable setback.<span id='postcolor'> To shoot surrending suspect is not crime when sniper wasn't ordered to cease fire. If someone didn't order stop, sniper don't know what is going there and he continues to do his job - he waits for right moment and then shots. If he recognize surrending suspect he can radio for instructions but there can be situation he can not connect with his superior or he doesn't recognize clearly suspect's proceeding.Then it's his own decision - he must use his sense for his job. But anyway you are right - it can be a big obstacle in his career. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...They has order try to not kill but no don't kill at all cost." Yes, exactly what I said. This means they do not have the right to shoot and kill just anyone who happens to strole along, refusing to do as they are told.<span id='postcolor'> Soldier on sentry have not right to do it, but if he can,he can do it. Mostly there is only one witness of his acting - he himself (it's not moral but it's true). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Human rights are also against capitol punishments and people getting convicted without a fair trial. This also applies to terrorists. You cannot execute anyone you want just because you feel like it. Commanding Officers are not above the law.<span id='postcolor'> There is law in peace and there is war-law that is strictly different. Commander can order execution of terrorist because he has right to do it."Fair" trial includes him and,as I know, 2 other officers (in some circumstances he can be alone). (civilians and soldiers are prisoners of war - terrorists have no status) There are several declarations too. But war itself is big deterioration of human rights. I'm not finding anything human in war-law. (laws for peacekeeping operations are like laws in peacetime). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you done any military or law enforcement service? If so, where?<span id='postcolor'> I'm serving as soldier in Czech Armed Forces for 6 years. (I don't abet soldiers to think like I'm thinking. I'm posting only my opinions and my ways I'll use if I'll be in such situation. - My explanation of laws is not same as official one.)

To Major Fubar : I didn't write that captured soldiers or civilans can be executed. I wrote terrorists can be executed. I paste two paragraphs from Geneva convention (page [59] of this topic). If I choose (2) then Geneva convenction doesn't make me treat with terrorist like with prisoner of war. Only moral rules and conscience can CO stop from ordering execution. Humans rights says : no one can be tortured and with nobody can be acting violently or cruely,no one can be punish inhumanely or  derogatory. So execution of terrorist is not war-crime, it's moral-crime. But whole armed conflicts are immoral. Every time there are atrocities on both sides of conflict, in my opinion. In present days media creates heroes and beasts (in the past winner created them). There is nothing good on armed conflict - but laws makes killing in armed conflicts easier. In wartime there is always belligerent or enemy against us. Goverment-propaganda doesn't tell you that you are going to shoot,knife,stab,burn,bash humans. Most things I'm write here about are on edge of law. But this is the way I'll choose if I'll must. It's cruel,but like Pukko posted : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ya, its just a play with words i guess: shoot to kill or shoot to wound<span id='postcolor'> Generaly all laws are game with words - even criminal can win if he has luck or good lawyer. War laws are created that you can be criminal who killed several people or you can be hero who crushed the enemy terrorist unit - it depens on the judge, political situation, your connections with goverment and on media (even there are independent courts and free media).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 11 2002,17:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its saying "christ whatever is on these smells like catfood and ass and it burns my fingers and wont wash off"<span id='postcolor'> But I still think it's knickers,no trunks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordZach @ April 11 2002,16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> is that male or female?<span id='postcolor'> I think it can be female. It is knickers not trunks hanging from its magic wand.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"About commander as judge in armed conflict and about armed sentry - maybe another soldier can say something about it." No need for anyone to say anything. Sumeric executions are illegal, according to international law. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.<span id='postcolor'> Yes sumeric (does it mean something like spontaneous ?) executions are illegal. Commander has right to command execution because he has rights as judge and there is small war-court (it can hapen that he is only member). Not from position of stronger but from position of law. In some cases he can order execution of his soldiers (desertion,cowardice in fight,war crime). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe." No, they dont have the right to shoot just because you refuse to obey. They can only shoot, legally, if you threaten their or anyone elses life.<span id='postcolor'> About regular policemen I'm not sure. But for special police forces,like swat, is everybody threat. If you are doing some suspect moves you can be shoot. They shoots first then they asks. Their job is not to shoot anybody but to stabilize situation - it means nobody can be threat (you are not threat if you are laying or kneeling down on the ground and you have hands on place where they can see it). After their job is done mostly regular policemen come and do their job. Another example are police snipers. If they have "green" they are allowed to shoot. They can accidentally shoot someone else they are ordered,shoot someone that doing some suspect moves and they can shoot even surrending suspect - it's risk of their profession - it doesn't do them criminals. (by word can I mean it can happened,not they can decide). Snipers have big trouble if they shoot somebody without permision to fire ("green"). About armed military sentry : they have not their weapons for parade. They are allowed use them against intruder. Area whitch is guarded by sentry generally got tall fence or wall with barbed wire and with definetly with signs "Military area" and warning about armed sentry. So if someone is in area (he become intruder) he must knows risk of his behaviour. Soldiers are not allowed shoot everything that moves but they have strict instructions haw to proceed and they should not aim upper part of body (but not much soldiers are good shooters under stress from sentry). They has order try to not kill but no don't kill at all cost. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"BTW in armed conflict soldiers doesn't report : "Suspected enemy spoted" but "Enemy spoted"." They report "Enemy spoted" when they have confirmed that it is indeed an enemy. Enemy is anyone who threatens the objectives of the soldiers in question.<span id='postcolor'> In armed conflict (I didn't mean peacekeeping operations) every soldier knows position of his and allied units and its advance,knows which kinds of units are operating in area and knows aprox position and advance of belligerent. So if someone shoot to his direction or there is someone on place where no one from friendly units shoul be he mostly report "enemy". That's way how friendly-fire and collateral dammage hapens.

To Longinius: I added art.13 (6) to my previous post before I noticed your one. It's like any law - depends on situation. Human rights and war is hard to mix (everybody has right to life). About commander as judge in armed conflict and about armed sentry - maybe another soldier can say something about it. About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe. BTW in armed conflict soldiers doesn't report : "Suspected enemy spoted" but "Enemy spoted".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2002,07:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Maybe not so appropriate time  but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. " Well, the Czech definition does not really matter. It is the international definition that counts when it really gets down and dirty. If a civilian... - displays weapons openly before and during an attack - is lead by an established leader - part of an organisation with internal disciplinary system - follows the human rights ...then he is a freedom fighter and a part of a legitimate defense force, thus has to be treated according to the Geneva convention. Atleast, thats how its defined as far as I know.<span id='postcolor'> Geneva convention : art.13 The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories: (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:   (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;   (b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a   distance;   ( c)that of carrying arms openly;   (d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. ---- I choose for (2).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 11 2002,03:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ April 10 2002,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not so appropriate time but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. That includes even resistance (partisans,guerillas). Resistance fighters are heroes of their side but they are terrorist for enemy side. Spies (includes enemy in ours or allied uniform) have same status as terrorists. ----- 4) terrorist - (definition above) they have no rights, they can be shoot on sight, when they are captured no tribunal is needed - they can be executed immediately. -----<span id='postcolor'> Is it just me or does this reek of "we can kill whoever the fuck we want with no explanantion"? Shit, I'm sure if the September 11 perpetrators are caught even they will get a trial. I don't think anyone should have the right (even during wartime) to execute prisoners with no tribunal or trial. As far as I'm concerned, these are war crimes.<span id='postcolor'> During wartime soldiers have defined sides,as I wrote before, because of war crimes. But terrorists are not defined enemy. They are people that fight against our armed forces even they are not soldiers. During wartime,if you are soldier or civilian, you have your limited rights and duties. For civilians - don't intervene to fights, it's not your job. If civilian takes weapon and fights against us, he become terrorist without his previous rights. If terrorist is captured, commander of unit is his judge. In war soliers don't take prisoners but captives (maybe English words prisoner and captive has same meaning,but I hope you know what I mean). If soldiers finds wounded enemy soldier, he is obliged give him first aid and take him captive. But if soldier wounds someone who is fighting against him and that person isn't wearing uniform,or he finds wounded man with weapon and without uniform, he can finish him - soldier alone decides what to do (if he hasn't special orders). BTW: 1)Even in peace time if you are soldier standing sentry with your weapon (for example you are guarding ammunition dump) you are allowed to shoot intruder (no offence Intruder ) if he doesn't obey your call - and if you kill him you are not manslayer but soldier who serves well. 2) When police or special police foces are interfering against suspect (or worse against terrorists) they are allowed to shoot everyone with weapon that doesn't obey their call - they can not know if someone is criminal, lone cop, lucky escaped hostage or hostage with weapon glued to hand . In armed conflict it's similar but without call.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 10 2002,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's kinda funny to see a game depicting Russian literature to have such low system requirements. Â Are they trying to make it compatible with the top-of-the-line Russian PC ? Â lol Looks more like a cartoon rather than a game to me. Â I wonder if it's 3D.<span id='postcolor'> If you check pictures from game you will discover that game is definitely not 3D. BTW you think that game that doesn't need min. cpu 500+Mhz,3D graphic card and 500MB hard disk space can not be good ?

These ugly hairy guys are not dwarves. They are bandits. Main hero Ivan threw all their weapons (clubs) into sky (in summer) and these clubs fell down in winter right just on their heads when he was happily passing with his girlfriend Nastya to home.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 10 2002,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you are calling terrorists might have been terrorists in the past. Now I think they are just angry demoralised by proud palestinians defending against an occupation. Now when someone shoots at you with a Kalaschnikow because you drive with your tank through their houses, THEN DONT YOU dare telling us what these people need to be called. If the french would run through our roads and occupy us (which the french would never do, cause we have a great relationship) Â because german terrorist blow up their civillians, I would take a gun too! That does not make me terrorist, nor does it mean that I support what those terrorists do! I would no longer be a civillian, that is clear, but definetly far away from a terrorist, rather an ordianry "la resistance" ...<span id='postcolor'> Maybe not so appropriate time but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. That includes even resistance (partisans,guerillas). Resistance fighters are heroes of their side but they are terrorist for enemy side. Spies (includes enemy in ours or allied uniform) have same status as terrorists. There are only 4 sides in armed conflict : 1) civilans - they have inviolability 2) your and allied armed forces 3) belligerent - armed forces of enemy and his allies 4) terrorist - (definition above) they have no rights, they can be shoot on sight, when they are captured no tribunal is needed - they can be executed immediately. (so phraze : WAR against terrorism makes me little dizzy. But it can be beacuse of different English in media and in armed forces) These are basic existing rules. Reality is something else than rules, there can be some exceptions because of existing conditions . In armed conflict last word has always commander [and your conscience but it can be fatal for you]. edit: definition of terrorist in peace is quite different

I think ? condition:action is sufficient. Your way ? <condition> : <effect when true> | <effect when false> is only other syntax. getTarget unit is a good idea. findElevation [x,y] is command not so usefull. I don't think moving some unit over map beacuse of finding elevation cost much cpu time.

1) place markers to map where you want them. 2) find their position by radio trigger with on activation : hint format["%1",getMarkerPos "triggerName"] write down first two numbers - it's the position of marker 3) in init script file (init.sqs) or somewhere in init line set positions of your markers to 0,0 "triggerName" setMarkerPos [0,0] This command moves markers to position that is not visible on map. 4)If you activate secret misson set positions of markers by command : "triggerName" setMarkerPos [your 2 numbers]

Try to move markers to some position (setMarketPos) that is not visible on map - out of border. I didn't try this.

So use commands like groupchat or sidechat. Or if you want titles with units name use commands cuttext or titletext with format ["My callsign is %1,follow me !",unitName]

It's adventure based on, in Czech very popular, Russian fairy-tale.

Prostejov - Czech Republic English and German page doesn't work  .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 09 2002,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, ok  ??? But this will take some time, maybe tomorrow, because I have a lot of work to do before I can show my translating skills again ;)<span id='postcolor'> Or try to mail to Gamestar there are people in abroad that are willing to help, but they can not speak and write German. So Gamestar can make English page with petition.

I will like sign this petition. But can you translate text from petition page ? I can understand only few German words and I would like to know exactly what this text says. Online-Petition gegen die Indizierung von Counterstrike Da uns zum Thema Counterstrike-Indizierung sehr viele Protestzuschriften erreicht haben, bieten wir Ihnen mit dieser Petition eine Möglichkeit, der Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften (BPJS) Ihren Standpunkt mitzuteilen. Untenstehendes Formular wird bis Ende April verfügbar sein, dann leiten wir die bis dahin gesammelten Namen an die BPJS und das Familienministerium weiter. Bitte nehmen Sie zahlreich teil, und werten Sie diese Petition nicht durch Angabe falscher Wohnorte und Fantasienamen ab. Bislang haben 24039 Personen  teilgenommen. Petition an die Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften (BPJS) und das Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Sehr geehrte Frau Bergmann, sehr geehrte Frau Monnsen-Engberding, ich, der Unterzeichner, wende mich mit dieser Eingabe an Sie, weil ich gehört habe, dass bei der BPJS gegen das PC-Spiel Counterstrike ein Indizierungsantrag läuft. Ich möchte Sie bitten, bei Ihrer Entscheidung auch die Meinung derer zu berücksichtigen, die Sie schützen wollen. Wir spielen Counterstrike teilweise schon seit Jahren, in Clans und ungebunden, daheim und auf LAN-Partys, mit Freunden und Fremden. Viele von uns engagieren sich in der Counterstrike-Community, haben Internetseiten dazu erstellt und Clans gegründet. Für viele von uns ist Counterstrike zu einem wichtigen Freizeitinhalt geworden, über den wir neue Freunde gefunden haben. Ich spiele Counterstrike nicht, weil ich mich an der Gewaltdarstellung ergötzen will, sondern um des sportlichen Vergleichs willen. Meiner Meinung nach bewirkt die bloße Darstellung von Gewalt in diesem Spiel noch keine Jugendgefährdung, es geht auch um den Geist und den Kontext, in dem gespielt wird: ich sehe uns nicht als Killer, sondern als Sportler in einem neuen, elektronischen Medium. Postleitzahl / Wohnort

Oh man ! Great war mission ! Thank goodness for mortars and grenades ! I broke central perimeter, from there I cleaned left perimeter, neanwhile another group cleaned right one. I lost half of my men. I didn't break final perimeter but men from other group captured the hill. (16min/1400pts) What I missed there was medical support. I mean no medic in my group but 1-3 medics with support waypoint so I or other group can call if someone need them. BTW: I think you could do MP version. It's not ideal for internet play but it should be great for LAN party.