oh shit. My bad. I guess someone already brought this up then.
Anytime I'm prone on the decline of a hill and I bipod my LMG, I can't look down the hill. The lowest I can look is straight ahead. It makes it impossible to use lmg's if you're on a downward slope.
The 2x scopes in front of the 1x sights should be flip back if I'm not mistaken. An option to revert back and forth should be available.
Nor Georgia, nor Chechnya, nor Azerbaijan
Georgia, Chechnya and Azerbaijan? What conflicts are you referring to? The only ones I can think of happened almost decades or more ago. Maybe I'm wrong? If so, show me. By all means, I don't mind being corrected.
That being said, this game does not take place in any of those places because if it did, the game would be full of white people. The original intended setting of the game was Northern Syria. Which is why it takes place in desert areas.
idk maybe Azerbaijan has brown people and deserts areas. I don't know enough to say for certain.
I'm defining the term data, so you know what it means, and don't use it wrong.
"I'm fairly confident of what the results would be" is another way of saying "I'm fairly confident of what the results would be". "Know" would imply I have 100% certainty on the outcome. Which I don't, and never claimed to.
There are no hidden messages in what I said. It is what it is. Take it or leave it.
This is all predicated on the notion that the insurgents in Sandstorm are ISIS. That does not need to be the case. ISIS is specifically a religious extremist organization. That's going to limit the prevalence of mercenary fighters as most members are going to join for ideological reasons. But if you look around for Russian mercenaries, or even regular government troops, fighting with anti-government forces one need not look very far.
No. Regular Russian government troops are fighting against anti-government militias not with them. They're not trying to topple the Syrian government (Syria-the only place where Russian troops are fighting in the middle east). That would make no sense whatsoever. Because they're allies.
So yes. For that, you would have to look far. Very far. Ukraine far.
bumping until devs see.
Did you actually read what you posted though? There's no mention of mercenaries or the word mercenaries within that research paper whatsoever. There's not even any mention of money or pay.
The entire paper is about how ISIS uses Russian language propaganda appeal ideologically; not financially to North Caucasian Muslim groups, and how Chechens are their primary target of propaganda. We already know Chechens make up the majority of Slavic islamic militants. That's not new information.
So the first article isn't working for money, it's working for women. That doesn't meet the definition of "mercenary". The second one implies that foreign volunteers just get room and board. That's not a mercenary either.
On the third article,
This part of your statement
"I'd argue those guys are there for the money and not for the 72 virgins"
Directly conflicts with the final quote within the article stating:
"It seems pretty safe to assume that most of these recruits aren’t in it for the money, so who knows what impact the salary cuts will have."
All that being said, the third article you cited implies that there exist foreign fighters that get paid. So even if most may not acknowledge it themselves, two things can be deducted from that article:
- Technically they meet the definition of mercenary as defined by article 47 of the Geneva conventions
- Some individuals may exist that are fighting for money
So I guess you're right. There do seem to be mercenaries in ISIS, at the very least by the technical definition. And though the article you cited implies that most aren't, it also implies that it is possible that there may be some individuals that are motivated by money. So I was wrong on that end. Well done.
Thank you for teaching me something new.