270,000 is the total of Iraqis killed under the Sadam regime without just cause, the figure was from either a CNN or BBC report on the matter. And as towards the African cultures? What about Iraq then? Why not Iraq? We overthrow one dictatorship in Africa and another begins, and where is the almighty UN in all this? People say we should turn to the UN, and yet we can see the UN doing absolutely nothing about the Sudan Chrisis, or the problems in other African cultures. Essentialy, Iraq was already a country in turmoil, by 5 countries reports it looked like they're may have been a chance that they were building WMDs, and they were financing suicide bombings on Israel, that and if you want to go the "liberal" route, they had oil, made them perfect targets rather than the African nations that are simply in everchurning turmoil that seems like it would never end.
I've yet to get around to the attrocities commited by Sadam against the Kurds, in some cases involving the nailing of hands and feet to trees in the hot sun. There he killed many more.
As towards Darth Maul's post: I've yet to see that many people fed into meatgrinders recently in Iraq, or raped to death, or whipped to death. Beheadings, car bombings, shootings, I see, but no real torturing to death and don't get into Abu Grav, that wasn't enforced by the US government, and was shut down years ago, and led to no direct deaths and was mere humilation in comparison to what Sadam did, and be mindful that many of the people held at such prisons weren't innocent, they attacked our soldiers and were caught. It doesn't excuse the soldiers actions upon them, but they weren't the innocent bistandards killed by Sadam. I've also yet to get around to Sadam's sons, who commited their own attrocities for the fun of it ranging from rape to murder to hell knows what.
EDIT: Towards Czech's recent post, the US made a treaty several years ago about assasinations and the CIA is not allowed to preform such acts on foreign officials, and besides it would have just opened a spot for the next evil bastard in line
Towards Darth, this is over the course of ten years, they weren't all lined up on the same day, though there were lines, and if you want to see how much torture was done, or atleast what Sadam valued as good enough for a replay, you can go to baghdad and buy one of his DVDs which he made. He was a psychotic.
270,000 is the total of Iraqis killed under the Sadam regime without just cause, the figure was from either a CNN or BBC report on the matter. And as towards the African cultures? What about Iraq then? Why not Iraq? We overthrow one dictatorship in Africa and another begins, and where is the almighty UN in all this? People say we should turn to the UN, and yet we can see the UN doing absolutely nothing about the Sudan Chrisis, or the problems in other African cultures. Essentialy, Iraq was already a country in turmoil, by 5 countries reports it looked like they're may have been a chance that they were building WMDs, and they were financing suicide bombings on Israel, that and if you want to go the "liberal" route, they had oil, made them perfect targets rather than the African nations that are simply in everchurning turmoil that seems like it would never end.
I've yet to get around to the attrocities commited by Sadam against the Kurds, in some cases involving the nailing of hands and feet to trees in the hot sun. There he killed many more.
As towards Darth Maul's post: I've yet to see that many people fed into meatgrinders recently in Iraq, or raped to death, or whipped to death. Beheadings, car bombings, shootings, I see, but no real torturing to death and don't get into Abu Grav, that wasn't enforced by the US government, and was shut down years ago, and led to no direct deaths and was mere humilation in comparison to what Sadam did, and be mindful that many of the people held at such prisons weren't innocent, they attacked our soldiers and were caught. It doesn't excuse the soldiers actions upon them, but they weren't the innocent bistandards killed by Sadam. I've also yet to get around to Sadam's sons, who commited their own attrocities for the fun of it ranging from rape to murder to hell knows what.
EDIT: Towards Czech's recent post, the US made a treaty several years ago about assasinations and the CIA is not allowed to preform such acts on foreign officials, and besides it would have just opened a spot for the next evil bastard in line
Towards Darth, this is over the course of ten years, they weren't all lined up on the same day, though there were lines, and if you want to see how much torture was done, or atleast what Sadam valued as good enough for a replay, you can go to baghdad and buy one of his DVDs which he made. He was a psychotic.
because africa dousnt have a large army, they are very unstable, the average person is way poorer, africa would probobly embrase the US more. and other reasons.
"The Pentagon, however, has tried before to influence the media, especially the Iraqi media, and fell on its face."- BBC news
You forget that Africa isn't a single country, but many small countries, with many warlords ruling each country by terrorizing the hell out of the people. When you talk about Africa, you have to be specific, as taking all of it in one go is impossible and would cause more harm than good with mismanagement issues
I have always had the highest admiration, so must you, for people who create humour out of nothing. Not that a Pope on the rope is a nothing, but here's one that arrived as kilobytes. That also has nothing to do with the price rise of essentials as the buyer would tell you, these days every kilo bites.
Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert or leave Italy. There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal. He would have a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy, if the Pope won, they would have to leave.
The Jewish people met and picked an aged, but wise Rabbi Moishe to represent them in the debate. However, as Moishe spoke no Italian, and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, they all agreed that it would be a "silent" debate.
On the chosen day, the Pope and Rabbi Moishe sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Rabbi Moishe looked back and raised one finger.
Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head. Rabbi Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope then brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. Rabbi Moishe pulled out an apple.
With that, the Pope stood up and declared that he was beaten, that Rabbi Moishe was too clever, and that the Jews could stay.
Later, the Cardinals met with the Pope, asking what had happened. The Pope said, "First, I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there is still only one God common to both our beliefs. Then, I waved my finger to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin. He had me beaten and I could not continue."
Meanwhile the Jewish community was gathered around Rabbi Moishe "How did you win the debate?" they asked. I haven't a clue," said Moishe. "First he said to me that we had three days to get out of Italy, so I gave him the finger. Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I said to him, we're staying right here."
"And then what?" asked a woman.
"Who knows?" said Moishe, "He took out his lunch, so I took out mine."
***
The modern Pope does not speak in sign language, as they have interpreters for practically every language in the 110-acre Vatican City and perhaps several for the German/Italian that the Pope speaks.
So on Sept. 12 at a 40-minute academic lecture at the University of Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Joseph Alois Ratzinger, formerly a member of Germany's Hitler Youth albeit by compulsion, spoke on the relationship between reason and faith.
Prior to the speech, senior Vatican officials were touting it as a 'defining' address of Benedict's pontificate in terms of laying out his core concerns.
Benedict opened the speech with a reference to a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine emperor Michael II Paleologus and a "learned Persian," in which the emperor criticises Islam.
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the pope said, emphasising that he was quoting the emperor. Tch! Tch!
The message was aired in original and in translations and most likely even by sign language on news and other programmes throughout the world. The guy is important, you know. More importantly, he was very well understood.
Outraged as they were by the unwarranted utterances, Muslims around the world showed extreme patience, and not one stone (Muslims are not allowed to have any other weapon in confronting the West) was thrown at the papacy. This did not make any news and was not covered by any self-respecting journalist.
What made the headlines though in five days was the Pope's public apology. In heavy rain during his Sunday address, Benedict apologised for the furore he had caused. "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he said. The Pope went on. "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. … I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect".
In an unusual move, the Vatican released a translation of just this paragraph of the pope's remarks in both English and French, in addition to the original Italian.
Someone please translate this Bangla for the Pope, that a thappar once landed cannot be reverted with a sorry, that the pain remains long after the pang has gone. The Muslims have been hurt and that shall remain. The combined conscience of the world--Muslim-Hindu-Christian-Buddhist-the rest--now better understands what this Pope stands for.
In a 1997 interview, then-Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger said of Islam, "One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a democratic society." Ten years later he is back with a bang.
"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," said Salih Kapusuz, a top deputy in the governing Islamic party in Turkey.
Jesuit Father Daniel Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, said the central point of the speech was that "if we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously." But, he said of the quote from the emperor, "You clearly take a risk using an example like that."
The Pope may serve the world to remember that not only does he head the world Catholic community, but he is also the head of a state. You hardly expect the Indian president to speak evil of a Buddhist monk, and this was the Prophet of Islam.
We recall the election of this very papal supremo when the world waited in wonder to see the black chimney smoke from a Vatican chamber turn white, signalling that a new Pope had been elected. Even the Muslims cheered the symbolic change from indecision to peace, the signs of good times.
Perhaps this Pope should stick to sign language. He may then be better understood and peace may prevail. Till then let every chimney around the world emit the true colour of smoke.
You forget that Africa isn't a single country, but many small countries, with many warlords ruling each country by terrorizing the hell out of the people. When you talk about Africa, you have to be specific, as taking all of it in one go is impossible and would cause more harm than good with mismanagement issues
im talking about places like rwanda and stuff. those rebels could be beaten with just a couple thousand soilders kiilling every rebel they see. i watched something about the Sierra leone government hiring executive outcomes and winning. the EO troops were on a mission of kill every rebel they saw, they chased down and killed many and the rebels stoped fighting. this was like 1,000 troops. so something so small in africa can go a long way. in africa bringing democracy and peace is easier and cheaper.
"The Pentagon, however, has tried before to influence the media, especially the Iraqi media, and fell on its face."- BBC news
We were hoping Iraq would keep it's arms open after freeing them from Sadam, but they became ingreatful for the help and fell into chaos, if we went into African territories we would be faced with the same chaos, except idmediately and in a much more varied surrounding than the mountains and deserts of Iraq, we'd be faced with jungles, we'd be faced with all sorts of opsitcles and we weren't prepared for guerilla warfare in the first place or the press would have been kept out of Iraq from the start.
We were hoping Iraq would keep it's arms open after freeing them from Sadam, but they became ingreatful for the help and fell into chaos, if we went into African territories we would be faced with the same chaos, except idmediately and in a much more varied surrounding than the mountains and deserts of Iraq, we'd be faced with jungles, we'd be faced with all sorts of opsitcles and we weren't prepared for guerilla warfare in the first place or the press would have been kept out of Iraq from the start.
oh come on you knew it would fall into caos. They are muslim, they think america is the devil. remember these are simple, uneducated people. the best thing we could have done is attack iran and make it look like iraq did it, then supply iraq weapons and money to weaken both countrys. but ofcoarse we unit our enemy against a common enemy, us.
it seems like our military commanders need to get back to the very basics of warfare.
"The Pentagon, however, has tried before to influence the media, especially the Iraqi media, and fell on its face."- BBC news
They welcomed us as saviors, then they turned on us. Just because they are muslim doesn't mean they beleive Americans are the devil, few buy into Osama Bin Laden's bullshit which is propaganda he knows is bullshit and only convinces the simple minded. We're not dealing with morons, we're dealing with people desensitized to violence and sensitized to everything else. When someone dies, to the Iraqis it's not important that they died, it's important that they were of (insert religous faction here) and then respond according to that. Attacking a country (signifigantly) and blaming it on someone of massive technological inferiority with no motive to do so, isn't exactly an easy task. If anything that'd cause more chaos than anything we've done and lead to more death. Supporting Iraq enough to get them knocked down again and again wouldn't go unnoticed, they'd refuse help after so long and after Sadam would be removed from power, they'd surrender and Iran's power would be 2 fold with a new rich oil supply and extremists to join their cause.
Our plans for this war were bad, but not quite that bad
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Pope offendes muslims 
Linear Mode
