Damn you marble football german players!!! It`s not fair they are not humans, they are golems!! :)
Printable View
Damn you marble football german players!!! It`s not fair they are not humans, they are golems!! :)
Our command have not either organisation and desire to play. Pack of legionaries which to spit on this championship. -_-
Is this referring to the mighty ass-whoopin' our guys delivered to the Russian team?
It's typical German style - Shoot one lucky goal and build a wall so that our cadre of elite goalkeepers can go on to aggravate the shit out of the opponent :) Who needs "tactics" or "technique" when you've got good old German virtues like "running all over the place like stung bees", "kick the ball 60 meters away from the penalty area the moment we actually get one of our huge, clumsy excuses for feet near", "mow down attackers using thinly-conceiled brute force", "win penalty shootouts" and "play like amateurs and idiots once qualification is safe"?
Why, with this record, victory at the Championships is almost assured!
http://lenta.ru/news/2009/11/04/proti/
The presidential election candidate named Against All (Проти Всiх) is registered in Ukraine.
Mister Youhavewononemilliongrivnas Putatickforprizereception will be the following candidate, probably.
poor people.. they have eternal 90`s..
To be honest, we have the same idiotic government. I received this election leaflet. The slogan "shove and vote" and attached free condom. -_-
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/8016/untitll.jpg
What are the two girls going to do with the condom?
One of them isn't really a girl.
Black PR is not prevented this candidate win.
This is the first victory of the opposition forces in our town since 1917. wow
I'm glad.
god damn terrorists! Shat bricks today..
Huh? Terrorists bombed your country?
EDIT: Wow, I just googled it. Horrible.
Rather odd for no group to try to claim 'credit'
for it, as that seems to be the standard method
of opperation for those groups. I suppose they
normally don't see the point in murder, unless
citizens know for sure of whom they should be
terrorized.
It's hard to see how anyone could get as low as to become a terrorist.
The movie "apocalypse now" did give me more of an idea though, has
anyone seen it? I thought it a very good movie. The film is about two
brothers (Palestinians) who decide to blow themselves up. The film portrays
them neither as heroes nor as villains; they're portrayed very humanly.
In essence, these brothers had no future to begin with, that is, they are
both victims of the conflicts with Israel, unemployed, live off the streets,
their families live in poverty, etcetera. They feel awkward about the idea
of terrorism, but hesitantly decide to do it. One of the brothers changes his
mind at the last moment and the situation turns into a chaotic scene.. I don't
want to spoil the end.
Anyway, I still have a hard time imagining what goes on in the mind of a terrorist,
but then again I have been spoiled all my life with luxury and decadence, without
having to struggle to survive or being repressed by dictators or foreign militias..
Well, some of them become terrorists because their family and loved ones are killed so they don't want to live anymore, and all they have left is hate for their enemies and wish to revenge.
And others become terrorists because they are brainwashed and they think that if they die as "martyrs" they'll get a lot of virgins in heaven and all that.
Grey: damn, you're right of course, I was confused. The movie is called Paradise Now,
in reference of the vietnam movie.
English Newspaper Guardian says that it was the holy revenge of freedom loving chechya to bloody KGB whose hands are half covered in blood of innocent chechen rebels.
Wonder how England has such accurate info on the matter?
well it was something similar to fire vortex inside a train cart..
damn, while I am reading CNN news, I have fellings like I`m an Empire (from Star Wars universe) citizen, who reads news about next rebel assault on Coruscant in some pirate newslink.
and yes, today they attacked again, at this time it was southern part of the country - Dagestan,they killed 29 people, most of them police officers others where rescuers who came to help the survivals after the first explosion. Shit this time bomb was a 200 kg of trotill. I wonder when will be the first nuclear terrorists attack (at sometime it must happen right?)
sorry guys I dindnt want to make you unhappy with all this. Guys you are all great, espesially you, fascizi (you are the only one who posted his photo here except me). :)and I m also jerk, man ) this forum gave me the thing that is healed by shrinks, the virtual friends.
PS and yes Im drunk
PPS and yes sorry again I just cant handle it normally
PPPS and yes Yisk if you you are going to write something insulting to me, I agree with you.
How do you define terrorism?Quote:
I wonder when will be the first nuclear terrorists attack (at sometime it must happen right?)
Would "trying to kill as many innocent civilians as possible in order to win a political conflict with a nation" be a good definition?
If yes, then it has already happened. Twice.
How much nuclear power though? And where (my memory fails me in this case)? Besides, what really is to fear from terrorist is probably not the nuclear menace, but the biological one. What we made is everyones, spis are everywhere ;)
*here should be written something insulting to you*
I do not care about terrorism. It's a shame to break your neck on the stairs, but there are many more real dangers. A week ago I met a moron with a knife. If I were slaughtered, this would be said on TV? No, this is a drop in the sea.
You are great too, boris.
History is written by the winners. If these now-called "terrorists" were able to overthrow the ruling government and instill their dogma on the masses, they will be viewed as liberators and their "terrorism" was a neccessary evil in the purging and redemption of the country.
But to the rational mind, this is still an atrocity that should never occur. Sadly, reality never follows rationality.
Since this is a chitchat thread.. that ascii cat is teh awesome, man.
Sadly, it's not ASCII. It had to use several Unicode characters to get the right shape.
Is its back paw symbolized by an f in reference to ADOM cats? :D
Sadface, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, and the underscore too (that's the best part ;)).
Not really, no. Terrorism doesn't require civilians to be killed at all to be effective; in many cases, the threat of violence alone is sufficient to achieve the terrorists' goals. Terrorism also doesn't, strictly speaking need to be against a nation; it could be against, for example, between religious groups within the same country.
In a more general sense, the jury is out on whether states are even capable of performing terrorist actions--many argue that the behaviour of states is already governed by international laws, and that attributing the idea of terrorism to them is redundant. There isn't really any consensus on this issue.
Mmm... how do you define "innocent civilians"?
This comparison is inappropriate in this case. People from the North Caucasus is too far behind in the culture.
In fact, they have primitive tribal system. Their women have no rights. These people are not able to impose their culture or history of another country.
And if I'm not mistaken, Yeltsin gave freedom for Chechnya on probation in four years. This check Chechnya could not stand it, attacking Dagestan. Therefore Chechnya attached back. I am in favor of separating from Russia throughout the Caucasus with these aggressive highlanders. But then, Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan became a powerful terrorist base.
Edit: I am replying to Jellyslayer.
From a legal / judicial point of view, actions of states may technically not fall under the definition of terrorism. But my point is, that the Allied forces in the second world war performed some actions that are not much different from what terrorists are doing, at least from a moral point of view. They have diliberately bombed civilians, rather than just military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perhaps the clearest and most dramatic examples. These civilians were "innocent" in the same sense that the civilians killed by terrorist bombings today are innocent: they were unarmed, defenseless and not directly involved in the conflict.
There are nuances and you could argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges, but I do think the line that morally seperates these actions is quite thin.
What's this dead-serious political crap discussion doing on MY ADOM forums??:confused:
If we define terrorism as an act of violence against innocents with the purpose of achieving a political goal through the power of fear, I think we're there. Though it should be realized that the "political conflict" we're talking about was a full blown state of war that had already cost millions of casualties, military and civilian, and the "political goal" in this case was to put an end to it as quickly as possible, hoping to avoid further casualties. (Basically, the two atomic bombs were a gigantic American "SERIOUSLY GUYS, SURRENDER ALREADY".)
I have a hard time condemning or defending the bombings, actually. It was a war. It was the first time atomic bombs had been used in war, and the last, even though the nations possessing them have been in a fair number of wars since. Each time they were contemplating whether to use them, they knew, or at least had more of a clue, what would be the consequences. Without Hiroshima or Nagasaki, we would look to the other places they would have been first used (and I think we'd give humanity too much credit if we believed that they wouldn't).
Compared to modern-day small scale terrorism? The line isn't really that thin, I think. World War II is different from... well, basically anything that has come since.
Perhaps. No side is completely blameless in WW2. But on the scale of atrocities committed by all powers, the atomic bombings probably wouldn't make the top 5. Maybe not even the top 10.
This is the point where we differ. Most of the powers involved in World War II, including Japan, were engaged in total war--every available resource was being put into the war effort. Hiroshima was home to several military and industrial complexes, and was hardly defenseless. Nagasaki was a major military industrial centre. Both were legitimate military targets that had no civilians in the sense of the term you are describing since the vast majority of the non-combattants would have been providing material support for the armed forces.
The atomic bombs notably didn't cause as much damage as the bombing of Dresden, which used purely conventional weapons. You don't need nuclear weapons to destroy a city.
Depends on what you measure with "damage". Civilian casualties of the Dresden bombings are estimated at around 25.000; the atomic bombs claimed at least ten times as much (long-term, including irradation-induced sickness).
People don't care so much about cities destroyed. As corny as it sounds, cities can be rebuilt, the dead cannot be revived.
> History is written by the winners.
> jury is out on whether states are even
> capable of performing terrorist actions
> Allied forces in the second world war performed
> some actions that are not much different from
> what terrorists are doing,
Right and wrong aren't determined by what has
happened in the past. History Shmistory. I don't
need no stinking books, tv shows, politicians,
'holy' men, or other assorted sources of mental
illness to tell me (to, or) not to go around
killing people. Someone tells me to go kill
someone, I tell them no thanks. Or something
like that anyway. I do feel sorry for all the young
brains out there in the world that are so easily
washed though...
Yeah, I'm with you on that one gut. The truth is the only real truth, not the interpretation others provide. But sadly, as time passes, only the (false) information provided becomes the real truth until it is all so skewed or forgotten it becomes irrelavent. At which point, history repeats itself.
Easter holidays are here and I thought of celebrating Jesus' death by drinking some beer. (I'm really not a satanist).
Thought of trying quite new "Korpisavu" beer. Literally "Wilderness smoke", or Backwoods smoke or something.. :-)
http://www.fbsk.info/documents/2009/...Korpisavu3.gif