Albert Schweitzer

war das ernst gemeint? Â are you kidding? No I wasnt. I watched a long critical report on that the other day on german TV! Not kidding at all.

Today I checked several dll's in my system32 folder and many of them were actually related to worms or adware, my full Norton version didnt detect anything. And often Norton cant delete them because you cannot delete a file connected with a running programm (I usually rename their extension instead and after restart I can delete them without having to find screen through the entire "process running" list). CWshredder can wipe the internet exploerer but cant clean the system. I bet our computers are already so full of them. One or the other security gap doesnt change anything anymore. My best trick is to simply delete all internet files at the end of the day (cookies, temp, prefetch)and check all remaining installed files of that day. Usually I find about 6 or 7 that have no good purpose! You would be surprised how fast your HD capacity goes down even though you didnt install anything!

But the border moving eastwards is always a tough fate for eastern people who can only survive through cigarette smuggling (1 example of many). Before they had a relatively easy way to get into poland and earn the bucks they needed to survive. It is no secret that many former USSR cities near the border had a strong population growth because of this possibility. Now the border is heavily patroled. It is said that those poor smugglers have zero to no chance anymore to enter into poland. And many of them have lost the last opportunity to earn their bread. And those smugglers werent criminal organisation, they were mainly old mamas. Â

Baron, stop being childish. You tried to convince us that he was relgious, that he was even was a member of a very old germanic cult. My statement to that was . And I even refered to a historian who is actually competent enough to answer the question (or admit that it cant be answered). Insisting that these historians must be wrong doesnt make you right.

Anyone who says Hitler was not religious is either a liar or a hypocrite. Watch out what you are saying! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I refered to a scientific source and you just say no. Call me hypocrite, but you failed miserably. I bet you wasted hours to search for a source that would proof my source wrong but you couldnt find anything!

you may laugh, but right now they suceed in killing US soldiers with far more ridiculous concepts!

Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated (and had quite good diplomatic channels with the papacy) - however, he made his own religion from Ayran myths and his own interpretations of the bible. I refered to that in my post. This has been proven wrong. The germanic religion you are refering to is called "Thule Orden". But no, that is just a tale! The article is slightly hiding a little thing though Avon. It refers to him opposing Hitler because he came from an aristocratic background. That is slightly incorrect. In the beginning all industrialists and aristrocrats supported Hitler because he was the only person who had the political chance to beat the german communist party. Of course considering the wealth of aristocrats and industrialists at this time the communists were a real threat to their possessions. A Fatal error. After Hitler executed most communists he turned against them as well. He simply didnt like powerful people, besides himself! My grandpa was from a relatively powerful industrialist family but opened his big mouth a bit too often and gossiped about hitler (couldnt keep his mouth shut just like me) until a friend warned him to leave the country or hide. Thats what he did. "children, pack your things, we go on a long journey!" Baron, let me repeat once again something that is known fact amongst historians dealing with this era. It cannot be proven that Hitler was a religious man. Before using such terms as "unquestionable" you should post a link to a RENOWNED historian who clearly sais it. I am refering to an author whose point of view is shared by the jewish representatives (Dr. Bernd Kleinhans) in germany, and trust me those people are critical. Â If hitler said "god saved me", then he didnt say this because he felt it but because he wanted the people to believe it. PROPAGANDA! Oh and by the way. Hitler wanted to destroy the entire church after the Endsieg!

So I am finnish then? But back to the topic. Dont let them lock this thread. It is too useful to put it under risk!

So I am finnish then? But back to the topic. Dont let them lock this thread. It is too useful to put it under risk!

see it as a intermediate step. This doesnt have to be the final decision, a transition-step. You cannot replace the entire line of authority at once without facing great problems. There is a risk, and there are of course moral concerns, but right now it is the best step to take. But of course in a country like iraq giving a general back his power is a dangerous game. Unlike in western societies you cannot simply fire these people without them trying to retain power. Throughout their active duty they will gather people around them that are loyal and stay loyal. Even off active duty an iraqi general has probably more authority amongst his own people than a puppet implemented by the US forces!

Ok, so the deal was the following: The US forces retreat from Falludja and the town will be guarded by an iraqi security forced supervised by Saddams former generals. The question I ask myself in how far this means a betrayal of the initial idea to clean Saddam off the iraqi ground. In how far was the iraqi generality part of the Bathist idea and their cruel actions? Can you reimplement former military stuff without risking to give criminals back their power? As far as I am informed the largest extent of the iraqi military had zero to no political ambitions or connections with the Baathist party.

lol, You thought this is big news, I thought this is big news, Avon knew it wasnt big news. Go check out about a thirty-thousand pages before and you will see they were already discussing the issue. You gotta post 30 seconds after publishing of the info otherwise you always come to late on this board. And I know what I am talking about.

Holy shxx, may I just interfer? How many of you actually saw those images (60 minutes / CBS) or tortured iraqi prisoners. They far worse than I expected. And even female soldiers seem to have enjoyed those cruel sessions.

[ (hint)

set it up! NOW... I mean "please"

set it up! NOW... I mean "please"

Michael Jackson said the same, and see what he did to those poor little children. Nah all nonesense!

Job creation wasn't new job creation, it was mostly in hirebacks for laid off workers. Go look it up in your economy book, it is the logical spin off effect of an improvement of the economy. In order to survive a company has to adapt its production capacities to the current consumer demands. In a crisis there is logically less demand and a company needs to reduce fixed costs such as labour, which in many companies makes up at least 50% of the total monthly expenditures. A supermarket needs 3 people to fill the shelves, less customers, less sale, less need to refill. The first thing the manager does is to lay off an employee beacause of slow business. Now once the economy goes up again people will stream into the supermarket and the manager then decideds: "damn we need someone to refill the shelves. Call Tom and ask him if he would still like to work for us) Statistically you could only measure this by examining the pay-roll sheets of all companies before the bust. And then compare it with the one of after the boom. If they are less or more equal, then the economy has just sucked up as much labour as they had laid off during the bad days.

Sorry, but I think we should protect our members from this content. Especially since we have many younger ones amongst us.

Sorry, but I think we should protect our members from this content. Especially since we have many younger ones amongst us.

Baron, sometimes you have a very provokative way of arguing the people. You come forward with the accuse that people dont bring arguments because they try to approach the issue analytically but because they want to persuade. There is certainly no doubt that people have often in history have commited cruel crimes in the name of religion. Especially in the middle ages anyone could convince a crowd without real arguments and just by refering to supernatural forces. "She is so beautiful, bet she is a witch and has put a spell on, lets burn her". Â When you cant convince a crowd, persuade them. If you cant beat their objective mind, try to hit their subjective perception. That is propaganda. Religion of course is a perfect platform. Religion is not objective, it is imaginative and you can use it to justify actions which in an objective approach could not be justified. It is predestined to be abused. And Hitler used every occasion to break and manipulate people, not with arguments but with imagery, references to religion.,, and so on. But the question is, where in the bible does it say "burn witches", I mean read the 10 basic rules of the bible and tell me which of those forces people to commit crimes. Where does it say, that the jews are responsible for jesus death? But still a leader can say "god safe our country" (and what about the rest of the world) and can say "jesus appeared in my dream tonight" or "they are a threat to the christian culture" but in the end this is just rethorical devices, propaganda. People with low education are indeed under risk to fall for such religious bullshit. But they are at risk to fall for basically any mind manipulation because of their lack of objective judgement. But shall we blame it on religion? I think we should blame it on the people who abuse it! Even if it is so easy to abuse. Education is an essential piece to ensure an objective mind. That is why we have seperated government form church, and that was NOT the idea of atheists. And who built the first schools during the middle-ages? Who the first universities? I think it was the church. Who first analysed the bible critically? Was it Luther? Sophisticated religious people always felt that religion on its own cannot be enough guidance for life. You say that religious people mainly believe that religion is all one needs to know about. That is simply incorrect. Without education people can be manipulated and used for everything. They cant explain science so they seek for supernatural explanations. Religion is supernatural. So that is why so many leaders were able to abuse unsophisticated people by refering to supernatural powers, to religion.

Amen. Say "yes", "I agree", "good point" or "dito" but dont say "amen". Considering the topic of this thread this is political incorrect and a provokation to all atheists. Freedom of thought. Dont try to undermine peoples mind with your slick scientology religious propaganda. Â ----------------------------------------------------------------

Well said, scary indeed. Some of these guys might realy enjoy a shooting sport but .... well to a certain extent it is scary.