Apollo

Lol we wanna have a debate on this? Wikipedia says: I retain the oppinion that this is a cumbersome and somewhat obsolete languaghe ,although it still has some good use in certain fields.But it lacks many important feature's that some modern languaghe's have.

I know some Belgium ministery's where they still use Cobol for their databases. (for their fleet of 80286 computers ) And i regulary have seen work applications that featured Cobol ,however their are few people that actually wan't to learn that languaghe ,most people that know Cobol are of the old garde of informatics ,civil engineers of age around 40-50 mostly. Reason? Cobol is quite hard and cumbersome ,and essentally it's an almost obsolete languuaghe.

Avon is an interior decorator? I always thought she was serving in the millitary... Most forum's i visit have a proportionally smaller amount of woman than men posting ,i find that pretty strange since woman usually like to "communicate" more than men.

I thought this game was about the close cobat series like in Close Combat IV battle of the Bulge or close combat V in Normandy ,now thats a series where i would like to see a next installement for.

Der Bastler ,while i obviously agree that Hitler was a madman because of the Holocoast ,i wouldn't put the sole responsibilety of WW2 on Hitler.WW2 was a product of way more factor's ,the ramification's of the treaty of versaille for ex. wich tottaly devestated Germany's economy due to war reperations ,made them loose important traditionally German hartlands to other country's. (Danzig for ex ,or the occupied rhineland wich was economicly so important) ,... I would say that if Germany hadn't been made that unstable after WWI Hitler wouldn't have got to power that easily in the first place. And know that when Hitler declared war ,he was by far not the only German that wanted war ,probably the majority of German's wanted revenge for the bitter peace at Versaille.No wonder that the German's symbolicly let the French sign their surrender in 1940 in the same train at Versaille where the German's signed their surrender in 1918. Hitler fought WWI at one of the most active parts of the front (Passendaele) ,saw many of his good friends die and rot on the front before his eyes.In many way's much of his insanity was a product of that greusome war. Im not saying in any way that what he did was justified ,but when it came to war most Germans wanted revenge for 1918.

You mean Ho che ming or his succesor? Definatly Ho che Ming (sp?) was a very respected (and intelligent) leader. There were crazier leaders in that region that time ,take Pol Pot leader of the red Khmer. It's a shame for my country but i gonna mention him anyway: King Leopold II was responsible for the death of million's of Congoloze by forced labour and pillaging of tribal towns and agricultural lands. (starvation) This all promoted by a set policy comming directly from the desk of Leopold  II as Congo was his personal possesion.Statistics of the Belgium institute for Statistic's show that before the reign of Leopold II there were aproximatly 25.000.000 Congoleze ,after Leopold II that number was thrown back to 10.000.000 ,a decrease of 15.000.000 ,even Hitler didn't exterminate that many jews ,While Stalin was responsible AFAIK for the deportation and death of 17.000.000 people of various ethnicity's. The reason why so many died due to Leopold II was because he wanted to get as much profit and wealth as possible from that colony to be able to hold lavish party's and initiate "monumental" construction so to increase the prestige of Belgium and it's King.

I'm not sure about the Shumacher story however i agree that any F1 pilot would probably easily swin 10km if not way more.These guys have to endure lotsa g pull when driving their cars and they have to be strong to control such a beast for a few hours. But about Arnold ,well ,although it's probably some publicity stunt frankly i'm not really so impressed by the rescue of one man struggling in a sea.You guys ever seen Baywatch?Why does Arnold has to steal those bouncy lady's their jobs? To be serious there are thousands of comman folks around the world who attend and often rescue peope at beaches or swimming pool's withought getting fame for that ,and these people have been trained and equiped to do such a job faster and more effeciantly than a governor could.So a governor saves a man ,big deal if i would see a man drowning i would rescue him to.My wonders is where the beachguards were!

Woops sorry ,ah well it's an argument worthy to repeat.

Actually i am of the oppinion that paradoxes will arise either when you take religion literaly or even symbolicly as you do. As i put im my last question's: How do you draw the line Between wich teaching's you should take literaly and wich teaching's to take symbolicly.If the literal teaching's can't provide a clear benchmark for dogma's then how can you correctly balance youre belief's?How can an unperfect being supposedly incapable to even comprehend its god decide for himself to wich extent to follow literall teaching's?Any single seperate dogma could be practiced even from tradition in an incorrect way ,due to potential incomprehended little details. How can a god expect us to follow his teaching's given to us trough profet's correctly when the teaching's itself are inconclusive ,and how would he be able to judge us when his own teaching's were insufficiant to make us correctly folow his teaching's? Youre Quran may have a written sollution for the pork and whine dillema when camping somewhere in a desert withought food ,then again such a scenario was quite conceivable in the region where the Quran was written.However the Quran is frankly unable to give a clear answer on all the question's that can be asked about God or afterlive ,it's not a perfect "howto live good" while i would expect a god's teaching's to be perfect ,afterall within an all perfect and untimatly good being there would be no motivation for creating anything inperfect.If god would be inperfect himself ,then his teaching's would be just an oppinion piece on moral conduct rather an ultimate "howto live good". Let me give an other example.Many of the christian's that practice their religion symbolicly will argue that their god is the same god that other religion's have ,be it Budha or Allah.IIRC some muslim religios dogma itself says that Allah is the same as Jahwe from Christians or Jews.Most of the people within those religions that practice religion symbolicly will argue that a if person from another religion that shares the same god as their's and who lived correctly according to it's religion will eventually have its place in the same heaven as he might have when he lived correctly under his religion.For ex. many symbolicly practicing catholics will say that a person like Mahatma Ghandi will also get his place in heaven ,while those that rather follow the teaching's litteraly will be of the oppinion that only people from their religion will get in their one and only heaven. I suspect youre one of the people that will say that indeed Mahatma Ghandi got his place in the same heaven as you might get in even if youre muslim. In any case ,the arguments of contradiction lay here: If you take the litteral solution ,then it would be absurd that a God doesn't allow a person that lived a near perfect life because he didn't choose "the right religion" ,while an utter bastard that might repent from time to time in "the right religion" will have a better chance to get in heaven. If you take the symbolic sollution ,then any teaching's of moral code you take from religion are actually tottaly rellative ,you could follow any teaching of the shared god with it's many difference's yet if you lived "correctly" to a certain localized rellative moral code of wich there is no valuation system to decide the treshold of sin or "counter-repent" then you could get "possibly" in heaven. As such ,i my oppinion it's utterly uselles to take on a certain tag of religion.While i would argue that in many cases symbolic religious morrality can be a positive factor to society i would simply observe the moral code of any religious teaching and might follow some moral's from either religion as i see them valuable for my position within society ,however as thus interpretating that religion purely as philosofy rather than anything related to an unproven fenoneman.

Yes..... EUHM .... not to be descriminate but it was rather directed to christianity solely. Though youre answers aren't less valuable to the constructiveness of this thread. In addition i made devision in my question ,the first partof question's ,those that you answered ,were directed to people that folow the teachings of the bible directly as written ,the second part of questions were aimed for those people who see the bible as a book full of symbolism to be evaluated with nuancism rather than folowing the directly written words. IMHO ,you clearly are a part of those who look to the symbolism of their religions teachings and do not folow their bible literaly.For ex. you can see abortion as justified under extreme circumstances ,however people for ex that folow the bible literaly will deem abortion as a grave sin under any circumstance ,in their case this question would be confronting taking their beliefs in mind ,in youre case it clearly isn't. Let me rephrase my questions again: -Do you take Religious dogma's literaly or symbolicly? if literaly: -In youre oppinion did God create the world as described in the bible ,contradicting certain proof made in the fields of quantummechanics and bioligy? -Did the following story's in youre oppinion really happened: The flooding of the world for Noah. Mozes splits the red sea. Mozes initiate's the plague's Jezus walks on water Jezus feeds a whole town on a measel rantion of fish and bread. -Do you believe in hell ,and will you folow certain morality dogma's of religion to avoid being send to it? Are you of the oppinion that a seperation of "good" and "evil" is logical within the overall dogma's of christianity? Do you believe in an good and an evil withought nuiancations between them? Can God as the abstraction of "good" be vengefull? What is in youre oppinion the threshold of number's of sin's that can be commited withought being sent to hell ,or are you of the oppinion that either any sin will send you to hell or that an infinite amount of sin's can be commited withought being send to hell as long as you confess them? Is their a grade for Sins and a point system how to calculate when you hit treshold ,for ex would murder send me 5 points closer to hell while not respecting my father only 2 points towards hell ,or are all sins of same manitude? Can a person that is gennetacly born to commit certain "sins" be send to hell for that? (Scientiests have about proven Homosexuality to be genetacly ,serrial killers are often a product of socialogical enviroment or sheer genetical insanity) Do you see anticonceptia as sinfull product's ,even in places like South Africa where they can solve a enormous humanitarian problem? Do you see abortion as sinfull ,even if a 14 year old gets pregnant by a rapist? Are you of the oppinion that overall christianity has and had a good effect on the evolution of humankind ,even taking into account historical phenonema like the Crusade's ,the Inquisition and witchburning? if symbolicly: -Where do you draw the line between symbolism and reality.Wouldn't we rather as unperfect being's be incompetent in understanding the correct symbolism of any dogma?Can God itself be a symbol from that perspective rather than a fact?How can we decide within the teaching's of christian religious what is within the boundaries of symbolism and what's to be taken litterally ,especially when it come's to the practization of certain moral codes? -When religion on itself is symbolicly ,isn't it then just a certain form of moral code rather than a true spiritual fenonema ,and possibly not a perfect form of moral code? You should try to answer the "If symbolicly" section of questions IMO.

That's a rediculous argument in the context of the debate. What if one day a man would come to you and say that actually the universe is encapsulated in a large orb carried on the back of a tortuse ,and because this tortuse has to stand on something he stands on an even bigger tortuse ,and under that increasingly larger tortuses in infinety.Sure that may sound rediculous ,but can you prove it to be wrong? No you can't. In fact i could state that God regulary carnite's as a lesbian in a red light district where he/she works and noobody could prove the opposite.But i can tell you , if one day a nutcase manages to escape from a nuthouse where he had gotten in the first place because he claimed to be God or Jezus ,i'm sure the police that is searching for the nut won't argue that from their position they are unable to decide who's god and who's not and thus morraliy not qualified to arrest this man ,no they will arrest this man anyhow even if there is theologicly a remote chance that he is actually god ,Jezus or a new messiah. I compiled some question's for christian people on this thread: 1) Do you take Religious dogma's literaly or symbolicly? if literaly: -In youre oppinion did God create the world as described in the bible ,contradicting certain proof made in the fields of quantummechanics and bioligy? -Did the following story's in youre oppinion really happened: The flooding of the world for Noah. Mozes splits the red sea. Mozes initiate's the plague's Jezus walks on water Jezus feeds a whole town on a measel rantion of fish and bread. -Do you believe in hell ,and will you folow certain morality dogma's of religion to avoid being send to it? Are you of the oppinion that a seperation of "good" and "evil" is logical within the overall dogma's of christianity? Do you believe in an good and an evil withought nuiancations between them? Can God as the abstraction of "good" be vengefull? What is in youre oppinion the threshold of number's of sin's that can be commited withought being sent to hell ,or are you of the oppinion that either any sin will send you to hell or that an infinite amount of sin's can be commited withought being send to hell as long as you confess them? Is their a grade for Sins and a point system how to calculate when you hit treshold ,for ex would murder send me 5 points closer to hell while not respecting my father only 2 points towards hell ,or are all sins of same manitude? Can a person that is gennetacly born to commit certain "sins" be send to hell for that? (Scientiests have about proven Homosexuality to be genetacly ,serrial killers are often a product of socialogical enviroment or sheer genetical insanity) Do you see anticonceptia as sinfull product's ,even in places like South Africa where they can solve a enormous humanitarian problem? Do you see abortion as sinfull ,even if a 14 year old gets pregnant by a rapist? Are you of the oppinion that overall christianity has and had a good effect on the evolution of humankind ,even taking into account historical phenonema like the Crusade's ,the Inquisition and witchburning? if symbolicly: -Where do you draw the line between symbolism and reality.Can God itself be a symbol from that perspective rather than a fact?How can we decide within the teaching's of christian religious what is within the boundaries of symbolism and what's to be taken litterally ,especially when it come's to the practization of certain moral codes? -When religion on itself is symbolicly ,isn't it then just a certain form of moral code rather than a true spiritual fenonema ,and possibly not a perfect form of moral code?

While i would agree that when the Normans were christend around 1000ad that it brought more molarlity and humanity to that region ,if you want to make the point that christianity can be positive to the evolution of people ,i can make the point that it can also be negative to evolution. Take the inquisition for example ,not exactly the nicest thing christianity produced (or catholicism rather) ,and then you had famous scientists around that era like copernicus or Galileo who made fundamental scientific progress for mankind that really were hassled by the religious fundementalism back then. Around his age of 20 Leonardo da vinci was almost sentenced to death on charges of soddomie (a influential friend eventually saved his life) ,what a loss that would have been.Such example's are legio in the years between 1500-1700ad when relgios turmoil really leads to bloody wars and much fanatisicm ,Mostly at the times 1520-1560 when respectivly luther and Calvijn spread their theory's leading to protestantism and Reformism. When the Spanniards under Cortez enterred Aztec lands they saw thing's that were unseen for them with their religious background.Not only were the Aztec's pagan's ,they were also engaged in really widespread soddomie and religious canabalism and much more nasty stuff.The Aztec's used to sacrifice people by the 100.000's at that time in religious rituals that really shocked the Spaniards.In fact ,at one point in the campaign the Spaniards themselfs were witness of a number of their companions who where religiosly sacrificed in a way i beter just don't try to describe. In any case ,for every rightious Spaniard conquistador present with Cortez at that time Tenochtitlan must have been soddom and Gommora toghether and so they felt quite justified in killing off much of that civilization in the name of god. (though most of the Aztec's died from smallpoks) So sure conquering heathen territorysometimes had it's positive effects if the heathen's really were a bad bunch.But when the Knight's of the first crusade practicly wiped out the population of prosperous muslim city's like Antioh and Jerusalem (christians included!) then i wouldn't see why "deus le vult" ,afterall most muslim's were a much more civilized (and religiously tollerant) people at that time then christians were. (Byzantine's not included) The christians of Jerusalem were a lot better treated innitionally by the Muslim's than the Crusaders ,Under Sunni overlordship they were 3rth class citizin's (you were still quite free,more than most christian peasents) ,the crusaders just killed all catholic inhabitants of Jerusalem 1099 toghether with the rest of the city ,and at the end of that massacre they were litteraly standing enkel high in blood.

Must have been a pretty stong Rpg to hurt that Abrams that way ,r maybe the Abrams was shot in its weak ass? I was pretty surprized to see the Shia Sadr declaring war on the coalition.To think that as it is the Shia would get most power in Iraq when America leaves ,they already have a majority of Shia in the new Iraqi goverment ,including some important Shia religious leaders like ayatollah Sistani ,this campaign of Sadr against the coalition will probably mostly hurt those Shia politicians. That said ,if Sadr manages to gain popular support for his cause among the Shia then he will become the most important factor in Iraqi politics and when the coalition leaves he will probably aim for toppling the new Iraqi regime.

You REALLY can't generalize christianity though.There are multiple form's of christianity like orthodoxy ,catholicism ,protestantism ,reformist ,... ,and the difference's between those branches can be pretty significant in theologic terms ,in addition there are different levels of religious devotion ,some people really go to church every week and pary every day and confess every so time etc. ,while others are more or less christians in name however decide for themselfs how far to follow this religion.T The difference between the U.S and Europe for ex. on religion is hughe ,a recent international study showed that America has about the most religious people percentage wise in the world ,while Europe has most Atheists of the world.Have you ever seen someone say "God bless europe" or "God bless Canada"? In europe Religion is politicly almost a non issue (though Spain and Italy is a case appart) ,in America Religion and the morrality of it are very important.In America a president can be impeached for private "immorality" ,something that i don't expect to ever see on this side of the ocean. Personaly i'm atheist but i respect most religions ,though i protest on the fanatism of certain religions or branches of it.Take the witness of Jehova ,that's one religios sekt (i call it a sekt ,though not all sects are bad) that i just can't agree with.They scare people into their religion with their final judgement dogma and they force family members of people that won't to leave to break contact with those family and even antagonize them. I really hate the hell/heaven dogma ,it's a very dangerous concept within every religion that uses it ,it leads very easy to religious fanatism.In this sense i have much more respect for Budhism and Hindoism where such dogma's do not exist and wich have rpoven to be much more humane religions that Islam or caholicism is IMO.

Well i can understand that a woman publishing a pro-atheism article in Saudi-Arabia could be a contoversial thing in that society.So cleary some high school student or scholar hacked here e-mail and cellphone to force her to cease the publishment of such article's. Her protest Imo is afcourse granted but then i'm a very liberal European wich stands far of Saudi Arabia's Religious socioligy.

So i was thinking how to topple the Belgium goverment (wich is corrupt and blatantly childish nothing new there) ,well after some consideration i came to the conclusion that this won't be that easy really. I mean it's not the millitary side of view ,thats pretty straithforward ,just equip a number of millitia troops and let them surprize attack all Belgium bases on the same night and in the morning drive into Brussels pronto ,given the readiness of the Belgium army (the average Belgian soldiers beer belly & ass hardly fits in an Apc) it should be pretty much a walk in the park. (well ok need some funds need some volunteer's just a matter of promotion really) Nah what bothers me more is the political side.Belgium has allies for one ,don't want them to mess with my cute little coup d'etat.And Belium is unstable as it is with all those Flemmish nationalists and i don't want the country to split up just because i want to get rid of some corrupt politician's ,so oisting the Monarchy wouldn't be a good idea ,i would rather have him support and ligitimize my goverment after the coup.And i don't want to change the country into a dictatorship neither but then that means i have to hold free elections after some time and then the corrupt politicians might sneak in again. Most Belgian's hate the corruption of the Belgium goverment and has big distrust in it ,in this sense they could support an bloodless coup that just ousts the corrupt politicians but i doubt that many Belgiums would support a dictatorial regime.With other words i have to find a way to quickly restore stabilization after the coup and i could need some hints for that. I would also need some integer politicians and those should pose a challenge to find.That makes it hard to find decent groups support for the coup ,i don't want anarchists rabble or Flemmish nationalists on my side as i would have to make some prommisses wich would go beyond my goal really. Ah well ,clearly by now you all understand that it is for a good cause ,so if you got some tips fire away.

Radnik ,as head of state Milosovic had a reponsibilety over the Serbian troops.Even if he didn't directly order the killing of civilian's from certain ethnic origin ,since the etnic cleansing was done by various millitary and millitia forces (Arkan's yellow tigers for ex.) ,Milosovic would still be supposed to be informed about such events ,and if he wouldn't have been aware of it it would have been a sign of hughe neglect of wich he would also be responsible.A head of state is supposed to be informed and on top of about anything that happens in the country ,definatly about troop movement and conduct.The President with his cabinet set's out the policy for millitary matters ,wars are organized by politicians who then order their commanders to do their job according to commands and a a number of policy rules .If these's policy's lack rule's that prevent ethnic cleansing from the part of the millitary than thats the responsibilety of politics.Granted in cases of minor ethnic cleansing by a selected few then the responsibilety will be laid by this group ,but when ethnic cleansing happens on such scale then it's hard to believe that the President would not be aware of it.

Original games do not fade!

Sharon may leave however Likoed will stay in power. (atleast until new ellections) Given the background of their tradional supporters base , doubt that Israel's policy or leniecy to Palestine will be altered much. I read a profile on Wikipedia on Ahmed Yassin a week ago. (just after he was eliminated by Idf) I found the background of his early life interresting in perspective to the conflict and the origin of Palestine terrorism. let me Quote Wikipedia: It's not uncomman for a Palestinian terrorist to have a history of being displaced of their original living area By isreal and maybe of having resided in Refugee camps. Clearly it can be understood that people displaced from their original home area sometimes having lost about all they had would have more reason to hate israeli than those Palestinian's still having a fairly moderate and stable living condition somewhere deep into the West bank away from isreali senntlements ,and it would be easier for those Palestinians that have lost all hope to commit themselfs to suicide attack's than those that have a stable life with relative fullfilling expectations. Suicide is far from uncomman in the world ,the number's in Europe or America where the life standard is of the highest in the world are still quite high.But their are also a lot of people who live on the edge of suicide ,some of them wouldn't commit suicide just because they would see it as pointless.Muslim fundamentalism offers the most mentally fullfilling form of suicide ,amrtyrdom would mean that as an hero he would have an eternal wonderfull afterlife ,this form of suecide attracts those that would do it and a number of those that are doubting to.Add to the mix that the target of the suicide attack could be an abbrevation of that what has made youre life meaningless and hopeless then it's not all that hard to understand how groups like Hamas reach such reasonable member pool's. As such ,the Palestinian refugee camps are often vistited by Israeli armored brigade's to do some cleaning of terrorists ,obviously they see the refugee's as a threat to their security ,though understandable most of those refugee's hate Isreali's gut. The Israeli security fence is claimed to be build for efficiantly combatting terrorism ,however it has already displaced or cut of Palestinian towns inside West bank territory in favor of Israeli settlements.I'm shure that this wall will create more terrorism than it will eb able to effeciantly combat.

My parents have always been pretty open to marihuana ,but i never touched any hard drug's and i never will ,and everyone around me would disagree with me if i would begin hard drugs ,while they accept marihuana as a minnimaly harmfull drug. (less harmfull than beer for ex.) I smoke marihuana regulary but not abusivly ,i would say 1 gram a week ,fairly few actually.And i am hyperkinetic wich make's me very nerveous on some monents ,marihuana can help to relax.I smoked since my sixteen ,i never really hided that use to my parents ,at home ill just use it while being in the living room among my family ,toghether with 1 of my brother's and 2 of my sisters in law who also use regulary.Other brother's or girlfriend experimented with it though don't use it regulary ,although they would dare to smoke one on a bleu moon.Marihuana can have it's good uses when taken as couple. ;) But then my family is fairly leftists.

ex.: of peacefull revolution: the toppling of Slobodan millisovich by pressure of the Serbian people. what makes it work? Serbs are mad on Milosovich because he fucked up fair and square ,with other words poppulation discontent.This makes a revolution "peacefull" ,when it's innitiated by the anger of most of the population rather than by an revolutionary group with own interrests. Simply said ,my goal should be to get the people so mad that they actually take action to topple the goverment.Does the fundamental base for that discontent exist in Belgium? YES ,less than 20% of the whole population has still confidence in the political and justice system.Number of voters are high because Belgians are legally forced to vote.If more than 50% of the total population wants a goverment gone than i see that as a justified cause in a democracy ,that number could exist or could be reached. Just after Dutroux was captured Belgium had the "white march" ,it was a protest on the way the goverment fucked up ,with that case and multiple other cases. 300.000 people participated ,3% of the whole population.Most people feel that nothing has chanced since then ,so about the same amount of people could be mobilized for the cause given there is enough incentive and organization to it. A agressive publicity campaign is in order ,with simple slogans that constantly bring up the issue to the attention ,to heat up the anti goverment sentiment in the comman Belgian.This carefully constructed to a climax may give the desired result.Timing can help ,we are in the middle of the Dutroux trial and it doesn't look like the truth will be told ,and that will be a hughe dissapointment for the coman Belgian.Funds for publicity are simply not at hand ,however spreading cntroversy can bring the media's attention to you.A flood of actions on a carefully chosen moment may rock the country ,given the end of the Dutroux trial relativly not that far ,maybe a good time to start planning? But i'm not a political experienced person ,counldn't do this stuff on my own.That said ,their is few risk with participating in a peacefull revolutionay group that only uses publicity to reach their goal ,and depend on the people to make the ultimate decission. I don't want to rule this country ,i'm not power mad.Ive always been a man of compromises that carries the freedom of democracy deep in his heart.But i'm sick of our ruling establishment ,it's largly corrupt and very elite'ist.i don't have to be the hereo of the revolution ,i don't even have to be part of it ,all i want is that it happens so that finnaly JUSTICE can come to this country. But what happens with the Vacuum that revolution create's? Thats my real problem ,i want the corrupt goverment out ,but i don't want smething worse or as bad in instead.

It's not illigal when i smoke in my own house. But youre not allowed to carry it in public.

If the king doesn't go along with our plan then ill give you a phonecall.

I always promoted a "BLOODLESS" revolution ,and i voiced my concerns to keep democracy and it's system's intact. In fact ,the best way actually to preppare a coup is by destabilizing the country ,a number of propaganda means can help this.Posters flyers actions protest and afcourse vandalization of enemy property by spraying it with slogan's. ;) This directed to the current goverment and a number of it's members.And yes popular support is really nessecary to make it succesfull.And if the King would recognize the couped goverment then it could get internionally legitimized. I'm no murderer or villian or anything.The reason i would like this revolution is because our goverment is corrupt and genneraly hated ,this implies that i would have to be better than them to be morraly justified to topple them.Integrity is important for such a goal ,and killing doesn't add to that. Violent mean's in revolutionary movements are usually only used when the goverment is supported (or controlled) by a abla millitary chasing down the rebels. See this thread more as a protest of what's going on in Belgium ,because the stuff is so rediculous one has to be able to have a luagh with it.That other member's on this forum offer their service's to me is because they as eager mercenaries wan't to earn something after their hours.But that doesn't mean i'm hiring them yet ,although some of the prices are inviting. The more i throw sand in the eyes of Belgian's and push them on the fact's of our corrupt goverment the more theyll feel inclined to support a peacefull and bloodless coup.

To some point i have to agree with you. The ammount of people that die trough terrorist attacks in the world is neglible if you compare it to ammount of people that dies in a car accident or by starvation for ex ,yet many country's pump hughe sums in security ,America on top.The amount of cash that the U.S.A has thrown in antitterrorism since 9/11 (taking into account two wars of wich one a hughely expensive one ,security and other measure) could have brought a number of 3rd world coutry's up to Western level in development. (given political stabiety) But a terrorist organization can grow ,it can recruit more member's if not dealt with ,Al-quaida already trained tentoussands of terrorists when they could do everything they wanted in Afhanistan.If not contained the threat will grow and could become very dangerous. Iraq however was a financial and political blunder for the west ,and undoubtably a source for more terrorism if not taken care of well.It's important that now the Americans are there that eventually a stable democracy can be established ,for the sake of the Western immage in the Middle-East.However bringing stabilety and a democratic goverment to Iraq will be hard and most of all very costly ,and i doubt that the Bush will invest much in peace building ,they are more inclined to put money in guns than in peace.Afhanistan is already a failure in democracy building ,if Iraq descents in a civil war the whole middle East will blame the West.