Apollo

Euh ,as far as i know Bohemia is a land area that mostly lays in tsjechia ,though partly in Austria and also for a part in Germany.The whole of Bohemia is not owned by 1 country i think.At the end of the middle ages bohemia was an independant country ruled by a Monarch ,however later it was in it's whole annexed by Austria.But when Austria collapsed after WWI most of Bohemia came under Tjechaslovakia ,but probably not all of Bohemia.I think parts of North Austria are still considerd Bohemia as wel as parts of Southeast Germany. Hitler fought very near my home town in WWI (Ypres) ,and in that time he was listed as a Bohemian corporal... Btw i don't think the Dom of cologne is a church ,rather something cathedral like.

I agree with Albert.You have churches in all style's ,but within most style's you have thousands of churches that look very much alike.You have Roman style ,gothic style ,baroque style ,roccoco ,etc.. Most churches in Flanders are gothic style ,aparth of the cathedrals most gothic style churches look alike. That particular church looks very Central Europe Baroque style ,i guess you would see these churches all over south Germany ,Austria ,Tsjechia and Slovakia ,Poland ,.... This church probably is bohemian right?Hitler was from Bohemia ,and BIS stands for Bohemia interactive studios..

Just an idea for the Fdf squad ,ever tried of making ski troops?

Hmm ,you could also try to sell the land to a Columbian cartel to set a poppy plantation on it ,or to a hacker syndicate ,or even better ,declare an independant state on it and allow for company's to have mailbox firms etc on it. Â Btw ,what adress must i go to to claim Mars?

Two possibilities, both completely reasonable explantions.  1: They were told by the arab armies to leave, in order to facilitate their "routing" of israel.  You can find this claim anywhere, like the Dershowitz book I talked about, im too lazy right now to dig up an exact source. 2: The Haganah kicked them out to make room for the jewish state. Why haven't they been let back?  Well, why don't we ask that same question to the Americans concerning pretty much their whole country vis a vis the native americans.  Or the French and English, or so on, I can go on forever.  I don't envision their farms and huts in old Jaffo are still intact.  Change happens (I will touch on this important point later) Good question, and it shines on one of the greatest dangers facing israel today.  Hint: Its not terrorism.  Its babies.  Lots of em.  Palestinian demographics show an average family size much larger than the ones in Israel.  The three words that best define israel's character, IN THIS SPECIFIC ORDER, are a Jewish, Democratic, State.  The most important thing about israel is that it is a jewish state, period.  There is only 1 in the world.  There are many other democracies, but only 1 jewish state.  So, if all of a sudden, 5 million non-jewish people get the vote, the state becomes the not-so-jewish state, and then eventually, a muslim state.  This is why even hawks like Sharon understand the neccesity of a palestinian state, and why a one state solution will never, ever, be accepted by Israel. Ok, so I mentioned something before about "change happens"... the idea here is that present realities supercede past principles. (Repeat that twice).  The right of return for the Palestinians is a matter of principal, not reality.  Their homes are long gone, and even the people who took their homes are long gone.  They can leave their squalid refugee lives if only they would drop this point-of-principal and face reality... (im enjoying this)  Life in a refugee camp is hell, i've seen them, i've been in them.  That is the reality.  They can have better lives as citizens in any other nation (particularly Palestine when it comes about), but giving them back their old homes means uprooting someone else from theirs.  Most of the Israelis living in israel now did not even exist when the state was created.  They had nothing to do with the refugee crisis.  Why should their reality be sacrificed for someone elses principal.  Furthermore, the idea that Palestinians can go back to their cultural hertiage - olive tree covered farms with small shacks and quiet serenity - in modern day israel is absurd.  Their homes have been turned into dense suburbs and sprawling urban metropoli(sp?).  They have an oppurtunity to continue life as citizens of another country, which of course is a problem, because no country seems to want them. (btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with, they held egyptian, jordanian, or ottoman citizenship) So, you have to understand that the basic moral concepts of "right intentions" and "wrong intentions" are completely abstract to politics.  Israel did what it was doing in its own interests, which is all that anyone can ever expect a nation to do.  I'm not completely lambasting human rights here, what I am saying is, it is pointless for you to harp on every little supposed wrongdoing by Israel.  For every one you find, someone can surely retort equally against the Palestinians.  The idea is that, we should strive for a point of convergance, where interests coincide.  (thanks to Thomas Jefferson on that one). /rant Wow i was really surprized that you tried to make a point on this bases.The way the U.S handled the indiginous people of America in that time is not particulary a historical part on wich the American soeciety is really proud on.Nor are most ex-colonial powers from Europe very pround on the native killing part of their history.In many cases the resemblance to ethnic cleansing is close.Are you going to say that because many colonial superpowers from the past have cases where they almost exterminated whole ethnicities in order to settle regions that wern't claimed by any other civilized country that therefore it's still justifyable in this modern times? The mass of Jewish colonizations started in a whole other timeframe and still continues to this date with very violent consequences.It's the fact that the Palestinians have never had an independant state of their own that made it possible of Jews under Brittish protection to settle en mass in the region.Later ,they just annexed whole regions into their newly declared country ,with violence if nessecary.And when a territory is annexed and changed so it's full of Jewish towns and infrastructure then they can say ,well this land is ours because we live here now with all our stuff here. In my point however ,if you think that it's morally justified to have cleanse a region in a violent way  of a certain etnicity in order to be able to colonize it and annex it to youre territory ,and this not as a multicultural society however a country of Jewish political and social dominance ,then you shouldn't be surprized in any way of the violent reaction of the Palestinians towards Jews. Or let me turn youre argument tottaly upside down.In youre oppinion chief Sitting Bull should be regarded as a TERRORIST ,as he ordered killing raids on settlers (innocent civilians!) settling in his tribal lands.

You have to take into acout also that Ofp is about the only game out there that realy allows you to play first person RTS ,Ofp is unique in this ,i know no other game where this is possible on such a scale.

Must be Governer of Half the moon ,the other half is still owned by the USSR. Russia should really send a mission to the moon the replace that commie flag that is still waving over the dark side of the moon...

I love Rts and Cti ,and recently i had an idea of playing it another way. Rts deathmatch would mean that it's everyone for himself.Each player would be a commander having to build his own private little base preferably on a town ,where he can substract recources from.Building's would be cheaper ,simplified to a vehicle factory ,a barracks and a controll center to not take much space.Since it's all individualy the number of players will determine how many bases you have ,and most of the times that will be more players than towns.So you will have players who own a town and payers who don't and need to aquire one. Each player spawns with a bmp2/m2a2 (mhq) and when the mhq dies he get's a new mhq.If the player dies he spawns at his mhq or if destroyed with a mhq at a random spot.The winner is the one that collects most resources by controlling towns ,killing enemy units and salvaging dead units. It create's an enviroment where its free for all land grab ,and with limited towns not anyone will be able to secure a town for himself so townowners will have to defend it.And afcourse some towns just bring in more $. It would be a fun change of regular Rts ,and i don't think it would be so much work to implement.Just make anyone comm ,change the map and the control menu's for deathmatch mode and do some more coding and balancing where needed.But then ,what do i know of addon making. Anyhow ,any addon maker interrested in the idea ,not that it has to be exactly how i describe it ,but just for the fundamental idea behind it?

Ah goddarnit ,somebody ask's a simple question and the whole forum spams he thread with off-topic information like when they aquired the game. To be on topic ,on the original question of the thread starting how long i have been playing Ofp my answer is 2946hours 17minutes 4sec's. (deducted is time in Afk to eat ,whizz ,smoke ,alt-tab for boss ,etc..)

One thing that i love at this forum is that it has a varried community of many nationalities and educational background.I find it very interresting to have people like Acecombat as arab and Avonlady as Israeli discussing with eachother over middle east issue's in a quite constructive way actually ,well relativly constructive... I can understand that Avon skips certain questions (though probably the more difficult ones ) ,afterall she is one of the few here actually defending here side.Most of the people on this thread are liberal Europeans i think anyway ,and these type of folk tend to ask a lot of questions in detail. So answering them could take time ,sometimes i actually pitty her a bit having to take all these comments and having to try to prove the opposite ,wich is hard. But then i like the fact that everyone is taking a side here and about all sides are represented here.This way you'll see arguments from all angle's ,and whether or not you agree ,youll probably learn a lot by hearing all these sides their oppinions.

This looks to be an other case though.In most cases of school killings the killer(s) target people randomly rather than specificly,in this case however the killer targetted the principal only and then ran. What worry's me more is that the guilty person is from autochtone origin ,wich only hurts the once so liberal and plural Dutch society even more.

Promisses ,promisses ,many have been made of those in the past ,surprinzingly most of the times when aproaching ellections...... 20 Years?You got to freaking kidding me ,he has at most 4 more years to go as pres (and hopefully NOT ,and ill light a candle in Santiago de compostella for that) ,now way his plan will survive trough 3 following cabinet's ,and Bush knows that to ,or he really has a peanut for a brain.

Yep.it's nice that they say when an piece is not 100% confirmed truth ,i find it one of the best information sources on the net. And i agree that Zionism is the bases of the whole conflict on itself.And there lies the fault ,it is not because hitler killed so many millions that another people has to loose their land.They could always have gone to the U.S.A ,they were always welcome there.

But then i guess these vehicle's have NBC protection....?

I remember a video that i ever saw with an number of Tjetsjen guerilla's that had laid a bomb along a supply line of the Russian's connected with a cellphone as trigger.All you had to do is phone the bomb and BOOM! At one point ,the Russian's had gotten hand on the celphone number of Doedajev (Tjetsjen ex. pres).He had done a phonecall and when he was talking the Russians were tracing his coordinates by sattelite ,and when they found his coordinates some colonel just typed them on a scud launcher and so Doedajev was killed by the inpact.

If you print more money you are devaluating youre economy ,inflation will usually rise.Prices of product within youre country will become more expensive ,in addition imports from other country's are more expensive to ,however youre export's are cheaper and as thus more competetive with foureign prices.Overall bad thing IMO. Well ,i guess the best moneypot for Bush must be Europe ,it has cash a plenty and borrowing it from his own economy would only hurt it more.A number of state loans at a small interrest rate ,because Europe wants te U.S economy to recover as a weak U.S economy hurts EU economy. But then ,for an amount of 300billion dollars (that was July figures ,now it's probably 400 to 500Billion dollars) is not exactly a small amount.And since the US state debt will increase by it a good bunch ,well ,lets say the U.S taxpayer will be paying back for Iraq a long time. I made this analisys before ,and i say it again.The Neo-conservative's have always pushed Bush to take war actions on country's that they saw as Rogue country's.Bush was planning to invade more than Iraq ,maybe Syria or Iran or both and some other country's in light of his "war on terrorism".But alas it's impossible for the U.S to defeat all these country's ,not because of a lack of power ,but a lack of money.The U.S troops and theyre material is just to expensive to support a high amount of troops in a warzone. 250000 troops for Iraq was relativly small amount ,and yet they still cost a fortune. No wonder Bush declared the war over just after the fall of Bagdad instead of when the country was secure.Atleast as thus Bush could strip the servicemen from the bonnuses they get from opperating in a warzone.

Good enough i would say ,compared to an Israeli antiterrorist commite figures..... 99% of the cases no ,therefore i always mention it.There are some on-line encyclopedia's written by independant people though that grade all information on confirmed or not ,with all confirmed fact's relating to it added to it.That way ,only factual data is used ,and when using debateable source's thats mentioned.And there are also cases where sources rather prove the reverse point that one would expect from a source of that nationality ,like the last source you gave me ,wich looks interresting to look at.

@Avonlady: Here are the figure's how Bernadotte posted them: Breaking this down we get: Palestinian civilian's killed: 2,583-289-117-108=2069 civilians (deducted are those killed in war or by terrorism) Jewish civilian's killed: 898-244=654 (deducted are soldies ,settlers are not deducted) Now we can debate on sources.It's Bernadotte's source so i cant guarantee it's unbiased ,however the source you have is from an Israeli anti-terrorism commitee ,possibly biased to. We need independant figures.

This point has been covered though.Sure you can say that because the Terrorist group's target civilians directly theire moral justification is lost ,as this type of assymetric warfare isn't allowed by international law.However ,the figure's show that the IDF kill's aproximatly 3 times more innocent civilians indirectly than the Terrorist cell's kill directly.Now either you are of the oppinion that the value of a Jewish life is greater than that of a Palestinian ,or you are of the oppinion that for ex 1800 death innocent Palestinian civilians by "indirect" attacks is more justfied than 600 death Israeli civilians by direct attacks.

Very nice link that BBC article ,that gives some ground to discuss on. Searching on data on the ellection contributors of Bush/Cheney 2001 ,i found some interresting data: Ellection contributions from oil&gas company's to republicans and Democrats in the last ellection here result: Democrats: $5,022,832 Republicans: $19,879,181 total contributions since 1990: Democrats: $41,303,372 Republicans: $118,257,058 Why do they have such an preference for the Republicans. Â Here is a list of some major contraters in Iraq rebuilding contract's with the amount of money they donated in the last ellection. I can not guarantee that the source is not biased by default... edit: yes i can ,the data is from a govermental commite http://www.fec.gov/

True ,even in the relative social paradise Belgium most people severely distrust their goverment.But then ever since verhofstadt became prime minister we have reasons enough to not trust them. And the media seems to refrain to touch the dificult issue's from time to time ,more concentrating on smallpolitics between popular figure's. But if you have ever watched much latino tv.... lol.They really understood the art of covering politics with amusement programms full of hot woman in tight clothes ,and after that another hour of amusement with some smooth presentator and again a lot of hot sexy clothed woman ,and after that more of the same ,etc etc ....

To just voice my oppinion on the ban of the headscarf in schools in Europe.Basicly the European public shool system is for the majority as such that any wild ,extravagant or different outfit from the regular outfit that students are supposed to wear in school are most of the times not allowed ,banned if you will.Having youre culture is one thing ,but it's not bbecause youre Hawaian that you should wear a skirt only ,or that you are Russian orthodox and would wear a big black cap on youre head.And a hindoe in Mahatma Gandi dress wont be allowed in public schools school neither.Even thing's like piercing's ,collored or wild hair or other extravagant fashion trends are mostly not allowed.Because in most schools in Europe Order in school and class is most important ,teacher maintain a very high degree of authority over students bacause they find it important to efficiantly educate the students.And when people dress up all differently it damage's the order in the class and the authority of the teacher. There is a difference however with low grades and mid grades shools at the one side and university's/high schools at the other side.In university's tolerance and freedom is much higher as in most European culture's people are accepted as adult at an age of 18 and then for them a lot changes and the young adult is now expected to make their own choices.But the right's of a student before he reaches adultship are limited ,and they have certain duty's.

True ,but there are difference's.In most other cases these arranged marriage's have much less effect on the status and position of man and woman in the society.But their are parts in the Muslim world where men practicly own a woman ,even from a legal point of view.This has much more to do with culture however.If you take the taliban for ex ,there are few culture's or religions or beliefs that have such drastic consequences for the rights of the women. My point in that was that when people used to such ideas and culture's they shouldn't try to uphold those beliefs when living abroad in a liberal european country and deffinatly not upon their children.

Sorry to say this Ace ,but i don't think such an Saudi news channel would be even reasonably un-biased.I could be wrong but i have a slight feeling that much of the investment of this News channel may come from a certain well known and extremly numerous Saudi family.

Not hard ,have you ever seen a list of all BBC corespondents in the Middle east? There are a lot of muslim's working for the BBC and i don't think they would like the boss share the same oppinions of this coleage. His remarks are way over the top and makes use generalizations that is bad in the first place. However ,to have a little debate on it maybe ,for my self in my country Belgium i notice that their tends to be a small percentage of girls having troubles with their parents over the demand that she should marry a man of parents choice.It happens not very much over here ,many of the muslim girls in Belgium marry Belgian men overall ,it's limited to people of certain origin or certain religious view wich is not nessecarily in line with the general muslim religion. Personally ,i'm not a supporter of fixed marriage's.Now that this happens in certain area's in the Muslim world can be understood as it is part of their culture ,however when fmily's with such traditions move to a very liberal country like Belgium then they must understand that they don't have the basic right in Belgium to make such a demand of their children ,as every Belgian has the fundamental right's to choose his own partner in life and family ties can not surpass these right's. I don't know what youre views on emancipation are Ace ,though i will always respect everyone's beliefs as that is IMO a basic human right i can immagine that the culture of Saudi Arabia is as such that many people still marry in fixed marriage's?However as far as i know in Saudi Arabia woman can persue a own carreer ,and right's to for ex. break a marriage are in the law and pretty fair. But then undeniably there are regions in the Muslim world where woman have much fewer right's ,or about none at all.The case of Lamina Lawal (sp) who faced death by stonening in Nigeria (?) because she had betrayed her husband is one case where certain local bbeliefs are to harsh on woman. In the end however ,there are many more thing's at play than just religious beliefs when Woman in the Muslim world are surpressed.I think it has much to do with class ,local culture ,education ,financial situations ,ties in small village's etc. I think surpressing of woman by Muslims happens mostly in lower classes of the population ,So it depends on the nature of the people and not strictly on Islam as a religion in its basic form.