«

[cheesegrater]

Originally posted by einherjar+Jan 20 2005, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (einherjar @ Jan 20 2005, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So, we are allowed to murder people now?

Well, the Bible makes no sense anyways because they stone people to death in that thing for no apparent reason.

Whatever, is the exact translation - Christians interpret it as "DO NOT KILL".

It seems you have a limited knowledge of the Bible. If you read the Gospels, Jesus tells his disciples that it is wrong to kill people. Have you not heard the expression "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone?" It was taken from the Bible. [/b][/quote]
Yes, but we were refering to the 10 commandments there not Jesus' teaching. Also, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the Bible as I used to be a Catholic and graduated from a Catholic high school. We are discussing the interpretation of sixth comandment written in Hebrew.

saddam hussien was murdering inocent ppl evey day just like hitler and stalin and various other leaders.he needeed to be takin out

When Sadaam was killing innocent people USA was supporting him. For example the US supported Sadaam's gas attacks against Iranian villages. The US does not care about innocent people.

[xoopx]

Originally posted by cheesegrater@Jan 20 2005, 04:11 PM

Whatever, is the exact translation - Christians interpret it as "DO NOT KILL". At least Catholics interpet it that way. The vatican is anti-abortion, anti-corporal punishment, anti-war. The Bible is pro-corporal punishment as people are skinned alive all the time.

i was agreeing with you. i meant to type "not kill" insted of not kill. if you see what i mean.
most christians do think it is 'not kill' and its only the warmongering right who try and weasel out of it with 'murder' .. the same way their have lawyers try and say its ok to keep people in guantanemo with no geneva convention rights, or constitutional rights, or any rights at all

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Dream@Jan 20 2005, 11:06 AM
Saudi arabia does not have nuclear weapons.

Niether does Iraq. :blink:

Bush is sucking up to Saudi Arabia so that America can still buy oil from them. Kerry promised to give the double deuce to the Saudi family if he was elected, and get scientists to develop new alternatives for oil.

[Rogue]

Do you know how much of US economy Saudi own? :blink:

Their Embassy is most secured one in USA.

:whistle:

Why?

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by einherjar@Jan 20 2005, 06:06 PM
The only reason why USSR got to Berlin first was because Stalin was in a hurry to beat Britain and America there. As a result, more Russian soldiers were killed in hasty and poorly planned attacks on German positions. America and Britain were trying to get to Berlin to end the war as soon as possible, but they were trying to limit Allied casualties by planning effective attacks on German soldiers.

My God. Don't they teach history in Europe anymore?

Now that's a pure lie!!!
And don't start about teaching history - because that's one of the things US really needs to learn - not just the government - but everybody over there!

And about the real reason why the Red Army got into Berlin first:
Churchil wanted the war to last as long as possible, to weaken the Soviets. He didn't want to provide help for them, because he was counting on Stalin geting weaker if the war would last longer. That's why he insisted on attacking Italy first, on being extra careful and so on. He knew that the war was won, but wanted to make sure, Russia would suffer as much as possible hoping to be able to start another counter revolution. That's not just a wild guess - go to the local library and read some of his books, where he describes why he did what he did.
He convinced western allies and Kraiowa army (Polish devisions loyal to the government in London) not to give aid to Stalin. But he miscalculated. Stalin got stronger and Red Army marched into numerous eastern European capitals thus creating a system of satelite states where they were able to force their communist governments (from Poland to Bulgaria).

So don't you teach anyone about something you just heard someone talk about. And if someone then it was the western allies who were charging Berlin in a blind push, because they saw that the Soviets are going to be there first!

America and Britain wanted to end the war with as little casualties as possible. Stalin wanted to be the man who conquered Hitler and quite possibly take control of Germany and the East European countries. Stalin's generals would have led the war much differently if they didn't have the fear of being killed by Stalin for disobeying him.

[Sebatianos]

Aha - and that's why general Žukov directly disobeyed Stalin on numerous occasions...
Anyway most of the experianced Red Army generals were set up by Germans so Stalin had them killed as trators prior to the operation Barbaros (that's when the attack on Soviet Union began).
But maybe this should be a new thread...

About some other replys in this one:
There are many countries with regemes that aren't liberal - SO F**king what!!! If a country has internationaly recognised borders AND MOST OF THEM DO, then it's unexsaptable to attack those countries breaking their sovregnty. Otherwise I could simply say - I dislike the government of Andora and would round up some voulenteers to go and overthrow it. That's outside interfearence - and that's somethikng US does a lot - WAY TOO MUCH. That's also the main reason why it's US that's the main target of terorists. I really doubt terorists would attack let's say Iceland because of their expensionistic tendencies or their interfearing with the internal policy in the middle east!

[Stroggy]

Well nearing the end of the Third Reich Hitler's advisors did say they should ally themselves with the allied forces and to defeat the "eastern hordes" that way.

Stalin killed his generals because they were around before he rose to power. He figured that they might use the military to overthrow him. The generals who replaced him, however, were younger and more obediant to his word.