Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
President, Exun 2006-2007
About Me
- Dhruv
- Later/
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(39)
-
▼
December
(12)
- Saddam Hussein - Dead. Hanged (not hung, mind you)...
- The one with no soul
- In the OAT, DPS RKP. Those were the days.I'm build...
- The pre-boards are at handYes, ladies and gentleme...
- Merry Christmas
- The times are changing.
- Codewars 2006 is ours. HAHA. The sweet taste of vi...
- I just had kiwi juice. It tasted alot like aam pan...
- DPS MUN 2006
- DPS MUN 2006 Day 3
- DPS MUN 2006 Day 2
- DPS MUN 2006 Day 1
-
▼
December
(12)
Labels
- Random (39)
- DPS (14)
- Farewell (14)
- Views / Reviews (9)
- News (6)
- Exun (5)
- DPS MUN (4)
- 12-H (3)
- The Cow (2)
- Android (1)
- Apple (1)
- Featured Geek (1)
- Food for thought (1)
- Interviews (1)
- Motorola (1)
- iPhone (1)
- iPod (1)
Medal of Honour
President, Exun 2006-2007
Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Dhruv Kumar
27 comments:
'Hanged' is correct
I know, thats why I pointed out that hung is not.
And I'd appreciate if you'd leave a name as well.
wasnt me
i hope bush is happy i mean i noe that saddam pasted bush Sr's picture on a tile and made everyone walk over it and spit on it but i mean takin his life fer that is plain and hard inhumanitarian
Yeah, it was a bit of injustice.
It was the revenge of the US in a way. What he did did not matter, just had to die...
He was hanged but he did not "hanged" he "hung".
:P
And I have some points to make to the alpha male:
Its sunni vs shia everywhere, mister, and the "murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others in Dujail" was but a part of this. Killing saddam did not end this raging battle, it never could.
If the US is such a humanitarian, why don't they send troops to take down all the other countries' grievances too?
Its because the leaders there don't openly oppose Bush and also because the US can't get free oil there.
US stealing oil from Iraq, for free, after creating tandem there.
Is that justice?
I dont deny that the bugger was guilty, its just that I feel the trial was rushed. Also, imho, the death sentence is kind of barbaric and should be abolished. Such medieval practices are best left in the middle ages.
That case really makes my skin creep. And it also bothers me that there isnt any obvious motive.
Organ trade? Child porno king?
Or is the feller deranged/psychotic?
Really is a bizarre case. And had it not been for gross negligence by the Police force, alot of these "serial" deaths could've been avoided.
One more question concerning Saddam and Dujail.
Lets say theres an assassination attempt on Abdul Kalam and he suspects Pakistan was behind it. He goes ahead and declares war on Pakistan. During this war, thousands of people are killed. After the war is over, could you try Abdul Kalam for genocide?
I was just wondering when the Commander-in-Chief of the security forces can be held responsible for deaths during times of war.
If you think about it, an attempt on the President's life is a time of emergency and the army *can* be called in to stabilize the situation. Can any deaths during this time be labeled murder, and can the President be held responsible?
mass murder, not genocide, is the word I was looking for.
The US is nosey.
And it interferes where there is benefit for itself.
Hmm. I get your point.
dhurv i'm going to send you a present very soon
hint:- not big but your blog needs it
:)
the noida dude was a crazy... i read in the paper that there was some russian guy who killed 52 people and they only caught him after some 20 odd years.... norman bates is a saint compared to these fella's
Norman Bates? Whos Norman Bates? Must check wikipedia.
While searching wikipedia for Norman Bates, I discovered he's based on this dude Ed Gein. Now that guy is insane. I mean really insane.
Norman bates is the dude from psycho for those of you who havent checked on wikipedia ( though you should have).
Wikipedia is god.
Apple called it the iPhone after all.
Hehe. Yeah. Makes me (and alot of other people) look like a fool.
But I still have no idea how they managed to, I thought Cisco owned the trademark.
it did and according to G it sued apple
thats what the ZDnet newsletter said
G
Oh yeah, Cisco did sue Apple.
Gizmodo reports right here
This is the complete filed by Cisco against Apple
I hope Cisco sues the crap out of Apple.
I mean "This is the complete Complaint filed by Cisco against Apple."
Oh well, they can still change it to iFone. Apple can name it just about anything, iPod doesn't really mean music, does it?
Yeah, thats true. And iPhone isnt even a very good name in the first place.
iChat? iMobile?
I wonder.
Or maybe: iPod Mobile.
Dunno. I'll leave it to Apple.
Post a Comment