Is the only way to get a contemporary state together through protest? If these states are securing themselves with violence, what are other ways of establishing a state? Perhaps an actual presentation of it?
The Sadrists are a group formed in Iraq 'related to its contemporary state and politics'. The group is commenting on the presence of American troops and its relation to the overall state of the country... transitioning into independent rule...
Absence of description for the group forms and person relations of the article.
I would say Ahmedinejad is out his depth if he aspires to the role of Supreme Leader. Khamenei as appearance and the reed of the founded religious basis of rule in Iran - he is fine in that capacity, though light on religious support of his country, or presenting this to other countries. Ahmedinejad is largely politician, presentations as a religious speaker, or kook politician haven't really sung as something he presents well as an intellectual and in the way he is a natural thinker. Stepping to the appearance and to Sticking the religious - really doesn't seem to be in his natural capacities.
Al Quaeda is still a related group? I guess they 'accomplished' stuff, but what exactly was the group relation? What exactly is the accomplishment of ENDING relations of consciousness, people to not hear their message, their 'cultural' statement? whatever it was/is.
Trump is in a legitimate position TO BE HEARD as a politician if you've followed his comments on the world over the years. Why he would 'spend time' about locale of birth doesn't seem to really make any sense, or get anything done - to be any statement. I don't know how Trump's 'wonderings' about Obama's birth actually became a legitimate 'story' in the US, but if Obama has a response to this timely pertinence well then good, or WHATEVER. Trump really articulated how Obama may not have been born in this country.
Qaddafi, or whoever is directing the troops must have a good conception of the situation and offer a determinant 'command' which would clarify and carry the actions of the troops/military.
Are Syria and Bahrain in martial states? Why would they be written about in that manner then?
Clearly it's such a pressing situation which these countries (gov'ts) face with their people. It's what Real organization of the people? Real mindsets related to gov'tal change? Wouldn't know.
Is the killing of 'demonstrators' or non-combatant civilians already a political value? I mean what necessarily is the 'ACCOMPLISHMENT' of killing non-violent protesters? Does the killing 'regime' actually communicate its 'want' of the end of being 'destabilized' by the protesters?
What are these interrelations? And why written as 'significant'? Through what political relation?
Is the only way to get a contemporary state together through protest? If these states are securing themselves with violence, what are other ways of establishing a state? Perhaps an actual presentation of it?
The Sadrists are a group formed in Iraq 'related to its contemporary state and politics'. The group is commenting on the presence of American troops and its relation to the overall state of the country... transitioning into independent rule...
Absence of description for the group forms and person relations of the article.
"mentality that seems to rule modern media of all technological levels."
Is media only a technological presencing?
I would say Ahmedinejad is out his depth if he aspires to the role of Supreme Leader. Khamenei as appearance and the reed of the founded religious basis of rule in Iran - he is fine in that capacity, though light on religious support of his country, or presenting this to other countries. Ahmedinejad is largely politician, presentations as a religious speaker, or kook politician haven't really sung as something he presents well as an intellectual and in the way he is a natural thinker. Stepping to the appearance and to Sticking the religious - really doesn't seem to be in his natural capacities.
Al Quaeda is still a related group? I guess they 'accomplished' stuff, but what exactly was the group relation? What exactly is the accomplishment of ENDING relations of consciousness, people to not hear their message, their 'cultural' statement? whatever it was/is.
I simply didn't know it was allowable/possible for America to enter Pakistan and kill someone.
Does Al Quaeda have any common ideology or group concept?
The image.
Is this really Cultural vernacular?
So the US can kill a person in Pakistan?
Trump is in a legitimate position TO BE HEARD as a politician if you've followed his comments on the world over the years. Why he would 'spend time' about locale of birth doesn't seem to really make any sense, or get anything done - to be any statement. I don't know how Trump's 'wonderings' about Obama's birth actually became a legitimate 'story' in the US, but if Obama has a response to this timely pertinence well then good, or WHATEVER. Trump really articulated how Obama may not have been born in this country.
Qaddafi, or whoever is directing the troops must have a good conception of the situation and offer a determinant 'command' which would clarify and carry the actions of the troops/military.
Well, I guess we'll just have to take the word for the circumstance of their arrest.
Are Syria and Bahrain in martial states? Why would they be written about in that manner then?
Clearly it's such a pressing situation which these countries (gov'ts) face with their people. It's what Real organization of the people? Real mindsets related to gov'tal change? Wouldn't know.
You know, Qaddafi is together with his 'regime' or 'government' in what way? In what way is the Libyan 'government' even necessarily operating?
To have poor relations with the whole process of being confronted by the people to end the 'gov't'.
Is the killing of 'demonstrators' or non-combatant civilians already a political value? I mean what necessarily is the 'ACCOMPLISHMENT' of killing non-violent protesters? Does the killing 'regime' actually communicate its 'want' of the end of being 'destabilized' by the protesters?
What are these interrelations? And why written as 'significant'? Through what political relation?
Please Stop! This 'Dear Mr.Gaddafi' communication is the 'preciousness'? of this 'thing'?
God, that is funny.
Oh, that's how it is.
this 'data' related to the phone is described as in WHAT WAY RELATED TO THE PHONE?
But clearly this national.
They are really accomplishing their 'vision'.
How does a computer analyse sounds?
maybe the value of the phonemes IS sounds, and therefore whether 'sounds' is African.
Why does the Public need to be included in this informing regarding Quaddafi's continued 'reign'?
Is Qaddafi's only option to hurt the Libyan people? It doesn't seem very aware of his political position.