Stadio Petriana is not in the Vatican. Angry Panda, look up "Qatari Work Town". Individual pictures can do nothing, I can show you pictures like this



Most dormitories actually look like this, though:



Is it good? No, but it's fine.

Pope Franciscus won't spend anything because he hasn't anything to spend.

Juq... Stadio Petriana is owned by the Vatican's sport complex and is located in Rome. So before posting bullshit like Vatican has no stadium or nobody see their match, you must start your own researches.
"indivudal pictures can do nothing" yeah, that's why I also sent you some links depicting the bad conditions of workers, whereas you showed me nothing really convincing (as usual).

Edited 6/7/2015 23:31:46

located in Rome

All I need to know. The Vatican has no stadium in it, like I said. You showed me nothing convincing; I told you where to look for resources other than a newspaper article that has clear bias. A more recent article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/14/for-qatars-foreign-workers-global-scrutiny-working-to-a-point

http://dohanews.co/worker-housing-standards-qatar-revamp/

I was actually gonna say Casmir but i shouldve known xypapy wouldnt have included western countries....

Tshhh...

"absolute king"

Vatican owns billions of dollar of estates worlwide, these are Vatican's property, like the Stadio Petriana, as you see you are again wrong as you clearly asserted that Vatican had no stadium and nobody would see their football match.
Juq, you always behave the same way: once you see you were wrong you always try to change your argument by derailing or moving the debate, avoid the real subject, even your links (did you read what you posted?) do not prove at all their situation is "good" or as you said earlier that they "housed pretty fine", one of your source indicates their situation improved little, I quote your own article : "visited housed between eight and eighteen workers per room, all workers slept in bunk beds, and some workers said the did not have drinkable water in their own camp. Some said their air conditioning had been broken for weeks or months without repair despite the high temperatures, and some lived in windowless rooms that stand of mold"

Is that good or fine according to you?

Edited 6/8/2015 07:05:48

These are estates, not money. And every country and rich has estates. This is not liquid money. I used the Guardian for irony, and another biased article for showing bias. Show me a neutral link.

Yes, that is fine. Remember never to go to Uttar Pradesh or Bangladesh, Panda. You are too spoiled.

In fact, don't even go to an apartment in Ukraine or Third World countries.

What do you consider as a neutral link? (your article of Dohanews is even less neutral...)

In fact, don't even go to an apartment in Ukraine or Third World countries.

I went to China last year while studying abroad, and lived with Chinese and French roommates despite being in a old and dilapidated building, we had access to water, electricity, gas, and we even had internet! I also knew some foreign and Chinese students living in dormitories whith a good living confort, furthermore they are since those recent years destroying and rebuilding the old dormitories. So yeah I dont know which country is worse between China or Ukraine, all I know is that Qatar is by far richer than these countries (ok China is a rich nation, but as CHina is also surpopulated there is a very poor working class, as for Qatar there is no excuse), and treat some of those foreign workers as slaves.

What's worse is that Qatar may not be having the World Cup after all, because of bribery.

The poll is terrible.

I'm still waiting for the nutbag who votes for the guy who runs ISIS.

Allahu Akbar!!!
*translating from Arabic*
Fuck Humanity!!!

Allahu Akbar means " God is great. "
I'm not one to speak on Islam's behalf but that is some seriously disrespectful stuff.

What do you consider as a neutral link?

In English,

BBC, The Economist

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32822016
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21653625-year-after-vow-improve-lot-foreign-labourers-little-has

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33024951

I went to China last year while studying abroad, and lived with Chinese and French roommates despite being in a old and dilapidated building, we had access to water, electricity, gas, and we even had internet!

China is second world, nowhere near third world. Also, Qatar has over 95% using the internet, the highest of any country, in fact.

You told me yourself, I think you went to Wuhan or in more middle China, where it's not so dense. Anyway, you aren't arriving in bulk to an island less than 12000 KM^2. Go to Chongming, maybe you will not like it as much there. These foreign workers knew what they were getting into, going to Qatar, and can leave when they wish, so they want to stay there and work there - it's their choice, a stable job.

Wrong again, the BBC, as a public broadcaster, is obviously not impartial or neutral, they have often be criticized for their political collusion, racism and homophobia. You have a very documented article on wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

Now, the Economist is far from being neutral politically (liberal), about foreign Policies they are strongly in favor of a world dominated by western values, and prefer the US to openly exert its influence in the world. They think Liberal Democracy is the best form of government and that US and western foreign policy should promote it.

Allahu Akbar actually means Allah is the greatest. It's a slight mis-translation that everybody seems to get wrong. This is another, before harmless, now terrible, term that ISIS have downgraded horribly.

BBC, a public broadcaster, because we all know Britain wants to spread racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

"The Guardian is a British centre-left national daily newspaper."

The BBC is obviously going to be biased for Britain in the world stage and has to follow British propoganda targets but they're not inclined for left or right here. At all. Every newspaper can be criticised for "political collusion, racism and homophobia". I can criticise you, even, for being politically colluded, racist and homophobic.

The Economist is neutral; I don't see what makes you suggest what you are saying here, Panda, The Economist supports increased globalisation. The Economist supports "the extreme middle".

OxTheArtist, not just ISIS, it goes back to 1979.