Terrorist Acts Continue in London

[Kefkataran]

More explosions have been reported in London. Thankfully, the police are saying that it isn't yet a major incident, which means no one has been reported injured. Several more subway explosions and at least one bus explosion have been reported, so it's really a miracle that that's the case. The entire London Underground has been shut down until the situation is under control.

More Info Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8655541/)

LilEvilFish has a more indepth write-up on the continuing situation in this thread (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3781).

[Kefkataran]

[Edited into OP, sorry!] .......................

[EGO]

Man, WTF!?!

What is going on????

[Kefkataran]

They've now changed the title so it says the police chief is now saying it's a "very serious incident."

[Morratut]

I hope nobody is hurt and everyone in london is ok. I've currently heard one man has been injured but ran off(dodgy).

Police have gathered up a lot of intel and arrested lots of people because of the last ones. I knew we would get them and their pathetic little band. New stricter laws are being introduced also.

In the end muslim extremists won't be have a chance in our country. I heard a muslim extremist on Ch4 news say it was the 'british peoples fault because of afghanistan and iraq'. What a load of bullshit. :mad:

I hear he is getting kicked out of the country now. Excellent :D

[Blue]

In the end muslim extremists won't be have a chance in our country. I heard a muslim extremist on Ch4 news say it was the 'british peoples fault because of afghanistan and iraq'. What a load of bullshit. :mad:

I hear he is getting kicked out of the country now. Excellent :D

If everyone in America that started spouting off about the war was kicked out, we'd have about six people left. The upside was that you could be, like, Governor of the entire mid-west and there would be less EB employees.

[Morratut]

Yeah but this guy was inciting hate. So bye bye muslim fanatic!

I'm sorry for having a little rant guys. It just makes me mad that people like that actually lives in my country. People like him don't deserve to live in the UK.

[Paltry]

Originally Posted by Morratut
In the end muslim extremists won't be have a chance in our country. I heard a muslim extremist on Ch4 news say it was the 'british peoples fault because of afghanistan and iraq'. What a load of bullshit.

I hear he is getting kicked out of the country now. Excellent

funny cause the mayor of fucking london was saying the exact same thing...

[zyzyx]

He's not getting kicked out of the country for his comments but for incitement of racial hatred, which is an actual crime. Commenting on our foreign policy will not get you kicked out. If it did then there'd probably not be many left in London, the iraq/afghan wars only had about 30% support.
As for these explosions, meh, whatever. You're not going to hurt many people at 2:30pm on a Thursday. Apparently one of the bombers even got attacked by the public while trying to flee his bomb. Bloody amateurs.

[Furious Wang]

Could we please get away from the stupid "We're fighting them over there so they can't strike us here" rationale now? Clearly they can and will. Just label the extremist muslim faction a hate cult and wipe them out.

[Xaerin]

wipe them out.

All of them. /star wars

Actually the "entire" London Underground wasn't shut down, only 5 lines, apparently other trains are still running but police are asking people to just stay where they are so they can control the situation better.

[<JEDI>~ASH]

So basically the only other country not attacked thats on the terror list is Canada.
shit
:S

[bKangy]

Eh, I fully supported the Afghanistan war. Anyway, there's been 2 arrests, and I really doubt that there will be much time until we have all the information we need to get them arrested. Shots were fired at a guy running away, I heard, but he managed to escape anyway, although sniffer dogs were obviously following him.

I'm glad they failed. London is damned hardy anyway. As if it doesn't already have a history of sustained bombings on close soil by organised terror groups, eh?

[Kefkataran]

I'm glad they failed. London is damned hardy anyway. As if it doesn't already have a history of sustained bombings on close soil by organised terror groups, eh?

True enough. I honestly think that history of surviving all sorts of crazy bombings and attacks has to be helping London pull through this without as much fantacism as happened in America post-9/11.

[51|RandoM]

True enough. I honestly think that history of surviving all sorts of crazy bombings and attacks has to be helping London pull through this without as much fantacism as happened in America post-9/11.

More likely the fact that their leaders aren't born again christian holy rolling bible thumpers.

There is religious fanaticism on both sides of this mess, sadly.

[Savok]

And Australia, Ash. For our involvment in liberating East Timor.

[Kefkataran]

There is religious fanaticism on both sides of this mess, sadly.

Indeed. Luckily the fanaticism on our side hasn't led to suicide bombings and the like, although I have an eerie feeling that would change pretty quickly if we weren't the rich, "well-off" religion.

Now I'm curious about religious fanaticism in the UK. Anyone from the UK care to comment on if the Christian right gets as hardcore crazy there as it does here? Or does it just not have as much power?

[Paltry]

you guys are fucking retarded

its one thing to thump a bible but its a whole other story when YOU BLOW YOURSELF UP AND KILL RANDOM PEOPLE

[LilEvilFish]

Indeed. Luckily the fanaticism on our side hasn't led to suicide bombings and the like, although I have an eerie feeling that would change pretty quickly if we weren't the rich, "well-off" religion.

Now I'm curious about religious fanaticism in the UK. Anyone from the UK care to comment on if the Christian right gets as hardcore crazy there as it does here? Or does it just not have as much power?

Christianity in the UK follows a very understanding route, if you're christian, that's cool, if you're not and don't believe in a higher power, that's cool too.

[camberiu]

From REPUBLICAN Representative Ron Paul, the only sane politician on the US Congress:

Before the US House of Representatives, July 14, 2005

Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win, explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[01010]

It makes me wonder, they are saying that they are doing everything they can to prevent these sort of things, EXCEPT FOR THE VERY THINGS THAT ARE ANTAGONISING THESE PEOPLE.

It's so fucking simple, troops out of the ENTIRE middle east and stop supporting Israel for their war crimes. For any one that disputes this, how many attacks have Spain had since they did this? That's right, not a single fucking one.

As for the Chiristian right in this country, we kicked them out a couple of hundred years ago. They became the USA.

[Savok]

God, here we go

[CapnAJ]

Haha, bunch of numbties. An opportunistic group, who clearly weren't paying attention in their chemistry classes, feel emboldened by the more succesful actions of the bombers two weeks ago and attempt to go down in infamy.

I guess it would be fun to play the blame game, pointing at things that have taken place in the past, but as ever that won't achieve anything... except more trouble.

Go Londoners, for taking it in your stride. :)

[falak]

Anyone from the UK care to comment on if the Christian right gets as hardcore crazy there as it does here? Or does it just not have as much power?
Three major religious leaders in the UK were all against the Iraq war and publicly denounced it. I can only remember two of them, the Christian and Jewish leaders. We don't really have "fanaticism", our Christianity seems to be of a different kind. People here don't seem to wear their religion on their sleeve. By that I mean that it's usually for personal "use" and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else. As for a "Christian right", this is non-existent. Right wing politics has as much relevancy to religion as left wing politics does. We've recently been discussing the reduction of the time limit for abortions. As far as I can tell, religion was not mentioned, only medical reports. I think it is understood that Christianity should have the same influence over legislation as any other religion, none.

I'm sure some other people could explain this better than I have, but I hope that helps.

[Paltry]

Americans have troops stationed in germany and france

how come they arent driving truck bombs into barracks?

why? because they arent muslim countries

they dont like americans on their soil because we are unclean infidels

these people can not co-exist in a global society

and do you really want our foreign policy dictated by a bunch of piss ass murderers like the pussy spanish

christ we were strong enough to take on the soviet union but our country has lost the collective balls to do anything anymore

[Savok]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1532738,00.html

How it got past the editors at The Guardian, god only knows.

I'm going to sleep.

[CapnAJ]

I think Blair is doing a great job, perfectly resonable, no knee jerk reactions and taking his time to work with everyone in an effort to unite.

As for terrorism being the realm of Islam... we had to put up with the IRA for years.

[Paltry]

good article savok

[ezra]

.

As for the Chiristian right in this country, we kicked them out a couple of hundred years ago. They became the USA.

that made me laugh.

Americans have troops stationed in germany and france

how come they arent driving truck bombs into barracks?

why? because they arent muslim countries

they dont like americans on their soil because we are unclean infidels

these people can not co-exist in a global society

and do you really want our foreign policy dictated by a bunch of piss ass murderers like the pussy spanish

christ we were strong enough to take on the soviet union but our country has lost the collective balls to do anything anymore

It always amazes me how people can try and simplify an extremely complicated situation in order to help themselves believe that they understand it better than anyone else.

This whole situation is not caused only by religion, or by US foreign policy, or by the worlds political situation, or by Israel, or by any other single thing. Its a huge combination of thousands of factors that have created todays present situation. But i suppose it makes more sense that a single person, yes you Fandango, understands the situation better than anyone else in the world.

[camberiu]

Americans have troops stationed in germany and france
how come they arent driving truck bombs into barracks?
why? because they arent muslim countries


Suicide attacks are definily not a creation of the muslims. Also, as representative Ron Paul mentioned, the main practitioners of this tactic are not muslims or arabs, but marxists (atheists) from Sri Lanka (non-arab country).

Therefore, you statement does not fly. Also remember that both Lebanon and Palestine are quite secular and have had large Christian populations for centuries.

Also, our "creativity and balls" during the cold war is what gave us Osama Bin Ladden. He is our creation during the dirty war in Afghanistan. We thought we could control the monster. We were wrong.

[01010]

Americans have troops stationed in germany and france

how come they arent driving truck bombs into barracks?

why? because they arent muslim countries

they dont like americans on their soil because we are unclean infidels

these people can not co-exist in a global society

and do you really want our foreign policy dictated by a bunch of piss ass murderers like the pussy spanish

christ we were strong enough to take on the soviet union but our country has lost the collective balls to do anything anymore

American troops in Germany and France aren't killing civvies and torturing prisoners who shouldn't be prisoners. For the record, these people don't hate Americans, they hate your government and years of murderous policies. Read on the subject, you owe it to yourself and future generations.

I would rather have my countries foreign policy dictated to us by these murderers than it's domestic policy. I do not want a replica PATRIOT act and Homeland Security department on these shores.

What it seems a lot of you do not understand is that you are surrounded by murder. Collectively, western governments have commited a far higer level of murder than most terrorists ever have. I would like to see my countrymen home and safe and not being murdered fighing a war of occupation in a country that despises their presence, I would like to see Israel left to fight their own battles, they have nuclear weaponry as a last resort, they also have something like the 2nd or 3rd largest army in the world, as well as one of the most advanced.

Muslims are not backward murderers like all the propaganda would have you believe, they are peaceful people, like most other religious and non-religious people. I'm sick of people taking sides in this situation when both sides are fucking wrong.

Thing is, governments are loving this situation, because it's the cold war over again. Nothing like a scared populace to consume and control.

[Paltry]

well why dont you try and shed some light on the situation mister enlightened fucking king of reason instead of just criticising other peoples thoughts

i guess no one should discuss anything at all because everything is just so god damned complex its beyond our tiny human brains to process

cunt


... and it figures that lame tired joke would make you laugh

[Paltry]

last post in response to ezra...

and i thank the latter two folks that decided to add something to the debate

[Paltry]

these people carry ak 47s to work

yeah

peaceful

[CapnAJ]

these people carry ak 47s to work

yeah

peaceful

Americans?

[falak]

well why dont you try and shed some light on the situation mister enlightened fucking king of reason instead of just criticising other peoples thoughts

i guess no one should discuss anything at all because everything is just so god damned complex its beyond our tiny human brains to process

cunt


... and it figures that lame tired joke would make you laughThis is interesting. You attack everyone in the thread by calling them all "retarded" solely based on their opinions, but when someone responds to your opinion with a post infinitely more insightful than your ad hominem attacks, you call him a cunt. What kind of behaviour is this?

[01010]

these people carry ak 47s to work

yeah

peaceful

Repeat after me. Not everything I see on T.V is true.

Let that be your mantra and you'll start to see a different reality.

As an aside, I live in one of the most multicultural societies in the world, about 20 miles from the highest population of Muslims in this country (UK if you hadn't guessed) and I have NEVER seen a Muslim, Black, Jew, Hindu, Chinese or any other race/religion carrying a gun. EVER.

[Paltry]

hahahahaha

okay, now that ive got all you folks attention its time for me to start making rational posts

gimme a while its gonna be a long one

[CapnAJ]

hahahahaha

okay, now that ive got all you folks attention its time for me to start making rational posts

gimme a while its gonna be a long one

Dude, you could have started out that way and caught peoples attention. I think it's just an excuse to back peddle a bit.

[Kefkataran]

its one thing to thump a bible but its a whole other story when YOU BLOW YOURSELF UP AND KILL RANDOM PEOPLE

Hence what I said. Calm the fuck down.

Christianity in the UK follows a very understanding route, if you're christian, that's cool, if you're not and don't believe in a higher power, that's cool too.

That's how I've always taken my religion, even when I was in Catholic school. It's how I'll keep pushing religion to be too. Thanks to you and Falak also for posting on this. I'm pretty interested in how these changes came about, and I think I'll be doing some more research in this later this year.

Very interesting post, Camb. That politician sounds pretty damned smart for a politician, not to mention a Republican. I'm not completely sure how I feel about a conservative not-so-subtly implying that Marxism is one of the major problems, but still. I'll need to look more into him. Thanks for posting that!

Repeat after me. Not everything I see on T.V is true.

QFT. It's surprising how much things start changing when you begin digging for information beyond the ol' telly.

[snubber]

Indeed. Luckily the fanaticism on our side hasn't led to suicide bombings and the like.


Yeah good thing Christians don't bomb things, like say abortion clinics.

[Kefkataran]

Yeah good thing Christians don't bomb things, like say abortion clinics.

Touche. I guess. Although I'd argue that there is a pretty big difference in frequency. Or, well, I'd argue that if I had any stats whatsoever to back me up.

[camberiu]

Very interesting post, Camb. That politician sounds pretty damned smart for a politician, not to mention a Republican. I'm not completely sure how I feel about a conservative not-so-subtly implying that Marxism is one of the major problems, but still. I'll need to look more into him. Thanks for posting that!



I strongly suggest you check Ron Paul indeed. He is very smart, and as far as I can tell, he only says things that make sense. He was pivotal in changing my views about conservatism. What most fail to understand is that there are many facets to conservatism and many of those are not in agreement. Ron Paul represents the "Jeffersonian" conservatism, which believes that religion and government have no business being together, have very strong feelings about civil liberties and are very anti-interventionists/anti-militarists. Ron Paul has been against the "War On Terror" since the very begining. He voted against the Patriot Act right after 9/11 and was also very vocal against the invasion of Iraq.

Also, I think you misunderstood about what he says on the marxists. He did not say that marxists are terrorists. What he wanted to show is that suicide bombings have nothing to do with religious fervor and he mentioned as an example the marxists in Sri Lanka. They are the most prolific suicide bombers in the world and are marxists (therefore non-religious). So, there is no direct relationship between religious fervor and suicide bombings. That is all he implied and nothing else.

[Kefkataran]

I strongly suggest you check Ron Paul indeed. He is very smart, and as far as I can tell, he only says things that make sense. He was pivotal in changing my views about conservatism. What most fail to understand is that there are many facets to conservatism and many of those are not in agreement. Ron Paul represents the "Jeffersonian" conservatism, which believes that religion and government have no business being together, have very strong feelings about civil liberties and are very anti-interventionists/anti-militarists. Ron Paul has been against the "War On Terror" since the very begining. He voted against the Patriot Act right after 9/11 and was also very vocal against the invasion of Iraq.

Also, I think you misunderstood about what he says on the marxists. He did not say that marxists are terrorists. What he wanted to show is that suicide bombings have nothing to do with religious fervor and he mentioned as an example the marxists in Sri Lanka. They are the most prolific suicide bombers in the world and are marxists (therefore non-religious). So, there is no direct relationship between religious fervor and suicide bombings. That is all he implied and nothing else.

Aha. I re-read the quote, and that actually makes a lot of sense.

I've been spending most of my first year of college rethinking "conservatism", and I've come to the conclusion that right now, if anything, I'm a liberal libertarian. Which is basically like saying I'm a liberal conservative, I guess. But this guy definitely sounds like one of the most intelligent politicians out there (although I can hardly understand why he's with the current incarnation of the Republican party). I'll definitely be looking into him. I appreciate you introducing me.

[Paltry]

The world we live in gets smaller and smaller every year. Technology is making our world a very crowded place. With a few simple keystrokes we can get ourselves from one side of the world to the other. 500 years ago a man could live his entire life without seeing a another man with a different skin tone, they could live an entire life time without hearing a foreign tounge. Geography gave us our borders, political and cultural. Things are quite different today, for the better I'd say. The train, the telephone, the airplane, the television, and now most importantly the internet have virtually dismantled these borders. We are moving closer and closer to a global society, a global culture. Whether one thinks this is good or bad does not matter, it is happening.

As global culture emerges so do conflicts between regional cultures. One such conflict is Islam and the West (I am grouping America and Europe out of conveniance even though there is much cultural conflict between). As much as we would like to pretend here on this forum that America is conservative, when compared to Islamic states it is extremely liberal and open. I doubt i need to provide examples but just in case look at women, pop culture, and the education. True, many Islamic countries are somewhat westernized, especially in urban areas, but there are just as many people living as they did 100 years ago in the boonies as there are eating McDonalds. In regards to religion these countries make Westerners look godless, and in many ways we are, especially in Europe. When we have two cultures of such polar extremes in as close of contact as we are today it is only natural that there are conflicts.

It is interesting though that the people who constantly criticise America for being taken over by the "religious right" will invariable defend nations that have institutionalized religious leadership. Islam has to look seriously at reform, as it is apparent, obvious, that it can breed extremism. If the Catholic church can do it, on many occasions even, then why cant Islam? In Islam there are some basic core beleifs that contradict many Western Ideals of equality and freedom (I will post quotes from the good ol' Koran when I get home, im at work now). These have to be addressed before our very different cultures can exist together peacefully.

I am not saying that the West is entirely innocent here. We are the reason that the world is shrinking. It is our technology that is bringing the world together and with our technology comes our culture and our people. Western culture has seeped into almost every corner of the world. Some cultures accept it with open arms, some cultures merely put up with it, and some, Islam, openly fights it. The attack on the world trade center was not in response to American policies abroad, it was one culture (albiet the dark side of) attacking another culture. The attacks in London show that this dark side of Islam is not bound by geography. The religion of the native born Britons is what drove them to commit these heinous acts. Something must happen within this religion before before we see an end to terror in the West.

[camberiu]

The attack on the world trade center was not in response to American policies abroad, it was one culture (albiet the dark side of) attacking another culture.


And you base that affirmation on what, other than pure rethoric? Osama SPECIFICALLY stated the reason for the attack on a video: The unconditional US support for Israel, the stationing of American troops in the Middle East, and the US impositions of sanctions against Iraq (which, according to the UNICEF, caused the death of 400 thousand Iraqi children).

[Kefkataran]

As much as we would like to pretend here on this forum that America is conservative, when compared to Islamic states it is extremely liberal and open.

America's very liberal in some aspects and very conservative in others. Comparatively, it's extremely liberal, yes, but only comparatively.

In regards to religion these countries make Westerners look godless, and in many ways we are, especially in Europe.

That seems like an odd thing to say, but okay. Seems like a veiled insult.

It is interesting though that the people who constantly criticise America for being taken over by the "religious right" will invariable defend nations that have institutionalized religious leadership.

Criticizing America's leaders and their choices is one thing. But because we do that does not mean we support fundamentalist islamic nations that live in a totalitarian government. But likewise, disliking those governments does not mean we support blowing them up either. Hell, one thing a lot of people critical of the U.S. government argue is that we need to cut our ties with Israel, a country with strong institutionalized religious leadership. Same with connections to Saudi royalty. I see your point, certainly, I just don't think it's as valid as you believe.

Islam has to look seriously at reform, as it is apparent, obvious, that it can breed extremism. If the Catholic church can do it, on many occasions even, then why cant Islam? In Islam there are some basic core beleifs that contradict many Western Ideals of equality and freedom (I will post quotes from the good ol' Koran when I get home, im at work now). These have to be addressed before our very different cultures can exist together peacefully.


Okay, there are several branches of Islam, just like there are several branches of Christianity. Catholicism has one huge head that can change rules and influence people in the Catholic church, but I don't believe most forms of Islam (especially the dangerous kinds) have that. And yes, the Koran has lots of quotes going against equality and freedom, but so does the Bible. That's a moot point, because if that makes Islam dangerous inherently, it makes Christianity dangerous inherently too.

In the end, the religion is only one of the driving factors behind a MUCH deeper problem. The difference in culture is brought on by the difference in lifestyle. Basically: we're rich and living damned well, they're poor and not. This issue is so much more complex than just taking out governments or shipping them cash, too. And, I'll point you again to the quote that Camb posted that suggests that religion is even less of an issue in terrorism than we are thinking.

Is the hardcore, fundamentalist type of Islam bad? Yes. Can it be changed that easily? No. Is it the source of all these problems? Not even close. But we do need to start looking at this stuff very seriously.

Osama SPECIFICALLY stated the reason for the attack on a video: The unconditional US support for Israel, the stationing of American troops in the Middle East, and the US impositions of sanctions against Iraq (which, according to the UNICEF, caused the death of 400 thousand Iraqi children).

Reminds me of that David Cross bit: "I have to laugh every time the president says Osama Bin Ladin ordered the terrorist attacks on 9/11 because he's a 'freedom haters.' Really? Well, I think they attacked because of our continued support for Israel and our stationing of troops in Middle East. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE FUCKING SAID."

[Voodoo]

If I were an alien, and I looked at this planet with a totally objective eye... I'd say that we weren't civilized enough at all to understand our real place in the universe.

We are among the youngest of the sentient races in our galaxy. The best estimate I can give you all about the older sentient races running about is imagine if we were first instead of the dinosaurs. Our sentient race is only a fraction of age of the next youngest race.

These fights here on Earth between our countries and religions is petty. Once first contact is decided by our watchers to be made, that is the time we will see how much time was truely wasted on arguements that amounted to nothing.

[Paltry]

That seems like an odd thing to say, but okay. Seems like a veiled insult.

It kinda was, but im not a terribly religious person so it doesnt matter to me one way or the other. I just think its an important part of society that is being neglected


Criticizing America's leaders and their choices is one thing. But because we do that does not mean we support fundamentalist islamic nations that live in a totalitarian government

Perhaps defend was the wrong word, how about apologetic for...
Read the article Savok linked in the other bombing thread.


Hell, one thing a lot of people critical of the U.S. government argue is that we need to cut our ties with Israel

Doing so would lead to complete chaos in the region. This would invariably lead to war and possibly nuclear war, and thats just not good for anybody. Completely unrealistic. And if by "people critical of the US government" you mean Osama, well, as camberiu informed us 9/11 was because of support of Isreal. May I point out that people like Osama have a deeper and longer history of hatred against the Jews than the Nazi's do.

I agree with the Saudi royal family bit...

Okay, there are several branches of Islam, just like there are several branches of Christianity. Catholicism has one huge head that can change rules and influence people in the Catholic church, but I don't believe most forms of Islam (especially the dangerous kinds) have that. And yes, the Koran has lots of quotes going against equality and freedom, but so does the Bible. That's a moot point, because if that makes Islam dangerous inherently, it makes Christianity dangerous inherently too.


No Islam is not set up like the catholic church but they do have leaders and therefore can enact reform, to say otherwise is a bit unrealistic.

As for the similarities with the bible and the koran that is very true. More on it later, I have specific verses in mind that pertain to my idea of globalization, I just gotta find em again when I get home.

The difference in culture is brought on by the difference in lifestyle. Basically: we're rich and living damned well, they're poor and not

Terribly inaccurate...
The majority of terrorists that commit crimes abroad are well off and educated. Take for example the british bombers, they grew up in environments almost identical to yours or mine. They lived comfortable lives in a suburb of a 1st world country. The stereotype of poor and starving victims doesnt fit anymore. What drove these britons to terrorism if it was not "we're rich and living damned well, they're poor and not." I contend that it is their religion. It has been said by their own family members that within about a year before the bombings they became "devoutely religious." Is that just a happy coincidence?

And you base that affirmation on what, other than pure rethoric? Osama SPECIFICALLY stated the reason for the attack on a video: The unconditional US support for Israel, the stationing of American troops in the Middle East, and the US impositions of sanctions against Iraq (which, according to the UNICEF, caused the death of 400 thousand Iraqi children).


Cutting ties with Isreal would lead to world war 3. The US stations troops all around the world. Why do only muslims flip shit cause of it? Maybe Iraq shouldnt have started a war, then there wouldnt have been any sanctions. Osama's reasons are stupid, plain and simple, and theres nothing we can do about that. The reason for the Madrid bombings was not only because of Spains involvement in Iraq, but also because of the reconquista, when the spanish retook land that Muslim conquorers had taken from them. This is straight from the letter that they wrote to claim responsibility. They killed people because of a conflict 700 years in the past. This conflict runs deeper than modern polotics.

[Kefkataran]

It kinda was, but im not a terribly religious person so it doesnt matter to me one way or the other. I just think its an important part of society that is being neglected

So you think it needs to be smothered out of existence in their culture but fostered in ours? Seems hypocritical. Either way, I don't much see how it's being neglected in America. Religion is at the forefront of every issue, even when I really don't think it should be.

No Islam is not set up like the catholic church but they do have leaders and therefore can enact reform, to say otherwise is a bit unrealistic.

To suggest that just because a group of supposed leaders of Islam tell their followers to stop being crazy would make them do so is more than a bit unrealistic. It would just lead to further and further splintering of the Islam religion without solving anything.

he majority of terrorists that commit crimes abroad are well off and educated.

The majority? I'm calling bullshit unless you can prove that with stats. The British bombers? Maybe, yeah, sure. But the majority?

Why do only muslims flip shit cause of it?

It's not only Muslims. Look back at that first quote he posted again.

This conflict runs deeper than modern polotics.

It runs deeper than religion too. Religion is only a part of it. My beef with your ideas isn't that you're blaming religion, because I DO think fanatic Muslim beliefs are a problem. The problem I have is that you're saying ONLY religion is the problem and nothing else. It's just way too oversimplified to work in our world.

[camberiu]

May I point out that people like Osama have a deeper and longer history of hatred against the Jews than the Nazi's do.

I am sorry, but that is simply not true. Jews have lived in the middle east with little or no conflict with the arabs for THOUSANDS of years. Some of the largest jewish communities in the world before the founding of the modern Israel were in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lybia and Lebanon. During the Inquisition, when the church was prosecuting jews and burning them on the stake, it was the Otomman Empire (the Arabs) that proptly offered them protection and shelter.



No Islam is not set up like the catholic church but they do have leaders and therefore can enact reform, to say otherwise is a bit unrealistic.

It is very fragmented, just like protestantism. There are many denominations and sub-sects. Ther are no central leaders, and the interpretation of the religion varies greatly from culture to culture.




Terribly inaccurate...
The majority of terrorists that commit crimes abroad are well off and educated. Take for example the british bombers, they grew up in environments almost identical to yours or mine.

Again, that is not true. Thevast majority of people who have blown themselves up were very poor and desperate. The masterminds might have come from rich families, but that is a VERY SMALL group of people. The Unabomber was an Ivy League graduate, so that really does not mean anything.


Cutting ties with Isreal would lead to world war 3.

Nobody suggested cutting ties with Israel. What is being criticized is the UNCONDITIONAL/UNRELENTING/FANATICAL support of Israel. The US NEVER criticizes Israel. Israel has defied MANY UN resolutions and yet the US has always supported them withou a word of criticism.


The US stations troops all around the world. Why do only muslims flip shit cause of it?

Were they the only ones? How about Somalia? How about Vietnam? Having troops abroad on other people's countries causes lots of resentment and backlash, as the British and the French learned the HARD WAY.


Maybe Iraq shouldnt have started a war, then there wouldnt have been any sanctions.

Did they? As far as I can recall, Iraq has NEVER attacked or even threatened to attack the US. If you recall, we attacked them. We got invovled in a fight between them and their neighboor. Why? Because we think that the region is OURS and anything that happens there that we do not approve, we get involved, we bomb people and we kill 400 thousand children. If you think 400 thousand dead children is nothing, well, there is not much more I can say.

[score]

Some great posts there camberiu.
Very thought provoking...

[Paltry]

So you think it needs to be smothered out of existence in their culture but fostered in ours? Seems hypocritical

I never came anywhere close to saying anything like that. Reform and smothering out of existense are two very different things

To suggest that just because a group of supposed leaders of Islam tell their followers to stop being crazy would make them do so is more than a bit unrealistic. It would just lead to further and further splintering of the Islam religion without solving anything.
&
It is very fragmented, just like protestantism. There are many denominations and sub-sects. Ther are no central leaders, and the interpretation of the religion varies greatly from culture to culture.

Yes but they have clerics and they have imams who hold great sway over their people. Do they not have the power to enact change within their religion?

I am sorry, but that is simply not true. Jews have lived in the middle east with little or no conflict with the arabs for THOUSANDS of years. Some of the largest jewish communities in the world before the founding of the modern Israel were in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lybia and Lebanon. During the Inquisition, when the church was prosecuting jews and burning them on the stake, it was the Otomman Empire (the Arabs) that proptly offered them protection and shelter.

They also had to pay a tax to be sure that they were "humiliated" (more on that when i get around to posting those quotes) and they could not show any public sign of their religion. They didnt offer them shelter and protection, they subjugated them.

The majority? I'm calling bullshit unless you can prove that with stats. The British bombers? Maybe, yeah, sure. But the majority?
&
Again, that is not true. Thevast majority of people who have blown themselves up were very poor and desperate. The masterminds might have come from rich families, but that is a VERY SMALL group of people.

The operative word was abroad. Im not talking about pissed off palestinians I am talking about terrorists that have operated in western countries. They have been educated and were heavily funded and well off. Just do a google search.

It's not only Muslims. Look back at that first quote he posted again.

please clarify

Nobody suggested cutting ties with Israel. What is being criticized is the UNCONDITIONAL/UNRELENTING/FANATICAL support of Israel. The US NEVER criticizes Israel. Israel has defied MANY UN resolutions and yet the US has always supported them withou a word of criticism.

for some reason I dont think criticising Isreal would be enough to convince people like Osama to love america



Were they the only ones? How about Somalia? How about Vietnam? Having troops abroad on other people's countries causes lots of resentment and backlash, as the British and the French learned the HARD WAY.

Somalia is almost completely sunni big guy, but its also an anarchy run by warlords. Not a very good example. The south vietnamese were quite happy with us being there as the matter of fact. And what about all the other countries that have American troops stationed in them... like... most of southeast asia for example. Or most of Europe. Where have we had trouble? The middle east.

Did they? As far as I can recall, Iraq has NEVER attacked or even threatened to attack the US. If you recall, we attacked them. We got invovled in a fight between them and their neighboor. Why? Because we think that the region is OURS and anything that happens there that we do not approve, we get involved, we bomb people and we kill 400 thousand children. If you think 400 thousand dead children is nothing, well, there is not much more I can say.

The first gulf war was a UN action, not a US action. WE didnt attack them, the world did. And dont expect me to defend the sanctions. They were stupid. We should have just finished the job the first time around. There would have been much less death in the end.

It runs deeper than religion too. Religion is only a part of it. My beef with your ideas isn't that you're blaming religion, because I DO think fanatic Muslim beliefs are a problem. The problem I have is that you're saying ONLY religion is the problem and nothing else. It's just way too oversimplified to work in our world.

I think it is quite apparent that the MAIN reason is religion. It may not be the only reason but it is the main reason.

[Kefkataran]

You're arguing weakly and with your obvious support of Christianity in the U.S. and hatred of Islam, your cards are showing pretty bad. I'm done with this discussion. Interesting times, moving on though.

[Blue]

You're arguing weakly and with your obvious support of Christianity in the U.S. and hatred of Islam, your cards are showing pretty bad. I'm done with this discussion. Interesting times, moving on though.

You would think with a Christian support backing, one would do the whole "love thy neighbor thing" as opposed to the way this thread seems to be heading. I always find it interesting when people will speak ill of (or maybe even hint at) religions outside their own, but that's a totally different discussion.

One of my biggest pet peeves with my own religion. What did someone on the boards call it? Ghetto Christianity? Brilliant.

[Paltry]

WTF is wrong with you Kefkataran

We cant have a discusion? Is this topic too taboo for you? Are you too tired to post a response?

I dont even go to church!!! Im not religious! I like how quickly i was labelled because my opinion differs from yours...

I dont hate muslims! We're talking about what fosters ISLAMIC TERRORISM. How can we do that if we cant talk about Islam without people tucking their tails between their legs and covering their ears. This is pathetic.

I'm disappointed. I mean what was really so inflamitory about that last post?

[Blue]

WTF is wrong with you Kefkataran

We cant have a discusion? Is this topic too taboo for you? Are you too tired to post a response?

I dont even go to church!!! Im not religious! I like how quickly i was labelled because my opinion differs from yours...

I dont hate muslims! We're talking about what fosters ISLAMIC TERRORISM. How can we do that if we cant talk about Islam without people tucking their tails between their legs and covering their ears. This is pathetic.

I'm disappointed. I mean what was really so inflamitory about that last post?

There's this great movie that came out a few years back. Anger Management? Yeah.....give 'er a rent.

[Paltry]

chortle chortle

[Zeal]

I like how this thread has turned into the United Nations.

[Kefkataran]

WTF is wrong with you Kefkataran

We cant have a discusion? Is this topic too taboo for you? Are you too tired to post a response?


Basically, yeah, I am too tired to post a response. I've spent a lot of time on boards debating politics, and now I only do it if it stays interesting. This wasn't. *shrug*

I like how this thread has turned into the United Nations.

Ha!

[Paltry]

well im glad i waisted my time then...

[Savok]

OBL's "reasons" were bullshit designed to distract people like yourselves. For Australia they cited East Timor, we liberated a country from "muslims". Yeah, Indonesia's about as muslim as America is christian. They come under the wrong type of muslim for OBL (his excuse for killing other muslims), meaning they aren't really really muslim and why it's ok to blow them up.

If you think poverty is to blame then you support the Iraq war, well done.

Spain was attacked because of their past (Moorish Spain) and current tensions.

The UN in this day and age is a cancer more then anything else, get rid of them and start over.

We're at war with an idea here (as Fandango said), an insane idea that brings power to their followers through violence and terror. We're fighting the weirdest war in our collective histories, the "battles" look even weirder, if you don't understand it, that's fine, few really do, just don't pretend you do.

[Morratut]

Looks like i've missed the discussion. I agree with both Savok and Fandango here.

If people think that if we stop our support for Israel and move out of the middle east will solve the problem you are very naive.

It makes me laugh when people are so quick to appease people like OBL.Al Qaeda actually issued a mission statement regarding what the want a few years back. OBL and his followers are backward. Al Qaeda and the people they inspire want to revert the map back 800 years.

If OBL and his followers actually succeeded in setting up 'hard line' muslim goverments like in Afghanistan then it would be a whole load of trouble.

[Kefkataran]

well im glad i waisted my time then...

It's only a waste of time if you didn't get anything out of it. All online discussions are a waste of time unless you personally get something out of it. No one ever wins, of course, but the idea is just to look at other people's ideas and consider them without letting it get needlessly personal.

If you think poverty is to blame then you support the Iraq war, well done.

I don't think poverty is to blame. I think it's one factor among many, just like religion. I don't know why you people keep trying to simplify it down to one reason.

The UN in this day and age is a cancer more then anything else, get rid of them and start over.

Cutting our ties with Israel = horrible, bad, bad, bad! Worst idea ever! You're crazy!
But cutting our ties with the UN (the same one that created Israel) = Absolutely! Must be done! 100%!

Personally, I think both are bad ideas. I think our relationships with both Israel and the UN need to change and both need to be changed somewhat, but actually getting rid of them (or our relationship with them) is a pointlessly extreme step.

We're at war with an idea here (as Fandango said), an insane idea that brings power to their followers through violence and terror.

I agree with you here. I just don't believe the idea is based completely in religion. I think that if we ever want to solve the problems, we need to look at the roots they are growing from, and I honestly think the Muslim religion isn't one of those roots -- just a fertilizer, perhaps. Stupid overextended metaphors aside.

If people think that if we stop our support for Israel and move out of the middle east will solve the problem you are very naive.

I agree. But that doesn't mean we should ignore that that's one of the things they want us to do. Do I think it would appease them and make them stop targetting us as a Satan if we did so? Fuck no. Do I think we should do so? Fuck no. But the idea that it's at least an excuse as one of the driving forces behind their crusade is something we need to keep in mind and consider.

If OBL and his followers actually succeeded in setting up 'hard line' muslim goverments like in Afghanistan then it would be a whole load of trouble.

I completely agree. That's one of the many reasons he needs to be captured so fucking badly (beyond the fact that he's a mass-murdering fuckhead).

[Savok]

The UN is too far gone for simple change, corruption, pedophilia and a parade of tyrants is about all they stand for now.

And christ stop arguing semantics, everyone with half a god damn brain cell here knows there's more then a single reason, some of us like getting to the point instead bogging down what we say in pointless drivel.

Islam is at the root of this, it's what gave these assholes the idea they should rule everything in the first place as few were really living as Islam said they should.

[Paltry]

It's only a waste of time if you didn't get anything out of it. All online discussions are a waste of time unless you personally get something out of it. No one ever wins, of course, but the idea is just to look at other people's ideas and consider them without letting it get needlessly personal.


I did get somin out of it i was just a bit disappointed that all of my rebuttles were left unchallenged

As for the UN issue...
When the leauge of Nations was proven impotent and inneffective it was disbanded and the UN was born not too long after. Why cant the same happen with the now obviously corrupt and inneffective UN? I dont blame the UN for a couple of kiddy lovin freaks wearin their uniforms in the congo, but I do blame them for inaction in times of genocide and dogmatic antiamerican sentiment.

And Savok, I knew youd get my back... hah

[Kefkataran]

The UN is too far gone for simple change, corruption, pedophilia and a parade of tyrants is about all they stand for now.

Ah-huh. And, again, Israel's not full of corruption? If you say so.

And christ stop arguing semantics, everyone with half a god damn brain cell here knows there's more then a single reason, some of us like getting to the point instead bogging down what we say in pointless drivel.

Pointless drivel to you, maybe. But it's lack of context and not caring about looking at the issues in a more in-depth matter that makes the majority of the American public the brainless zombies they are and gets idiots like Bush elected. Besides which, it's hardly semantics. If there are more several reasons for the problem, saying there's only one we need to focus on isn't getting to the point; it's bypassing the point so you can focus on something that's going to make you more comfortable.

Islam is at the root of this, it's what gave these assholes the idea they should rule everything in the first place as few were really living as Islam said they should.

So when Osama Bin Ladin talks about strict, factual, earthly reasons that he wants to kill us, that's bullshit. But when he talks about how he and all his followers are going to be rewarded in the next life, that's the true reason behind the rage? Don't get me wrong, I understand that for a lot of the weak-minded followers who are blowing themselves up, this religious backing is just what they need to push them over the edge. But if it wasn't Islam it could be anything else. Islam is just the factor that the powerful ones like Bin Ladin use to control the peons. Therefore it's not the root. Wiping out Islam would change nothing. Trying to change Islam might help in some situations, but would certainly not come close to ridding us of terrorists. Hell, I'm positive I heard stories about major Islam leaders deriding Bin Ladin and cutting any ties between him and "their" religion. That didn't change anything.

Basically, Islam is what's empowering the people who actually blow themselves up. That's one thing. But it's empowering them through their leaders who are using it to control. It's what's giving the leaders power that we need to go after.

but I do blame them for inaction in times of genocide and dogmatic antiamerican sentiment.

Genocide, yes, but why the fuck must the UN prevent "antiamerican sentiment." That's stupid. That's endorsing censorship, not to mention how the hell do you stop someone from having a certain feeling? Obviously it would be bad for them to support anti-American demonstrations or attacks, but asking them to act against 'sentiment' is pretty ridiculous.

[Savok]

Can't defend the UN so you piss on Israel, nice. Also I don't remember saying how wonderful Israel is for everyone.

Zombie Americans didn't get Chimpy McBushHitler elected, it was our Dark Lord Karl Rove, you must have missed the memo.

I'll explain why it's bullshit. Back around '99 East Timor wanted out of Indonesia, Indonesian Army said "no way", so we went in and kicked ass. The reasons for this ass kicking are many, they are irrelevent however. So anyway fast forward to 2002, two bombs ripped up Bali (part of Indonesia) night clubs, mostly Aussies died but many Indonesians as well. Now it was alright to attack Indonesia because they weren't really muslims, lack of Sharia law and all that.

So we have a problem, if Indonesia isn't a real Islamic country, why care about East Timor? But then if it is, why the attack on their soil? Considering Indonesia had a female president in the last decade, I'm going with the former, which would mean OBL is lying to get our left wing all excited, his greatest weapon really, "useful idiots" as Stalin called them.

But it's empowering them through their leaders who are using it to control. It's what's giving the leaders power that we need to go after.
Sums up your entire point really.

If the terrorists have spawned for multiple reasons shouldn't we fight all of them? This is war, and there's more then one front. There are plenty of nutters in the world, yet only Islam has created a spawning pool dangerous enough to affect the entire world, this means there's a problem.

Besides, were OBL to get his power what do you think would happen? Extreme Islam, or have you already forgotten Afganistan pre-war?

[Paltry]

But when he talks about how he and all his followers are going to be rewarded in the next life, that's the true reason behind the rage?

Listen man, your the one talking about the next life bullshit. We are saying that Islam fosters ISLAMIC terrorism, not that the fact they get 69 virgins in heaven leads to Islamic terrorism. You are taking a very narrow stance in this debate. Theres a lot more to the religion than that, and some would argue that that isnt even a valid part.

Pointless drivel to you, maybe. But it's lack of context and not caring about looking at the issues in a more in-depth matter that makes the majority of the American public the brainless zombies they are and gets idiots like Bush elected. Besides which, it's hardly semantics. If there are more several reasons for the problem, saying there's only one we need to focus on isn't getting to the point; it's bypassing the point so you can focus on something that's going to make you more comfortable.


I contend that it is you who is not looking at the situation in context and in depth. You are overlooking one of the most important peices in this puzzle. You are only looking at one side of the problem by blaming the west. Very close minded.

Also what is your response to the Madrid bombings. Youve been quite mum about them. An attack in revenge of a war hundreds of years before any of these terrorists were born.

Genocide, yes, but why the fuck must the UN prevent "antiamerican sentiment." That's stupid. That's endorsing censorship, not to mention how the hell do you stop someone from having a certain feeling? Obviously it would be bad for them to support anti-American demonstrations or attacks, but asking them to act against 'sentiment' is pretty ridiculous.

Now youre arguing semantics... I was refering to anti american policies such as the kyoto treaty, not diplomats talking shit. Now this could spark a whole new debate but much of the treaty is horribly unfair to the US and at the same time is redundant as many of the regulations are already met and surpassed in the US. The UN relies on the US almost completely for its muscle but it also shits on America every chance it gets. The relationship with the UN and US is parasitic at best

[Savok]

Don't worry too much about Kyoto, it's imploding as we speak. It's about to bankrupt (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/new_debtland/) New Zealand and Canadian rats can't seem to leave (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050720.wkyodo0720/BNStory/National/) the sinking ship fast enough.

[Paltry]

interesting

[Kefkataran]

If the terrorists have spawned for multiple reasons shouldn't we fight all of them? This is war, and there's more then one front. There are plenty of nutters in the world, yet only Islam has created a spawning pool dangerous enough to affect the entire world, this means there's a problem.

On one hand you're saying, there are multiple reasons that we need to be attacking and figuring out how to deal with. On the other, you're saying we only need to look at Islam. Therefore, I both agree and disagree with you. That's just how it is. Neither of us are going to change our minds, so whatever.

We are saying that Islam fosters ISLAMIC terrorism, not that the fact they get 69 virgins in heaven leads to Islamic terrorism. You are taking a very narrow stance in this debate. Theres a lot more to the religion than that, and some would argue that that isnt even a valid part.

But it's supposedly the reason they're blowing themselves up.

I contend that it is you who is not looking at the situation in context and in depth. You are overlooking one of the most important peices in this puzzle. You are only looking at one side of the problem by blaming the west. Very close minded.

I'm not saying the West is the only problem or even the main problem. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm really sorry, but I'm not being close-minded about this at all. I think it's one of the most complex issues society has ever faced, and I don't think it's worth trying to simplify in any way.

Also what is your response to the Madrid bombings. Youve been quite mum about them. An attack in revenge of a war hundreds of years before any of these terrorists were born.

I think that's one example of a definitely crazy attack focused on the history with a religious context. What's your response to the group Camb brought up earlier that do the most suciide bombings and aren't religious at all? You've been mum about that.

Now youre arguing semantics... I was refering to anti american policies such as the kyoto treaty, not diplomats talking shit.

That was definitely semantics, you're right.

Again, guys, this has been an interesting discussion, but I think we need to hang it up. Savok's far too zealous about this and seems to be taking my differing opinions personally, and I'd rather have clean, friendly debates instead of hair-pulling and teeth-kicking. Savok, Fandago, I respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them. This current discussion has turned into a bicker-fest back and forth, though. I'm sure we'll meet to debate again another day.

[Paltry]

But it's supposedly the reason they're blowing themselves up.

I never once mention that virgin shit in my original post. Thats all you man....

anyhow i suppose your right, we shall meet again

just had to get one last jab in though ;-)

[Savok]

On one hand you're saying, there are multiple reasons that we need to be attacking and figuring out how to deal with. On the other, you're saying we only need to look at Islam. Therefore, I both agree and disagree with you. That's just how it is. Neither of us are going to change our minds, so whatever.
At least you got one of the memos, keep saying a lie until people think it's true. I shall add little disclaimers to everything I say in the future.

(Disclaimer: The last bit was a lie)

[Kefkataran]

At least you got one of the memos, keep saying a lie until people think it's true. I shall add little disclaimers to everything I say in the future.

(Disclaimer: The last bit was a lie)

I have no clue what that post means in context or out.

[Savok]

Of course not, first step was to delude yourself.

In other news, Guardian trainee Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html) who was found to be a member of Hizb Ut Tahrir (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_organisat.html) (a group a step down from an all out terrorist cell) by bloggers (Scott Burgess to be precise), has been sacked (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1534499,00.html), nice to see even the Guardian isn't that "useful" in their idiocy.

[kwillhan]

[QUOTE=01010]

I had a reply, going one page into the thread, to the mispelling of christian by this rather off fellow, and then, upon discovering that there was like 75 pages of well thought out arguments, and that this was a thread I had no part in, decided to withdraw said, childish comment.


werd.

can i get a woo woo?

kel

[Kefkataran]

Of course not, first step was to delude yourself.

Ugh. I think I'll just go ahead and avoid political discussions with you in the future. Hope you don't mind.

I had a reply, going one page into the thread, to the mispelling of christian by this rather off fellow, and then, upon discovering that there was like 75 pages of well thought out arguments, and that this was a thread I had no part in, decided to withdraw said, childish comment.

I support your spelling crusade.

[Blue]

I support your spelling crusade.

Oh come on now, don't start throwing that word around. Make it 'spelling raid' or 'spelling pillage.' The oval office guy who sits behind that fancy desk and tries to look important brought that subject up and you see where his polls went. You don't want a similar fate, do you? I have it on very good authority that your EvAv standing are already on the decline. Would be a shame to see you dip below 50.

[Kefkataran]

I'm not below 50 already?! YES!!!

[Blue]

Hold on there, don't get cocky. You'll just have to....wait a minute. *giggle*

[Paltry]

urrrrrr?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[kwillhan]

urrrrrr?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.


I do believe you meant ,"Urgh." In latin, urrrrrrr? was often excepted as a reasonable noise spelling, but in the english vernacular, I do bear admittance into the realm of common sense. For shall thou not mention word spelling? Oh, how a ponderance do I commit myself.

kel

[Paltry]

urrr?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[Kefkataran]

I do believe you meant ,"Urgh." In latin, urrrrrrr? was often excepted as a reasonable noise spelling, but in the english vernacular, I do bear admittance into the realm of common sense. For shall thou not mention word spelling? Oh, how a ponderance do I commit myself.

kel

My hero? Possibly.

[Paltry]

one more time....

urr?