Etiquette on forums.

[FredC]

Again, you have not show any of my posts where I put the lives of those in London above any others (except yours, of course). Therefore, I will say that you are a LIAR and a COWARD. You make things up and put words where there are no words.
The words, or in this case, the post of a LIAR mean no more than the **** of an ant.
Now, of course, you'll come back with more LIES or more or your ****.
So, I wave my pretty parts at your Aunties.
Now go away or I shall taunt you for a second time.
Goodbye, ****-ANT.

London= Inferences from you.
Ant ****, that's a new one. You must be pre-pubescent.
Are you sure your pretty parts are large enough to wave about? Anyway waving your miniscule bits about in the cemetery should be a laugh. Do it on a Sunday afternoon if possible.

 

[Wurm]

"Waving about" one's "miniscule bits". HAHA! You Brits...I get a riot out of the way you guys talk!

 

[Hypnospin]

ah, ignoring the root cause and concentrating on the side effects, this statement is.

britain's collusion with the us criminal war acts is neatly overlooked in this case.

this is the very definition of being reactive as opposed to proactive in regards to international policy.

Irwin Stelzer writes with regard to the above:

So British policy remains: easy entry for potential terrorists; benefits for them while they are in the country; and relative safety from deportation and detention as enemy combatants. Little wonder that Britain's security services say another strike, more lethal than the one last Thursday, is a virtual certainty.’

 

[davidmc]

"Waving about" one's "miniscule bits". HAHA! You Brits...I get a riot out of the way you guys talk!

It is quite entertaining They prove thier prowess in dry wit. Unsurpassed.

 

[Wurm]

They prove thier prowess in dry wit.

"...very dry, please. And shaken, not stirred..."

 

[Chance3290]

It is quite entertaining They prove thier prowess in dry wit. Unsurpassed.

In the liar Fredc's case the wit is only half the problem. Being as he is a half-wit. Oh, yes, and a liar as well.

By the way, ****-ant, your trying to use western ideology to explain the actions of mid-easterners shows that you don't get out much.
And if you think that living in Great Britain means they grow up and live by your standards, then you are not only a liar but also naive. Have a nice day.

 

[Carrera]

The point here is essentially this, I guess:
Britain should not have sided with Bush in the Iraq War. However, we were correct to back the U.S. in Afghanistan - there were terrorist training camps there churning out extremist guerillas.
But I repeat that, in my view, we should never have sided with Bush over Iraq. This is simply my view but probably a majority one.
However, here is where I tend to have issues with Blair:
It seems to me that while Blair has been busy in Iraq, making speeches of support in the U.S. and abroad, he's been providing fertile ground for radical organisations to prosper in this country. He allows large percentages of suspected criminals to come to the U.K. via Calais in France and classes them as asylum seekers (apparently fleeing persecution). But we now know many of these people are fleeing the authorities in Pakistan or elsewhere due to their radical agenda.
Not many people (if any will agree with me) but the President of Pakistan would certainly back me up and said exactly what I've been thinking for ages.
I also think China doesn't have anything like the problem we have over here as it has strong borders and strict control. Rather than spend billions of pounds in wars overseas or trying to counteract terrorism, the Chinese are investing in industry and their economy - and this is booming at present.

ah, ignoring the root cause and concentrating on the side effects, this statement is.

britain's collusion with the us criminal war acts is neatly overlooked in this case.

this is the very definition of being reactive as opposed to proactive in regards to international policy.

 

[Carrera]

Well, I confess I feel sorry for the law abiding Moslems who live over here. Of course, there are many of these. Amir Khan, for one, was horrified over the London bombings.
Maybe somehow the genuine Moslems will take action themselves and kick the extremist nutters out themselves.

In the liar Fredc's case the wit is only half the problem. Being as he is a half-wit. Oh, yes, and a liar as well.

By the way, ****-ant, your trying to use western ideology to explain the actions of mid-easterners shows that you don't get out much.
And if you think that living in Great Britain means they grow up and live by your standards, then you are not only a liar but also naive. Have a nice day.

 

[Hypnospin]

before your afghani horse gets TOO high, it must be noted the oil pipeline in this region (already preplanned by halibuton & co.at the time of invasion)
has always been the primary motivator for invading this region.

control of oil from the caspian sea, you know.

other commercial media publicized causes have their value to incite the us citizenry to join in the invasion efforts. this goes over with those who would believe
"we need to fight the terrorists there and not here at home".

has the ussr invading this area been forgotten? at that time, the inhabitants were celebrated by the us press as "freedom fighters", spun as rustic yet fearless against-all-odds fighters holding off godless evil empire commie invasion. admirable, they were.

these were the fathers of the current fighters, and were in large part created, armed, funded and condoned by the us only to be betrayed, abandoned and finally invaded courtesy of bush syndicate military and the us taxpayer.

the definition of terrorist training camp gets a bit blurry at some point,
as this is ultimately your friendly local us military basic training camp
here at home.



of course, the poppy seed economy resurgence figures heavily, even as the us taxpayer fund various "war on drugs" efforts...

The point here is essentially this, I guess:
Britain should not have sided with Bush in the Iraq War. However, we were correct to back the U.S. in Afghanistan - there were terrorist training camps there churning out extremist guerillas.
But I repeat that, in my view, we should never have sided with Bush over Iraq. in industry and their economy - and this is booming at present.

 

[Wurm]

...t must be noted the oil pipeline in this region (already preplanned by halibuton & co.at the time of invasion)
has always been the primary motivator for invading this region.

control of oil from the caspian sea, you know.

Absolutely the case.

If one were to look at a map of the pipeline from the north of A'stan (coming from the Caspian region) to the border of P'stan, and then overlay a map of the major US military bases, you will see that the bases closely track the route of the pipeline.

So much for wiping out "turrrurist training camps".

The fact is that the **** n' Bush boys went to the Taliban and gave them an ultimatum: they were to make a choice of having "a carpet of gold" or "a carpet of bombs" - as to allowing Unocal to start building their proposed pipeline through A'stan. When the Taliban refused to acquiesce, the Neo-Con thugs decided to invade the country. The 9/11 scheme was the manufactured raison d'etre.

Don't forget that Afghan Pres. Kharzi is a former Unocal hump. Mere coincidence? I think not.

Once that was accomplished, THEN they went after Iraq.

Carrera, you need to get your information from better, more accurate sources instead of buying the State propaganda.

 

[Chance3290]

Well, I confess I feel sorry for the law abiding Moslems who live over here. Of course, there are many of these. Amir Khan, for one, was horrified over the London bombings.
Maybe somehow the genuine Moslems will take action themselves and kick the extremist nutters out themselves.

A good point. But, where are the Muslim clerics? Some will quietly say how Islam is a religion of tolerence and peace and the Koran is being misused by extremist.
Why aren't the Mullahs standing in front of their Mosques, screaming into the television cameras about the atrocities being committed in the name of Allah?
When Priests were accused of child molestation acts in the Boston area, the Boston Archdiocese, and the Vatican, were quick with 'hide the Priest' game, but very slow to speak out against the acts. Public animosity, because of the lack of action on the part of the Catholic Church, is still being felt.

Where are the Muslim clerics? Against the war in Iraq? Great! Protest it. But you would think that they would more than a littIe upset by Muslims blowing up themselves, and innocents, in the name of Allah.

 

[Carrera]

The thing is, though, with Afghanistan, it came as a very fast miltary reponse to the carnage in New York. I mean, Europe and the rest of the world understood. Even LA, soon as he saw the destruction in New York, came out and said they should basically go out and kick ass.
Now, in Afghanistan there were these extremist training camps that were teaching how to carry out suicide bombings and murder. Russia had been warning the U.S. about it for ages, as well as warning about the spread of radical Islam in Europe.
Here, I'm expressing my own view and I confess I'm sure I do get my share of things wrong. Nothing is black and white. Nobody has all the answers. Maybe there are many intances when Darkboong and Fred get things right and I may get it wrong.
Still, I never changed my view over Iraq or the abuse of human rights in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

before your afghani horse gets TOO high, it must be noted the oil pipeline in this region (already preplanned by halibuton & co.at the time of invasion)
has always been the primary motivator for invading this region.

control of oil from the caspian sea, you know.

other commercial media publicized causes have their value to incite the us citizenry to join in the invasion efforts. this goes over with those who would believe
"we need to fight the terrorists there and not here at home".

has the ussr invading this area been forgotten? at that time, the inhabitants were celebrated by the us press as "freedom fighters", spun as rustic yet fearless against-all-odds fighters holding off godless evil empire commie invasion. admirable, they were.

these were the fathers of the current fighters, and were in large part created, armed, funded and condoned by the us only to be betrayed, abandoned and finally invaded courtesy of bush syndicate military and the us taxpayer.

the definition of terrorist training camp gets a bit blurry at some point,
as this is ultimately your friendly local us military basic training camp
here at home.



of course, the poppy seed economy resurgence figures heavily, even as the us taxpayer fund various "war on drugs" efforts...

 

[Hypnospin]

glad to hear you support knee-jerk retaliation in the name of revenge upon largely innocent people over
the war crimes that result.

this is truly having one's perspectives and priorities in line.

The thing is, though, with Afghanistan, it came as a very fast miltary reponse to the carnage in New York. Still, I never changed my view over Iraq or the abuse of human rights in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

 

[davidmc]

Nobody has all the answers. Maybe there are many intances when Darkboong and Fred get things right and I may get it wrong.

Whoa I wouldn't go THAT far

 

[EoinC]

...Maybe somehow the genuine Moslems will take action themselves and kick the extremist nutters out themselves.

Why is it their responsibility to do what is actually the designated responsibility of the authorities? How, exactly, are they meant to "kick" them out? I doubt if there is a Westminster law giving "genuine Moslems" the powers to incarcerate or deport anybody.
If some ****knuckle was to claim that he believes in the same God as me, and then proceeded to carry out carnage, I don't see why I should be expected to run around whailing and gnashing my teeth more than the rest of the general public. The "genuine Moslems" were no more responsible for the tossers who set about blowing up parts of London than any other members of the public were. I still don't see why you expect these people to do more than they are already doing.

 

[EoinC]

...Why aren't the Mullahs standing in front of their Mosques, screaming into the television cameras about the atrocities being committed in the name of Allah?...

Probably for the same reason that the Pope was never "screaming into the television" when the IRA were setting off bombs all over the place. They are living in a secular Nation. They have condemned the actions and pointed out that these people are not true believers of their faith. What else do you expect them to do? They do not own these nutters any more than the Baptist Church owns the Ku Klux Klan.
I live and work in a Country which is predominantly Muslim. The people around me were horrified by the actions of these extremists. Should they feel responsible for them? No, why would they? These people have nothing to do with them. The only connection is they read the same book. Pretty tenuous basis for establishing share of the blame.
In the case of the clergy who carried out child abuse, the formal Church had a responsibility because they were the direct supervisors (employers) of these people and placed them in positions which facilitated the crimes. They exacerbated their culpability by being aware of the crimes and covering them up. If you choose to use this as an alegory, is (for the sake of argument) an Anglican Deacon required to "scream into the television" when a Roman Catholic is exposed as having carried out child abuse? I'm not quite sure what this screaming is supposed to achieve.

 

[Carrera]

There has to be a careful balance drawn between not blaming inncocent religious people and not dismissing religion as a factor.
Maybe you could compare the Christianity of David Koresh with that Islam of Bin Laden. Both are militant versions of a belief system.
However the case may be, I myself don't want to live in a religious society and, like it or lump it, that's where we're heading (maybe in Europe too).
The U.S. is becoming far less secular and christianised, while England seems to be turning towards Islam. Certain branches of Islam, I admit, are non-militant but, at the same time, Islamic militancy is growing in this country. I read the other day how yet another mullah proclaimed England will become an Islamic State and the Jews in England will be wiped out (together with gays who are apparently to be thrown off Big Ben). And the important thing to bear in mind is that the same mullah recommended death as well for all non-moslems (or infidels). Yet these are the characters who seem to be rising in the hierarchy, not the moderates.
I think you either choose to be a rational, secular society or put your faith in religion (which has never inspired progress).
This rise of Islam in England makes me feel as uneasy as many Europeans who have commented on the theme.

Probably for the same reason that the Pope was never "screaming into the television" when the IRA were setting off bombs all over the place. They are living in a secular Nation. They have condemned the actions and pointed out that these people are not true believers of their faith. What else do you expect them to do? They do not own these nutters any more than the Baptist Church owns the Ku Klux Klan.
I live and work in a Country which is predominantly Muslim. The people around me were horrified by the actions of these extremists. Should they feel responsible for them? No, why would they? These people have nothing to do with them. The only connection is they read the same book. Pretty tenuous basis for establishing share of the blame.
In the case of the clergy who carried out child abuse, the formal Church had a responsibility because they were the direct supervisors (employers) of these people and placed them in positions which facilitated the crimes. They exacerbated their culpability by being aware of the crimes and covering them up. If you choose to use this as an alegory, is (for the sake of argument) an Anglican Deacon required to "scream into the television" when a Roman Catholic is exposed as having carried out child abuse? I'm not quite sure what this screaming is supposed to achieve.

 

[Chance3290]

Probably for the same reason that the Pope was never "screaming into the television" when the IRA were setting off bombs all over the place. They are living in a secular Nation. They have condemned the actions and pointed out that these people are not true believers of their faith. What else do you expect them to do? They do not own these nutters any more than the Baptist Church owns the Ku Klux Klan.
I live and work in a Country which is predominantly Muslim. The people around me were horrified by the actions of these extremists. Should they feel responsible for them? No, why would they? These people have nothing to do with them. The only connection is they read the same book. Pretty tenuous basis for establishing share of the blame.
In the case of the clergy who carried out child abuse, the formal Church had a responsibility because they were the direct supervisors (employers) of these people and placed them in positions which facilitated the crimes. They exacerbated their culpability by being aware of the crimes and covering them up. If you choose to use this as an alegory, is (for the sake of argument) an Anglican Deacon required to "scream into the television" when a Roman Catholic is exposed as having carried out child abuse? I'm not quite sure what this screaming is supposed to achieve.

If I am murdering in the name of my GOD, and you are a man who claims to represent the teachings of that GOD, (ie priest, mullah, etc) and you are not denoucing my actions, people tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that you condone my murderous actions.
I agree with you completely that Muslim people, in general, have no responsiblity or requirements to say anything about the terrorists. But those who say they represent the teachings of Mohammad do have a duty to defend their beliefs and condemn actions that go against the Koran.
Silence speaks volumes.

 

[Hypnospin]

met with the deafening silence from clergy, ministers and
(to borrow a generalization from the attached quote) christian

"people in general"

(for the most part, with a growing notable exception)

in the us, as the bush wars continue in the name of...

If I am murdering in the name of my GOD, and you are a man who claims to represent the teachings of that GOD, (ie priest, mullah, etc) and you are not denoucing my actions, people tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that you condone my murderous actions.
I agree with you completely that Muslim people, in general, have no responsiblity or requirements to say anything about the terrorists. But those who say they represent the teachings of Mohammad do have a duty to defend their beliefs and condemn actions that go against the Koran.
Silence speaks volumes.

 

[davidmc]

...But those who say they represent the teachings of Mohammad do have a duty to defend their beliefs and condemn actions that go against the Koran.
Silence speaks volumes.

True. Silence sometimes equates to acquiescence/condoning.