London Explosion (1 Viewer)

[berry580]

India have nuclear weapons, latest technology (these guys are the software giants, developing the latest software) , their own space programs, satellites, top notch medical facilities--way better than australia and better than most other countries. A large trained experience army, wat they lack is a good navy and airforce. apart from that they are tops.

Well apparently that applies to ALOT of countries. Which includes America, most of Europe, Russia and even an undeveloped country- People's Republic of China.

Besides, chances are India stole much of the nuclear technology from somewhere then completed the rest, what honor is there to be proud of, thieves?
For their military, much of the sophisticated systems are purchased from the Russians, so they know how to shop? And they're proud of it? Good on them..... :uhhuh:

 

[berry580]

Yes, yes you are.

I do love that you've grouped a string of terrorist attacks that saw hundreds - almost thousands - murdered as 'one stupid thing' though. Nice to see you have such high regard for human life.

They are Freedom Figters and patriots.
Who are the REAL global terrorists?
Go look at their commander in the White House.

Besides, those "innocent" people chose this to happen. So if anyone is going to be blamed, blame Blair.
They elected him, so they support what he does, and that includes the threat in being attacked.

In presume this applies to Australians too.
But I'm the "real" innocent person here, shall I be a victim of a "freedom fighter attack", because I don't support the Liberal, and you bet I don't support Johnny.......

 

[Slidey]

Excuse me, are you saying that the people who died in London - it was their own fault?

 

[berry580]

Excuse me, are you saying that the people who died in London - it was their own fault?

Well, who decided to go to "Save the World" (aka Invade Iraq and stick their nose in Afghan)? How did this person who decides to go to "Save the World" get to be in power?

* Don't look at me, I didn't vote this f@g.... *

 

[White Rabbit]

Slide Rule beat me to it, but i'll say it anyway.

They are Freedom Figters and patriots.
Who are the REAL global terrorists?
Go look at their commander in the White House.

Freedom Fighters have killed more regular Iraqis than American troops. They do not want freedom for their people, they want power.

The real Global terrorists are those who massacred innocents in New York City, in Bali, in Madrid and in London. Those people who died where innocent. These cowardly bastards did not attack the American government or military. There was no aim other than the mass murder of 'infedels'.

Besides, those "innocent" people chose this to happen. So if anyone is going to be blamed, blame Blair.
They elected him, so they support what he does, and that includes the threat in being attacked.

You moron. You can not blame Blair for the cowardly acts of extremists. Those people where innocent, they did nothing wrong - their only crime was that they existed. By your logic, the Jews are the cause of the Holocaust - they lived in Germany when Hitler came to power, they didn't stop him therefore they caused their own demise. Is that what you're saying?

In presume this applies to Australians too.
But I'm the "real" innocent person here, shall I be a victim of a "freedom fighter attack", because I don't support the Liberal, and you bet I don't support Johnny.......

You're not an innocent, you're a fuckwit.

People should not be persecuted for voting one way rather than another - which is what is happening in the west as well as in Iraq, when these so called Freedom Fighters - Terrorists - murder Iraqis for their political preference.


Do the world a favor and crawl back into the hole you came from.

 

[White Rabbit]

Well, who decided to go to "Save the World" (aka Invade Iraq and stick their nose in Afghan)? How did this person who decides to go to "Save the World" get to be in power?

* Don't look at me, I didn't vote this f@g.... *

The ironic thing is, what Bush and co have done is exaclty what Churchill and Co where condemed for neglectling to do in WWII. Yes, it's not on the same level, however it really comes down to damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And while I don't agree with Bush's motived or tactics, what do you proposed the reaction should have been to 9/11? Ignore it?

 

[withoutaface]

Berry, America never sold Iraq the materials to make WMD's, so please delete that sig now, because it is utter horseshit.

 

[withoutaface]

I think your sig may be a tad disproportionate there Calculon. In terms of measuring evils I think the Nazi's outweigh the resistance in Iraq.

Both were fighting against what they saw as an unfair oppressor holding back their lebensraum.

 

[White Rabbit]

WAF has the right to express whatever he wishes...just as Zahid does.

 

[withoutaface]

There is a difference, but they're both legitimate political views which offend people, the level of that offense is somewhat less relevant, and that is the point I'm trying to get across

 

[Slidey]

She never said that, but we must respect everybody's opinion, after all, mustn't we?

Zahid gets his sig, waf gets his.

If one political signature goes, all should go (my preferred choice).

 

[withoutaface]

Why is the level of offence irrelevant? If that is true why dont you have in your sig a banner saying 'I have the right to express whatever I like' ...or a picture of John Howard. Essentially both less offensive banners.

Perhaps if you really thought that the level of offensiveness was irrelevant you would not have chose to display a nazi flag in your signature.

The level of offensiveness is not relevant to the way the rules should be structured, but it is relevant to the people viewing the signature and the best way to get my point across.

 

[Slidey]

Ummm. I don't see the connection between Zahid and Gandhi...

Zahid is promoting violence in his signature. Gandhi was opposed to it.

 

[CrashOveride]

What are the reasons for Zahid's sig being offensive?
Do we deny the right of one to self-defence ?

 

[withoutaface]

What are the reasons for Zahid's sig being offensive?
Do we deny the right of one to self-defence ?

Do we deny the Germans the right to rebel against the unfairly oppressive Treaty of Versailles?

 

[Alimoe_KG]

Do we deny the Germans the right to rebel against the unfairly oppressive Treaty of Versailles?

We didn't. And the result was WW2. But the treaty was quite stupid. It was written to be broken.

Anyway, about Zahid's sig, i said this before but since the discussion popped up here, i'll say it again.

I'm just troubled about whether Zahid is supporting the Iraqi people against the occupationary American forces.
Or
Whether he's supporting the terrorists masquerading as freedom fighters for the Iraqi people when in fact they kill more innocent Iraqis then American troops. In some cases, for personal profit.

If he's supporting the first one, then it's okay, but his sig pic seems to indicate the latter. And that's what disturbs me. Because it could bring the FBI and CIA into BOS and man once they go into L&R and all those threads about blowjobs and 6th bases and all, man we kiddies are in trouble

 

[CrashOveride]

The swastika represented an evil that occurred before any such treaty.

Comparison of the two sigs is ludicrous, don't ride it for the shock value.

As for Zahid's sig, i agree with Airness (i dont see how it indicates the latter btw)

 

[withoutaface]

The swastika represented an evil that occurred before any such treaty.

Comparison of the two sigs is ludicrous, don't ride it for the shock value.

As for Zahid's sig, i agree with Airness (i dont see how it indicates the latter btw)

Ummm, the Treaty of Versailles was post-WW1, not post-WW2.

 

[Alimoe_KG]

Oh and waf, i just noticed your sig

Just because one guy is an idiot doesn't mean you have to become an idiot in order to ridicule his idiocy. Take it down mate.

 

[Alimoe_KG]

Why the hell is the Zahid issue raging across every freakin thread that i come across?

And I don't think waf really supports the damn third reich =/ Waf is only putting up that sig to make a point about the inappropriateness of Zahid's sig.

But i think he's doing it in an equally inappropriate manner.