To all the fucking idiots blaming Bush for the London attack. QUESTION: - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 07-08-2005, 12:24 AM

100...,.....

VeriSexy · 07-08-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

YOU ARE WRONG

Britain has dealt with terrorism for over 30 years now.

? March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.

? Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.

? Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.

? July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.

? Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.

? Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

? Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.

? Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.

? April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.

? March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.

? Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.

? Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.

? June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city ? Manchester in the northwest ? with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.

? Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.

? July 7, 2005: Four blasts rock the London subway system and a bus during the morning rush hour, killing at least 40 people, U.S. officials say. More than 360 people are wounded.

Good facts

rickholio · 07-08-2005, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service disagrees with you.

Nice. It's always a pleasure seeing intelligent commentary made by people who bother to learn and become informed before engaging their mouths/keys.

Johny Traffic · 07-08-2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

YOU ARE WRONG

Britain has dealt with terrorism for over 30 years now.

? March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.

? Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.

? Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.

? July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.

? Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.

? Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

? Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.

? Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.

? April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.

? March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.

? Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.

? Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.

? June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city ? Manchester in the northwest ? with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.

? Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.

? July 7, 2005: Four blasts rock the London subway system and a bus during the morning rush hour, killing at least 40 people, U.S. officials say. More than 360 people are wounded.

Listen you idiot, you have taken my response out of context, read how the conversation was going before posting stupid shit like this, I know about the IRA attacks I live here. Either start reading or stop posting. Idiot

webcrawler · 07-08-2005, 12:33 AM

I'm sure any president will take the same action for the best interest of his country which is security. Terrorists will always be there as long as there's a nation harboring them.

Pleasurepays · 07-08-2005, 12:40 AM

1995 Islamist terror bombings in France

In 1995, the GIA Islamic militant group staged a series of attacks against the French public, targeting public transportation. These attacks killed 8 and injured more than 100.

On July 25, 1995, a gas bottle exploded in station Saint Michel of line B of the RER (Paris regional train network). 8 were killed and 80 wounded.

On August 17, a bomb at the Arc de Triomphe wounded 17 people. On August 26, a huge bomb was found on the railroad tracks of a high-speed rail line near Lyons. On September 3, a bomb malfunctioned in a square in Paris, wounding 4. On September 7, a car bomb at a Jewish school in Lyons wounded 14.

A leader of the group, Khaled Kelkal, was identified through fingerprints left on unexploded bombs. He was killed on September 29 by members of the French EPIGN gendarmerie unit when allegedly resisting arrest in Paris.

Yet the attacks continued. On October 6, a gas bottle exploded in station Maison Blanche of the Paris Métro, wounding 13. On October 17, a gas bottle exploded in the Orsay station of RER Line B, wounding 29.

Members of the groups have since been prosecuted for various charges. Apparently, the attacks were designed to be a broadening of the war in Algeria, a former French colony.

Pleasurepays · 07-08-2005, 12:41 AM

Bomb discovery revives French fear of terror attacks on railways

Jon Henley in Paris
Thursday March 25, 2004
The Guardian

Fear that the French rail network has become a target for terrorists was raised again last night after a track worker found an explosive device half-buried on the main line from Paris to Basle in Switzerland.

The interior ministry said the suspected bomb, contained in a transparent plastic box measuring 20cm by 20cm (8in by 8in), did not appear to resemble those described in threats by a group called AZF, which has said it will blow up railway tracks unless it is paid a multimillion-pound ransom.

alexg · 07-08-2005, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

You support bombing innocent people in IRAQ in retaliation for what a bunch of Saudi Criminals did---the only connection being that they are all muslims.

Your previous posts in other threads illustrate full well your hatred for ALL muslims (obviously biast from your experience in Israel).

What the fuck are you taking in that University anyways? You seem real dumb.

what an idiot.
I never said I supported bombing innocent people.

I supported the war in Iraq generally not because it is a good response for 9/11 but mainly because a subhuman dictator has been removed and most of the Iraqi people are thankful for that.
also because there is now one less enemy for my country.

Unfortunately innocent Iraqis and american soldiers have died, but it cannot be otherwise in war. Eventually when all of this is over the majority of Iraqis will benefit from this.

I'm taking physics and electrical engineering and it's going hard for me, so yeah, I must be dumb.

escorpio · 07-08-2005, 05:35 AM

Three pages and I counted only one straight answer to alexg's question.

ukweb · 07-08-2005, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johny Traffic

Your wrong, they dont give a fuck about what you do or dont do, they dont come from Iraq, they dont live in Iraq, they couldnt give a flying fuck about Iraq. They are extremists, if you left Iraq tomorow, it would make no difference, they would still want you dead.

They believe you are their enemy, you can not bargain with them, you can not reason with them, they want you, your family, your country dead.

Listen to them, listen to the messages they send out, they do not think like us, they dont care about fellow muslims, arabs, they dont care about christians, blacks, whites, the want you and all your friends in the marines dead.

Too right these people just don't give a fuck about me or you. I saw a news report that the intelligence services believe we have 40 potential suicide bombers in the UK. These don't come from Iraq or Afghanistan the majority are British citizens some even public school educated.

How can you understand and fight an enemy that is born and educated in your country then wants to blow you the fuck up.

At least with the IRA the majority where fighting for what they saw as a rightful cause "a united Ireland" most where Irish citizens whose cause had been born and bred into them. Don't get me wrong I'm no IRA sympathiser I served with the British Army in the IRAs most hated regiment.

but these people have no cause, no demands they just want to kill and maim as many people as their fucked up religion tells them its ok to do.

Dominic_M · 07-08-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johny Traffic

Dont you get it yet? They want you dead, they want your family dead, they want everyone you know dead. You are the enemy and they wont be happy until you are dead.

Is this clear enough yet? Thank fuck the U.S, Australia and the U.K have the guts to stand up to people who want them dead. It makes cowards like you and France sleep a little easier at night

Canada DID go to war against the terrorists, dumbass... we were right there in Afganistan (remember that place?) with the rest of the allies. Iraq, however, wasn't 'the war on terror' so we didn't have anything to do with it.

Linkster · 07-08-2005, 07:41 AM

This is the reason that Bush and all of his religious right still carry on this tradition:

This speech was given in November 1095 by Pope Urban II:

The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.

The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.

God himself would lead them, for they would be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!

Deus lo volt! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusaders

This is the basis for everything that has gone on since - and will until the Church figures out that they are no longer doing what they see as their higher power - or until all of them just blow each other up and we get over this stupid religious supremecy shit thats been going on for 1000 years

rett11 · 07-08-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexg

exactly, and I'm glad you brought that up.

so in your opinion it's ok for terorrists to dictate countries how they should live and act?

if France is attacked in a couple of months, will you say it is justified because of the head scarf issue?

france is at risk because of this, canada is at risk because of the gay marriage issue, other countries are at risk simply because they're christians and not muslims.

exactly, and I'm glad you brought that up.

It's ok for the US to dictate how other countries should live and act? If you want to look more intelligent, and gain respect for your enemies, don't act in the same way they do... The more we act like rednecks, the more we play into their hands. They want a war. It's judgement day, my friend.

Life is strange, and a kneejerk reaction to an attack is natural; it's just not rational.

And by the way, learn to spell terrorism if you want to debate it.

alexg · 07-08-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by escorpio

Three pages and I counted only one straight answer to alexg's question.

everyone knows that it's only a matter of time until "innocent" countries get attacked.

most won't admit they were wrong and probably make up new excuses, such as the "head scarf" issue, or that canada sent 2 soldiers and 4 guns to afghanistan...

alexg · 07-08-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rett11

exactly, and I'm glad you brought that up.

It's ok for the US to dictate how other countries should live and act? If you want to look more intelligent, and gain respect for your enemies, don't act in the same way they do... The more we act like rednecks, the more we play into their hands. They want a war. It's judgement day, my friend.

Life is strange, and a kneejerk reaction to an attack is natural; it's just not rational.

And by the way, learn to spell terrorism if you want to debate it.

Is it ok for saddam to dictate how the Iraqi people should live and to kill millions of innocent people?

do you really see no difference?

as for the spelling mistake:

Linkster · 07-08-2005, 08:25 AM

Actually it is ok for him to do that during the civil "war" that he had within Iraq - just as it was ok for Lincoln to kill all the southeners during the US's civil war - and just as Truman decided it was ok to kill 340000 Japanese with two bombs - and so on - war is hell and since Bush thought he needed a war to make sure the repeat of the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France which carved up this whole Arab region from the Ottoman empire - not only does he want the end of the Iraq regime, but the splitting up of the OPEC along with new compliant governments in Iran and Syria to shore up our supplies due to our dependence on oil - and if you do a little research you will also find that plans are underway (either peacefully or by force) for those last two countries to become compliant to our wishes.

cashengine · 07-08-2005, 08:34 AM

bush is not responsible...american foreign policy since 1950 is...any country could be attacked, but the targets will always be westerners until we make peace and leanr to all coexist on this earth regrdless of religious and ideological differences.

EviLSuperstaR · 07-08-2005, 08:43 AM

The Bush and Bliar failure in the absolute scam what they call War On Terror is that with their incompetence policies in Iraq and Afghanistan they are turning even the more moderate muslims into extremists.
Consequence: Moslim extremism is growing rapidly, even US sources (CIA) are confirming this.

The idiot in the white house and his corporate scamming friends are achieving the complete opposite of what they tell us they want to achieve. And don't even intend to review their ineffective strategies.
Meanwhile his old friend Osama remains free and gets rewarded a new training ground for his terrorists and a nice chance to blow up about 2 US soldiers a day. Time to bring all these fuckers down.

swedguy · 07-08-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johny Traffic

Matter of fact is: There was no attacks on the U.K untill today. Where the G8 was being held

IRA was quite active in its days. Terrorists too, just a different ideology.

ffmihai · 07-08-2005, 08:52 AM

to get some heavy traffic?

BRISK · 07-08-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexg

everyone knows that it's only a matter of time until "innocent" countries get attacked.

most won't admit they were wrong and probably make up new excuses, such as the "head scarf" issue, or that canada sent 2 soldiers and 4 guns to afghanistan...

Canada is not an "innocent" country in the eyes of islamic terrorists, why do you keep suggesting that it is? If it got attacked it would be understandable why it happened. Canada was a bad example to use as an "innocent" country.

In November 2002 Canada was specifically mentioned as a prime al-Qaida target by Osama bin Laden.

"What business do your governments have to ally itself in attacking us in Afghanistan -- and I mention specifically Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia," Bin Laden said on an audiotape obtained by Arab Al-Jazeera TV before warning of impending attacks.

By the way, I'm not one of the people that blamed Bush for the London attack, I'm simply replying to the premises in your argument because they're weak and you've used poor examples to support your argument. The premise that Canada is an innocent country is extremely weak.

You may have had a decent point to make (conclusion) in your original post, but you fucked it up because you used an incredibly weak premise to support your conclusion, and it's obvious that you've realized this because your attempts to belittle Canada's contribution to the war in Afghanistan shows the great lengths you're going to attempt to prop up the weakness in your argument. It's a sign of desperation.

theking · 07-08-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviLSuperstaR

The Bush and Bliar failure in the absolute scam what they call War On Terror is that with their incompetence policies in Iraq and Afghanistan they are turning even the more moderate muslims into extremists.
Consequence: Moslim extremism is growing rapidly, even US sources (CIA) are confirming this.

The idiot in the white house and his corporate scamming friends are achieving the complete opposite of what they tell us they want to achieve. And don't even intend to review their ineffective strategies.
Meanwhile his old friend Osama remains free and gets rewarded a new training ground for his terrorists and a nice chance to blow up about 2 US soldiers a day. Time to bring all these fuckers down.

Why do you keep stating that Osama and the President are friends...let alone the other pig shit that you spew forth.

alexg · 07-08-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRISK

Canada is not an "innocent" country in the eyes of islamic terrorists, why do you keep suggesting that it is? If it got attacked it would be understandable why it happened. Canada was a bad example to use as an "innocent" country.

In November 2002 Canada was specifically mentioned as a prime al-Qaida target by Osama bin Laden.

"What business do your governments have to ally itself in attacking us in Afghanistan -- and I mention specifically Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia," Bin Laden said on an audiotape obtained by Arab Al-Jazeera TV before warning of impending attacks.

By the way, I'm not one of the people that blamed Bush for the London attack, I'm simply replying to the premises in your argument because they're weak and you've used poor examples to support your argument. The premise that Canada is an innocent country is extremely weak.

You may have had a decent point to make (conclusion) in your original post, but you fucked it up because you used an incredibly weak premise to support your conclusion, and it's obvious that you've realized this because your attempts to belittle Canada's contribution to the war in Afghanistan shows the great lengths you're going to attempt to prop up the weakness in your argument. It's a sign of desperation.

I know that... it's just that you fail to understand that NO western country is innocent in the eyes of the terorrists.
there will always be excuses, but if canada gets attacked, only the absolute biggest idiots will still justify it and blame it on bush.
Idiots such as Rich probably...

seven · 07-08-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRISK

Canada is not an "innocent" country in the eyes of islamic terrorists, why do you keep suggesting that it is? If it got attacked it would be understandable why it happened. Canada was a bad example to use as an "innocent" country.

In November 2002 Canada was specifically mentioned as a prime al-Qaida target by Osama bin Laden.

"What business do your governments have to ally itself in attacking us in Afghanistan -- and I mention specifically Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia," Bin Laden said on an audiotape obtained by Arab Al-Jazeera TV before warning of impending attacks.

By the way, I'm not one of the people that blamed Bush for the London attack, I'm simply replying to the premises in your argument because they're weak and you've used poor examples to support your argument. The premise that Canada is an innocent country is extremely weak.

You may have had a decent point to make (conclusion) in your original post, but you fucked it up because you used an incredibly weak premise to support your conclusion, and it's obvious that you've realized this because your attempts to belittle Canada's contribution to the war in Afghanistan shows the great lengths you're going to attempt to prop up the weakness in your argument. It's a sign of desperation.

what he said.. bad example. you could give better example than that or could you alexg?

seven · 07-08-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexg

I know that... it's just that you fail to understand that NO western country is innocent in the eyes of the terorrists.
there will always be excuses, but if canada gets attacked, only the absolute biggest idiots will still justify it and blame it on bush.
Idiots such as Rich probably...

bush has brainwashed you well "oh! it's not cos of our foreign policy, it's just that those terrorists couldn't get laid lately so they are grouchy and groggy and just wants to kill us cos they've been pussy deprived" peep peep!

seven · 07-08-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Why do you keep stating that Osama and the President are friends...let alone the other pig shit that you spew forth.

awh they were not old business buddies/family friends? damn! someone needs to sue ALL the news medias

BRISK · 07-08-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexg

you fail to understand that NO western country is innocent in the eyes of the terorrists

Did I ever say they were? No.

theking · 07-08-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seven

awh they were not old business buddies/family friends? damn! someone needs to sue ALL the news medias

They have never met...let alone being friends.

directfiesta · 07-08-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

They have never met...let alone being friends.

never did , never were

Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood

theking · 07-08-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

never did , never were

Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood

Where in the article does it state that Osama and the President met? Where in the article does it state that Osama and the President are friends?

Post the quote please? Post a quote from any "reliable" source.

EviLSuperstaR · 07-08-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

never did , never were

Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood

The Bush clan and Bin Laden clan are business partners. That is enough for any intelligent person to make it all a very fishy matter...

Even without regarding the fact that he let all the Bin Ladens and some other Saudi business partners fly out of the country directly after 9/11 in which most hijackers were Saudis and their leader: a Bin Laden.

theking · 07-08-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviLSuperstaR

The Bush clan and Bin Laden clan are business partners. That is enough for any intelligent person to make it all a very fishy matter...

Even without regarding the fact that he let all the Bin Ladens and some other Saudi business partners fly out of the country directly after 9/11 in which most hijackers were Saudis and their leader: a Bin Laden.

Why do you persist in spreading misinformation. The President did not make a decision to let the Bin Laden family fly out. The man that made the decision testified before a Senate Committee...and he stated that he cleared it with the FBI...and no it was not when air traffic was under suspension.

Dominic_M · 07-08-2005, 11:50 AM

What's really sad about all this, is that 10 years from now, a bunch of orphaned Iraqi kids are going to grow up hating the West for killing their parents/relatives and possibly strike back at an Allied city. Morons with no sense of history will say "Those bastards! They attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom...yeah, that's it!". Then we'll attack them back (by 'them', I mean the entire country even though it's a select group responsible) and feel all self-rightious.

Terrorists aren't just born terrorists. Something happens to create this sort of fanaticism, whether it's a potato famine, separatists, bombings in the '70's or whatever. We're guilty of the same sort of attitude. Our culture today (thanks to Oprah and Dr. Phil) is programming us to be irresponsible little babies with no regard for our actions, because we can always blame others ("I'm overweight because my parents didn't hug me", "I ate my neighbours because Daddy worked late") for the way we behave rather than just 'be a man and take it on the chin' or 'think for yourself'

rickholio · 07-08-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic_M

What's really sad about all this, is that 10 years from now, a bunch of orphaned Iraqi kids are going to grow up hating the West for killing their parents/relatives and possibly strike back at an Allied city. Morons with no sense of history will say "Those bastards! They attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom...yeah, that's it!". Then we'll attack them back (by 'them', I mean the entire country even though it's a select group responsible) and feel all self-rightious.

"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." - John W. Gardner

07-08-2005, 12:24 AM	#101
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	100...,..... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

07-08-2005, 05:35 AM	#109
escorpio I love to racism, bro! Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA! USA! USA! Posts: 23,023	Three pages and I counted only one straight answer to alexg's question. __________________ Unvaxxed, still alive.

07-08-2005, 07:41 AM	#112
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	This is the reason that Bush and all of his religious right still carry on this tradition: This speech was given in November 1095 by Pope Urban II: The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land. The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war. God himself would lead them, for they would be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it! Deus lo volt! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusaders This is the basis for everything that has gone on since - and will until the Church figures out that they are no longer doing what they see as their higher power - or until all of them just blow each other up and we get over this stupid religious supremecy shit thats been going on for 1000 years __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

07-08-2005, 08:25 AM	#116
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	Actually it is ok for him to do that during the civil "war" that he had within Iraq - just as it was ok for Lincoln to kill all the southeners during the US's civil war - and just as Truman decided it was ok to kill 340000 Japanese with two bombs - and so on - war is hell and since Bush thought he needed a war to make sure the repeat of the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France which carved up this whole Arab region from the Ottoman empire - not only does he want the end of the Iraq regime, but the splitting up of the OPEC along with new compliant governments in Iran and Syria to shore up our supplies due to our dependence on oil - and if you do a little research you will also find that plans are underway (either peacefully or by force) for those last two countries to become compliant to our wishes. __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

07-08-2005, 08:34 AM	#117
cashengine Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 48	bush is not responsible...american foreign policy since 1950 is...any country could be attacked, but the targets will always be westerners until we make peace and leanr to all coexist on this earth regrdless of religious and ideological differences. __________________ Cash Engines Affiliate Program - We Make Money For Our Affiliates!

07-08-2005, 12:33 AM	#105
webcrawler Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: ICQ .:. 286608143 Posts: 2,692	I'm sure any president will take the same action for the best interest of his country which is security. Terrorists will always be there as long as there's a nation harboring them.

07-08-2005, 12:40 AM	#106
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	1995 Islamist terror bombings in France In 1995, the GIA Islamic militant group staged a series of attacks against the French public, targeting public transportation. These attacks killed 8 and injured more than 100. On July 25, 1995, a gas bottle exploded in station Saint Michel of line B of the RER (Paris regional train network). 8 were killed and 80 wounded. On August 17, a bomb at the Arc de Triomphe wounded 17 people. On August 26, a huge bomb was found on the railroad tracks of a high-speed rail line near Lyons. On September 3, a bomb malfunctioned in a square in Paris, wounding 4. On September 7, a car bomb at a Jewish school in Lyons wounded 14. A leader of the group, Khaled Kelkal, was identified through fingerprints left on unexploded bombs. He was killed on September 29 by members of the French EPIGN gendarmerie unit when allegedly resisting arrest in Paris. Yet the attacks continued. On October 6, a gas bottle exploded in station Maison Blanche of the Paris Métro, wounding 13. On October 17, a gas bottle exploded in the Orsay station of RER Line B, wounding 29. Members of the groups have since been prosecuted for various charges. Apparently, the attacks were designed to be a broadening of the war in Algeria, a former French colony.

07-08-2005, 12:41 AM	#107
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	Bomb discovery revives French fear of terror attacks on railways Jon Henley in Paris Thursday March 25, 2004 The Guardian Fear that the French rail network has become a target for terrorists was raised again last night after a track worker found an explosive device half-buried on the main line from Paris to Basle in Switzerland. The interior ministry said the suspected bomb, contained in a transparent plastic box measuring 20cm by 20cm (8in by 8in), did not appear to resemble those described in threats by a group called AZF, which has said it will blow up railway tracks unless it is paid a multimillion-pound ransom.

07-08-2005, 08:43 AM	#118
EviLSuperstaR Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Right next to you Posts: 804	The Bush and Bliar failure in the absolute scam what they call War On Terror is that with their incompetence policies in Iraq and Afghanistan they are turning even the more moderate muslims into extremists. Consequence: Moslim extremism is growing rapidly, even US sources (CIA) are confirming this. The idiot in the white house and his corporate scamming friends are achieving the complete opposite of what they tell us they want to achieve. And don't even intend to review their ineffective strategies. Meanwhile his old friend Osama remains free and gets rewarded a new training ground for his terrorists and a nice chance to blow up about 2 US soldiers a day. Time to bring all these fuckers down.

07-08-2005, 08:52 AM	#120
ffmihai keep walking... Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,177	do you put your own tgp link on your galleries? to get some heavy traffic? __________________

07-08-2005, 11:50 AM	#133
Dominic_M Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 149	What's really sad about all this, is that 10 years from now, a bunch of orphaned Iraqi kids are going to grow up hating the West for killing their parents/relatives and possibly strike back at an Allied city. Morons with no sense of history will say "Those bastards! They attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom...yeah, that's it!". Then we'll attack them back (by 'them', I mean the entire country even though it's a select group responsible) and feel all self-rightious. Terrorists aren't just born terrorists. Something happens to create this sort of fanaticism, whether it's a potato famine, separatists, bombings in the '70's or whatever. We're guilty of the same sort of attitude. Our culture today (thanks to Oprah and Dr. Phil) is programming us to be irresponsible little babies with no regard for our actions, because we can always blame others ("I'm overweight because my parents didn't hug me", "I ate my neighbours because Daddy worked late") for the way we behave rather than just 'be a man and take it on the chin' or 'think for yourself' __________________ www.dominicmarco.com