Three more beheadings in Iraq

[Tony]

So we'd be playing into their hands by wreaking revenge on the innocent. Ish. Our position is that we're decent and noble, and that's why they should trust us.

That's just PR. By trying to adhere to that PR, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

If we start acting brutally, then we become the bullies they're fighting against, and the only difference between us and terrorists is budget and resources.

That's not true. There are many things besides brutality (budget and resources) that distinguish us from the Islamic Nazis. As sad as it makes me, it seems that fighting ruthlessly and brutally is the only way to decisively win. How long are you willing to put up with being kicked in the nads before you fight fire with fire?

 

[Megalodon]

I notice the typical lack of reading comprehension (a trait common to the muslims apologists I’ve seen on this forum). I never said all muslims. I was talking about muslims, but mostly I was talking about their backwards and totalitarian culture, in the mid east.

Tony boy, you are a liar, as well as an idiot.

a) I'm not a muslim apologist. I have nosimpathy for Islam or any other religion. I just dislike when cretins like yourself advocate genocide.

b) How did you not say all Muslims? Were you defending evacuating the innocents out of their countries? No, it can't be, you don't care about the civilian casualties... So I guess the 3/4 really was refering to the general population.

Originally posted by Tony
"We (US, Europe and Asia) should just conquer the Mid East, civilian casualties be damned. The a**hole of the world needs a lot of wiping."

Originally posted by Tony
"Well, it would be hard to form resistance when 3/4 of them are dead (I see no problem in sending allah lovers to allah) don't you think?
In such a scenario, we could de-islamify the place and divide up the land between the participating parties."

No it doesn't.

If I walk up on a woman (or man) getting raped, I'm going to do something about it (kill or incapacitate the rapist). I suppose, in your little mind, that goes against those freedoms I defend because I think people should live freely without being attacked? However, you would be wrong, acting in the defense of those freedoms is not betraying them.

To be correct, your scenario would have to be walking in the alley with a couple of friends, killing the rapist, kicking the ◊◊◊◊ out of the woman and having your buddies taking the rapist place.

Try to put this across your thick skull. Killing people doesn't equal liberating them, no matter what you see in the movies.

Here we have a culture that worships death, praises intolerance and murder in the name of religion, and thinks that anyone who doesn't belong to their cult is subhuman. It's telling that you would defend such hate.

It would be telling, if I had defended it. I actually agree that Islam, as most religions I know, is an aberration and should disapear. However, you cannot ban a religion by killing their followers.

And I attacked your statements exactly because you are full of hate. Defending the invasion of the middle east, the slaughter of 3/4 of the population and the division of the spoils among the invaders is not a defense of liberty and tolerance. It's the same old let's kill them because they are different.

You are guilty of what you accuse them.

Then it's like I said, you prefer to piss and moan like a little bitch.

Why, because I defend your right to be an idiot, as long as your murderous instincts are limited to Internet bravado?

Have you enlisted to go fight the good fight against the muslims, Tony? Because if you didn't, then all your brave assertions about what should be done are just (guess...) pissing and moaning like a little bitch.

You didn't complete your sentence so I took the liberty to fix it for you.

Altering quotes... The tactics of a great debater...

Of course, you little turd, you will now have to show where I said that it was allright for muslims to murder anyone.

[/B][/QUOTE]Those who cheer and support murder (of completely innocent people in this case) are just as much to blame.[/B][/QUOTE]

What about the freedom of speech, Tony boy? I thought people were free to cheer for whatever they wanted... Of course, you think it's only valid for you, right?

And the interesting part is that I'm having this argument with you because you advocated the murder of innocent people. But I guess the irony is lost in you...

Again, I had to fix your mistake.

Again you prove yourself to be a scumbag liar. Again you'll have to show where I supported jihad against whomever, you moron.

If you don't want to debate, then just STFU! If you want to insult me, go ahead, I have a thick skin. But if you want to lie about my positions then please go f*ck yourself.

 

[Tony]

a) I'm not a muslim apologist. I have nosimpathy for Islam or any other religion. I just dislike when cretins like yourself advocate genocide.

I never advocated genocide.

How did you not say all Muslims?

How did I say all muslims?

Were you defending evacuating the innocents out of their countries? No, it can't be, you don't care about the civilian casualties... So I guess the 3/4 really was refering to the general population.

Yeah, and that doesn't mean all muslims. And the 3/4 is just acknowledging the fact (based on past and recent behavior) that a large amount of muslims in the mid east would rally to the cause of jihad with that many infidels present on their soil.

To be correct, your scenario would have to be walking in the alley with a couple of friends, killing the rapist, kicking the ◊◊◊◊ out of the woman and having your buddies taking the rapist place.

Only if you misunderstand what I was saying.

However, you cannot ban a religion by killing their followers.

No, but that can keep it from killing and enslaving you.

And I attacked your statements exactly because you are full of hate.

Well I do hate slavery, tyranny, oppression, and racism so I guess you are right.

Defending the invasion of the middle east, the slaughter of 3/4 of the population and the division of the spoils among the invaders is not a defense of liberty and tolerance.

In this case it is.

It's the same old let's kill them because they are different.

LOL

And WWII was just about the Nazis being "different". I love it when you muslim apologists start with the amoral equivalence, it illustrates the absurdity of your position perfectly.

You are guilty of what you accuse them.

Really? When have I advocated slavery? When have I advocated that anyone and everyone who doesn't belong to my religious sect be treated like cattle (that kafir to you muslims)? When have I advocated that women be treated like property?

Altering quotes... The tactics of a great debater...

Fixing mistakes.

Of course, you little turd, you will now have to show where I said that it was allright for muslims to murder anyone.

You sure do raise a lot of objections when someone tries to stop them.

What about the freedom of speech, Tony boy? I thought people were free to cheer for whatever they wanted...

Thanks for clearing that up. You do think it's ok for muslims to murder people.

Of course, you think it's only valid for you, right?

I've never said it was ok for myself to cheer or participate in the death of an innocent hostage.

And the interesting part is that I'm having this argument with you because you advocated the murder of innocent people. But I guess the irony is lost in you...

I did no such thing. You just knee-jerkingly interpreted it like that.

Again you prove yourself to be a scumbag liar. Again you'll have to show where I supported jihad against whomever, you moron.

You don't have anything against it. To you jihad and religious inspired murder and tyranny is merely "different".

It's the same old let's kill them because they are different.

Cheering the murder of hostages and 9/11 is "free speech".

What about the freedom of speech?

It's safe to say you are a muslim apologist.

If you don't want to debate, then just STFU! If you want to insult me, go ahead, I have a thick skin.

Yeah right, you haven't wanted to debate or understand my position since you started posting on this thread. Not only that, but you're the one who started with the ad homs. I think it's funny to watch you be a little bitch, but don't mistake yourself for taking the highground.

But if you want to lie about my positions then please go f*ck yourself.

One good lie deserves another.

 

[Megalodon]

I never advocated genocide.

Ok, you advocated the invasion of the Middle East and the killing of 3/4 of the population, civilians casualties be damned. That is genocide. Since you're advocating it, your advocating genocide.

And the 3/4 is just acknowledging the fact (based on past and recent behavior) that a large amount of muslims in the mid east would rally to the cause of jihad with that many infidels present on their soil.

So basically you're saying you pulled the number out of your ass?

Only if you misunderstand what I was saying.

I understand what you are trying to say but, if you look at "past and recent behaviour" you must acknowledge the fact that everytime the west interferes with the middle east, they end up with equally or more brutal dictators.

I would agree with you that the west should pressure for regime changes in dictatorships. This can be done through several forms of diplomatic and economic pressure. I even support dictator assassinations in most cases, and support of revolutions and resistance movements.

But the death toll of innocents in an invasion is something I don't agree with. A culture might be encouraged to change, but bombing them into submission and re-enacting the crusades will not do it. And even if it did, I happen to not agree with genocide.

No, but that can keep it from killing and enslaving you.

Seriously, and propaganda apart, what do you think are the odds of the islamic culture enslaving the west.

Their problem (as I perceive it) is not how to convert the west. On the contrary, it's how to prevent their people from leaving the religion for the western way of life. That is why they grasp at any justification for starting jihads. Invading them would only give them a very strong one.

In this case it is.

Sometimes you seem inteligent, sometimes dangerously insane... I guess you can be both

Fixing mistakes.

Forging quotes. You are a liar.

You sure do raise a lot of objections when someone tries to stop them.

No, you idiot, I raise a lot of objections when cretins advocate invading their countries and killing 3/4 of the population. Surely you can see the difference.

BTW, since you're "trying to stop them"... "Have you enlisted to go fight the good fight against the muslims, Tony? Because if you didn't, then all your brave assertions about what should be done are just (guess...) pissing and moaning like a little bitch.

Thanks for clearing that up. You do think it's ok for muslims to murder people.

Again the liar... People have the right to cheer what they choose. If they decide to cheer a murder is their sick choice, as long as they don't commit the murder, I don't see justification for punishment.

I've never said it was ok for myself to cheer or participate in the death of an innocent hostage.

I never talked about participation Tony boy. So, you're saying that you guys should put restrictions on the 1st Ammendment... How about the 2nd?

I did no such thing.

Maybe you're not intelligent after all.

It's safe to say you are a muslim apologist.

It's safe to say to say that you have a hard time understanding the written word. Nothing in those quotes makes me a muslim apologist.

Yeah right, you haven't wanted to debate or understand my position since you started posting on this thread.

You made your position quite clearly, and have been re-enforcing it since.

But if I misunderstood your wish for the killing of 3/4 of the population of the middle east, then please clarify.

Not only that, but you're the one who started with the ad homs.

No Tony, I started with the insults, not with the ad homs. There is a difference.

One good lie deserves another.

It's good to see that you admit to be a liar, but you should now post where I lied.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Now, now, gentlemen...is it really worth losing your heads over?



(Bad monkey cannot resist nearly puns.)

 

[Megalodon]

Now, now, gentlemen...is it really worth losing your heads over?

Looking at your avatar I would assume you had at least a discussion like this before, right?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Looking at your avatar I would assume you had at least a discussion like this before, right?

It's just an unusually broad smile.

 

[Tony]

Ok, you advocated the invasion of the Middle East and the killing of 3/4 of the population, civilians casualties be damned. That is genocide. Since you're advocating it, your advocating genocide.

Another misunderstanding.

So basically you're saying you pulled the number out of your ass?

That's apparent to anyone with a brain.

I understand what you are trying to say but, if you look at "past and recent behaviour" you must acknowledge the fact that everytime the west interferes with the middle east, they end up with equally or more brutal dictators.

Your ignorance of history is noted.

I would agree with you that the west should pressure for regime changes in dictatorships. This can be done through several forms of diplomatic and economic pressure. I even support dictator assassinations in most cases, and support of revolutions and resistance movements.

I can dig that.

But the death toll of innocents in an invasion is something I don't agree with. A culture might be encouraged to change, but bombing them into submission and re-enacting the crusades will not do it. And even if it did, I happen to not agree with genocide.

Ok.

Seriously, and propaganda apart, what do you think are the odds of the islamic culture enslaving the west.

I think the chances are good. What would a Roman citizen have said in 150 A.D had you asked him the chances of christianity one day enslaving and destroying his culture?

Their problem (as I perceive it) is not how to convert the west. On the contrary, it's how to prevent their people from leaving the religion for the western way of life. That is why they grasp at any justification for starting jihads. Invading them would only give them a very strong one.

And they don't have a strong one now? All a cleric has to do is say X is against allah's will and you'll have muslims lining up to explode themselves.

No, you idiot, I raise a lot of objections when cretins advocate invading their countries and killing 3/4 of the population. Surely you can see the difference.

Yes I can, but I didn't advocate that. You are misunderstanding my position again.

"Have you enlisted to go fight the good fight against the muslims, Tony? Because if you didn't, then all your brave assertions about what should be done are just (guess...) pissing and moaning like a little bitch.

How can I enlist for something that doesn't exist?

Again the liar... People have the right to cheer what they choose. If they decide to cheer a murder is their sick choice, as long as they don't commit the murder, I don't see justification for punishment.

Who ever said anything about punishment? You are misunderstanding my position again.

So, you're saying that you guys should put restrictions on the 1st Ammendment...

LOL I won't even ask how you came to this idiocy.

It's safe to say to say that you have a hard time understanding the written word. Nothing in those quotes makes me a muslim apologist.

I trust an educated reader will know what I'm talking about. Considering how you've grossly misunderstood practically everything I've said, that you don't recognize your own apologetics isn't surprising.

But if I misunderstood your wish for the killing of 3/4 of the population of the middle east, then please clarify.

You haven't demonstrated the ability to comprehend above a first grade level so further clarification will no doubt be wasted on you.

No Tony, I started with the insults, not with the ad homs. There is a difference.

Yu uh, keep telling yourself that.

 

[demon]

We have seen the statement from Bigley. His captors do not want to kill him.
What do we expect from Blair?
I remember reading that in tribal times, in certain communities, the anointed one of the tribe (the Prime Minister you could say) was ritually killed at the end of the year to enable the rest of them to continue to live.

We live in more enlightened times. Blair is an acolyte of the Christian faith. In this God sent his only son to die vicariously for our sins. Blair will soon be standing on Poppy Day by the Cenotaph declaring that "There is no greater sacrifice than that a man gives up his life for another". Is it not time that Blair, as a good Christian gentleman, to offer himself up as a fitting sacrifice. We may not be able to negotiate for him alas, according to his government rules, but that is the way of the world.

An even more radical suggestion...let them trade the entire cabinet for him. I mean, at least let's make it an equal exchange.

However well intentioned though, I fear such a gesture might be susceptible to misinterpretation. Remember that besides all our other accomplishments, the Brits have a long-standing reputation for dumping their toxic waste in other countries.

 

[Jim Bowen]

I find the symbology of Bigley being dressed in similar clothes to the people in Guantanamo interesting. Perhaps the chaps holding him will stir the pot further by having him make a realistic denunctiation of Blair. I have a feeling that the terrorists out there are learning the value of PR and spin in the West.

There's an interesting cartton in Private Eye, showing Blair announcing that we won't negotiate with terrorists and then shows him with his arms around some of the players in Northern Ireland in the next panel of the cartoon.

 

[demon]

Jim Bowen:
"There's an interesting cartton in Private Eye, showing Blair announcing that we won't negotiate with terrorists and then shows him with his arms around some of the players in Northern Ireland in the next panel of the cartoon."

Yes, I`ve seen the cartoon you mention and it gives the lie to the ridiculous posturing by the government that it never will negotiate with terrorists. Same with the Tories, they sit there on the front bench nodding sagely in agreement when they have done exactly the same.
It`s ludicrous...all the pious statements about what we must never do in any circumstances except for when we do...just look at Colombia for example. The hypocrits stand there, sympathising with everybody under the sun and claiming a moral highground that is at odds with a government that has just eagerly contributed to the deaths of upwards of 10,000 innocent civilians. They have a strange sense of their own moral superiority if they think that talking to terrorists will tarnish their purity.

Private Eye should run a new cartoon:

Blair: "Look, you know, I simply say to people, we won`t give in to terrorists who make and set off car bombs."

Allawi: "Yes, look where it got me!"