Folks i got some good/bad news...this is the afterlife.
Search
Search results: 620 found, showing up to 50
As others have already mentioned Iran has been smeared via propaganda for the last couple of years. So its of no surprise that we see them as the "enemy." While Pakistan would seem like a "logical" target -- one must quickly make note that we have been aiding them for a very very long time. So this begs the question of who really is the terrorist? Iran whom we call the terrorist nation or Pakistan whom we support -- especially now when we have at least one Presidential candidate advocating military incursions unilaterally again as if it were some kind of fucking benign move on his part.sergeriver wrote:
I mean Pakistan has real nukes and tbh Musharraf doesn't seem in control of the country. I don't say Obama is right, but why is everyone so obsessed with invading Iran and a few people care about Pakistan. I think Pakistan is the worst threat in the Middle East. If Musharraf is removed the Taliban will have the nukes. That is pretty dangerous if you ask me.
Think about it -- look at how you describe the country. "Worst threat in the Middle East" WTF does that even mean!?!?
P.S.
Don't take this as a personal attack I'm simply addressing the statement
Wow, I'm glad he is saying this shit now before people elect him and are "surprised" that a democrat has now entangled us even further in this region.
Out of curiosity why did Bin Laden have connections with Iranian Intelligence?
How does one experience nothing -- does it not then become something once experienced?Orrish wrote:
Hmmm quite a debate we have on our hands here, my thought sometimes is directed at what happens after death. some people who have had near death experence's said they see a white light that they are traveling towards too, but then were to be sucked back into their body's so to speak.
i think there might be nothing after death....... just darkness .......... nothing else but your own thoughts inside a black void forever to stay there, never to be heard but yourself. i might aswell be sounding very creepy at this moment but i have a feeling that there is nothing there......just nothing.
back onto the god subject ............................... i have nothing to say.
Can God be everything including you and I and this text?OrangeHound wrote:
Don't you think you appear to be contradicting yourself a little here:Mitch wrote:
Evolution takes most facts from what we see. What we feel. What we experience, and what we as humans ration as truth.In your first statement (applied to science) experience = truth. In your second statement (applied to God), experience = false. That is a bit of a fallacy of logic. But let me clarify your logic for just a moment.Mitch wrote:
The ONLY ONLY ONLY shred of evidence people have is from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! and as we know, personal experience has NO TIES to reality.
You see, exposure to "experience" can either be universal (which is experienced by all) or it can be limited (which is seen by one or just a few).
Science has lots of universal experience. In the scientific world, universal experience is something like the sun's course during the day or playing with a magnet ... limited experience is something akin to a few expert scientists discovering a chemical element that we now call Roentgenium. Why do you believe in Roentgenium, although you have no personal experience with Roentgenium nor will you ever have experience with it.? It is simple. You believe in this chemical element simply because (a) universal experiences predicted by science were experienced by you, and (b) you now believe science.
God has very little universal experience. Speaking only of Christianity here, God is primarily known through limited experience, and (in general) the experiences with God are limited only for those who are seeking him (or, alternatively if you are a Calvinist, those to whom God has chosen). Since you are not seeking him, is it no wonder that "God has never shown himself to me. Ever. Not in the least way."
God does, however, have a few universal experiences that clue you into opening up for limited experiences with him. Most creationists are inept and clumsy in their debate, and frequently they convey inaccuracies. But, they are simply attempting to point out a universal experience with God ... so that ... you might seek and receive the limited experiences.
Just because you don't experience God, doesn't mean that God isn't real ... it just means that you haven't opened your eyes to experience God.
What artificial hierarchy are we all climbing? Can't you see you are playing the same game?twiistaaa wrote:
i will let them believe but i will also tell them they are wrong. but some day it wont be tolerated (when we reach the next level of human acheivement).lavadisk wrote:
meh. let them believe. It keeps the Christians nice and kind. and it keeps them from flipping out and killing other people/themselves.
athiests tolerating christians leads to christians tolerating extremist christians and muslims which leads to muslims tolerating extremist muslims which leads to them not tolerating anything. if we tolerate nonsense we are just as naive as the people who believe in it. tolerating something leads the tolerated to tolerate something more absurd. yes i said tolerate a few times. tolerate it.
Is anything really evil?
Better question is why do we think the President is the only person capable of "helping" change the USA. Get involved in local politics and create the change you need in your area, forget the federal government they only want one thing....mo money mo money.BN wrote:
OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)
Is it really long enough to help change the USA?
Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
All this Moral talk is making my stomach turn. Who gives a shit what morals they have, why not get someone that will actually follow the constitution and stop adding more and more power to the Monarchy -- Presidency.
Ron Paul gets my Vote.
Fuck off corporate America!
Ron Paul gets my Vote.
Fuck off corporate America!
New meaning? You mean the lack of meaning rather...beacuse uhhh you didn't even let us know what is going to be "passed" to my children via my usage of a chemical that isn't altering my sperm cell's DNA or a woman's Ovum.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Well, for all you people who seem to think that smoking weed is good for you, I sure as hell hope you're right... Because apparently what you're doing now will effect your children's, and possibly your children's children's genes.
Neat stuff called epigenetics -- the reason why identical twin's DNA differs after decades of different choices and according to a recent show I saw could potentially effect decedents down the line. Give new meaning to "puff puff pass" eh?
In all seriousness --this guy sums up my stance.
Source
(*Make note on the part about the term "legalizing"*)
Hey KAM...there is no proof of upper level government being invovled. So your full of shit. a thank youKmarion wrote:
Turq link: Private Saudi citizens?
Is that supposed to be the same as a government sending Hezbollah terrorist into Iraq to kill 5 American Soldiers?
The other link is a speculative op'ed piece. Again not nearly as concrete as capturing a Sauidi operative in Iraq.
BTW I'm not denying some Saudis are funding charities with links to the insurgency. But clearly there is a difference in the links you guys provided and what I posted. This guy claims to be acting on direct orders from the Iranian Quds Force. That is what you call a direct link. (If it holds up)
Hate to burst your bubble, but in that convention where does it state how one will prevent / punish those responsible?Deuceman wrote:
And for those who will be too lazy to look up the Genocide convention. It states that those who agreed to this must do all they can to Prevent and punish for genocide. Let me repeat that, they agree to PREVENT and to PUNISH for genocide. Are economic sanctions going to help prevent genocide once it starts?
Here is a link to the convention for those to read it. It even lists what constitutes genocide and also what acts are punishable.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
I would assume the ICJ -- but hey check out the list of reservations.....lots of people don't want automatic jurisdiction .
What exactly do you mean by monitor?Harmor wrote:
What terrorist attack has not been affiliated with a Masque in some way?
Are terrorists using 'Religious' freedom afforded by western countries to garner support for their extremism?
Looks like we are now fighting the 2nd generation of terrorists who are now naturalized.
EDIT: BTW, if Christians were doing terrorism I would support the government monitoring churches.
Last I checked this is a clear violation of our constitution. Seriously....read it.
Why only brotherhood with the Jewish people? Where not the gentiles also called?ph4s3 wrote:
Basically this commonality leads Christians to be sympathetic to the Jewish plight and also leads to a feeling of brotherhood with the Jewish people. As a Christian you are responsible to take care of your brother. The atrocities suffered in WWII and the Russian pogroms pointed out a massive failing of Christians to look after their brothers. This kinship and guilt leads many Christians to fully support the restoration of the people of Israel to the land of Israel. Note that the "people of Israel" and "land of Israel" are separate and the people were without a land throughout much of their history. The deliverance of the land to the people is one of the major themes through their history and seen as a fulfillment of a promise from God, Himself.
How about you start responding with evidence instead of calling me a jack ass.CannonFodder11b wrote:
Ummm Fen, Saddam let a lot happen in his country. Did you know There is a large population of Satanists in Iraq? Not the im gonna wear upside down crosses and dress in all black and wear black eyeliner and act like im dead type. No these are some seriously evil fuckers that used to sacrifice humans and dump them in rivers. Saddam was scared of them, because they were everywhere and no one would admit to who was who. Al Qaida had a presence in Iraq for a long time, but again who's going to admit to that? Those crazy fuckers are EVERYWHERE. AQ has been pulling the strings of damn near every looney in the ME for several years. AQ is not isolated to Afgan. I seriously wouldn't doubt for a minute Saddam was paying them money to help keep him in power all these years. (Fear is the best way to motivate someone to act like a fucking sheep)Fen321 wrote:
Saddam had NO TIES TO AL QAIDA.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Please, please read what people have to say, rather than pick through thier posts and fixate on one aspect of what they said. Saddam MAY HAVE had ties to Al Qaida. Iraq + WMDs + Terrorist ties + Terrorist inentions (9/11?) = A big fucking problem. NO of course Saddam wouldn't launch a strike against Europe. NO ONE SAID THAT.
I cannot stand people like this.
The patriarchal style of rule through out the Middle East, which has been practiced for centuries now, leaves no room for opposition in the form of power outside of the hands of the dictator. So why would Saddam allow Al Qaida to function anywhere in its territory? Or for what reason would he fund them?
WMDS none... terrorist ties.....*ha* 9/11 bigger fucking *ha*.
And the bit about not launching weapons into Europe...i was responding to a comment where someone stated that they possed missiles capable of hitting Europe while N. Korea only has the tech to walk theirs around apparently...never mind the testing of missiles.
I think you need to do more research before you start acting like a jackass in forums you are out classed
Lets make a quick run through once more for you.
Satanist -- threat to America = zero
AQ ties to Iraq prior to 2003 = zero
Saddam paying AQ TO KEEP HIM IN power = the most bullshit allegation to date. If i could give you an award for this one honestly I would fly out to where you live and hand it to you personally because god damn you've taken the cake with that one. Now in all seriousness where do you get this information from?
I'll stop being a jackass when you can get something other than pure speculation and nonsense allegations that AQ was capable of running things behind the scenes in Iraq prior to 2003. More research doesn't hurt, i'll never deny that.
For those asking for proof of the none existence of something i seriously suggest to you look closer at what you are asking me to do.
How was he the most dangerous candidate while PAKISTAN whom has nuclear weapons and openly funds terrorist organization doesn't even get a bit of a mention in our axis of evil? Should we not then stop Pakistan now for it seems for that to stand true we should at least follow through with those guiding principles and finish the job no?RoosterCantrell wrote:
So, what you're saying is, since we don't stop Korea, we should allow all nations to have nuclear weapons? Also, its about level of threat.Fen321 wrote:
So lets get this straight demonstrating for you is detonating nuclear weapons, at which point you can't do shit about it, but for some reason we found enough justification in shaky evidence to invade Iraq a country that hasn't had a nuclear detonation and was being monitored to the best of our ability by UN inspectors. You see i'm starting to see a bit of a divergence in approach, no? So if we are truly adamant about removing those whom threaten our allies with WMDs why not attack N. Korea? Someone else already alluded to the sleeping giant that is China -- this is mainly why I would say we didn't go into N. Korea (again).
The reason I'm even bothering to point this out is mostly due to our usage of Nuclear weapons as a blank check for invading any and all countries whom we can designate an enemy. Situations like Iraq could be avoided -- and what N. Korea shows is that we will invade those whom have no protection. While Iran on the other hand doesn't even posses nuclear weapons, but only the capacity to do so -- just like any other country with nuclear tech -- so hey why didn't we care about India/Pakistan developing them then?
At what point can those that posses nuclear weapons continue to use them as threats against those whom wish to be at an equal playing level?
I have said it countless times now. Saddam was probably the most dangerous candidate for someone to have WMDs. I doubt Inda or Pakistan or N Korea have any intentions of selling WMDs to terrorists. Saddam howerver, in his hatred for america, what owuld stop him?
Saddam's hatred for America would be stopped by the simply fact that we already occupied the country.
Saddam had NO TIES TO AL QAIDA.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Please, please read what people have to say, rather than pick through thier posts and fixate on one aspect of what they said. Saddam MAY HAVE had ties to Al Qaida. Iraq + WMDs + Terrorist ties + Terrorist inentions (9/11?) = A big fucking problem. NO of course Saddam wouldn't launch a strike against Europe. NO ONE SAID THAT.Fen321 wrote:
A threat to Europe -- in all honesty -- you actually think Saddam was plotting to launch an offensive attack on Europe. Why? Why? Why? There is no motivation hence no intentions. The problem with that my friend is that immediately the jig is up no intentions = no threat .
I cannot stand people like this.
The patriarchal style of rule through out the Middle East, which has been practiced for centuries now, leaves no room for opposition in the form of power outside of the hands of the dictator. So why would Saddam allow Al Qaida to function anywhere in its territory? Or for what reason would he fund them?
WMDS none... terrorist ties.....*ha* 9/11 bigger fucking *ha*.
And the bit about not launching weapons into Europe...i was responding to a comment where someone stated that they possed missiles capable of hitting Europe while N. Korea only has the tech to walk theirs around apparently...never mind the testing of missiles.
So lets get this straight demonstrating for you is detonating nuclear weapons, at which point you can't do shit about it, but for some reason we found enough justification in shaky evidence to invade Iraq a country that hasn't had a nuclear detonation and was being monitored to the best of our ability by UN inspectors. You see i'm starting to see a bit of a divergence in approach, no? So if we are truly adamant about removing those whom threaten our allies with WMDs why not attack N. Korea? Someone else already alluded to the sleeping giant that is China -- this is mainly why I would say we didn't go into N. Korea (again).Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
North Korea did not detonate a nuclear weapon until 2006.Fen321 wrote:
Didn't demonstrate could you clarify this for me I'm having a hard time understanding what this would mean.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Well, North Korea did not demonstrate that they had WMD's until after we were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that you forgot that.
Do you actually have an argument?
The reason I'm even bothering to point this out is mostly due to our usage of Nuclear weapons as a blank check for invading any and all countries whom we can designate an enemy. Situations like Iraq could be avoided -- and what N. Korea shows is that we will invade those whom have no protection. While Iran on the other hand doesn't even posses nuclear weapons, but only the capacity to do so -- just like any other country with nuclear tech -- so hey why didn't we care about India/Pakistan developing them then?
At what point can those that posses nuclear weapons continue to use them as threats against those whom wish to be at an equal playing level?
A threat to Europe -- in all honesty -- you actually think Saddam was plotting to launch an offensive attack on Europe. Why? Why? Why? There is no motivation hence no intentions. The problem with that my friend is that immediately the jig is up no intentions = no threat .cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Iraq has missiles capable of hitting Europe, North Korea has Asians carrying them. Which is more of a threat?Fen321 wrote:
You seem to forget that other countries such as hmmmmmmmmmm NORTH KOREA has WMDs. Why do you suppose we don't invade them?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Because we weren't under the assumption that Africa was developing WMD's. They are two entirely different scenarios. All of your posts have been, at best, child-like jabs at the US. Grow up, kid.
To OP:
US never invaded Africa? What about Somolia... They just pulled out early.
North Korea as of late has been testing missiles into the Sea of Japan -- hey we love Japan (hell I know I do) -- so why not the same reaction towards them? ahhh plot thickens can't use some bullshit excuse twice if its not applied the same for all allies.
Didn't demonstrate could you clarify this for me I'm having a hard time understanding what this would mean.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Well, North Korea did not demonstrate that they had WMD's until after we were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that you forgot that.Fen321 wrote:
You seem to forget that other countries such as hmmmmmmmmmm NORTH KOREA has WMDs. Why do you suppose we don't invade them?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Because we weren't under the assumption that Africa was developing WMD's. They are two entirely different scenarios. All of your posts have been, at best, child-like jabs at the US. Grow up, kid.
Those gosh darn crazy Muslims strike again! Bazzing!iamangry wrote:
Bullshit. The genocide in Darfur is caused by crazy muslims killing innocent people. It doesn't take a genius to see that. Those people should have bonded together, not killed each other.
hahahaha
You seem to forget that other countries such as hmmmmmmmmmm NORTH KOREA has WMDs. Why do you suppose we don't invade them?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Because we weren't under the assumption that Africa was developing WMD's. They are two entirely different scenarios. All of your posts have been, at best, child-like jabs at the US. Grow up, kid.namsdrawkcaB wrote:
Alright, you tell me why America wont invade Africa like they did to Iraq.
Well mostly because its a continent and we can't exactly do that .namsdrawkcaB wrote:
Alright, you tell me why America wont invade Africa like they did to Iraq.usmarine2005 wrote:
Wow you people are fucking retarded.dead_rac00n wrote:
They won't invade any other central Africa's country, because they don't have oil. They may have diamonds, but you can't put that in a SUV, so that's useless.
Cyberwarefare
For those that think China would not match the US tech I simply present to you a bit of news that i found.
For those that think China would not match the US tech I simply present to you a bit of news that i found.
Coupled with this tid bit of information and their testing of a kinetic anti-satellite missile I would bet they understand the fact that the US is highly dependent on its tech. No biggie, but they have been carrying out "cyber" raids against US positions for years now, mostly unreported with concerns to bigger news outlets. So I wouldn't exactly count them out of a fight should one ever arise between the two states.Information Week wrote:
The PLA is investing in computer network operations such as network attacks, network defenses, and network exploitation, according to the report. "The PLA sees [computer network operations] as critical to achieving 'electromagnetic dominance' early in a conflict," said the report, adding that China is focused on developing the ability to disrupt battlefield information systems.
See, I didn't realize that Liberals were the only thing holding you back from a genocide. By all means please go ahead with it for I am the NEW liberal king whom will respond for all liberals. There is only one condition under which we Liberals, under my command, will allow such an act.Lotta_Drool wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282195,00.html
And people say it is the Israeli's fault for the attacks in that region, but hell they kill each other.
Can't we all just agree that people who belong to certain organizations no long deserve to be part of the human race. Can't we start exterminating these idiots, please liberals, just admit that Hamas is the problem and needs to be destroyed once and for all.
1. We try you for war crimes directly after you do it and as a lovely consequence to those crimes we hang you -- hey we may even let some people in with a video camera to video tape the entire thing and make youtube some money, fucking brilliant!
*side note invest in youtube*
See usually when people state things like "no longer be part of human race" i tend to laugh to my self. why? Mostly because I didn't realize this was some sort of club one can be removed out of. For crying out loud why wasn't I made aware of my ability to morph into another RACE!
Let me clarify -- praise is given out by those that actually mean it. So to counter a praise one obviously doesn't follow suite with a similar praise, but typically a rebuttal of sorts that may be misconstrued by the person whom is giving out the praise. Hence the OMGAWDZ you hate America because i said nice things and now you say bad things. That's all i was trying to get across.
I support America's right to self destruction.Pug wrote:
Give examples of the ones where you aren't criticizing, and in fact give praise...sergeriver wrote:
Which daily posting are you talking about? Give examples.Pug wrote:
is daily multi-posting of criticism stalking or antiamericanism?
Don't know if this is a secret or not, but in umm debate sections you don't type praises about other countries, well some do, but then it comes down to the fact that you can't debate a praise..get it?
Does morality exist in a location outside the human psyche? Even then this question is a bit misleading for there is no inside or outside to ones psyche, since we are our psyche. So, ultimately one's moral compass is merely a replication of those around you moral compass.
When applying all of this to political stances it is easy to see that a lot of our bearings is taught to us via indoctrinization in school and at home. For you see human beings are not born with the capacity to function within political systems. They have to be taught .... So this is one of the reasons why I like to laugh at those who think our plight is so wary that we are incapable of stopping the suicide which we are attempting to achieve as a society.
oh well -- it all seems irrelevant when it comes down to it....just live life ;p
When applying all of this to political stances it is easy to see that a lot of our bearings is taught to us via indoctrinization in school and at home. For you see human beings are not born with the capacity to function within political systems. They have to be taught .... So this is one of the reasons why I like to laugh at those who think our plight is so wary that we are incapable of stopping the suicide which we are attempting to achieve as a society.
oh well -- it all seems irrelevant when it comes down to it....just live life ;p
<stupid comment that causes harm to him as he did to others therefore proving you are the same> yay!
abide by the law? Do you really need something written down in order for you to feel comfortable in your way of being?Freke1 wrote:
You are anachists - just abide by the LAW or You are my enemy.
Last i checked laws are written with the consent of the populace -- the populace choosing to disregard the law is just as practical as a populace deciding that it no longer wants to abide by it. You see for the authority is not derived of the law itself, but as a byproduct of CONSENTING individuals, no? If not then I have some grave news for you -- you are not free.
uhh you guys stop debating about the war and realize that you have no grounds for it...mmkay.
@Moab
About the territorial waters bit. It was in a disputed area (Shat al-Arab ) where the incident took place. So any attempts by a foreign government to state that they have GPS data delineating an territorial boundary that is ONLY settled bilaterally is plane old wrong. Sorry that's how the west decided to play the game might as well not start changing the rules to once convenience on these types of issues.
@Moab
About the territorial waters bit. It was in a disputed area (Shat al-Arab ) where the incident took place. So any attempts by a foreign government to state that they have GPS data delineating an territorial boundary that is ONLY settled bilaterally is plane old wrong. Sorry that's how the west decided to play the game might as well not start changing the rules to once convenience on these types of issues.
well well ...
I think this response on the page hit it on the head
I think this response on the page hit it on the head
:sigh:Tom wrote:
The way this story is written, it gives absolute authority to the analysis of one senior coalition official. (unnamed!)
His analysis may be dead on, but to present one unknown official's opinion as absolute truth without providing the evidence behind his analysis is deceptive reporting.
I find it perfectly plausible that the Iranian government may be behind these shipments, (it also could be someone at a lower level or smugglers,) but to write this story in the somewhat sensationalist way you did offers alot more weight (without evidence) than this report should receive.
If the report has evidence that the Iranian government is behind it, then, sure, make that headline, but hiding behind "Report says" and analysis of unnamed official without evidence should no longer be acceptable reporting in this country.
Not after similar reporting contributed to the war in Iraq.
Is it just me or do we really love WWII .
The ritual usage of Mushroom to expand the "norms" that we so lovingly inflict on one another.
Turquoise : Place a lot of stock on the Gregorian calender do ya?
Turquoise : Place a lot of stock on the Gregorian calender do ya?
Segregated minds accomplish nothing, especially when attempting to create a "democratic" experience.
Oh, but the news reports i keep reading describe an "active" Osama that is issuing orders and patting his men on the back via letters. Its difficult to say he is merely an occasional personality, because he is that to us -- the enemy.CameronPoe wrote:
Osama 'Dialysis Boy' Bin Laden is no longer a threat to anyone. He has been reduced to the role of amateur film-maker and occasional radio personality.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You know very well that it is quite impossible to fight a war without civilian casualties. It simply cannot be done. Chances are that even if they went to where he was with the idea of caputuring him, the ensuing fight would likely end up creating collateral damage anyway.CameronPoe wrote:
The trial comment is ridiculous but the knowingly killing innocent civilians thing isn't.
Sorry, but you can't not go after a major terrorist threat like Osama because some civilians may get injured or killed.
In response to the original OP -- Its a bit strange that there are people that are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people for their cause when this is the same exact mentality they (extremist) use and we condemn it. haha talk about irony. Keyword here is innocent guys....for the death of one man. This would just show to the enemy the reality of our endeavors and possibly provide further confirmation that we truly are what they describe. So yeah have at it send the right message lol.
no shit -- no armies no warsusmarine2005 wrote:
Yes...nobody join.ATG wrote:
I can no longer in good conscious recommend any of our boys join the military.
Lovely idea.
just in case /sarcasm
They do it so people like you can come vent online. Then they point and laugh at you and they lose nothing, you lose time wasted writing / emotional trauma.
Infiltration....condoning ....big words there. Last i checked the government funds public colleges not because they give a SHIT about what is being said, no no , they do it because we TELL THEM TOO k. No, government official is honestly plotting their next BIG MOVE around what is being protested against in some college campus in cali...I'm sorry your freaking delusional.
Yes we defend their right to say whatever comes to mind. Waving around a cardboard cutout is hardly equivalent to strapping C-4 and killing oneself. If you wanted some real radicals you won't find them protesting because sadly this is not a tactic condoned by radicals. We would be more than happy if they stated prancing around with cutouts so then we could ignore them .
Yes we defend their right to say whatever comes to mind. Waving around a cardboard cutout is hardly equivalent to strapping C-4 and killing oneself. If you wanted some real radicals you won't find them protesting because sadly this is not a tactic condoned by radicals. We would be more than happy if they stated prancing around with cutouts so then we could ignore them .
oh shit really how real is this one!?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
tell ken jennings ... he knows the REAL storyCameronPoe wrote:
I realise that - what I don't like is him moving onto another station straight away. It looks ominous.Bubbalo wrote:
You did read the part about them participating in a coup?
How is this even a new message?
That are fought via state sponsored terror