| Yes | 28% | 28% - 41 | ||||
| No | 37% | 37% - 53 | ||||
| Go fuck yourself | 34% | 34% - 49 | ||||
| Total: 143 | ||||||
I almost entirely agree, I would make one slight ammendment:.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
a) Muslims = Good
b) Crazy evil Muslim holding a detonator = bad
Almost all Muslims are in category `a`
Are you 12?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
The you would have to deal with us and we will fuck you up. So whats worse? LMAO.fkin_ wrote:
what if all christians and jews and europeans were expelled from the usa. given back to the native indians............. hell yeh
send em back to where they came from the invading bitches.
No, there have been far more terror attacks in Belfast than London. Tit for tat killings at bookmakers, random roadblocks, Catholic children being attacked whilst walking to school, it all adds up.Bertster7 wrote:
Are you joking? London is the centre of England and indeed the UK, not geographically certainly, but in every other way. London has a population of almost 10 million of the UK's 60 million inhabitants. London is by far the largest city in the country and is amongst the largest in the world (609 sq miles). London is the economic and political centre of the country, subsiding the rest of the country by £100s of millions every year.aardfrith wrote:
London is not the centre of England, let alone the UK. Terrorism is not restricted to London. Now that the IRA have renounced violence, I have no wish for a return to the days when terrorism and the fear of it was part of daily life.
Where is the centre of England if not London?
There have been more terror attacks in London than anywhere else in the country, by a long way.
I dunno about the accuracy of that. Investment by Arab nations in the US is only about $4 billion. British investment in the US is over $1/4 trillion. The 5 million muslims withdrawing their money from banks would be fine, they would also have to pay back any debts. The debt of the average US citizen is about $11000. It might actually help the US economy, although losing nearly 2% of the work force might cause problems for economic productivity, but would at least reduce unemployment.--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Are you 12?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
The you would have to deal with us and we will fuck you up. So whats worse? LMAO.fkin_ wrote:
what if all christians and jews and europeans were expelled from the usa. given back to the native indians............. hell yeh
send em back to where they came from the invading bitches.
I voted No. If they were sent home I dunooo.. they probably take all their wealth with them. Now that I'd lke to see all foreigners in the USA withdraw all their monies from banks especially arab nations and leave America in economic collapse - Would be awesome !!
Belfast is not in England. That does nothing to contradict my claims. I did in fact state earlier:aardfrith wrote:
No, there have been far more terror attacks in Belfast than London. Tit for tat killings at bookmakers, random roadblocks, Catholic children being attacked whilst walking to school, it all adds up.Bertster7 wrote:
Are you joking? London is the centre of England and indeed the UK, not geographically certainly, but in every other way. London has a population of almost 10 million of the UK's 60 million inhabitants. London is by far the largest city in the country and is amongst the largest in the world (609 sq miles). London is the economic and political centre of the country, subsiding the rest of the country by £100s of millions every year.aardfrith wrote:
London is not the centre of England, let alone the UK. Terrorism is not restricted to London. Now that the IRA have renounced violence, I have no wish for a return to the days when terrorism and the fear of it was part of daily life.
Where is the centre of England if not London?
There have been more terror attacks in London than anywhere else in the country, by a long way.
I accept that London is the largest city in the UK but the last population estimate I saw (Mid-2004 Resident Population Estimate (2001 Census based) Office for National Statistics) said 7.4 million. If you've inflated your population figure by 33%, how much are you exaggerating the rest? Got a source for the economics?
I would say Birmingham is closer to the centre of England. Yes, I'm talking geographically. If you're talking population wise, probably still Brum. The city itself is quite large and it's nearer to the large northern connurbations of Merseyside, Manchester and Leeds/Bradford.
The population of London depends your definition of it, London continuous urban area was home to 8,278,251 at the time of the 2001 census. London's wider metropolitan area has a population of between 12 and 14 million. Greater London had an estimated 7.5 million inhabitants, but that is not all of London.Bertster7 wrote:
F) You may have lived on a base in Germany, but the vast majority of IRA terror attacks were in London (or possibly Northern Ireland actually).
SourceBBC wrote:
Londoners subsidise the rest of the UK to the tune of £20 billion a year
Bertster7 wrote:
Are you joking? London is the centre of England and indeed the UK, not geographically certainly, but in every other way.
No, but it is in the UK which you did say. If your going to contradict yourself, at least try and cover it up better and not just assume that the rest of us can't read.Bertster7 wrote:
Belfast is not in England.
This whole debate sprung from whether people who are more likely than the general population (the example used was Londoners) are going to just roll over and let fear run their lives in the face of a terrorist danger. If you've got proof that's what people in Belfast do, then this point is worth arguing. I used London as an example. It applies to any major city where people have dealt with the threat of terrorism for an extended period. Life goes on, and to change the way you act beyond basic security precautions is letting the terrorist put the economic pressure which they desire upon the people and their government.Jainus wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Are you joking? London is the centre of England and indeed the UK, not geographically certainly, but in every other way.No, but it is in the UK which you did say. If your going to contradict yourself, at least try and cover it up better and not just assume that the rest of us can't read.Bertster7 wrote:
Belfast is not in England.
Jainus wrote:
With regards to the attacks in Germany, you are quite correct there have been more in London. Now would you like to consider the number of bomb scares and the climate of fear that surrounded my families life there?
For example, i used to check under each and every vehicle every time i got in one... do Londoners do that? Every time we saw a plastic bag, rucksack, briefcase, shoebox, whatever left unattended it was reported as a possible bomb... do Londoners do that? Every time a stranger was seen loitering about either the fence of the camp or even within the camp itself, they were reported and investigated... do Londoners do that?
The answer to all these questions is no, they don't. London may have suffered more attacks than Germany but trying to state that London is the only place under threat is worse than fucking stupid; its dangerous in its complacency. Once more for you as you seem to be having trouble grasping such a complicated idea, there are places outside London... try looking at a map (or an atlas if that isn't too long a word); you'll be surprised just how much is out there.
You aren't worth even talking to. Here's why:I'm the son of an ex-military guy. Whilst the IRA was bombing (and targeting mostly military targets) our family lived in an area that was fair game; in Germany on the military base itself. None of the bases were particularly close to a large city or to London (being as they were in Germany. You know where Germany is?) but don't be so fucking stupid as to tell me that there was no danger because i didn't live in London. You owe Aardfrith an apology for trivialising his fears and you owe an apology to every other member of the UK who doesn't live in London. Get your head out of your arse.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-10-06 10:35:04)
That's not what I've done at all. I DID claim that London was the centre of the UK, which I stand by. The "Belfast is not in England" statement was to do with terrorist attacks and I did say there could well have been more terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. The very fact I have made the distinction between England and the UK in that first statement reinforces my point.Jainus wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Are you joking? London is the centre of England and indeed the UK, not geographically certainly, but in every other way.No, but it is in the UK which you did say. If your going to contradict yourself, at least try and cover it up better and not just assume that the rest of us can't read.Bertster7 wrote:
Belfast is not in England.
In the country. The country is England. Not the UK.There have been more terror attacks in London than anywhere else in the country, by a long way.
Unattended baggage scares in central London, they used to happen a lot. Lot's of people used to get very worked up about it (I didn't because I just assume these things probably won't happen to me, why bother about them, but lots of people do). I've been waiting at a coach stop in Victoria and seen police cars swerve across the road because they had been told about an unattended bag at the coach stop next to me. So yes, things like that do happen. Stations have been closed for controlled explosions of unattended baggage, which usually turned out to be just that, unattended baggage.Jainus wrote:
With regards to the attacks in Germany, you are quite correct there have been more in London. Now would you like to consider the number of bomb scares and the climate of fear that surrounded my families life there?
For example, i used to check under each and every vehicle every time i got in one... do Londoners do that? Every time we saw a plastic bag, rucksack, briefcase, shoebox, whatever left unattended it was reported as a possible bomb... do Londoners do that? Every time a stranger was seen loitering about either the fence of the camp or even within the camp itself, they were reported and investigated... do Londoners do that?
They did and to a certain extent still do. Especially about a year ago after the 7/7 bombings, which pissed me off, because it's my birthday and it messed up my plans for the day and messed up the mobile networks - that is being affected by terrorism. It's not as bad as being blown up, not by a long way, but it's enough to piss me off.Jainus wrote:
The answer to all these questions is no, they don't.
I never stated that London was the only place under threat. I have implied it was the place in ENGLAND, under the MOST threat from terrorism, which all the figures back me up on.Jainus wrote:
London may have suffered more attacks than Germany but trying to state that London is the only place under threat is worse than fucking stupid; its dangerous in its complacency. Once more for you as you seem to be having trouble grasping such a complicated idea, there are places outside London... try looking at a map (or an atlas if that isn't too long a word); you'll be surprised just how much is out there.
Actually, yes it does. Why should law-abiding citizens protest the actions of a fringe group. Should evangelicals or Catholics be compelled to protest the actions of the KKK or Provisional IRA? Should Jews as a whole be suspect because of the actions of Meir Kahane and his Kach organization? No.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Does this make me racist? Nope, I Just would expect anyone living in america, claiming to Love america, to Suooprt america and Protest WITH AMERICA and fight WITH AMERICA against radical Islam. If you cant do that small favor for the country you claim to love, then why are you here again?
QFTMasques wrote:
Actually, yes it does. Why should law-abiding citizens protest the actions of a fringe group. Should evangelicals or Catholics be compelled to protest the actions of the KKK or Provisional IRA? Should Jews as a whole be suspect because of the actions of Meir Kahane and his Kach organization? No.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Does this make me racist? Nope, I Just would expect anyone living in america, claiming to Love america, to Suooprt america and Protest WITH AMERICA and fight WITH AMERICA against radical Islam. If you cant do that small favor for the country you claim to love, then why are you here again?
There is an implicit assumption that the majority of Christians don't support the KKK and similar groups and there should be the same assumption when it comes to Muslims, especially when the levels of radicalism among American Muslims is so low and considering their choosing to work with the FBI and local law enforcement organizations post-9/11. That's more important that any hollow show of loyalty. What good is a protest? In fact there have been protests here and elsewhere against Islamists yet still there's the same idea that they are somehow "foreign" and "against us".
England is indeed a country. But then the UK is also a country, made up of four constituent countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Hence the word is ambiguous. Personally, I took it to mean the UK as a whole - hence the inclusion of Belfast - but I accept your meaning and it makes the rest of what you said make sense.Bertster7 wrote:
What I did say at one point was:In the country. The country is England. Not the UK.There have been more terror attacks in London than anywhere else in the country, by a long way.
Last edited by Korpen (2006-10-06 15:55:40)
Well, sorry for the ambiguity. I should have said Britain not the UK, then there would have been no ambiguity.aardfrith wrote:
England is indeed a country. But then the UK is also a country, made up of four constituent countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Hence the word is ambiguous. Personally, I took it to mean the UK as a whole - hence the inclusion of Belfast - but I accept your meaning and it makes the rest of what you said make sense.Bertster7 wrote:
What I did say at one point was:In the country. The country is England. Not the UK.There have been more terror attacks in London than anywhere else in the country, by a long way.
How much money do the Arabs have invested in America, though? [WARNING: ANECDOTE] I heard it was in the order of a few hundred billion.Bertster7 wrote:
I dunno about the accuracy of that. Investment by Arab nations in the US is only about $4 billion. British investment in the US is over $1/4 trillion. The 5 million muslims withdrawing their money from banks would be fine, they would also have to pay back any debts. The debt of the average US citizen is about $11000. It might actually help the US economy, although losing nearly 2% of the work force might cause problems for economic productivity, but would at least reduce unemployment.--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Are you 12?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
The you would have to deal with us and we will fuck you up. So whats worse? LMAO.
I voted No. If they were sent home I dunooo.. they probably take all their wealth with them. Now that I'd lke to see all foreigners in the USA withdraw all their monies from banks especially arab nations and leave America in economic collapse - Would be awesome !!
I'd say they've probably underwritten at least that in treasury bonds. Bush probably worked out a deal where they get bonds instead of cash for oil.Spark wrote:
How much money do the Arabs have invested in America, though? [WARNING: ANECDOTE] I heard it was in the order of a few hundred billion.Bertster7 wrote:
I dunno about the accuracy of that. Investment by Arab nations in the US is only about $4 billion. British investment in the US is over $1/4 trillion. The 5 million muslims withdrawing their money from banks would be fine, they would also have to pay back any debts. The debt of the average US citizen is about $11000. It might actually help the US economy, although losing nearly 2% of the work force might cause problems for economic productivity, but would at least reduce unemployment.--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Are you 12?
I voted No. If they were sent home I dunooo.. they probably take all their wealth with them. Now that I'd lke to see all foreigners in the USA withdraw all their monies from banks especially arab nations and leave America in economic collapse - Would be awesome !!
Yes, too many terrorists and radicals are coming with them. If we sent them home they could just fight eachother instead of us. Muslims = noobs. We should stop buying oil as soon as possible too.CameronPoe wrote:
So, here's an open question for everyone -
Should all muslims based here in western nations be repatriated back to the countries from which they themselves or their fathers and forefathers come from?
After making your choice please expound on the merits of and reasoning behind said choice, it's feasibility, etc. I feel a lot of people on this forum would genuinely like to see fellow countrymen and women, who happen to be muslim, expelled from their country. This is their platform to tell me why.
JaMDuDe [teamkills] IsraelJaMDuDe wrote:
Yes, too many terrorists and radicals are coming with them. If we sent them home they could just fight eachother instead of us. Muslims = noobs. We should stop buying oil as soon as possible too.CameronPoe wrote:
So, here's an open question for everyone -
Should all muslims based here in western nations be repatriated back to the countries from which they themselves or their fathers and forefathers come from?
After making your choice please expound on the merits of and reasoning behind said choice, it's feasibility, etc. I feel a lot of people on this forum would genuinely like to see fellow countrymen and women, who happen to be muslim, expelled from their country. This is their platform to tell me why.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-10-06 16:56:48)
You should go with them! FABULOUS!Raptor1 wrote:
deport them and let them kill each other somewhere else
You could have done that 50 years ago and most of the problems wouldn't even exist. Everyone would be one big happy family. Except maybe North Korea, but they are only threatening in a yappy Yorkshire Terrier kind of way.JaMDuDe wrote:
We can make the west side of new york the new israel and blow up iran and north korea. All world problems are solved.
Except for the fact that North Korea have announced they will be conducting a nuclear test soon. I wouldn't dismiss them like that. Good thing their missiles won't reach Europe or the US, but look out Japan.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
You could have done that 50 years ago and most of the problems wouldn't even exist. Everyone would be one big happy family. Except maybe North Korea, but they are only threatening in a yappy Yorkshire Terrier kind of way.JaMDuDe wrote:
We can make the west side of new york the new israel and blow up iran and north korea. All world problems are solved.
I did point out in the post you quoted that Arab investment in the US is only around $4 billion.Spark wrote:
How much money do the Arabs have invested in America, though? [WARNING: ANECDOTE] I heard it was in the order of a few hundred billion.Bertster7 wrote:
I dunno about the accuracy of that. Investment by Arab nations in the US is only about $4 billion. British investment in the US is over $1/4 trillion. The 5 million muslims withdrawing their money from banks would be fine, they would also have to pay back any debts. The debt of the average US citizen is about $11000. It might actually help the US economy, although losing nearly 2% of the work force might cause problems for economic productivity, but would at least reduce unemployment.--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Are you 12?
I voted No. If they were sent home I dunooo.. they probably take all their wealth with them. Now that I'd lke to see all foreigners in the USA withdraw all their monies from banks especially arab nations and leave America in economic collapse - Would be awesome !!