Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

Colfax wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


Umm yeah, and their birth rate is what, 60x higher than the U.S.'s Hmmm, maybe you won't be saying that when they are 3/5's the world population in approx 70 years.

Not a long time.  No wonder Russia and some other Euro countries are giving families MONEY to have children.
Oh boo hoo, whitey isn't going to be around much longer. Get over it.

EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too.
Oh so raping the mentally ill is now considered consential sex....


leave the forums man...
you are consenting killing of a minor, defying international law, and so many other things
I'm consenting? You mean condoning, right? And I just said it was wrong. Not to mention that the NCRI would have the most unbiased report of the incident. I wasn't there. Neither were they. And I am not CONDONING any of that. Especially international law, which America breaks just because it can.

How 'bout you leave instead?
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6614|United States - Illinois
consent: the approval by someone in authority for the doing of something
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consent

condone:  to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/condone

so your mind undersatnds even more

Main Entry:   consent
Part of Speech:   verb
Definition:   agree
Synonyms:   accede, accept, , allow, approve, assent, bless, comply,  concur,
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/consent


i said consent and meant that

"EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too."

Thats what you wrote you f'ing idiot.   Thats CONDONING it.  Even if the penalty is death it is not a penalty for a 16 year old girl that is MENTALLY ill.

stupid stupid people

Last edited by Colfax (2006-08-16 07:57:12)

M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6701|Peoria, Illinois

Ikarti wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Spark wrote:

I still don't think you should generalize about a group of people who represent about a fifth of the world.
Umm yeah, and their birth rate is what, 60x higher than the U.S.'s Hmmm, maybe you won't be saying that when they are 3/5's the world population in approx 70 years.

Not a long time.  No wonder Russia and some other Euro countries are giving families MONEY to have children.
Oh boo hoo, whitey isn't going to be around much longer. Get over it.

EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too.

EDIT: EDIT: WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! Lookie what I found off of wikipedia.

"The NCRI is classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the United States and as a terrorist organisation by the Council of the European Union."

O RLY? Next time let me use Hezbollah as a source.
Is the Sunday Mirror a terrorist organization?

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_o … _page.html

CRUELTY OF SHARIA LAW


PENALTIES imposed by Iran's religious mullahs include:


THEFT: Amputation of hands or feet for persistent offenders.


ADULTERY: Death by stoning.


UNMARRIED SEX: 100 lashes.


CONVERSION TO RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM: Death.


SODOMY: Death for adults, 74 lashes for consenting child.


LESBIANISM: 100 lashes, or on the fourth occasion death.


HOMOSEXUAL KISS: 60 lashes.


RUBBING ANOTHER MAN'S THIGHS OR BUTTOCKS: 99 lashes - on 4th occasion, death.

Let me guess, this is ok but GITMO is Bad?
Jejjk
My "Page Up" has never been used.
+40|6578|Sweden

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Spark wrote:

I still don't think you should generalize about a group of people who represent about a fifth of the world.
Umm yeah, and their birth rate is what, 60x higher than the U.S.'s Hmmm, maybe you won't be saying that when they are 3/5's the world population in approx 70 years.
Not a long time.  No wonder Russia and some other Euro countries are giving families MONEY to have children.
I'm not 100% certain, but giving a family money to have more children doesn't have very much to do with "the threat of muslim overcrowding" IMO.
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6616

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't think anyone sensible thinks Islam poses any kind of serious threat to a) the United States of America or b) Western civilization. Cave-dwelling militant extremists and the odd screwball here and there are not going to pose a serious threat to us. Especially not to the USA who must be something of the order of about 10,000 miles away from the middle east. Scaremongering like this is what prompted Germans in 1930s Germany to start thinking it was OK to gas Jews to death. Several years later they realised the error of their ways. Let's not be the ones who did the gassing and realise later on what monsters we were.

"Preview of Life under Islamic Law" - If people honestly believe the miniscule percentages of muslims in their respective countries are capable of peeling back millennia of western civilisation then they've got problems.
Unfortunately these extremists, as small in number as they are, control the governments of Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria among others. Although none can directly challenge the military might of the U.S., these extremists aren't really ones for conventional warfare anyway. Take Iran, for example. We all know Ahmadinejad has threatened the U.S. in the past, but currently lacks the capability to act on it. But, judging from what we've seen from such extremists in the Middle east recently, how threatened would you feel if/when Iran has the capability of deploying a nuclear weapon in the U.S. or another Western nation? And if Iran, or any other of those aforementioned countries, had that capability, do you honestly think they wouldn't act on it?

Additionally, this situation is completely different from the scaremongering in the 1930s. Jews weren't threatening and suicide bombing Germans, it was a matter of bigotry. Jews didn't have the ability, or weren't working towards the ability, to wipe out a massive number of Germans or a German city in a single attack without having to launch a formal conventional invasion. If you honestly think there isn't a threat, then you are delusional. If we don't remove these extremists, especially from positions of power, soon, it is more likely that we will be second-guessing ourselves as a U.S. or other Western city goes up in flames than it is us looking back at ourselves as monsters for removing that threat.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-08-16 08:21:05)

Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

Colfax wrote:

consent: the approval by someone in authority for the doing of something
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consent

condone:  to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/condone

so your mind undersatnds even more

Main Entry:   consent
Part of Speech:   verb
Definition:   agree
Synonyms:   accede, accept, acquiesce, allow, approve, assent, bless, comply, concede, concur, fold, give in, give up
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/consent


i said consent and meant that

"EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too."

Thats what you wrote you f'ing idiot.   Thats CONDONING it.  Even if the penalty is death it is not a penalty for a 16 year old girl that is MENTALLY ill.

stupid stupid people
I'm still not consenting it. You see, I'M not in a position of authority. And now you're saying I'm condoning it? Wasn't I just consenting? : \

Enough of semantics. I said it was wrong. That is not condoning or consenting. Are you unable to read that part where it says wrong? A link to a foreign terrorist organization that is vehemently anti-Iran is telling me they hung this girl for having sex with an unmarried man in accordance with Shar'ia. I accept this as fact. However, any mental illness or rape claim was probably inserted by the author. Bipolar disorder does NOT make people have sex. Bipolar disorder is also not, in my opinion, a seriously crippling disorder. You're hyping it up as a potential rape of a mentally retarded person. Not the case. It's more along the lines of a potential rape of someone who has dysthymic disorder.

All I am saying is that if it is a crime to have sex out of wedlock, and the penalty is death, and you've done it twice before and got lashings (again, not saying it's right), and you go and do it again? That's just not smart, and it's not a matter of bipolar disorder or rape or whatever the hell they want to throw in there to garner sympathy. Notice how it became rape only after she got caught. If you told me don't have sex or we'll kill I'd you, I'd keep my legs shut.

So, you stupid stupid person, where the hell have I said "LOL CHILD RAPE OF MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE IS AWSUM AND SHULD HAPPEN MORE." Get your head out of your ass.
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

M1-Lightning wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


Umm yeah, and their birth rate is what, 60x higher than the U.S.'s Hmmm, maybe you won't be saying that when they are 3/5's the world population in approx 70 years.

Not a long time.  No wonder Russia and some other Euro countries are giving families MONEY to have children.
Oh boo hoo, whitey isn't going to be around much longer. Get over it.

EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too.

EDIT: EDIT: WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! Lookie what I found off of wikipedia.

"The NCRI is classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the United States and as a terrorist organisation by the Council of the European Union."

O RLY? Next time let me use Hezbollah as a source.
Is the Sunday Mirror a terrorist organization?

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_o … _page.html

CRUELTY OF SHARIA LAW


PENALTIES imposed by Iran's religious mullahs include:


THEFT: Amputation of hands or feet for persistent offenders.


ADULTERY: Death by stoning.


UNMARRIED SEX: 100 lashes.


CONVERSION TO RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM: Death.


SODOMY: Death for adults, 74 lashes for consenting child.


LESBIANISM: 100 lashes, or on the fourth occasion death.


HOMOSEXUAL KISS: 60 lashes.


RUBBING ANOTHER MAN'S THIGHS OR BUTTOCKS: 99 lashes - on 4th occasion, death.

Let me guess, this is ok but GITMO is Bad?
At least they're letting you know what you're being punished for, unlike Gitmo. You still a bit bitter after rubbing that guy's buttocks last time you visited Iran?
JahManRed
wank
+646|6598|IRELAND

FFS, what a racist you are Grape. Look into your own not so distant path. Burning women and children at the stake over religion. See that was a witch hunt started in a time of huge economic and religious upheaval in a fledgling democracy. The Muslim nations are only a couple of hundred years behind the rest of the western world. They should be allowed to develop at their own time. If they are left alone. Constant medaling to "help" middle Easterners is a thinly described resource grab, nothing else. This, "they aren't like us so lets make them like us" bullshit, is whats going to make the whole shit house go up in flames. American Christians were allowed to develop and grow and in a un-radicalize Christianity at their own rate. Now look, a Deeply religious man is running your country with Christianity affecting his every choice. So a book full of fire and brimstone obviously made up, is governing how your country is run. And you criticize the teachings of the Koran and ppl who follow it.
Sharia law is medieval yes, but so was Christianity 200 years ago. If Christians had been persecuted the way you wish Muslims to be now in your Call for a New Crusade (learned that from Bush huh?) they would be radicalized on a scale un seen, unless the world is stupid enough to listen to ppl like you.
Totally ridiculous post Grape. What respect I had for you is gone. And you ppl that give unequivocal support............. go get a brain and an opinion of your own.
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6614|United States - Illinois

Ikarti wrote:

Colfax wrote:

consent: the approval by someone in authority for the doing of something
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consent

condone:  to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/condone

so your mind undersatnds even more

Main Entry:   consent
Part of Speech:   verb
Definition:   agree
Synonyms:   accede, accept, acquiesce, allow, approve, assent, bless, comply, concede, concur, fold, give in, give up
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/consent


i said consent and meant that

"EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too."

Thats what you wrote you f'ing idiot.   Thats CONDONING it.  Even if the penalty is death it is not a penalty for a 16 year old girl that is MENTALLY ill.

stupid stupid people
I'm still not consenting it. You see, I'M not in a position of authority. And now you're saying I'm condoning it? Wasn't I just consenting? : \

Enough of semantics. I said it was wrong. That is not condoning or consenting. Are you unable to read that part where it says wrong? A link to a foreign terrorist organization that is vehemently anti-Iran is telling me they hung this girl for having sex with an unmarried man in accordance with Shar'ia. I accept this as fact. However, any mental illness or rape claim was probably inserted by the author. Bipolar disorder does NOT make people have sex. Bipolar disorder is also not, in my opinion, a seriously crippling disorder. You're hyping it up as a potential rape of a mentally retarded person. Not the case. It's more along the lines of a potential rape of someone who has dysthymic disorder.

All I am saying is that if it is a crime to have sex out of wedlock, and the penalty is death, and you've done it twice before and got lashings (again, not saying it's right), and you go and do it again? That's just not smart, and it's not a matter of bipolar disorder or rape or whatever the hell they want to throw in there to garner sympathy. Notice how it became rape only after she got caught. If you told me don't have sex or we'll kill I'd you, I'd keep my legs shut.

So, you stupid stupid person, where the hell have I said "LOL CHILD RAPE OF MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE IS AWSUM AND SHULD HAPPEN MORE." Get your head out of your ass.
So she closes her legs and is killed by the raper or she opens her legs and is killed by her gov't which should she choose.  Shouldnt have to be either.

Stop attacking grammar when you have no leg to stand on.  Even though the word i used was correct in the way "I' meant it .

Last edited by Colfax (2006-08-16 08:17:45)

Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6705|California

JahManRed wrote:

Sharia law is medieval yes, but so was Christianity 200 years ago.
They should read a friggin history book then, so they don't go down the same path, no?
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6701|Peoria, Illinois

Ikarti wrote:

Colfax wrote:

consent: the approval by someone in authority for the doing of something
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consent

condone:  to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/condone

so your mind undersatnds even more

Main Entry:   consent
Part of Speech:   verb
Definition:   agree
Synonyms:   accede, accept, acquiesce, allow, approve, assent, bless, comply, concede, concur, fold, give in, give up
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/consent


i said consent and meant that

"EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too."

Thats what you wrote you f'ing idiot.   Thats CONDONING it.  Even if the penalty is death it is not a penalty for a 16 year old girl that is MENTALLY ill.

stupid stupid people
I'm still not consenting it. You see, I'M not in a position of authority. And now you're saying I'm condoning it? Wasn't I just consenting? : \

Enough of semantics. I said it was wrong. That is not condoning or consenting. Are you unable to read that part where it says wrong? A link to a foreign terrorist organization that is vehemently anti-Iran is telling me they hung this girl for having sex with an unmarried man in accordance with Shar'ia. I accept this as fact. However, any mental illness or rape claim was probably inserted by the author. Bipolar disorder does NOT make people have sex. Bipolar disorder is also not, in my opinion, a seriously crippling disorder. You're hyping it up as a potential rape of a mentally retarded person. Not the case. It's more along the lines of a potential rape of someone who has dysthymic disorder.

All I am saying is that if it is a crime to have sex out of wedlock, and the penalty is death, and you've done it twice before and got lashings (again, not saying it's right), and you go and do it again? That's just not smart, and it's not a matter of bipolar disorder or rape or whatever the hell they want to throw in there to garner sympathy. Notice how it became rape only after she got caught. If you told me don't have sex or we'll kill I'd you, I'd keep my legs shut.

So, you stupid stupid person, where the hell have I said "LOL CHILD RAPE OF MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE IS AWSUM AND SHULD HAPPEN MORE." Get your head out of your ass.
Your quote "but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex?" is supporting "compliance", which is the same as "consent". From the attitude in your post, I get the impression you care more about arguing with someone here rather than supporting human rights.
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6616

JahManRed wrote:

FFS, what a racist you are Grape.
Oh SWEET! I get to use this again!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/deathbym0nkeyz/racecard.jpg
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6701|Peoria, Illinois

Ikarti wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

Oh boo hoo, whitey isn't going to be around much longer. Get over it.

EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too.

EDIT: EDIT: WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! Lookie what I found off of wikipedia.

"The NCRI is classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the United States and as a terrorist organisation by the Council of the European Union."

O RLY? Next time let me use Hezbollah as a source.
Is the Sunday Mirror a terrorist organization?

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_o … _page.html

CRUELTY OF SHARIA LAW


PENALTIES imposed by Iran's religious mullahs include:


THEFT: Amputation of hands or feet for persistent offenders.


ADULTERY: Death by stoning.


UNMARRIED SEX: 100 lashes.


CONVERSION TO RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM: Death.


SODOMY: Death for adults, 74 lashes for consenting child.


LESBIANISM: 100 lashes, or on the fourth occasion death.


HOMOSEXUAL KISS: 60 lashes.


RUBBING ANOTHER MAN'S THIGHS OR BUTTOCKS: 99 lashes - on 4th occasion, death.

Let me guess, this is ok but GITMO is Bad?
At least they're letting you know what you're being punished for, unlike Gitmo. You still a bit bitter after rubbing that guy's buttocks last time you visited Iran?
Do personal attacks make you smarter or dumber?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Unfortunately these extremists, as small in number as they are, control the governments of Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria among others. Although none can directly challenge the military might of the U.S., these extremists aren't really ones for conventional warfare anyway. Take Iran, for example. We all know Ahmadinejad has threatened the U.S. in the past, but currently lacks the capability to act on it. But, judging from what we've seen from such extremists in the Middle east recently, how threatened would you feel if/when Iran has the capability of deploying a nuclear weapon in the U.S. or another Western nation? And if Iran, or any other of those aforementioned countries, had that capability, do you honestly think they wouldn't act on it?

Additionally, this situation is completely different from the scaremongering in the 1930s. Jews weren't threatening and suicide bombing Germans, it was a matter of bigotry. Jews didn't have the ability, or weren't working towards the ability, to wipe out a massive number of Germans or German city in a single attack without having to launch a formal conventional invasion. If you honestly think there isn't a threat, then you are delusional. If we don't remove these extremists, especially from positions of power, soon, it is more likely that we will be second-guessing ourselves as a U.S. or other Western city goes up in flames than it is that we would look back at ourselves as monsters for removing that threat.
Yes extremists have a foothold in the likes of Iran and Sudan. Libya and Syria I'm not so sure about. Assad of Syria is a pan-arab nationalist (ba'athist) - not an islamic radical and Qaddafi - well he's about as islamic and as extreme as Jerry Springer. The question I want to ask is this - do you honestly believe that Ahmedinejad wants to control the entire world? THat seems ludicrous to me. The gripe muslims, non-practicing, moderate or extreme, have with the west is their support for Israel and the dabbling in their affairs. There was none of this scaremongering pre-9/11. Then the planes hit the twin towers and it's Islamic conspiracy theory city!! One isolated incident perpetrated by a group of delusional crackpots makes the west tremble at their knees. It's quite sad. This grip of fear has meant several western governments have been given tacit approval to go and commit acts that prompted and aided islamic extremism to fester and grow. I do not for second believe that such a disparate group as the Arabs or indeed the Persians could possibly unify or develop the desire or capability to come and attempt to decimate all western civilisation on earth. If the Palestinian question got sorted then I think the flow of moderates into becoming extremists would be stemmed and the fertile driving forces for creating extremists would largely evaporate. Look at Iraq - Sunni fighting Shia fighting Kurd fighting Sunni - the west is the least of their problems. They're too busy knocking the shit out of their own kind.
In 1930s Germany many Germans honestly believed that the Jews were creating worldwide networks of support and influence to 'take over the world' and control all indigenous populations, as it were. It might not be the same as "Jews wanting to eradicate western civilisation" but the concept is similar to a certain extent. The mass-hysteria then and now is very similar. I believe the focus of the west should be on playing fair with respect to Palestine, stay out of middle eastern affairs, concentrate on protection & prevention of terror and if attacked - respond in kind.

PS If people still insist on believing that Islamic extremism is capable of overrunning the west then they probably realise that this could only be achieved through advanced military technology, for example nuclear weapons. The only country in the middle east even nearly capable of that is Iran. Even if they do develop nukes and if they do want to destory the west (not just Israel) then they would still be incapable. Why? Because as soon as nuke one is fired - there will be 500 nukes heading for every courner of their country. I really think people are worrying about nothing. This is blown all out of proportion. There is no such hysteria on European media - maybe things are being presented differently stateside.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-16 08:27:18)

Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

Colfax wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

Colfax wrote:

consent: the approval by someone in authority for the doing of something
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consent

condone:  to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/condone

so your mind undersatnds even more

Main Entry:   consent
Part of Speech:   verb
Definition:   agree
Synonyms:   accede, accept, acquiesce, allow, approve, assent, bless, comply, concede, concur, fold, give in, give up
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/consent


i said consent and meant that

"EDIT: and to the above post. It may be wrong, yes, but if the penalty is death, how hard is it to not have sex? And it said the girl had done it twice before too."

Thats what you wrote you f'ing idiot.   Thats CONDONING it.  Even if the penalty is death it is not a penalty for a 16 year old girl that is MENTALLY ill.

stupid stupid people
I'm still not consenting it. You see, I'M not in a position of authority. And now you're saying I'm condoning it? Wasn't I just consenting? : \

Enough of semantics. I said it was wrong. That is not condoning or consenting. Are you unable to read that part where it says wrong? A link to a foreign terrorist organization that is vehemently anti-Iran is telling me they hung this girl for having sex with an unmarried man in accordance with Shar'ia. I accept this as fact. However, any mental illness or rape claim was probably inserted by the author. Bipolar disorder does NOT make people have sex. Bipolar disorder is also not, in my opinion, a seriously crippling disorder. You're hyping it up as a potential rape of a mentally retarded person. Not the case. It's more along the lines of a potential rape of someone who has dysthymic disorder.

All I am saying is that if it is a crime to have sex out of wedlock, and the penalty is death, and you've done it twice before and got lashings (again, not saying it's right), and you go and do it again? That's just not smart, and it's not a matter of bipolar disorder or rape or whatever the hell they want to throw in there to garner sympathy. Notice how it became rape only after she got caught. If you told me don't have sex or we'll kill I'd you, I'd keep my legs shut.

So, you stupid stupid person, where the hell have I said "LOL CHILD RAPE OF MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE IS AWSUM AND SHULD HAPPEN MORE." Get your head out of your ass.
So she closes her legs and is killed by the raper or she opens her legs and is killed by her gov't which should she choose.  Shouldnt have to be either.

Stop attacking grammar when you have no leg to stand on.  Even though the word i used was correct in the way "I' meant it .
So what position of authority am I in then? Please enlighten me, Webster. Besides, I do think I have something to stand on, seeing as you're demanding that your usage is correct seeing as I'm in some sort of official position.

You're STILL missing the point that it's highly possible or even likely the rape story is fabricated. For the last fucking time I'm telling you I don't think it's right. I'm just saying it's a matter of intelligence. Ever hear of the Darwin awards? If you haven't go take a look.

There's basically a big sign that says NO SEX OR ELSE and she decided to do it. Bad idea.  Penalty harsh? Yes. Pity? No.
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

M1-Lightning wrote:

Do personal attacks make you smarter or dumber?
It was worth a cheap laugh. And again, I've never said killing people for having sex is right. I'm saying you're a fucking idiot for breaking clearly defined rules with ahrsh penalties. Especially breaking them over and over again. What's it matter though? She's in no position to break these rules anymore.
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6614|United States - Illinois

JahManRed wrote:

FFS, what a racist you are Grape. Look into your own not so distant path. Burning women and children at the stake over religion. See that was a witch hunt started in a time of huge economic and religious upheaval in a fledgling democracy. The Muslim nations are only a couple of hundred years behind the rest of the western world. They should be allowed to develop at their own time. If they are left alone. Constant medaling to "help" middle Easterners is a thinly described resource grab, nothing else. This, "they aren't like us so lets make them like us" bullshit, is whats going to make the whole shit house go up in flames. American Christians were allowed to develop and grow and in a un-radicalize Christianity at their own rate. Now look, a Deeply religious man is running your country with Christianity affecting his every choice. So a book full of fire and brimstone obviously made up, is governing how your country is run. And you criticize the teachings of the Koran and ppl who follow it.
Sharia law is medieval yes, but so was Christianity 200 years ago. If Christians had been persecuted the way you wish Muslims to be now in your Call for a New Crusade (learned that from Bush huh?) they would be radicalized on a scale un seen, unless the world is stupid enough to listen to ppl like you.
Totally ridiculous post Grape. What respect I had for you is gone. And you ppl that give unequivocal support............. go get a brain and an opinion of your own.
So we are supposed to let them go on about their ways violating humane rights and moral rights just because we did it 200 years ago?  Maybe we should stop them from making the same mistakes?  Would that not be the moral and ethical thing to do?
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

Colfax wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

FFS, what a racist you are Grape. Look into your own not so distant path. Burning women and children at the stake over religion. See that was a witch hunt started in a time of huge economic and religious upheaval in a fledgling democracy. The Muslim nations are only a couple of hundred years behind the rest of the western world. They should be allowed to develop at their own time. If they are left alone. Constant medaling to "help" middle Easterners is a thinly described resource grab, nothing else. This, "they aren't like us so lets make them like us" bullshit, is whats going to make the whole shit house go up in flames. American Christians were allowed to develop and grow and in a un-radicalize Christianity at their own rate. Now look, a Deeply religious man is running your country with Christianity affecting his every choice. So a book full of fire and brimstone obviously made up, is governing how your country is run. And you criticize the teachings of the Koran and ppl who follow it.
Sharia law is medieval yes, but so was Christianity 200 years ago. If Christians had been persecuted the way you wish Muslims to be now in your Call for a New Crusade (learned that from Bush huh?) they would be radicalized on a scale un seen, unless the world is stupid enough to listen to ppl like you.
Totally ridiculous post Grape. What respect I had for you is gone. And you ppl that give unequivocal support............. go get a brain and an opinion of your own.
So we are supposed to let them go on about their ways violating humane rights and moral rights just because we did it 200 years ago?  Maybe we should stop them from making the same mistakes?  Would that not be the moral and ethical thing to do?
Last time I checked Americans weren't on the top of the human and moral rights game, either.
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6614|United States - Illinois
I'm done with you Ikarti......You're not even worth it.  And i am ashamed to be living on the same continent as you. /ignoring all further comments

Last edited by Colfax (2006-08-16 08:31:05)

Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

Colfax wrote:

I'm done with you Ikarti......You're not even worth it.  And i am ashamed to be living on the same continent as you.
Feel the same way about you too. How shocking.
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6701|Peoria, Illinois

Ikarti wrote:

What's it matter though? She's in no position to break these rules anymore.
Is that really your attitude towards women?
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6616

Ikarti wrote:

Last time I checked Americans weren't on the top of the human and moral rights game, either.
Whether or not they are "on top" is arguable, but they are WELL above those in most Muslim nations.

Colfax wrote:

I'm done with you Ikarti......You're not even worth it.  And i am ashamed to be living on the same continent as you. /ignoring all further comments
QFT

He's probably just trolling.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-08-16 08:33:43)

Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US

M1-Lightning wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

What's it matter though? She's in no position to break these rules anymore.
Is that really your attitude towards women?
oh yeah i hate women and think they should have no rights. i love terrorism too. and cancer.
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6701|Peoria, Illinois

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Colfax wrote:

I'm done with you Ikarti......You're not even worth it.  And i am ashamed to be living on the same continent as you. /ignoring all further comments
QFT

He's probably just trolling.
That''s already been determined: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=37765


Ikarti [Humorous Flametroll]
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US
NEWSFLASH: I am cooking pierogies right now.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard