'But that's exactly what this guy is doing, he doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state'

Yes, i know. I was merely asking Kimon if he believed this to be okay in his own opinion, considering his prior statement.

'Whats wrong with race profiling Muslims'

Okay, how about profiling all Christians just because one twat goes and bursts into an Abortion clinic and shoots all the workers dead? Or even better, race profile any race that seems to be a Christian...that'd work...

Barring that, it'd cost too much anyway.

'How about the pilots that bombed Baghdad? They killed tons of innocents.'

People get killed in wars, get over it. How about we start bitching at the same kin of bombers who bombed Germany in WWII, i'm sure just as many innocent lives were lost.

EDIT -

'Racial Profiling is still racism'

OH. MY. GOD. Seriously, are you Black or something? 'cos every small thing that is connected with race is suddenly racist with you. In all honesty, i do find it quite disgusting that you throw that term around so freely. When a term like that is used so carelessly it's usually in a vain attempt at controlling somebody's thoughts.

Lay off the branding. You even called me a racist which is disgusting as i have Black cousins, but as far as i'm concerned, unless i say to somebody "Oi, Nigger/Kike/Gook scum, your kind aren't worth sh*t, Whites are better than you scum, you should all be killed" you have no right to call me a racist.

1. Not a lagit answer we bombed Bagdad to liberate them from a mad man if innocents died then its their fault for being there when it happened. We gave them time to evacuate. You would think people would have the sense to get out of there. Oh and don't tell the war in Iraq was for oil I heard that excuse so many times I puke just hearing it.

2. Got news for you your libral ways cloud your mind! We don't live in the days of Ben Franklin anymore. I am not saying all Muslims are terrorist but I honestly think we need to know who is Muslim to be safe. It maybe wrong but in this case it makes sense to keep us safe. The key word is secure.

3. Cry about it I laugh within!

That was just a retort to "Name a Christian Who Bombs People".

How long will it take for you to realise, that we went into Iraq because the Bush Administration said Saddam had a massive amount of WMD's. There wasn't even a small trace, so now the excuse is that we went in to liberate the people. And for your information, it's liberal, not libral.

No WMD's, sorry. "We gave them time to evacuate." Yes leave now, before we destory your homes and belongings. It's okay, they weren't that great anyway! If someone told you to leave all your shit (home, possesions, etc.) right now, would you go? There's NO WAY you can can blame the citizens for them getting bombed. No way.

I can actually understand you're reasoning on this.

Well, you're a compassionate human being. God would be proud.

Well he had weapons of mass destruction the Clinton Administration even said so years ago. You ever think that in the months leading to the war they were secretly taken out of the country to other various countries just so we can't find them? Say maybe Iran? Hmm sounds very suspicious if you ask me.

Just another excuse to undermine the Bush administration.

If that was the case, then we should have investegated the country BEFORE bombing the shit out of it.

As is your fear of brown people.

He doesn't really need undermining. He does a good job of ****ing up all by himself.

Yeah, that makes sense, if Clinton says it, then it must be true! You can hopelessly grasp your silly conspiracy theories, but countless experts have debunked all of them.

Please look at this pic as I've done it to remember the ones who have gone...

http://www.deviantart.com/view/20322548/

A mourning Angel-Fox? Hmmm...

Well, it's the thought that counts.

Maybe we're not living in "the days of Ben Franklin," but if he were alive today, I sure as hell believe he'd be saying the same quote and not babbling on about putting all the Muslims in camps. Humph, you don't even reply to half the points made against you, PA.

The "proof" against the Muslim faith that you've been posting is just your way of finding little things that could pass as possibly being truthful to justify a preconceived belief.

Angel-Fox, you're a sweet girl. (Although the pose looks kinda naughty for a picture done in mourning)

Angel FoX here says: Well I'm an anthro...

Do you even remember the gulf war?

Do you remember the scud missiles that were dropping from the skies, having run out of fuel? Remember how they had nothing in them at all? That was back when he was supposed to have WMDs for REAL - ten years later with the second gulf war and you're saying that he had WMDs? He didn't have any, why won't you just accept it?

Bush has already accepted that he was wrong and he said so - the thing is he tried to put a positive spin on his failure by saying shit like "well we got rid of saddam and that's all that counts". But you're not even doing that, you're just denying facts, which is possibly even more ignorant than Bush himself.

If you want to support this guy then fine, do so, but you better have something factual and decent to say for him, otherwise you're just supporting idiocy.

I just heard on TV today that it is now officially 52 people either dead or missing and presumed dead.

Ahh PA, still up to your old, ignorant ways, eh? You honestly sound like you are either a child who is trying to sound like they understand the world around them, or an elderly person who cannot get away from the thinking that was done in 'their day'.

And AquaticAmbi, when did you become one of the coolest people on this forum?

'its their fault for being there when it happened'

Gosh, i totally agree with that! I mean, Iraqi's in Iraq! What the Hell?!!

'There wasn't even a small trace, so now the excuse is that we went in to liberate the people.'

I'm on the fence on this one. Okay, so Saddam had no weapons, but the fact is he was trying to get them, and i'm sure you'd much rather have the US and UK get him now, whilst he doesn't have weapons, rather than get him when he does have them.

Also, just think how you would've reacted if you found out that one of your Eastern enemies had WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes? Though i'm not that trusting of Bush (due to the fact that, as i said countless times before the invasion, if Saddam had WMD America wouldn't be going anywhere near him) when it comes to this, i think Tony Blair was sincere when he said he believed there were weapons.

'If someone told you to leave all your shit (home, possesions, etc.) right now, would you go?'

Heh, erm, if the alternative was to be anally raped by explosives...yes.

'about putting all the Muslims in camps'

I can't recall PA saying this, but it seems the anti-Nazi is taking up a few of their ideas...

So in the case of WMD you people actually believe that Saddam dident have weapons?

That is the most niave thing I have ever heard in my entire life. How come you people can't be open minded about the possible smuggleing of weapons from Iraq to other small countries. Countries that are not on the eyes of the US. You ever just once think about that? And if I can recall we did find factions of weapons in other countries like Iran and that Iran was hideing something. There was a news article a while back about this. Its just the media dident cover this story because they want to make everything look like a big failure on the Bush administration.

Of course Saddam let us inspect Iraq because he knew that the weapons were not there. He knew that his weapons were smuggled before the Bush administration came in. Don't you think he would be smart enough to secretly hide them in a place we over looked?

Of course you guys don't think that, because your blinded by the media. And the media are constantly talking about all of this gloom and doom and never the actual progress we are making over there. For crise sake there were elections in Iraq, elections! Its no wounder we are loseing this war. Its because of your left wing negative ways.

There's an 'E' in 'Liberalism'. I agree with everyone else, you're being childish, grow up, you're in your mid-twenties.

Dude, PA, this isn't like swapping grass at a ****ing Primus concert. Who would give weapons to enemies? Really how stupid do you have to be? About as stupid as the U.S., circa 88. So, months upon months of unobstructed inspections and nothing was found. Though the U.S. was bombing the piss out of Iraq in a desperate attempt to goad them into striking with "WMDs" none were used. Though 200,000 troops were out in the open and ripe for attacking, though Saddam surely knew that if he didn't use all weapons at his command he would be captured, tried, and without a doubt executed, no WMDs were used. The weapons program was dismantled after the first Gulf War and any remaining weapons would have deterioted to worthlessness. Iraq did NOT have WMDS during the run-up or after. In fact, the haven't had them for a whole DECADE. When Iraq did possess them it was from us selling them to them and supporting them financially. Period. End of ****ing story.
Edit:Some typos and another point. What does this have to do with London. As far as I can tell, jack shit.

I think all white people should be profiled and carefully watched.
They're all nazis or members of the Ku Klux Klan.
And no, it wasn't just a few of them who were Nazis, an entire COUNTRY preached the Nazi way!!!! I think we should watch this race very carefully. Better to be safe than sorry.

Edit: By the way, I've noticed, PA, that you never actually address any points raised. You simply claim people are blinded and wrong. If only you was right.

Oh my God! I've been blinded by the media! Those damn liberals have brainwashed me! Damn you, truth! Damn you!

Is that so hard to believe? Seeing as how he never used any and after months of inspection, none were still found?

That reminds me of something.... Ah yes! Condemning an entire race because of something a few radicals did!

And I guess that gives us right to bomb countries that DON'T have weapons, right?

There's as much propoganda on the right side as there is on the left. This is no argument.

If he did, don't you think we'd be smart enough to check every nook and cranny?
You think you're so intellegent by saying, "You're naive, you're underestimating them", but anything you've thought of, the Army and government administration have thought of too. They've tried looking in unexpected places, and still, nothing was found, except for a scared man hiding in a hole with a pistol. If he had WMD's, why would he be hiding?

This is from the english paper, The Sun

Four young british muslims dressed like backpackers were butchers behind londons first suicide bombings. CCTV cameras filmed them smiling and chatting at King's Cross station just 30 minutes before Thursdays devastating attacks. Then they split up each carrying up to 10lbs of explosives and i timing device in thier racksacks. And at 8:50am they began to trigger four blasts which left 70 commuters dead. Last night one of the killers was named as Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Who blew himself up on a train at Aldgate, East london

Another bomber was a 19 year old reported missing by his family on the night of the explosion after telling them he was going to london to meet friends. sources said last night he was Hasib Hussain, From Beeston, Leeds, Who died on the No 30 bus in Tavistock Square. A third bomber is too badly charred to be identified yet, But it is believed to be a teenager. He blew himself up just after the Piccadilly Line train left King's Cross in the direction of Russel Square. The fourth bomber was named as 30 year old Mohammed Sadique Khan, From Dewsberry, His documents were found on the Edgeware Road train. But the Al-Qaeda Mr Big who planned the 7/7 atrocity is feared to have fled the country hours before the bombs exploded. Three of the killers drove down the M1 from West Yorkshire to Luton where they met an accomplice. They then boarded a Thameslink train to King's Cross. The bombers were captured on CCTV at 8:20am walking through a subway at King's Cross. One security source said last night "They looked like they were going for a hike. They were chatting to eachother and smiling." The four were identified after police sent a specialist liaison officer to see the 19 year old's family in West Yorkshire. It is believed the familys unwitting involvement played a key role in helping piece together the bombers' movements. Experts were shocked that even the family of one of the bombers had no idea os his evil intention. They said it showed how hard it is to identify terrorists until its too late - And how many may be at large. All three of the bombers identified bt police were "fresh skinned" who were not known to the security services. They were all british born and came from families who emigrated from Pakistan.

Explosives were found in a car parked at Luton station yesterday. The explosives were due to be blown up in the fifth of a series of controlled blasts. A second vehicle found at Luton was taken to a police storage nearby in Leight Buzzard.

A bomb factory was also found during raids on six addresses at Leeds and Dewsberry, West Yorkshire.

Good job, CMB. So how many of the people responsible for the bombings are still alive? I got a bit confused. They solved that pretty quick though.

Umm... When I realized I had been showing barely any personality on the forums, and started trying to change that. :cool:

One, I think... But he isnt a bomber, He is the person behind it all.

All four bombers were suicide bombers; thus they all died. The police have arrested certain relations of a couple of them.
They're currently looking for a hypothetical somebody that controlled the whole operation and planned it all.

Somebody should really use this quote as part of their signature, any takers?

Lol, I dont think i have any room for it :(

Nah, I'm already making fun of one of his quotes.

A mad war criminal dictator doesn't move all his weaponry to another country, let his arch nemesis invade and occupy the country, allow them to capture him, and then simply testify in his defense that he had no weapons. If these weapons were enough of a threat to the world to justify an invasion then Saddam would've had weapons that he could've used against the US forces with a degree of success in the FIRST GULF WAR. He wouldn't have just shoved them aside and just let the Americans waltz right in, driving tanks through palaces and pulling down statues. Instead all he had was a load of empty missiles, which he launched at various targets - all that happened was they fell out of the sky, they didn't even have enough FUEL to get them to their destination. When the wreckage was inspected they were found to contain nothing but air. They had no explosive, chemicals, or biological agents.

Paramiteabe,

Here's an analogy for you:

"Terrorism is to Islam as paramiteabe is to Christianity."

Maybe a bit harsh, and maybe a bit exaggerated, but many of your opinions have been distinctly in contrast to many teachings of Christianity, no matter which part of it you're from. Whatever happened to "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself?"
A bishop here in NZ recently said: "None of the major religions of the world support terrorism."
Look at it this way, if you were a Muslim, how would you feel if a small group of Muslims committed acts of terrorism and everyone suddenly turned against you for being from the same religion?

On to the topic of the thread... um, I don't think I have anything to contribute.

'They're all nazis or members of the Ku Klux Klan.'

You can get Black KKK members, you know.

As for the rest of PA's points, i agree with everybody else. Though i would like to know what is the point of ridiculing for not spelling something correctly is? Especially when everybody gets what they mean anyway.

Grow up.

How does that work? :confused:

I assume you mean everyone's correcting his spelling of liberalism. PA continously has been saying a wide variety of remarks against liberalism, and even blaming it for some major problems. If one is going to go on and on making opinions on something related to important issues, then one should be educated on the facts. It goes to show how little PA knows about what it means to be liberal if he can't even spell it correctly.

I'm not suprised nobody is quoting me or even reading my posts here, they're probably some of the worst that I've ever made. I'm really going to have to work on my making-excellent-point skills, they're getting a little oxide-encrusted.

'How does that work?'

The real KKK is a group that focus' around the belief of keeping the race pure. They believe that each race was created by God and so is equal. They don't agree with mixed-racing, and so it is quite probable you'd get your odd Black KKK member, who believes that Black's should only go out with other Black's.

You do get the odd group, however, preaching to be a member of the KKK when they're actually not. Most of these groups are responsible for the vile atrocities committed against non-whites during the era when the KKK were as well known as Oreos.

'I assume you mean everyone's correcting his spelling of liberalism.'

No, not just that. If you read from where PA first enters the topic, you'll notice that quite a few people ridicule his spelling and grammar capability.

'It goes to show how little PA knows about what it means to be liberal if he can't even spell it correctly.'

I really don't see how being able to spell a word or not means you're more qualified on that topic. I agree with you that PA is an idiot when it comes to his opinions on liberalism, but where exactly does everybody get off in insulting his spelling? If we were to do that to a more popular member i can guarantee there'd be a mass uproar of "Why are you insulting his spelling? What's the point?" etc.

Insult PA's stupidity when it comes to the topics at hand, such as liberalism, but his spelling has f*ck all to do with it and is just a cheap shot at humiliating him.

I still think this whole fiasco is about money and oil...which equals money. "Support our Troops," please, more like, "Support the Person Selling These Cheap Ribbons." As for Tony Blair, I don't know what to think of him, considering I don't know much about British politics. I once watched a session in the House of Commons and I felt they were about to whip out a bunch of grenades and start a war between the Labours and the Conservatives. I don't like how Blair's been behind almost evry one of Bush's moves against the terrorists.

They bicker in the house of commons, a tradition held in high esteem since it began.

Would probably answer for a lot actually.

BAH! They're nothing special, a little further east and you'll see some real debates.

I still liked the comments made by the politicians and how Blair seemed like he was struggling to give a good answer to bushwa with.

Perhaps it should be renamed to 'the house of commoners?'

That would sound stupid :p

A little further east...

Kent?!

Wait no that would be France... what's so great about the French government then? When I think of France I picture a few Frenchman holding an artistically passionate debate in fluent English over boursan on baggettes with red wine... so you might have to enlighten me.

Mmmm boursan.