Bullets 'n' Babes

We've had these discussions many times before. I stopped bothering with them and I'm surprised LD still wants to get into it, cause he will try and explain rationally and answer these guys, and these guys dont listen, dont read the links LD provides, and just bring up crap and accuse LD of hating America. (which, regarding their foreign politics, I certainly dont blame him).

I'm not pro or against Sharia, as I know too little about it. I just want everyone to get along, everyone respecting eachother despite personal beliefs and religions, and I want criminals and assholes to be punished so me and the rest of us normal people can live our lives normally, peacefully, and without having to worry about shit.

thelostdragon wrote:Are we going to do cock measuring here?

I guess with Brad's last reply, that's a yes, then. Well, don't count me in. The lines I wrote in my last post here were just an example of how silly such a discussion would be. Yet, Mr. Brad continues and quotes them as if I didn't try to make a point about how silly this measuring type of a discussion would be.

Oh and romero, out of all people, you, the person who thinks that everybody who acts like a criminal should be shot in the face, think that Sharia law is a hilarious joke?

That is something that I've wondered myself. The most seemingly fascist member of the board here (:D) seems to have a problem with capital punishment in this form.

Hey All, Let add something to the mix..

bradavon wrote:Good to hear, but Sharia law still says it's okay to stone someone for adultery does it not?

What you need to know is that the above will only happen if there are 3 witness who bring proof in, if there isn't any proof, then the person himself will get punished instead.

Okay I feel that LD doesn't have a problem with America, but with the American Administration. I have to say I do have a problem with them as well, due to their foreign policy. But I do have much respect to the outspoken people in the US (ie Alex Jones)

its not like its been made up, or that is like an even thing, 90% of inmates are arab, yeah im sure thats not becuaes of discrimination, im sure 4yrs without trial in a hell hole is fair, and im sure that a democratic goverment cant change that....

Thanks Shen for that

Thanks Slasher for that post
Shen we never said 4 years without trial is fair No way.
And there's nothing wrong with highlighting Guantanamo, which of course (detaining people and not giving them a fair trial) is abhorrent, but LD said "In a democracy..." like that is democracy's fault and the same for all democracies.
Slasher thanks for highlighting the difference between "America" and it's Government

The Greeks didnt initially get the "democracy" right.. everybody had a vote, except women, poor people, slaves, or anyone under 30

I apologise for starting this thread

I'll shut up now

grim, no need to apologize for starting a thread, yup we've had the islamic debate/argument hundreds of times, but hey nevermind, you shouldnt apologize.

Quote:
its not like its been made up, or that is like an even thing, 90% of inmates are arab, yeah im sure thats not becuaes of discrimination, im sure 4yrs without trial in a hell hole is fair, and im sure that a democratic goverment cant change that....

Thanks Shen for that

uhm sorry, that was meant to be a sarcastic post...i dont condone the gitmo situation one bit. and in this day and age and so called advanced government we shouldnt have this, the democratic government all for "freedom of speech" and such shouldnt have this kind of place. hell even in a dictatorship you shouldnt have this kind of place.

In a democracy everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" (or should be...) which I prefer the idea of. As Churchill said

"Democracy is the worst system... except for all the others"

grim_tales wrote:In a democracy everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" (or should be...) which I prefer the idea of.

Prefer to what? Because it's not different in Sharia law.

Fair enough then I meant to say I approve of it in that case.

churchill is also the one who ordered the bombing of dresden killing 500,000 people in one night, in a city of no military or political value.. in series of 3 raids over 14 hours using saturation bombing. so for me Churchill is an hypocritical asshole...

How can you say that? Churchill saved this country from falling under Nazi rule, he wasa great man.

quite easily...he was a hypocritical asshole...why on earth do you need to saturation bomb a city of no political/military gain? why do you need to attack that city 3 times in 14hrs? why do you need to kill 500,000 men, women and children in ONE night? have you ever heard of the effects of saturation bombing grim? it doesnt blow you apart...it melts flesh right off the bones. creates firestorms in which people caught in the middle are sucked into the nearest fire. how can you speak of innocent until proven guilty, then go and kill half a million innocent people? how can democracy be good when you have people who do this in power? how can you trust someone who killed more people in one night than hitler could?

you know, to go on a tangent, we even contributed to the holocaust, before the gas chambers, hitler tried immigration, he asked the UK, America, Russian, France, Norway etc. if they would allow the jews to enter their countries...what did they say? "No, sorry we wont let them." the alternative was made quite clear if they refused this offer...we arent so innocent huh?

sure he "lead" us through the world war, but he wasnt as great as they made out, the coke snorting little meglomaniac, who really lead us through the war? did churchill fight? no... did the other politicians in the uk and america? nope...it was the soldiers that died that lead us through the war. not some stupid ass leader who enjoyed killing innocent people. (america did join in the bombing of dresden, but it was churchills orders and the uk carried out 3 of the attack)

Link

Hitler probably didn't kill many people himself - he had people to do it.
Thanks for the article.
That's awful I remember the debate one year (last year?) over whether the Queen was "right" in issuing an apology to Dresden's people or not.

Also, dont forget Grim: We probably owe being saved from the nazi's more to the Russians helping us out. Germany DECLARED war on the USA and only then did they decide to fight the nazi's.
Anyway, that's a whole different issue.

Yeah, that's true
Also one (the?) reason the USA only entered World War I because the Lucitania, the Titanic's sister ship, sank causing more than 400 US deaths - they entered then to get back at the Germans I think, not save our ass.

Yeah, it was torpedoed by the germans...

Why is that funny?

No grim, he's expecting you to ask that. Now we can prepare to read some romero logic.

Sorry

grim_tales wrote:Yeah, that's true
Also one (the?) reason the USA only entered World War I because the Lucitania, the Titanic's sister ship, sank causing more than 400 US deaths - they entered then to get back at the Germans I think, not save our ass.

i was under the impression the only reason the russians got involved waqs because the nazis decided to invade them?

Its more complex than that, basically put the way I was taught it was The EVIL Russian scumbags helped the Germans kill everyone else for many years, then once the Germans had become big enuff they kicked their Russian colabarators aside and started to kill them, served them right to be honest. But the Germans went a little over the top and tried to wipe them all out. Thats Germans for you.

Mordib wrote:

grim_tales wrote:Yeah, that's true
Also one (the?) reason the USA only entered World War I because the Lucitania, the Titanic's sister ship, sank causing more than 400 US deaths - they entered then to get back at the Germans I think, not save our ass.

i was under the impression the only reason the russians got involved waqs because the nazis decided to invade them?

Do you mean in WW2 or WW1?