Renton

Damn.

Leazes obviously has a huge chip on his shoulder about education, I can only assume he went to a rough school in the west end and left with no qualifications, and is bitter about it. Whoops, me and my assumptions again. 146839[/snapback] He's got GCSE in domestic science for his curries. 146877[/snapback] CSE you mean.

Alex, you're naive. You have obviously been subliminally brainwashed into being a do-gooder and have no experience of the real world. What other explanation could there be? Leazes normally comes on at 12ish, doesn't he? Do you think he will answer my question?

My University experiences have greatly influenced my knowledge on medicine, pharmacology, medical research, and related subjects. In all the time I have spent at Uni, I don't think I've once had an in depth discussion with a "fancy Dan" politics or humanities lecturer, or even student for that matter. I wonder if Leazes thinks his GP is a fancy Dan btw? Edit: while I'm at it, I don't read fancy Dan political books either. I have read some of Moores stuff though, but personally thought it was poorly written and pretty unconvincing - the same goes for his films. It's not that I disagree with the sentiments, but I recognise it as fairly trashy literature.

Leazes obviously has a huge chip on his shoulder about education, I can only assume he went to a rough school in the west end and left with no qualifications, and is bitter about it. Whoops, me and my assumptions again.

Odd Renton. But most of the people I work with, and the people I chat with in the pub, think left wing do gooders like you are thick. And stupid. And gullible. And naive. And read too many books by fancy dan lecturers. And that you are funny...not that we think letting potential bombers loose on the streets of the UK is acceptable, waiting for the next bomb, like you do. I really have no problem with coming onto a message board and pointing out to people like you, how wrong you are. If you learn to read - having made the same comment towards myself on a few occasions - you could try looking back and seeing where I say that nothing you have assumed of me is correct. 146793[/snapback] Leazes, that's because the people you chat with in pubs are also morons, like yourself. Frankly I can't be arsed even to get involved in a slanging match with you though; I'm sure everyone on this board know who the thick one is. Have you answered if you are a BNP supporter yet? Apologies if you have, just take a few seconds of your time to direct me to the post number if I missed it. Otherwise answer me yes or no please. Fifth time of asking. 146797[/snapback] Strange. Again. You see, the left wing, anti west stuff that you come out with is exactly the same as what the CND supporters came out with during the Cold War. Anyone who disagrees with them, is a facist, warmonger etc etc.... You simply can't resist making the "thick" jibes can you...another typical left wing attitude, they all do it when they know they have lost. I suggest you read the posts correctly, if you want a reply. Have you read them yet ? Or were you educated somewhere where they don't teach you too much. Like somewhere anti west..which is obviously what you are. I suggest you go and live in the middle east, if you are so prepared to encompass anti west attitudes. Have you read the posts yet. Have you read the posts yet ...... doh. 146801[/snapback] Which post is it where you have stated whether or not you are a supporter of the BNP? Give me the post number, or more easily, just answer here, now, yes or no. Seventh time of asking.

Odd Renton. But most of the people I work with, and the people I chat with in the pub, think left wing do gooders like you are thick. And stupid. And gullible. And naive. And read too many books by fancy dan lecturers. And that you are funny...not that we think letting potential bombers loose on the streets of the UK is acceptable, waiting for the next bomb, like you do. I really have no problem with coming onto a message board and pointing out to people like you, how wrong you are. If you learn to read - having made the same comment towards myself on a few occasions - you could try looking back and seeing where I say that nothing you have assumed of me is correct. 146793[/snapback] Leazes, that's because the people you chat with in pubs are also morons, like yourself. Frankly I can't be arsed even to get involved in a slanging match with you though; I'm sure everyone on this board know who the thick one is. Have you answered if you are a BNP supporter yet? Apologies if you have, just take a few seconds of your time to direct me to the post number if I missed it. Otherwise answer me yes or no please. Fifth time of asking.

It's funny how our security forces and government point out constantly that it's not a question of if but when there is another bomb attack, yet when I point this out Leazes states I am apathetic, defeatist, and ignorant. And I am the one not living in reality. Anyway, I seriously cannot be arsed to argue any more (definately this time LL), I just want an honest answer from Leazes whether or not he is a supporter of the BNP. Fourth time of asking.

Leave the sheep off, Pm me the other 29 cheers 146721[/snapback] Leave the other 29 off and pm me the sheep one please.

Are you getting paranoid Leazes? What assumptions have I wrote on here about you? Go on, name one, give me the post number. I think you are thick, yes, but then I'm sure virtually every poster on here thinks that as it's self evident - why not ask them? There is literally only one question I would like you to answer now, and as usual, this is the third time of asking. Are you a supporter of the BNP? I am perfectly happy to tell you who I vote for and what organizations I have involvement in btw, if you want, I've nothing to hide.

That's the thing - he does have an element of brilliant comedy about him!

LP, I know you know this and can't help yourself, but you are making the mistake of believing that LM can think rationally and understand the concepts you mention. I think it's patently obvious that Leazes is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to fuel his feelings of bigotry and racism, it really is pointless discussing these issues with him. It really is - my advice is to give up asap, which I neglected to do unfortunately . Btw, how long did that Shepherd thread get to on N-O - the one with Macbeth? 80 pages or something with Leazes repeating the same thing, over and over again....

I pointed this out a few posts ago. Anyway Leazes, are you a BNP supporter? Yes or no?

Good luck.

Leazes, I'm not going to bother answering most of this, because LP has answered all your points thoroughly in the posts above this, which I agree with in their entirety, and which he put better than I could. Tbh I get the impression he knows more about this subject than me, and a certainly more than you. So please answer him, if you can. I'm surprised you think my comment on the IRA was disgraceful, after all I was only stating what happened. I am old enough to have experienced these decades and from what I remember the threat from terrorism was greater then - bombs were going off in Northern Ireland and the mainland on a virtual weekly basis. In your opinion btw, how was the problem in Northern Ireland solved? Through dialogue and negotiation, or were the IRA beaten by millitary force? I'd like a clear answer on that one. Imo that is the only way a terror campaign can ever be ended, name one example where this is not the case? Of course, the present day islamic terrorists are a completely different kettle of fish - different ideology, faith, methods, targets, and perhaps most importantly, they don't have a clear aim. This actually make appeasement as you put it impossible. However, I don't think they pose as big as threat as the government would have us believe, I really don't. I can't be arsed to fully explain to you why I believe this, because I'd just get your usual insults and assumptions about me, but in summary this is because there's only been two significant bombings in the nearly 5 years since 9/11 (London and Madrid). During this time US and european intelligence agencies have had virtually no success in infiltrating any islamic extremist organisations, let alone prosecuting anyone. Why is this? Could be for a number of reasons, but to me it seems likely that well-funded, organised, islamic terror networks just don't exist. This was borne out by the fact that 7/7 was seemingly carried out by a rather amateurish group acting independently. As LP has said (I think) these groups are going to be incredibly hard to track down, almost impossible in fact, but at the same time the range of damage they can cause will be short of apocalyptic (though still horrific, as witnessed on 7/7). How many attacks we suffer I think will be proportional to how many of these groups there are - fortunately so far they seem to be limited in number. When I said plodding on, I meant that for the time being at least the status quo will continue, and we will have no options but to put up with it. How can we expect it to end when there is no physical enemy to negotiate with? But you have come up with no measures at all that will make a difference. I hate to tell you Leazes but there are far more intelligent men than us making decisions on our behalf, and they haven't come up with a solution yet, and i doubt they will. But perhaps you send MI5 an e-mail of your solution - I'm sure they'd be really grateful. Lastly, one matter I'm curious on. Who exactly do you think I am, what education do you think I have and in what subjects, and where do you think I get the information from in order to inform my opinions? I ask this because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me, most of which are patently wrong. Also, I'd be interested why you think your life and experience and perception of reality is more valid than mine, or anyone elses for that matter, a common theme to most your posts (on both general and NUFC boards). Yet you call me patronising. Pompous I would accept btw. Fuck, that turned out to be quite a long post. 146358[/snapback] 1. LP certainly appears to know more than you, he certainly puts his case across without resorting to childish insults like you do. Whether he knows more than me - I doubt it - but again he might, that is a matter of opinion, just because you disagree doesn't mean I am less informed. As you know nothing about me, you should not make such assumptions, is a statement I believe you have insinuated, if not directly said, elsewhere. Rather hypocritical, don't you think ? 2. Yes I think your comment on the IRA was disgraceful. You were stating that we should simply sit back and wait for the next bomb to explode in the UK "as we did with the IRA". You would sing a completely different tune if someone YOU knew had been killed, injured, or hurt in a previous act of terrorism by the IRA. Completely lacking in sensitivity, not that I'm surprised. Basically, even ONE more bomb is NOT acceptable. 3. The problem of NI is basically "solved" because we gave in to them. The murderers Adams and McGuiness are now seen as "statesmen". Which is nothing other than a joke. The people are obviously happy with the peace that now exists after decades of violence and who can blame them. What is the future ? What If Ireland becomes a united country, which is STILL the aim of the IRA ? Their violence got us round the negotiating table, you never bargain with terrorists. Will the muslim bombers get us round the negotiating table ? What do you think they will want ? 4. You may be right in the comment that well funded islamic organisations do not exist - now. Although past results suggest they are orgnanised and funded enough. But don't you think we should be concerned that they just might become bigger, better funded, and more organised ? They are not going to go away. I am not interested in talking about such things as "proportion of attacks", because IMO even one attack is one too many. 5. Odd that you say you are sick and tired of me making assumptions about you, because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me. Odd also that you are sick of me assuming you know about my education and backround, and where you get the information to base your opinions, because I am also sick of you assuming you know about my education, backround, most of which are wrong, and where I get the information from to base my opinions. Strange eh. Pompous is indeed a good word to describe yourself. I'll catch up with LP tomorrow. His post is the most thoughtful of the two of you, and I have more time then. 146370[/snapback] Well since we're agreed LP knows more about this than me, I'm prepared to hand over the batton to him now - cheers LP. Just a couple of things. Firstly you suggest I need to know you personally to know you are ignorant of the facts involved in this discussion. That's balatent bullshit isn't it? You make your ignorance apparent on virtually every post you make, for instance citing the genocide of the kurds as a good reason to invade Iraq, but not even knowing who was involved in this atrocity. Still think I said absolutely nothing offensive regards the IRA, but then you have a very strange way of reading, or inability to read, as you have shown hilariously in several of your posts on this very thread. Cheers for the entertainment btw. Finally you say I make assumptions about you. Well yes, I think pretty much every person on here has made particular assumptions about you. But I have kept them to myself, unlike you, who have repeatedly stated things that are incorrect about me, such as what newspaper I read, that I derive my opinions from fancy dan lecturers, and that I think I have all the answers, when I readily admit I have none of them. One assumption I have made of you is that you vote BNP or indeed may be an activist for this party. I think this deserves a straight answer Leazes. Please give it.

Sima's devestated.

Leazes, I'm not going to bother answering most of this, because LP has answered all your points thoroughly in the posts above this, which I agree with in their entirety, and which he put better than I could. Tbh I get the impression he knows more about this subject than me, and a certainly more than you. So please answer him, if you can. I'm surprised you think my comment on the IRA was disgraceful, after all I was only stating what happened. I am old enough to have experienced these decades and from what I remember the threat from terrorism was greater then - bombs were going off in Northern Ireland and the mainland on a virtual weekly basis. In your opinion btw, how was the problem in Northern Ireland solved? Through dialogue and negotiation, or were the IRA beaten by millitary force? I'd like a clear answer on that one. Imo that is the only way a terror campaign can ever be ended, name one example where this is not the case? Of course, the present day islamic terrorists are a completely different kettle of fish - different ideology, faith, methods, targets, and perhaps most importantly, they don't have a clear aim. This actually make appeasement as you put it impossible. However, I don't think they pose as big as threat as the government would have us believe, I really don't. I can't be arsed to fully explain to you why I believe this, because I'd just get your usual insults and assumptions about me, but in summary this is because there's only been two significant bombings in the nearly 5 years since 9/11 (London and Madrid). During this time US and european intelligence agencies have had virtually no success in infiltrating any islamic extremist organisations, let alone prosecuting anyone. Why is this? Could be for a number of reasons, but to me it seems likely that well-funded, organised, islamic terror networks just don't exist. This was borne out by the fact that 7/7 was seemingly carried out by a rather amateurish group acting independently. As LP has said (I think) these groups are going to be incredibly hard to track down, almost impossible in fact, but at the same time the range of damage they can cause will be short of apocalyptic (though still horrific, as witnessed on 7/7). How many attacks we suffer I think will be proportional to how many of these groups there are - fortunately so far they seem to be limited in number. When I said plodding on, I meant that for the time being at least the status quo will continue, and we will have no options but to put up with it. How can we expect it to end when there is no physical enemy to negotiate with? But you have come up with no measures at all that will make a difference. I hate to tell you Leazes but there are far more intelligent men than us making decisions on our behalf, and they haven't come up with a solution yet, and i doubt they will. But perhaps you send MI5 an e-mail of your solution - I'm sure they'd be really grateful. Lastly, one matter I'm curious on. Who exactly do you think I am, what education do you think I have and in what subjects, and where do you think I get the information from in order to inform my opinions? I ask this because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me, most of which are patently wrong. Also, I'd be interested why you think your life and experience and perception of reality is more valid than mine, or anyone elses for that matter, a common theme to most your posts (on both general and NUFC boards). Yet you call me patronising. Pompous I would accept btw. Fuck, that turned out to be quite a long post.

FFS! 146199[/snapback] You not seen it then? the one from the other thread? 146201[/snapback] NO!

FFS!

Btw, I'd love to know how the threat of execution is a deterrent to a suicide bomber. Care to enlighten me Leazes (see, that is a simple straight forward question you should be able to answer). 145816[/snapback] Thats a fair point, if you are talking about suicide bombers. But I wasn't, I was talking about any terrorist. See, Renton. Thats called an answer. I will go further, although you might not agree. Suicide bombers may be happy to give up their lives for the love of Allah in the way they choose, but a long lingering torturous one *, or even one in a manner they don't choose instead, might not be quite so attractive. *EDIT. Read to mean "prison sentence".....I haven't got time..... 145823[/snapback] I was under the impression that the main problem was from suicide bombers like, maybe they just cocked up badly on 7/7. you should try reading the post then I think its quite clear. I plainly said if they shouldn't be here, then they are out. [What do you think of the airline hijackers who have been allowed to stay in the country BTW] If they are UK citizens, then a long sentence of utter misery as an example to others, if they are caught. If they are caught after killing innocent civilians, then the death penalty, after a short time on our own version of death row complete with breaking rocks for 16 hours a day and wiping their arse with a nail. Also as an example. What is YOUR alternative ? And even for someone of limited intelligence, I don't think I could be much plainer. 145991[/snapback] I would say that was the first post you have made your opinion clear on what sentences terrorists should get. Pretty immature viewpoint imo, I would normally expect to hear stuff like that from a 12 year old. You continually insist I claim to have all the answers. Not once have I ever said I had an answer for anything though, not once. Unlike you I realise the world is a complicated place and there are no easy answers, if any. I honestly don't think your "solutions" are anything of the sort though as: 1) I don't believe any islamic terrorist can be deterred by any threat we can give to him on what will happen if he's caught. 2) Closing the borders will not work as the terrorists who commit these acts are proven to be home grown. You also admit we simply can't close our borders to the EU, so even if they were coming from abroad, how would you stop them entering through France? Fwiw I think we have to live with the problem and unfortunately the occasional bombing. Mind, I don't think the threat is all that great - if it is then it proves out intelligence services are incompetent, which is pretty worrying I guess. So I guess for the minute we just keep plodding along hoping the next attack is not too severe, or that it can be intercepted. Much like we did in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s with the IRA. You can call this burying my head in the sand if you like, as LP says I think it's called realism. You offer no real solutions at all though, other than we should punish terrorists (no shit), close borders (we can't) and maybe we should invade Iran or not - you don't know.

I was about to say it will be interesting to see how Leazes will respond, but no, it won't. I agree it was a good and somewhat depressing post.

Different issue from terrorism. Immigration and terrorism arent connected, no matter what the Sun and the Mail might say. As has already been pointed the July 7th bombings were by UK citizens. Your suggestion for deportation wouldnt have solved that would it? It wouldnt have stopped the IRA. All you can do is remain vigilent and depend on intelligence . If a terrorist is good at what he does theres not an awful lot you can do. By the time you no about it its too late. Carlos the Jackal was actually a rubbish terrorist but how long did it take to stop him? Twenty years? The Russians and the Israelis have taken as strong an approach to it a you can but they still havent stopped it. How long have ETA been going? Since the 50's? Spain havent managed to solve that one in 50 years. The thing is with terrorists, unless the make a msitake, you dont really know they are one until its too late. We cant hunt down terrorsits and deport them and lock them up because we dont know who they are. If we tighten our immigration it doesnt mean a terrorist couldnt come into the country under the cover of being on holiday or they might be citizens of another EU country. The most powerful nation in the world has been after the most famous terrorist in the world for years and they cant find him! To tackle terrorism your way you'd have to completely close borders, ban travel and place every civilain under surveillance. Place all Arabs and Muslims under suspicion? But some of the july 7th bombers were of Afro/Carribean origin. Suspecting everyone who was Irish in the 70's and 80's didnt stop the IRA and their American members slipped completely through the net. Like it or not terrorists dont stop until they either get what they want or the reason for wanting it is removed. This has bugger all to do with appeasement and everything to do with reality. 145874[/snapback] Typical naive post from a know-nothing do-gooder. Did your fancy Dan lecturer tell you that? You want to try living in the REAL world like me etc....

Another question to Leazes. You reckon "not letting them in" is the answer, yet so far nearly all the attacks or failed attacks in Europe have been committed by residents. So how is this going to help? Fair enough you want to execute them or imprison them if they are caught before they carry out an act (I appreciate you are confused which is the best option), but this is proving somewhat difficult unfortunately as to my knowledge our intelligence services haven't managed to correctly identify a would-be suicide bomber yet, is it not? I wish you'd just come out the closet and admit you are a card holding BNP member tbh.

Btw, I'd love to know how the threat of execution is a deterrent to a suicide bomber. Care to enlighten me Leazes (see, that is a simple straight forward question you should be able to answer). 145816[/snapback] Thats a fair point, if you are talking about suicide bombers. But I wasn't, I was talking about any terrorist. See, Renton. Thats called an answer. I will go further, although you might not agree. Suicide bombers may be happy to give up their lives for the love of Allah in the way they choose, but a long lingering torturous one *, or even one in a manner they don't choose instead, might not be quite so attractive. *EDIT. Read to mean "prison sentence".....I haven't got time..... 145823[/snapback] I was under the impression that the main problem was from suicide bombers like, maybe they just cocked up badly on 7/7. And now I'm confused. Are you suggesting they get a life prison sentence (which I would advocate), or they are they are executed? Which is it?

He's shown he can't even read or comprehend a simple sentence, even when it is pointed out to him in bold. What a complete spanner! Cue: tut tut, insults from one so intelligent etc, ad nauseum. 145783[/snapback] But what I DO do Renton, is answer questions. Like you haven't done here : And - I didn't say suicide bomber. Deporting someone who shouldn't be here, and making sure they don't get back, or deservedly executing them if we can't deport them - until the rest understand what will happen to them if they are caught bombing innocent Britons, 2 year old children or anyone indiscriminately, on British soil, is guaranteed to stop them re-offending. Correct or not ? So, please explain how your methods of appeasement ie showing weakness, have contained and/or stopped the bombing of innocent civilians in the UK by terrorists/people who should not be here ? Pretty straightforward questions, for an intelligent guy like you who has all the answers ....... and, yes - tut tut such insults from an "intelligent" guy ... shame I have to keep asking though eh 145785[/snapback] Thing is Leazes, I do answer questions. Anyone who has read these threads will be perfectly aware of who ducks questions - and it isn't me. But I give up, there's no point in arguing with someone who simply hasn't got the ability or inclination to read other people's comments, and makes constant assumptions on what they think. Also, it's hard to answer you because you don't make sense. What do you mean by my methods of appeasement for instance, what assumptions are you making on my views, again? And where have I ever said I have all the answers? Personally though, I think you have shown yourself to be a complete fool on these threads, if you had more sense, you'd just give it up. If you ask a sensible question , I'll consider responding to it (something you never do), but otherwise, your welcome to continue your half-witted rants - they're strangely amusing. 145807[/snapback] errrr....the methods you clearly agree with ie those of appeasement, allowing our borders to remain open to more terrorists getting in unchecked or by the back door....this problem has been growing for the last decade and more. Agreed or not ? I am providing an answer, tightening up of the immigration system, to the point of allowing virtually no one else in if need be. What is yours ? And what do you think we should do to them when they are caught ? See the bold. Your patronising knows no bounds, one day you will realise you are wrong son, in the meantime you could answer like an adult instead of beginning the daft jibes again. 145820[/snapback] Please point out anywhere in the history of toontastic where I have advocated having an open-door immigration policy. You can't because I have never said it. Go on, prove me wrong. What a joke it is trying to discuss anything with a man who randomly makes stuff up. I take it your completely closed door policy extends to all countries, including EU countires, the US, Australia etc? Or is it just for people from Africa or the Middle East? Please answer, it's a straight forward question. Of course, you're not right wing, are you?