Renton

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).

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.

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.

So basically your way of dealing with a succesful suicide bomber is to kill him. Yep that should sort it out 145633[/snapback] Unlike jailing him for a few years, and letting him out again, he won't re-offend. Guaranteed. 145639[/snapback] Jesus fucking wept. 145703[/snapback] Please explain how your methods of appeasement have contained and/or stopped the bombing of innocent civilians in the UK by terrorists/people who should not be here ? 145705[/snapback] Not until you learn to read. I've highlighted some bits to help you.

So basically your way of dealing with a succesful suicide bomber is to kill him. Yep that should sort it out 145633[/snapback] Unlike jailing him for a few years, and letting him out again, he won't re-offend. Guaranteed. 145639[/snapback] Jesus fucking wept.

Give your head a shake Leazes and think before you post, for once in your life. Where have I said that? If you actually bother reading what I have said, you will see that I do not regard Bush as the true power in the White House - he is simply a puppet of his political masters. Come on man - you can tell by looking at him he is probablt too gormless to wipe his own arse. Not only that but I have repeatedly stated that I regard a nuclear Iran as a major threat to world peace, something you constantly choose to ignore. As for him being mad, well how would you describe someone who believes that Jesus is going to come down from heaven and save all the believers (meaning born again christians, but not catholics btw), leaving the rest of us to die horribly in an apocalyspe? Sounds pretty mad to me - as mad as any mullah really.

That's just the sort of thing I would expect from a naive, Guardian reading thicko like yourself. 145501[/snapback] Actually my fancy dan paper of choice is the Times. Hardly the Morning Star like.

Is calling Leazes thick an insult or a fair description though? Personally I regard every insult he hurls as a compliment, given who's saying it.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. 145237[/snapback] tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here... My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ? Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it. Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ? 145327[/snapback] Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no. Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it. This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind. 145381[/snapback] Wierd, but I haven't got time for the appeasing nature of your mind. I have said, like GF, invading Iran is a pretty scary thing, so probably not. On the other hand, I don't think it will go away. At some time in the future we may regret not taking firmer action while we can, but I hope this doesn't happen. As for "confused ramblings" it is very strange that on one hand, you say you have "confidence the situation can be resolved without the use of ground troops" then imply you have no faith in the American President to resolve the situation ! Then you further imply that he is more dangerous than the completely mad Iranian President, despite the fact that the Americans can vote him out and Iranians don't have this freedom ... if something happens and a conflict starts, you would blame Bush wouldn't you ? If anything starts in the middle east, it will be started by the middle east. 145403[/snapback] First of all, aplogies for getting my four lettered countries beginning with I mixed up, I was referring to Iran as you amazingly have sussed. You won't give an answer on whether we should invade Iran though I see, instead you say you will employ hindsight at a later date depending on what happens. A bit ironic coming from you, no? I have not passed comment on the Iranian president (who is elected btw), personally I think he is mad and a danger. Shame you haven't twigged onto this by reading my posts and make assumptions on what I think, as usual. I also think Bush is a dangerous man, there is no contradiction in this. America cannot afford to fight Iran, this I am certain of, and yes, I am reasonably confident the dispute can be resolved through that thing you hate, negotiation, backed by embargoes. The republican party are very unlikely to be re-elected in the US, btw, because the states that got Bush in last time (the Southern states) are the ones that are most affected by this war, as they provide most the soldiers. They are now turning against him, and without these states he cannot win. Under a new democrat regime, I would expect some of the tensions of the middle east to be eased, although as I have said I cannot see wjat the long term solution for Iraq or Iran is. But neither can you.

Fuck. I meant Iran. I'm actually pretty busy today so haven't had time to read or check things properly.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. 145237[/snapback] tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here... My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ? Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it. Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ? 145327[/snapback] Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no. Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it. This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe.

I love the indignation that EVEN THE FRENCH have them! Funny too how Leazes makes a fool out of himself with every single post, but can't see it. Mind, the joke is wearing a bit thin.

I'm going. Looking forward to it.

Can someone be me? I need a break from these threads..... If this is another police cock up it'll be interesting to hear what Leazes has to say. Actually, no, it won't.

Not knowing you personally has fuck all to do with it, as well you know. I think the fact you don't know who Chemical Ali was proves your ignorance. Especially since you are constantly harping back to the genocidal acts HE was perpretrating to back the invasion of Iraq. Frankly, your debating style is pathetic. Whether it be about this subject or Shepherd, you constantly rely on the same stock-in-trade replies, completely regardless of their relevance. I don't know about you but quite honestly I am bored shitless by it as I suspect other posters have, which is why they don't enter threads featuring you any more. It's a shame I have taken so long to twig on as to what you really are. I've had better debates with AI bots. Farewell.

You think this "war" (again, I think that is the worng term) can be won using bombs and violence? Don't be fucking daft, and read about the history of other powers that have tried to win by doing this. Look at Northern Ireland even. The problem is, how do you identify the enemy? I'm not saying i have the answers, but blowing up everyone because of their religion/colour/place of birth, or deporting them for these reasons, is not the answer, I'm fairly sure.

possible link ? http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13526901,00.html One thing I'll say for you Renton, is you don't realise how pointless it is to debate with terrorists, just as it is with yourself, believing we don't have a serious problem here, with these incidents escalating all the time the way they are. At least your consistently naive. Have you forgotten already those hijackers being allowed to stay...just one example, only a few weeks ago. Tremendous for the country aren't they ? 144562[/snapback] Have you read that link? What does it add over the other one? Do you know how many people have held under the prevention of terrorism act, only for the police to release them, as they had done fuck all? These people might well have done something wrong, but unlike you, I'm prepared to wait and see. Where have I ever said we should debate with terrorists? Please, tell me. Also, once again, how am I like chemical Ali? I've only asked you six times now. As for the hijacking ruling, I agreed at the time it was a ludicrous decision, along with every person on this board. Please though, can you tell me the relevance to this story? So, as I suspected, there is no point in this thread at all, is there, other than let you have another inarticulate tirade against an enemy you can't or more likely won't even define. Pointless. 144564[/snapback] "Inarticulate tirade"... a typical response from a left wing do-gooder that thinks all these terrorists will be be respond to debate and negotiation. The only thing they understand is the bullet. Pure and simple. I hope you share the same condemnation of the muslim countries who want to ship out all westerners.... If you can't see how these problems are escalating, and accept we need to do something decisive about them, you are blind. 144571[/snapback] Jesus wept. You haven't answered a single point, AGAIN. That's it, I give up. 144573[/snapback] Blimey. Why do I have to spell out everything to people on here [see the thread about Iraq - have you answered the question posed by Lazarus !!! Last time I looked, I was the only one, and still had to spell it out for the dumb yank] Chemical Ali was basically that blind bastard that denied Baghdad was being attacked with rockets exploding all around him. And you think you are intelligent 144577[/snapback] Where did I say I was intelligent? I'm coming to the conclusion that you are a bit thick though. Chemical Ali was the person who gassed thousands of Kurds under Hussein's reign. He was in short a genocidal murderer. This link might help you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2855349.stm Comical Ali was the person who denied Iraq were losing the war despite there being American tanks clearly visible in the distance. It was an obvious pun on Chemical Ali, but the two could not be more different characters (Comical Ali has been freed with no charge). This link might help you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3024046.stm Fancy not knowing the difference. Now you have clearly demonstrated your complete ignorance on these complicated matters, I know that it's not worth debating with you. Thanks for wasting my time.

possible link ? http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13526901,00.html One thing I'll say for you Renton, is you don't realise how pointless it is to debate with terrorists, just as it is with yourself, believing we don't have a serious problem here, with these incidents escalating all the time the way they are. At least your consistently naive. Have you forgotten already those hijackers being allowed to stay...just one example, only a few weeks ago. Tremendous for the country aren't they ? 144562[/snapback] Have you read that link? What does it add over the other one? Do you know how many people have held under the prevention of terrorism act, only for the police to release them, as they had done fuck all? These people might well have done something wrong, but unlike you, I'm prepared to wait and see. Where have I ever said we should debate with terrorists? Please, tell me. Also, once again, how am I like chemical Ali? I've only asked you six times now. As for the hijacking ruling, I agreed at the time it was a ludicrous decision, along with every person on this board. Please though, can you tell me the relevance to this story? So, as I suspected, there is no point in this thread at all, is there, other than let you have another inarticulate tirade against an enemy you can't or more likely won't even define. Pointless. 144564[/snapback] "Inarticulate tirade"... a typical response from a left wing do-gooder that thinks all these terrorists will be be respond to debate and negotiation. The only thing they understand is the bullet. Pure and simple. I hope you share the same condemnation of the muslim countries who want to ship out all westerners.... If you can't see how these problems are escalating, and accept we need to do something decisive about them, you are blind. 144571[/snapback] Jesus wept. You haven't answered a single point, AGAIN. That's it, I give up.

There was intent on Guy Fawkes' part, and most of those terrorists are technically your citizens, not ours; yiz pedantic proddy bastards! 144569[/snapback] Technically, it's the United Kingdom of Britain AND Northern Ireland. So while people from Northern Ireland are UK citizens, they are in fact Irish, but not British. So ner ner.

Northern Ireland, War of the Roses, Guy Fawkes, etc.? 144566[/snapback] Did Guy Fawkes technically blow anyone up 144567[/snapback] Aye. And those oirish bastards aren't british either.

They worked alright in Iraq, right ? No good pretending the technology couldn't be perfected, rather than bury your head in the sand. 144538[/snapback] Theres a diffenece between military dispersal techniques and a couple of nutters trying to put a terrorist weapon together - a bomb blows things up - the chemicals would go with it. This has all the signs of that one where they sent tanks to Heathrow or the one where Old Trafford was "targetted" (no charges ever brought) - absolute propaganda fuelled bullshit. I know there are people out there with the intent to do these things but we all know that your "final solution" to a relatively small problem is to ship out millions of people who happen to cotribute more to Britain than millions of "true" british. 144543[/snapback] "Relatively small problem".....usual left wing head in the sand bollocks 144553[/snapback] Relative to deporting a couple of million people (the majority of whom are citizens) I'd say it was small. 144556[/snapback] "British" people, don't blow other British people up 144563[/snapback] You don't think British people ever murder other British people? What about that psycho who blew up the gay pub in Soho, was he not British? Come on Leazes, be brave, just spit out what you really mean.

possible link ? http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13526901,00.html One thing I'll say for you Renton, is you don't realise how pointless it is to debate with terrorists, just as it is with yourself, believing we don't have a serious problem here, with these incidents escalating all the time the way they are. At least your consistently naive. Have you forgotten already those hijackers being allowed to stay...just one example, only a few weeks ago. Tremendous for the country aren't they ? 144562[/snapback] Have you read that link? What does it add over the other one? Do you know how many people have held under the prevention of terrorism act, only for the police to release them, as they had done fuck all? These people might well have done something wrong, but unlike you, I'm prepared to wait and see. Where have I ever said we should debate with terrorists? Please, tell me. Also, once again, how am I like chemical Ali? I've only asked you six times now. As for the hijacking ruling, I agreed at the time it was a ludicrous decision, along with every person on this board. Please though, can you tell me the relevance to this story? So, as I suspected, there is no point in this thread at all, is there, other than let you have another inarticulate tirade against an enemy you can't or more likely won't even define. Pointless.

That'll be the ricin he was preparing. 144552[/snapback] Is it like onions?