tooner

you don't have to try very hard, if you're so pedantic as that. I've never took drugs either by the way. as I said before you must be slowing down that is from almost a year ago for jerk, substitute the word "prick". Thats what we say here in the UK anyway.

you don't have to try very hard, if you're so pedantic as that. I've never took drugs either by the way. as I said before you must be slowing down that is from almost a year ago

Cause the only decent uni's in ireland are in belfast (NI) and i want to stay close. Northumbria - cause they do my course, i know loads that go there, and last, but not least, ze mighty toon ... oh and i want a change from ireland Where'd you get that idea? lol indeed pretty sure UCD and Trinity are pretty well rated, Trinity was good enough for Martin Sheen! going on some of your posts on here kevin (the technical ones i mean), "proper" hacking which i'd hope that ethical hacking course is i'd safely say beyond you, unless its how to find xss and injection attacks which is a piece of piss. as for Networking not making you cash and being easy, if you'd any idea how hard it is to become a CCIE and the cash you get from that you'd reconsider. I'm not up for going down south, up north just, Queens and JT are the only real decent ones. I'm just guessing networking isn't the best cause of the entry requirements? I would've thought Ethical Hacking would've been way beyond me, but computer forensics sounds really good. Where abouts is Northumbria uni anyway in newcastle? you're on a fucking computer....look it up

the burly brawl w/ infinite agent smiths has to be one of , if not the best fight scenes in any movie.

nice work!!...congrats.

Really it is a cop out to say I cannot predict the long-term future? The cop out is to say 'it's all about oil'; 'Saddam was completely impotent and posed no threat to the world' etc. 'Let's just leave it, it'll sort itself out' 'nothing to see here' 'Saddam doesn't seem like such a bad guy, I'm sure he'll take care of all this' thing is, It IS all about the oil. Lets say for the sake of argument that there was no oil in Iraq or at the very least not enough to matter. do you think that the west (in particular the US who's VP was a former board member of one of the biggest US based oil companies) would have been ready to commit 100000's of troops to take down an effectively toothless (in military capability) dictator? after the first gulf war Saddam's military was obliterated (and was a shell of its former self)there was essentially no Air force anymore, none of the SAM sites that existed in the first conflict were around. There was little or no resistance when the tanks finally did roll in the spring of 2003. No one has said he didn't seem like a bad guy, he was a maniac (who used to be in the employ of the US), but he was a bit like an angry old man shaking his fist at the world after the first gulf conflict.

I admire your patience to explain how to suck eggs here. I couldn't be arsed to explain the obvious to them. Saddam should have been removed first time round, I've also said this, which is even more amusing when I hear them saying it's about oil. Fact is he flouted all the terms of the treaty, he was laughing in the faces of the UN and the west, and didn't think further action would be taken. Further action was taken by the west though, but not the UN, because too many of the leading figures of the UN are themselves from banana republics and strongly support the politically correct nonsense that is everywhere you go these days. The world is better off without Saddam. It would be better off without leaders of certain other countries too, admittedly, but we can't go around playing the world's policeman all the time. It's a shame that the leftie hippies think the way they do. .....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now. the "story" you've been sold on CNN and the Beeb are just communication exercises given out to justify and rationalize the blatent aggressive stance that US/UK foreign policy took post 9/11 Have you heard of Peak Oil LM? might want to crack a book.

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ? No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone. Keep up. ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear. So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk). Your ideas are illogical. A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing. I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life..... <sigh>......against my better judgement. LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint..... ...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West. your ideas are, convoluted at best I wasn't going to bother with your posts any more, but have to say, does it matter ? The arms industry don't care where they sell their product just like anybody else. More fantastic naivety. avoided a buid up of chemical weapons? where would he have got them? how would he have got them into the country?which arms manufacturer would have sold to him? not only did the west sell weapons to him when he was their sword against Iran, they also gave him the satelitte imagery he used to attack the Kurds in the north. talk about naive , the Iraq invasion was never about WMDs, it was about oil. the first one was about an invasion into a foreign country ie Kuwait. In case you missed the subsequent events, he flouted the terms of the surrender for years, including the obstruction of the weapons inspectors. Unless of course you think this is acceptable [which you probably do]

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ? No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone. Keep up. ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear. So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk). Your ideas are illogical. A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing. I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life..... <sigh>......against my better judgement. LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint..... ...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West. your ideas are, convoluted at best I wasn't going to bother with your posts any more, but have to say, does it matter ? The arms industry don't care where they sell their product just like anybody else. More fantastic naivety. avoided a buid up of chemical weapons? where would he have got them? how would he have got them into the country?which arms manufacturer would have sold to him? not only did the west sell weapons to him when he was their sword against Iran, they also gave him the satelitte imagery he used to attack the Kurds in the north. talk about naive , the Iraq invasion was never about WMDs, it was about oil.

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ? No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone. Keep up. ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear. So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk). Your ideas are illogical. A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing. I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life..... <sigh>......against my better judgement. LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint..... ...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West. your ideas are, convoluted at best

188cm Ullr's Chariot (150mm-101mm-134mm) Carbon Fibre construction, wood veneer topsheet with inlaid abelone in the spider.....<droool> SKIPORN!!

the real test of whether a comment or remark is racist is whether or not you would use the remark in question if you were in the minority in a group of people for which the remark was meant. so if you would call a group of hindhus or sihks 'ragheads' while you were the only white there, then no it's not racist it's just ignorant. however if you're too much of a pussy to say such things in such a situation, then.....ding ding ding, give that man a burkha because he's racist. FYP like I said LM if you would say raghead to a group of sihks or hindhus i don't think you are racist, i think you are ignorant...and I truly believe you are the most ignorant person on this forum. read a book FFS. Prefer to go by first hand experience of this sort of thing chum, if it's alright with you. I don't give a flying fuck if a do gooder liberal yellow bellied idiot thinks I'm a racist, just because I think they should fuck off to somewhere that happily embraces their own particular brand of racism and intolerance. The naivety of people like you would be funny if it wasn't so serious. there go those reading skills again....you really should practice, it's the only way to improve.. you should get out into the real world lad, you might learn something get out into the real world lad.....<skip>...get out into the real world lad...<skip>......get out into the real world lad......<skip>..... somebody change the fucking record would ya? to quote you LM..."you don't know a fucking thing about me"

the real test of whether a comment or remark is racist is whether or not you would use the remark in question if you were in the minority in a group of people for which the remark was meant. so if you would call a group of hindhus or sihks 'ragheads' while you were the only white there, then no it's not racist it's just ignorant. however if you're too much of a pussy to say such things in such a situation, then.....ding ding ding, give that man a burkha because he's racist. FYP like I said LM if you would say raghead to a group of sihks or hindhus i don't think you are racist, i think you are ignorant...and I truly believe you are the most ignorant person on this forum. read a book FFS. Prefer to go by first hand experience of this sort of thing chum, if it's alright with you. I don't give a flying fuck if a do gooder liberal yellow bellied idiot thinks I'm a racist, just because I think they should fuck off to somewhere that happily embraces their own particular brand of racism and intolerance. The naivety of people like you would be funny if it wasn't so serious. there go those reading skills again....you really should practice, it's the only way to improve..

the real test of whether a comment or remark is racist is whether or not you would use the remark in question if you were in the minority in a group of people for which the remark was meant. so if you would call a group of hindhus or sihks 'ragheads' while you were the only white there, then no it's not racist it's just ignorant. however if you're too much of a pussy to say such things in such a situation, then.....ding ding ding, give that man a burkha because he's racist. FYP like I said LM if you would say raghead to a group of sihks or hindhus i don't think you are racist, i think you are ignorant...and I truly believe you are the most ignorant person on this forum. read a book FFS.

anyone on here use soundcloud? really enjoying this at the moment, like a social network for your stereo. been exposed to lots of music and artists I wouldn't normally hear. listening to dedydread's tighten up mixtape at the moment

I reckon that theirs is a worse "kind" of racism as well, it's not a racism born of ignorance or fear, it's almost an air of superiority and condescension. perhaps it's because the people on council estates are more and more likely to go to school with kids of different backgrounds, certainly more so than kids who go to Malborough and the like. +1

ok...but keep me posted will you....

no kidding thats two shades deeper than yellow.....whoa!!

now we know you're lying......

the real test of whether a comment or remark is racist is whether or not you would use the remark in question if you were in the minority in a group of people for which the remark was meant. so if you would call a group of hindhus or sihks 'ragheads' while you were the only white there, then no it's not racist it's just ignorant. however if you're too much of a pussy to say such things in such a situation, then.....ding ding ding, give that man a hood because he's racist.

the entire muslim world? or just the fundamentalist portion of it?.. .you realize that if you substitute 'muslim' with 'christian right' it still rings true I'm sure half of the racists on here must be called Billy-Bob FYP hilarious. yes you are...

the entire muslim world? or just the fundamentalist portion of it?.. .you realize that if you substitute 'muslim' with 'christian right' it still rings true I'm sure half of the racists on here must be called Billy-Bob FYP

the entire muslim world? or just the fundamentalist portion of it?.. .you realize that if you substitute 'muslim' with 'christian right' it still rings true

..this, the one in the real world.

..i think you read the title of the thread wrong...its not the bad joke thread..