Rob W 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Leazes is willing to fight for his country any time!!!! The fact the Army won't have him is just a crying shame.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 By the way Leazes, are you advocating imprisoning people for years purely on the basis of suspicion? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein used to do? 106885[/snapback] Just got up to here reading this thread and my irony meter has gone off the scale. Half the things that HTL advocates (and iirc this includes executing children and publically beating criminals) would fit quite nicely into an extremist state like Iraq that we are "fighting" against. He just can't see it though. 106921[/snapback] Exactly where did that come from, Renton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Leazes is willing to fight for his country any time!!!! The fact the Army won't have him is just a crying shame.................. 107057[/snapback] oh dear the do gooder arrives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17746 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 By the way Leazes, are you advocating imprisoning people for years purely on the basis of suspicion? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein used to do? 106885[/snapback] Just got up to here reading this thread and my irony meter has gone off the scale. Half the things that HTL advocates (and iirc this includes executing children and publically beating criminals) would fit quite nicely into an extremist state like Iraq that we are "fighting" against. He just can't see it though. 106921[/snapback] Exactly where did that come from, Renton? 107098[/snapback] I thought you were for public flogging. And the hanging of the Bulger killers (who at the age of 10 were children). Sincere apologies if I'm wrong. Mind, a lot of people would agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 If I'm not, then who is ? BTW, I'm 51 not 81. 107004[/snapback] For fuck's sake, IQ tbh. 107016[/snapback] is that meant to be an intelligent answer 107019[/snapback] No, it was a stupid reply actually. It was also the same as calling you a wanker, but nobody will get jumpy about it and bookmark it because it's acceptable when put across without the disgraceful behaviour of actually 'calling somebody a name'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 The point is Leazes, you are in no position to comment about what War Veterans think about Guantanamo Bay and the issues around it. Pretty obvious really. 107054[/snapback] So you think they gave their lives so people like you could be brainwashed into allowing muslim extremism to access and attempt to fly their flag in the UK ? I don't think there would even be a need to ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 If I'm not, then who is ? BTW, I'm 51 not 81. 107004[/snapback] For fuck's sake, IQ tbh. 107016[/snapback] is that meant to be an intelligent answer 107019[/snapback] No, it was a stupid reply actually. It was also the same as calling you a wanker, but nobody will get jumpy about it and bookmark it because it's acceptable when put across without the disgraceful behaviour of actually 'calling somebody a name'. 107108[/snapback] Wanker is your stock in trade response tbh HTL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 No, it was a stupid reply actually. It was also the same as calling you a wanker, but nobody will get jumpy about it and bookmark it because it's acceptable when put across without the disgraceful behaviour of actually 'calling somebody a name'. 107108[/snapback] Fucking wanker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 If I'm not, then who is ? BTW, I'm 51 not 81. 107004[/snapback] For fuck's sake, IQ tbh. 107016[/snapback] is that meant to be an intelligent answer 107019[/snapback] No, it was a stupid reply actually. It was also the same as calling you a wanker, but nobody will get jumpy about it and bookmark it because it's acceptable when put across without the disgraceful behaviour of actually 'calling somebody a name'. 107108[/snapback] Wanker is your stock in trade response tbh HTL. 107111[/snapback] HTL never starts the abuse. He told me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) By the way Leazes, are you advocating imprisoning people for years purely on the basis of suspicion? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein used to do? 106885[/snapback] Just got up to here reading this thread and my irony meter has gone off the scale. Half the things that HTL advocates (and iirc this includes executing children and publically beating criminals) would fit quite nicely into an extremist state like Iraq that we are "fighting" against. He just can't see it though. 106921[/snapback] I reckon he is just looking after what he percieves as the best interests of his own country, like most of us. However, unlike a lot of people on here, I don't see how allowing potential terrorists on the streets is a good thing...like it or not we are at war, like we were twice in the last century, just of a different type, against people who want to change the world to one of their liking and take away our freedom, and going by boy scout rules against such bastards and cowards is out of the question 107010[/snapback] I think it goes without saying we all want what is best for the country we live in, I know that I do. It's just some of us believe it is worth protecting what makes our society what it is and don't want us to revert back to medieval "justice" or want a return to "guilty until proven innocent". If we incarcerate people at the will of the state, lock people up for years with no evidence against them, what makes us different to Iraq? The same goes with executing children or beating people in public imo. There seems to be little point in arguing on these points anyway, I have posted on the internet long enough to know the more stubborn among us (and that includes me probably) will never be persuaded we are wrong. However, HTL seems to me to be an extreme case with very black and white viewpoints. These people always worry me, this might sound daft but I believe that the taliban were comprised of similar minded people to some of the more right-wing dogooder bashers you get on these message boards. It's the way some people see the world in black and white, the underlying certainty and fundamentalism of their beliefs. The world is not a simple place and neither are issues, it's right we should debate them in a free society if we want without claims we are loony lefty sandalistas, do-gooders, unpatriotic, or indeed wankers if we do. Anyway, rant over. Like I say I'm not sure I want to get caught up in another of these threads - its got the potential to get ugly. 107030[/snapback] Aye, it certainly has when you portray such total rubbish about me without knowing me. Edit :Point made, post edited. Now waiting to see if Renton withdraws the comment I'm in favour of executing chidlren. Edited March 15, 2006 by Howaythelads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 By the way Leazes, are you advocating imprisoning people for years purely on the basis of suspicion? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein used to do? 106885[/snapback] Just got up to here reading this thread and my irony meter has gone off the scale. Half the things that HTL advocates (and iirc this includes executing children and publically beating criminals) would fit quite nicely into an extremist state like Iraq that we are "fighting" against. He just can't see it though. 106921[/snapback] I reckon he is just looking after what he percieves as the best interests of his own country, like most of us. However, unlike a lot of people on here, I don't see how allowing potential terrorists on the streets is a good thing...like it or not we are at war, like we were twice in the last century, just of a different type, against people who want to change the world to one of their liking and take away our freedom, and going by boy scout rules against such bastards and cowards is out of the question 107010[/snapback] I think it goes without saying we all want what is best for the country we live in, I know that I do. It's just some of us believe it is worth protecting what makes our society what it is and don't want us to revert back to medieval "justice" or want a return to "guilty until proven innocent". If we incarcerate people at the will of the state, lock people up for years with no evidence against them, what makes us different to Iraq? The same goes with executing children or beating people in public imo. There seems to be little point in arguing on these points anyway, I have posted on the internet long enough to know the more stubborn among us (and that includes me probably) will never be persuaded we are wrong. However, HTL seems to me to be an extreme case with very black and white viewpoints. These people always worry me, this might sound daft but I believe that the taliban were comprised of similar minded people to some of the more right-wing dogooder bashers you get on these message boards. It's the way some people see the world in black and white, the underlying certainty and fundamentalism of their beliefs. The world is not a simple place and neither are issues, it's right we should debate them in a free society if we want without claims we are loony lefty sandalistas, do-gooders, unpatriotic, or indeed wankers if we do. Anyway, rant over. Like I say I'm not sure I want to get caught up in another of these threads - its got the potential to get ugly. 107030[/snapback] Aye, it certainly has when you portray such total rubbish about me without knowing me. I reckon from your posts you're a paedophile, mate. 107117[/snapback] Was it the roast puffin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Paedophile is the new one apparently, wanker is old hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 The point is Leazes, you are in no position to comment about what War Veterans think about Guantanamo Bay and the issues around it. Pretty obvious really. 107054[/snapback] So you think they gave their lives so people like you could be brainwashed into allowing muslim extremism to access and attempt to fly their flag in the UK ? I don't think there would even be a need to ask 107109[/snapback] I thought many gave their lives for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom from racism, freedom to travel etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Aye, it certainly has when you portray such total rubbish about me without knowing me. I reckon from your posts you're a paedophile, mate. 107117[/snapback] And what would you do with a paedophile, if you got your hands on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8870 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Basically if the yanks think someone is engaged in terrorist activity then can lock them up for security reasons and we should do exactly the same. 107050[/snapback] I don't think anybody on here disagrees that terrorists should get locked up for security reasons. And I don't think anyone disagrees that there has to be the possibility of locking up suspects if there is sufficient evidence. The only thing is about the proceedings. You don't need a place like Guantanamo and you don't need to abstain from basic human rights like a fair trial. A normal prison is sufficient enough, as well is a normal criminal proceeding. Here in Jormany we had the trial against a muslim terrorist who got a hefty penalty and will enjoy a long time in prison. Remarkable was his last word where he told about his astonishment regarding the treatment he got because his religious feelings got respected as he got the right food, was allowed to read in the Koran and allowed to pray. Nobody was apologetic about his actions and there was no chance his penalty was going to get reduced . And nobody thinks that this terrorist has been 'reformed'. I think this kind of tolerance is setting a far better example than betraying our ideals. The best way to spit in the face of those religious nutters is by showing that we don't have to lower our moral values to fight against them but just treat them as what they are: lunatic criminals. Oh yes, and I like it to be a fancy dan lecturer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17746 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 By the way Leazes, are you advocating imprisoning people for years purely on the basis of suspicion? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein used to do? 106885[/snapback] Just got up to here reading this thread and my irony meter has gone off the scale. Half the things that HTL advocates (and iirc this includes executing children and publically beating criminals) would fit quite nicely into an extremist state like Iraq that we are "fighting" against. He just can't see it though. 106921[/snapback] I reckon he is just looking after what he percieves as the best interests of his own country, like most of us. However, unlike a lot of people on here, I don't see how allowing potential terrorists on the streets is a good thing...like it or not we are at war, like we were twice in the last century, just of a different type, against people who want to change the world to one of their liking and take away our freedom, and going by boy scout rules against such bastards and cowards is out of the question 107010[/snapback] I think it goes without saying we all want what is best for the country we live in, I know that I do. It's just some of us believe it is worth protecting what makes our society what it is and don't want us to revert back to medieval "justice" or want a return to "guilty until proven innocent". If we incarcerate people at the will of the state, lock people up for years with no evidence against them, what makes us different to Iraq? The same goes with executing children or beating people in public imo. There seems to be little point in arguing on these points anyway, I have posted on the internet long enough to know the more stubborn among us (and that includes me probably) will never be persuaded we are wrong. However, HTL seems to me to be an extreme case with very black and white viewpoints. These people always worry me, this might sound daft but I believe that the taliban were comprised of similar minded people to some of the more right-wing dogooder bashers you get on these message boards. It's the way some people see the world in black and white, the underlying certainty and fundamentalism of their beliefs. The world is not a simple place and neither are issues, it's right we should debate them in a free society if we want without claims we are loony lefty sandalistas, do-gooders, unpatriotic, or indeed wankers if we do. Anyway, rant over. Like I say I'm not sure I want to get caught up in another of these threads - its got the potential to get ugly. 107030[/snapback] Aye, it certainly has when you portray such total rubbish about me without knowing me. I reckon from your posts you're a paedophile, mate. 107117[/snapback] Fine. Reckon you've over-stepped the mark there personally HTL. You can certainly dish it out, insult people for no reason, but you can't take any criticism, can you? Mods, can we ban HTL for this? Tbh if he stays, I'm going. Yeah, I know that sounds a bit hissy but I'm fucked if I'm standing for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Leazes is willing to fight for his country any time!!!! The fact the Army won't have him is just a crying shame.................. 107057[/snapback] oh dear the do gooder arrives 107104[/snapback] I've realised it saves time to let these threads run so you can get all your bile out in the open (again) - we should sticky them TBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 The point is Leazes, you are in no position to comment about what War Veterans think about Guantanamo Bay and the issues around it. Pretty obvious really. 107054[/snapback] So you think they gave their lives so people like you could be brainwashed into allowing muslim extremism to access and attempt to fly their flag in the UK ? I don't think there would even be a need to ask 107109[/snapback] No actually, what I was saying was you are in no position to comment about what War Veterans think about Guantanamo Bay and the issues around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Basically if the yanks think someone is engaged in terrorist activity then can lock them up for security reasons and we should do exactly the same. 107050[/snapback] I don't think anybody on here disagrees that terrorists should get locked up for security reasons. And I don't think anyone disagrees that there has to be the possibility of locking up suspects if there is sufficient evidence. The only thing is about the proceedings. You don't need a place like Guantanamo and you don't need to abstain from basic human rights like a fair trial. A normal prison is sufficient enough, as well is a normal criminal proceeding. Here in Jormany we had the trial against a muslim terrorist who got a hefty penalty and will enjoy a long time in prison. Remarkable was his last word where he told about his astonishment regarding the treatment he got because his religious feelings got respected as he got the right food, was allowed to read in the Koran and allowed to pray. Nobody was apologetic about his actions and there was no chance his penalty was going to get reduced . And nobody thinks that this terrorist has been 'reformed'. I think this kind of tolerance is setting a far better example than betraying our ideals. The best way to spit in the face of those religious nutters is by showing that we don't have to lower our moral values to fight against them but just treat them as what they are: lunatic criminals. Oh yes, and I like it to be a fancy dan lecturer... 107127[/snapback] Your trouble Isegrim is that you have far too much common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Fine. Reckon you've over-stepped the mark there personally HTL. You can certainly dish it out, insult people for no reason, but you can't take any criticism, can you? Mods, can we ban HTL for this? Tbh if he stays, I'm going. Yeah, I know that sounds a bit hissy but I'm fucked if I'm standing for this. 107128[/snapback] Another one of AF's alter-egos exposed! Just use the ignore function, Renton, you nancy boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 By the way Leazes, are you advocating imprisoning people for years purely on the basis of suspicion? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein used to do? 106885[/snapback] Just got up to here reading this thread and my irony meter has gone off the scale. Half the things that HTL advocates (and iirc this includes executing children and publically beating criminals) would fit quite nicely into an extremist state like Iraq that we are "fighting" against. He just can't see it though. 106921[/snapback] Exactly where did that come from, Renton? 107098[/snapback] I thought you were for public flogging. And the hanging of the Bulger killers (who at the age of 10 were children). Sincere apologies if I'm wrong. Mind, a lot of people would agree with that. 107106[/snapback] You're totally fucking wrong in point of fact. It would be good if you took the trouble to make sure you know what you're talking about before you attack someone with an accusation of that kind of thing. I don't recall ever reading a thread about public flogging and for the Bulger killers I'd like to see them locked up for good. How's that? Sounds considerably different to the accusation I want to execute children, for fucks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 You can't ban him. He'd be such a martyr about it on N-O, it would be painful. "I've seen people get banned standing up for what we believe in in the West" etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Wanker is your stock in trade response tbh HTL. 107111[/snapback] So 5 pages ago tbh. This thread kicked off because HF expressed an interest in Gitmo, he didn't even express an opinion, and Rambo went ape-shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmag 336 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 It would be good if you took the trouble to make sure you know what you're talking about before you attack someone with an accusation of that kind of thing. 107134[/snapback] Whoa there! Like you just did before suggesting he was a paedophile?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I love these ironing pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now