Article

2006-12-10 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mrp 2006-12-10 11:21|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 around 30 conspiracies were under preparation

It isn't a crime in Britain to conspire to inflict a terror attack? Arrest them all, then all their phone and computer contacts. Expel all non-citizens for either associating with miscreants or for not reporting the plotters, whichever will stick... and their dependents. The taxpaying British citizenry shouldn't have to support Jihadi cuckoos. Charge the citizens with conspiring to murder, and jail the buggers. Let the truly moderate Muslims (and I do believe they exist, although there are those here who don't) caught in the net earn their freedom by grassing on the rest.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-10 11:58|| 2006-12-10 11:58|| Front Page Top

#2 Nothing to worry about. They'd never commit acts of murder and mayhem during a holy day. Aren't we repeatedly told by the media about the sacred Muslim holidays and how we can't fight insurgents during those days. Surely the Muslims will show respect for the sanctity of Christmas and respect the peace of the holiday season. Won't they?

Posted by DMFD 2006-12-10 13:08|| 2006-12-10 13:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Arrest them all, then all their phone and computer contacts. ~~Expel~~ Hang all non-citizens for either associating with miscreants or for not reporting the plotters, whichever will stick... and expel their dependents. The taxpaying British citizenry shouldn't have to support Jihadi cuckoos. Charge the citizens with conspiring to murder, and ~~jail~~ hang the buggers.

I prefer my approach.

Posted by Excalibur 2006-12-10 14:28|| 2006-12-10 14:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Excaliber dear, I suspect I've led a more sheltered life than you. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-10 15:30|| 2006-12-10 15:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Let the truly moderate Muslims ... caught in the net earn their freedom by grassing on the rest.

Because if they don't, then they really weren't moderates anyway, right? The final question arises as to why the Mythical Moderate Muslim must be compelled by force to do any reporting. Don't they value the sanctity of their religion enough to do so without compulsion? Sorta takes the wind out of their claims of being a moderate, now doesn't it. More like a tacit but cowardly accomplice who can be turned with even slight pressure. And this is the crux.

As someone who spent a lot of my early days here defending Moderate Muslims, the fifth anniversary of 9-11 has seen a sea change in my attitudes. I'm not posting this to start a battle with you, trailing wife, and I'm sure there are millions of Muslims who do not have any dog in terrorism's fight.

Unfortunately, there are just as many, if not many more, millions of Muslims who either overtly or covertly support terrorism. I've been forced to draw a line at the concept of Radical Reform. If Muslims want to preserve the life of their religion, and eventually their own, they had best make quick work of outing jihadist imams and terrorists in their midst. Radical Refomation demands a proactive, not a passive "wait-and-see", stance in thwarting terrorism. Moderate Muslims must take back their religion by force or find themselves lumped with the terrorists. No exceptions.

As I've mentioned many times before; We're not obliged to sort delicately through the Muslim population in order to winnow out their terrorists and traitors. That is Islam's obligation should it wish to survive. To date, Islam has shown not the least inkling of being prepared to do so. Nor is there any groundswell movement urging it in that direction.

Islam's only pressure comes from the monstrously expensive campaign against terrorism that America and a bare few other countries have committed themselves to. Such expenditure of precious blood and hard-earned treasure is simply not conscionable in the light of Islam's dogged refusal (there is no reluctance about it) to begin any sort of reformation.

As seen above, if pressure must be applied to certain Muslims in order to obtain any information about jihadists, then they really aren't moderates at all. They are merely weak-willed terrorists who can be turned readily by slight coercion.

By this definition, my own estimate is that the pool of truly Moderate Muslims suddenly drops by a factor of some +90%. That 90% are merely the "unrecruited" or "sleeper" population that .com has often referred to in his convincing arguments against the role of so many supposedly moderate Muslims.

It is this recalcitrance, this dogged refusal to interdict their own violent population that will permit some crazed segment or sect to commit an atrocity of such dumbfounding proportions that nuclear annihilation will be the only appropriate response.

Just as much as any terrorists, so too are the vast majority of supposedly moderate Muslims bringing about their own extermination. The only difference is that their holocaust will never be spelled with a capital "H".

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 16:01|| 2006-12-10 16:01|| Front Page Top

#6 And we know whose fault it is.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-12-10 16:29|| 2006-12-10 16:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Let the truly moderate Muslims ... caught in the net earn their freedom by grassing on the rest.

Because if they don't, then they really weren't moderates anyway, right?

Yup. In a situation like that, give them one opportunity to prove it. In the midst of a shooting war, however, collateral is as collateral does.

I understand your frustration, Zenster. A great many of those claiming to be moderates are clearly spewing taqiyyah in warm, brown, stinky showers. An act of war against the host civilization, on a small scale. Entirely too many of the Muslim community in the States as well as the rest of Dar al Harb are indeed more or less passive fellow travellers rather than non-actively against jihadist efforts.

But there are those others who are quietly reporting to the authorities on the bad guys in their midst -- remember that the Lackawanna Six were turned in by some of the elders in the community. There are others wearing the uniform of this country who honestly stand with us. And quite a few others who've quietly drifted away from Islam without openly declaring themselves because they don't want to face their mother's tears, but who are nontheless disgusted by the viciousness of Islam -- Apostate who posted here for a bit was one of those.

But up till now nobody has demanded that they choose sides -- and until forced, they simply won't openly declare themselves. It would be like an Italian-American calling the police to report that Cousin Vinnie is running drugs for the Mafia... and probably about as dangerous.

There will come a point, soon I hope, when an open declaration will be demanded, those do not stand with us are at least expelled, and those who claim to forced to prove it. Quite possibly as a step before destroying the Ummah. But in the meantime what you want simply isn't going to happen, even were the ratio of passive non-acceptors 90% of the whole.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-10 17:04|| 2006-12-10 17:04|| Front Page Top

#8 And we know whose fault it is.

The Jews have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Even if the Jews had never existed, Islam would still be out to forcefully impose global sharia law upon this world. The number of moderate Muslims who decry terrorism drops precipitously to near-zero when it comes to any opposition over imposing global sharia law. Terrorism or not, it is their aspiration for all humanity to live under sharia law that ~~will~~ must get them all killed.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 17:14|| 2006-12-10 17:14|| Front Page Top

#9 A great many of those claiming to be moderates are clearly spewing taqiyyah in warm, brown, stinky showers.

[snip]

There will come a point, soon I hope, when an open declaration will be demanded, those do not stand with us are at least expelled, and those who claim to forced to prove it. Quite possibly as a step before destroying the Ummah.

Superbly well written, trailing wife.

But in the meantime what you want simply isn't going to happen, even were the ratio of passive non-acceptors 90% of the whole.

I know that it is not possible, now. That does not change at all how important it is to begin militating public opinion over to an understanding of what taqqiya and sharia implies. Once these two incredibly vile practices are finally recognized for the filth they are, only then will there be hope of implementing what you have so deftly outlined.

Please forgive me if I preach to the choir, y'all. Rest assured that the arguments I perfect here are taken into the outside world and distributed for consumption in my own personal effort to bring about the change needed to ensure America's survival.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 17:21|| 2006-12-10 17:21|| Front Page Top

#10 "Even if the Jews had never existed, Islam would still be out to forcefully impose global sharia law upon this world. The number of moderate Muslims who decry terrorism drops precipitously to near-zero when it comes to any opposition over imposing global sharia law. Terrorism or not, it is their aspiration for all humanity to live under sharia law that will must get them all killed."

Zenster makes a great point that can be narrowed down to this fact: The Wahhabi-cult Muzzies are murdering Thais by the bushel of late. How many Thais are Jewish?

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-12-10 17:31|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-12-10 17:31|| Front Page Top

#11 There will come a point, soon I hope, when an open declaration will be demanded, those do not stand with us are at least expelled, and those who claim to forced to prove it.

How will you square that with the Constitution?

Posted by E.W. 2006-12-10 17:43|| 2006-12-10 17:43|| Front Page Top

#12 Aris II.

EW - Have a seat and grab some popcorn, This will, necessarily or not, take awhile and involve mucho bandwidtho.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 17:48|| 2006-12-10 17:48|| Front Page Top

#13 Please don't interrupt if you don't want to answer the question. It'll save on the bandwidth. The question stands.

Posted by E.W. 2006-12-10 17:55|| 2006-12-10 17:55|| Front Page Top

#14 Lol, now you're being petulant and unAmerican in your misunderstanding of my comment. Indeed, the question stands.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 17:58|| 2006-12-10 17:58|| Front Page Top

#15 You mean like detention camps, and same for German and Italian aliens? (Supreme Court upheld). And I don't even remember Japanese in the US killing 3000 Americans or plotting/executing subsequent acts of Jihad on US soil. When a population's core belief is to genocide me and my family, I have no duty to tolerate it, but a duty to wipe their sorry asses off the map.

Posted by ed 2006-12-10 18:05|| 2006-12-10 18:05|| Front Page Top

#16 Easy .com, don't bite. LOL!! OK Zen the bandwidth is your!LOL

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-12-10 18:07|| 2006-12-10 18:07|| Front Page Top

#17 Please don't interrupt if you don't want to answer the question

Ha! Indeedy. Threadus interruptus is a bad deal.

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-10 18:14|| 2006-12-10 18:14|| Front Page Top

#18 You mean like detention camps, and same for German and Italian aliens? (Supreme Court upheld).

That was a formally declared war.

When a population's core belief is to genocide me and my family, I have no duty to tolerate it, but a duty to wipe their sorry asses off the map.

That's all well and good, but again, what legal basis are you going to use to forcefully deport your own citizens based on their religious beliefs?

Posted by E.W. 2006-12-10 18:15|| 2006-12-10 18:15|| Front Page Top

#19 So E.W. you thinking maybe Juan Pablo Montoya maybe goes over big in the ~~Winston~~ Sprint ~~Nextel~~ Cup?

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-10 18:16|| 2006-12-10 18:16|| Front Page Top

#20 Formally declared war? Sheesh. And here I thought you were serious and intended to bring something of substance to the table.

Beware Ft Sumter II, son. Somehow you strike me as being foam on the wave.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 18:20|| 2006-12-10 18:20|| Front Page Top

#21 Ahh, the civil war thing. Now there's a regional conflict if I ever saw one. You sure you'd win?

Posted by E.W. 2006-12-10 18:24|| 2006-12-10 18:24|| Front Page Top

#22 OK Zen the bandwidth is your!LOL

You're too kind, 49 Pan.

How will you square that with the Constitution?

By first revoking Islam's status as a religion and declaring it to be the political ideology it is. Those who adhere to its tenets are tried for sedition and detained or deported as necessary.

E.W., what is your position on this? All well and fine that you question the approach of others, it's certainly your right. However, here at Rantburg, there are those of us who prefer our debates to be two-sided. Opposing viewpoints are welcome so long as they posit some sort of workable solution. What's your's?

Do you view Islam as a threat? Do you consider Islam a valid religion? Are you concerned about halting international terrorism? Do you oppose the subtle erosion of constitutional law that efforts to install sharia represent?

And a quick litmus test:

What is your position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 18:26|| 2006-12-10 18:26|| Front Page Top

#23 Hi Rafael, er, EW. Slumming?

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 18:27|| 2006-12-10 18:27|| Front Page Top

#24 That was a formally declared war.

Islam has declared war on the West so many times and in so many ways with nearly zero contradiction by any source of authority within itself, including direct statements advocating such in the Koran, that one would have to be a hermit not to know this.

While America still does not consider it a religious war, Islam does, and has from the very beginning.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 18:32|| 2006-12-10 18:32|| Front Page Top

#25 Or should I call you:
Hupailet Unaiger3912
Pholing Glineque9578
Angurong Chotle2086
Speart Flerong2904
Slereper Ulosing9249
Shaviting Phinens9082
Uloluth Chinetch5315
Ahmed the terrorist
JUSone
Bob
Lou
GH
MU
for Hungary from Poland
Papa Smurf
Clan Cameron
NWFP Assembly
Nero
Scumbag Defense Atty
Contrarian
C
or
facta non verba ?

Fucking asstard troll.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 18:34|| 2006-12-10 18:34|| Front Page Top

#26 You sure you'd win?

You're kidding, right? A civil war between the American populace and its Muslim colonizers? I'd give it a week, two max.

E.W., either post some answers and solutions or be assumed to be a long line fisherman living beneath a certain special bridge.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 18:38|| 2006-12-10 18:38|| Front Page Top

#27 Is Chiang Mai worth seeing? (Planning a vacation)

Posted by E.W. 2006-12-10 18:39|| 2006-12-10 18:39|| Front Page Top

#28 You beat me to it, .com. Thank you for doing the trace.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 18:40|| 2006-12-10 18:40|| Front Page Top

#29 Islam has declared war on the West...one would have to be a hermit not to know this.

And? The question still stands.

A civil war between the American populace and its Muslim colonizers?

You mean one segment of the American populace. And what makes you so sure the Muslims won't have help?

Posted by E.W. 2006-12-10 18:43|| 2006-12-10 18:43|| Front Page Top

#30 You're trolling, E.W.

Answer the questions in post # 22 or be subjected to DNFTT. I'll say that until you provide some answers, your right to question is void.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 18:46|| 2006-12-10 18:46|| Front Page Top

#31 On the contrary, war has been declared, twice. On Sept. 18, 2001 (SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force.) and against a specific country. Oct. 2002: Iraq War Resolution. We already know detention for the duration is constitutional and this war (as currently waged) will go on after you and I both die of old age. So detention for the duration or deportation makes little difference to me. Depends on wether you want to feed them for life or not.

Patience E.W. Though the war is 1400 years old, US participation is new. Even the Bush administration admitted it will take at least a generation. There will be many muslim atrocities yet to come and for Americans to react to. How many could have predicted the 180 degree change in American perception of muslims in just 5 years, even with a press turning a blind eye to muslim atrocities and burying the words of muslim leaders about the kufr? And American will harden much, much more in the coming years.

Let's talk about beliefs. How do you justify this by fellow Americans?
And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah,

So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

Those whom your right hand possesses [sex slaves captured in Jihad. just like Mo did] out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war.

That being just a tiny sample (try reading the penultimate Chapter 9) from the Bad Book. Notice each of those examples are being put into practice today by muslims against nonmuslims. And you want such perverted believers living next to you, your wife, your children while they plot to do to you what is required of them by islam and the koran?

Posted by ed 2006-12-10 18:58|| 2006-12-10 18:58|| Front Page Top

#32 They already do, ed. This is Rafael, our once stalwart Canuckistan ally, gone over to the Dark Side. I think the unarmed Border ~~Valets~~ Guards bruhaha was the last straw.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 19:02|| 2006-12-10 19:02|| Front Page Top

#33 Ah, but I, at least, wasn't proposing an all-out war against the Muslim religion as the reason for demanding the declaring of sides. I was giving Muslims the opportunity to declare that they do not support -- in any way, whether as registered members of one of the many Islamofascist jihadist groups, supporter (financial or otherwise), or even emotionally ("Ha! our boys blacked those Imperialist eyes but good that time!"). The demand to declare gives the -- supposedly large -- number of moderate Muslims the cover to openly reject all that, and declare for the side of equal-under-the-law Civilization.

There is no reason why we should tolerate living amongst us those who reject the basic principles of our society; even less reason to tolerate those working to overthrow it. Those who are not citizens do not have the right to stay here under those circumstances. We just haven't been exercising our right as a nation to accept or reject. Those who became citizens under false pretenses likewise have no right to that citizenship, and we are entitled to strip them of it and send them away. As for those born to citizenship, but who work toward our conquest by others, or who support that conquest, by such behaviour they abrogate the contract between the citizen and the nation, in my opinion. The Law is going to have to be modified to reflect current reality.

As for the other bit, Al Qaeda for the Sunnis and Iran for the Shiites have openly declared war on the US and the West, each several times. That we have not equally openly declared war back doesn't change the situation -- it only takes one side to make a war.

The Muslims already have help here. But such helpers don't make it more likely they will win, but rather delay the inevitable.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-10 19:03|| 2006-12-10 19:03|| Front Page Top

#34 Y'all beat me to it. Well posted!

Rafael, I'm very disappointed. This is all crap, and you should know better. I used to like and respect you.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-10 19:07|| 2006-12-10 19:07|| Front Page Top

#35 I don't think it's the same guy.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-12-10 19:10|| 2006-12-10 19:10|| Front Page Top

#36 The "prophet" Mohammad needs to cover his loin cloth. Give him some clothes:

http://www.muhammaddressup.com/

How do you get to be a prophet, anyway? Don't you need some witnesses to miraculous power? The Arab pedophile had no witnesses; and he claimed his unholy Koran fiction was a "miracle." "Koran" means "recitation" in Arabic. In the interests of truth, I would change the name of that filthy book to "Perversion," since it is solely the product of the pedophile bandit's sick mind.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-10 19:23|| 2006-12-10 19:23|| Front Page Top

#37 I don't think it's the same guy.

We were once referred to as The Toronto Crew (tm) by lotp, I believe. I used to like that moniker except that I've become the butt of jokes on both sides now: on Rantburg obviously, and on this side for allowing myself to be duped by you for all these years. Oh well. What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger, I guess.

The demand to declare gives the -- supposedly large -- number of moderate Muslims the cover to openly reject all that, and declare for the side of equal-under-the-law Civilization.

Interesting statement (because it seems to contradict itself). Equal-under-the-law Civilization, except that one group is constantly under pressure to prove that they are equal. Sounds like some are more equal than others.

This also goes against the spirit of the Constitution that implicitly puts the onus on the law to prove one's guilt (I forget which amendment it was), not the other way around.

(You used the terms demand and opportunity. I'm assuming your demand has a legal or some other force behind it, otherwise there would be no purpose to presenting this idea.)

There is no reason why we should tolerate living amongst us those who reject the basic principles of our society; even less reason to tolerate those working to overthrow it. Those who are not citizens do not have the right to stay here under those circumstances...Those who became citizens under false pretenses likewise have no right to that citizenship, and we are entitled to strip them of it and send them away. As for those born to citizenship, but who work toward our conquest by others, or who support that conquest, by such behaviour they abrogate the contract between the citizen and the nation, in my opinion.

You won't get any argument from me on that point. In fact, it's exactly what I've been saying.

The Law is going to have to be modified to reflect current reality.

Ah. Bingo. That's exactly what I was implying with my question earlier. Some have concluded that it won't be possible and it'll take a civil war clear things up. While I don't have an easy answer, I claim that steps can be taken that could possibly avert the worst case scenario. In fact, your government has just now adopted one of them (the changes in the citizenship exam). The other step is immigration reform, again not easy.

That we have not equally openly declared war back doesn't change the situation

...but it will once you start demanding proof of loyalty from your own citizens. Supposedly you are a nation of laws.

The Muslims already have help here. But such helpers don't make it more likely they will win

A civil war on a grand scale will likely involve your enemies from around the globe. It's what Osama's been dreaming about for years since he was a little baby. And then you have Castro (or Raul), Chavez, Mexico, China, Russia, and on and on and on and on.

Rafael, I'm very disappointed. This is all crap, and you should know better.

Just imagine how I feel. Sticking my neck out for all these years in an ocean of anti-Americanism, and for what? Only to hear "see, we told you so!".

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 20:12|| 2006-12-10 20:12|| Front Page Top

#38 A civil war on a grand scale will likely involve your enemies from around the globe. It's what Osama's been dreaming about for years since he was a little baby. And then you have Castro (or Raul), Chavez, Mexico, China, Russia, and on and on and on and on.

Don't forget Kanuckistan.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-12-10 20:17|| 2006-12-10 20:17|| Front Page Top

#39 Quote: #36

So Fred Phelps has taken to trolling Rantburg, I presume? Interesting. Your claims about Muhammed only show your own ingnorance and hatred. Believe it or not, Muhammed was a very honorable man. He raised the status of women in Arabia and allowed them to inherit property. He was devoted to his wife. Though he was a conquerer, unlike the Jews of the Old Testament and the Crusaders, he gave those who he conquered the choice to submit to his new rule instead of destroying all: men, women, and children. If the fact that Muhammed married a young woman who by today's standards would be considered a minor, why does that bother you while the fact that Joseph the father of Jesus married Mary while she was 11 or 12? Hate to burst your bubble, but anyone with a high school student's knowledge of history can easily see how much of a hypocrite you are. Stop hatemongering and open your mind instead. You'll be a much happier person.

Posted by Deveran 2006-12-10 20:18|| 2006-12-10 20:18|| Front Page Top

#40 He was devoted to his wife.

Which one? The nine year old?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-12-10 20:21|| 2006-12-10 20:21|| Front Page Top

#41 Don't forget Kanuckistan.

No I doubt it. Too much at stake economically and most people understand that. The others otoh, have much more to gain should the US go Chechnya.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 20:33|| 2006-12-10 20:33|| Front Page Top

#42 Sigh, yet more mindless hatemongering... Not only is it stupid to judge past and cultures by the standards of your culture, but as I have just pointed out, It's also hypocritical. Why do you not also call Joseph a pedophile? Why do you not label the Crusaders as "pedophile bandits"? The latter would certainly be a more accurate discription in their case than it is in Muhammeds, anyway.

Posted by Deveran 2006-12-10 20:33|| 2006-12-10 20:33|| Front Page Top

#43 No I doubt it. Too much at stake economically and most people understand that.

The Liberals will be back in power by then.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-12-10 20:37|| 2006-12-10 20:37|| Front Page Top

#44 The Liberals will be back in power by then.

The Liberals have elected Stephane Dion as their new leader just the other weekend (which means an election is around the corner). For a party that claimed to want to re-invent itself, they shot themselves in the foot. Dion is tainted with the ad scandal of the Chretien days, besides being sort of a doofus on stage (plus he's got authentic French citizenship).

If Harper plays it cool, he's got a shot at 5 more years in power, starting 2007. Which would mean no Afghanistan pull-out.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 20:57|| 2006-12-10 20:57|| Front Page Top

#45 Deveran, Mohammed was not bringing people to his god at sword's edge at the time of the Old Testament you don't seem to know, or the New Testament either (please quote chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows the age of Mary when she married Joseph), but past the time of the New Testament when, in Persia for instance, peoples of different religions had been living peacefully togethers as equals -- not as the master religion and dhimmis -- for the better part of 1000 years. Or the Roman Empire, which which at the time of Jesus tolerated all the religions of its subjects including Judaism. I always find it odd that those who defend Islam ignore the Persians, who gave the Arabs so very much of their culture and literature... not to mention carpet design.

And in what way is it hate to quote directly from the Koran, or Qur'an if you prefer, to support a point? Isn't that what you want, that we get to know Islam better?

Rafael, you neglected to mention that you used to like me too, back when we used to have our little correspondences. You really used to wander round the office announcing that you like America, only to be treated to a litany of our evil ways until you succumbed? Or did you poke at them with verbal stickes like you poked here tonight?

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-10 21:11|| 2006-12-10 21:11|| Front Page Top

#46 Check #25, tw. Rafael has become a fucking troll. Period. Full stop. End of story. Q.E.Fucking.D.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 22:01|| 2006-12-10 22:01|| Front Page Top

#47 DNFTT

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-10 22:09|| 2006-12-10 22:09|| Front Page Top

#48 Troll or not, I told you long ago that if your country has more people like me, then you will lose this past election. And you did. Maybe it wasn't dumb luck that I was right.

I'll be back in 2 years to joyfully point out to .com that Bush hasn't done anything regarding Iran. I will especially enjoy that one.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 22:19|| 2006-12-10 22:19|| Front Page Top

#49 "Troll or not" my ass, yeah right.

Now your closer is interesting. You're the type of asshole who would prefer something unspeakable happen, such as Iran getting nukes without hindrance from the US, just so you can strut...

Well, I guess that's in keeping with the trollery you foisted on RB under that array of nyms --

You're a terminal asshole who should be permanently banned from RB. Face to face, I'd sent you to the Promised Land of Your Choice, bitch.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 22:30|| 2006-12-10 22:30|| Front Page Top

#50 How far you have fallen.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 22:33|| 2006-12-10 22:33|| Front Page Top

#51 How far you have fallen.

I've read your pre-Rantburg stuff. I must say I had you pegged the minute you showed up here.

You're the type of asshole who would prefer something unspeakable happen, such as Iran getting nukes without hindrance from the US

Actually no. I'd do it to show you're nothing but a wanker, not grounded in reality, unable to debate without reverting to invectives and threatening violence. Our dual-citizenship conversations convinced me of that long ago.

See ya in 2 years.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 23:11|| 2006-12-10 23:11|| Front Page Top

#52 So Raphael, you will also joyfully point out to your relatives back in Poland that they are in Iranian nuke range. I'm sure the Iranians will want payback for that insolent Vienna incident.

Posted by ed 2006-12-10 23:15|| 2006-12-10 23:15|| Front Page Top

#53 Is that supposed to refute something? Wotta asstard. You do not deny, hell - you don't even indicate you care one way or the other, regards Irans nuke program's success or demise - you just wanna rub somebody's nose in your shit.

All you do care about is your fucking ego. Eat shit, bitch.

Yeah, dual citizenship is fucking brilliant. You're still the Fuckwit of Olde.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 23:16|| 2006-12-10 23:16|| Front Page Top

#54 you will also joyfully point out to your relatives back in Poland that they are in Iranian nuke range

Russia is more of an immediate threat than Iran. Might I point out, I said Bush won't do anything, for a variety of reasons. I didn't say nothing should be done.

I also didn't say dual citizenships were brilliant. I said it's pointless getting your panties in a knot about it, and it even may prove to be useful, say, to deport wayward Muslims if you wish. You'd think this was obvious by now.

you don't even indicate you care one way or the other, regards Irans nuke program's success or demise

You're so fucking lucky that the Mullahs in Iran are stupid. If I were them, I would get the required prerequisites first: learn the engineering, get the technology, sit quietly and play nice at the UN.

Sooner or later someone will figure this out and get the bomb. I find it pointless to be worried about one single player. I find it pointless to be worried about things I have no influence over. You wanna stop Iran from getting the bomb? Go back in time and kill Einstein.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 23:32|| 2006-12-10 23:32|| Front Page Top

#55

Posted by gorb 2006-12-10 23:32|| 2006-12-10 23:32|| Front Page Top

#56 I didn't say nothing should be done.

...to add, Israel will be the first to act, imo.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 23:34|| 2006-12-10 23:34|| Front Page Top

#57 "I've read your pre-Rantburg stuff."

Lol. Now that's a scream. Pray-tell - where? I was in Saudi Arabia when I found RB, moron.

Posted by .com 2006-12-10 23:40|| 2006-12-10 23:40|| Front Page Top

#58 Pray-tell - where?

I'd say but it would reveal your name. Let's keep private stuff private, k?

Unless you do the honours first and tell us now. (maybe you don't care, I don't know).

BTW, it's nothing you can't discover with Google, hint hint.

Posted by Rafael 2006-12-10 23:47|| 2006-12-10 23:47|| Front Page Top

23:47 Rafael
23:43 rammer
23:40 .com
23:34 Rafael
23:32 gorb
23:32 Rafael
23:16 .com
23:15 ed
23:11 Rafael
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:59 Zenster
22:54 Zenster
22:52 JosephMendiola
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:49 Zenster
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:42 Atomic Conspiracy
22:40 SpecOp35
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:33 .com
22:30 .com
22:23 Zenster
22:19 Rafael
22:12 Zenster