# Unbelieveable



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5234142.stm

Somehow the fact that he was blind drunk and driving at 87mph through a 45 zone is completely lost in the Jewish red mist. I wonder how many he would have had to have killed while DUI for his anti-semetic comments (what ever they were) to be relegated from the headline. :roll:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

He's a grade A, 100%, prize-winning C UNT of the highest order.

Everyone says weird stuff when drunk, but to pretend that what he said doesn't reflect his true feelings? Naively anti-Jewish prick.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Last time I had a go at someone for drink driving half the forum came down on me so Im not saying owt.

(slapping face) Woop, woop, woop sometimes I just go craaazy (and slag Jews off)

Git.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

jampott said:


> He's a grade A, 100%, prize-winning C UNT of the highest order.
> 
> Everyone says weird stuff when drunk, but to pretend that what he said doesn't reflect his true feelings? Naively anti-Jewish prick.


Sometimes not even weird, but =a lot closer to the truth as people lose a lot of inhibitions


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

BAMTT said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > He's a grade A, 100%, prize-winning C UNT of the highest order.
> ...


I find the idea that you don't know what you are doing when you are drunk ludicrous. You know exactly what you are doing, you just care less of the consequences.

However, the question here is, I suppose, should you be judged by what you think (which perhaps has become apparent here with Gibson) or how you act? It seems that Gibson doesn't hold Jewish people too close to his heart. Whoopdidoo! What a surprise, a gentile not liking Jews. But does it affect the way he lives life and treats others? I haven't heard that it does. So what's the big deal? Anyhoo, it sounds like he spends most of his time looking at the bottom of the vodka glass to allow him to plot the downfall of Judaism.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

He was drunk who cares.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> He was drunk who cares.


I know, ive never said ANYTHING out of order or contentious when ive been drunk, I just dont understand it. :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> He was drunk who cares.


He is rich and famous...so he can do anything he likes. :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Leg said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > He was drunk who cares.
> ...


I dont need a drink to do that :wink: My driving not much better when im drunk to sobber so for me it doesnt make a lot of difference. The way people drive around london most must be drunk too.

Maybe they should give you a driving test while drunk - this way at least you can learn to drive while drunk.

light paper and stand back [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

Funny but a Jewish lad I work with hates him and has always said he is anti semetic I cant remember the reason now though


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Wallsendmag II said:


> Funny but a Jewish lad I work with hates Him and has always said he is anti semetic I cant remember the reason now though


Probably because he's not a Spurs fan.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Wallsendmag II said:


> Funny but a Jewish lad I work with hates Him and has always said he is anti semetic I cant remember the reason now though


Isnt Him with an uppercase 'H', god? The small 'g' reflects my opinion on the whole religion matter accross the board btw?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Not sure if he's anti-semitic, but I've always thought he was anti-English.

M'lord, I present 'The Patriot' and 'Braveheart' as evidence.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

But you have to take that as read - he is an Aussie. :lol:


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

Karcsi said:


> But you have to take that as read - he is an Aussie. :lol:


From the the BBC Website:



> Born in New York, Mel Gibson was the sixth of 11 children and moved to Australia in 1968 after his father won an injury payout and the TV quiz Jeopardy.
> 
> After being teased for being a "Yank", he adopted an Australian accent and later studied at the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Arts.


Sounds like his Dad's case was one of the first for InjuryLawyers4U.


----------



## Sickboy (Oct 13, 2004)

Who cares, he's Mad Max. The road warrior can say what he like in my book! lol


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

> The Associated Press news agency reports that Mr Gibson told the arresting officer "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world", and asked him: "Are you a Jew?"


A strange thing to say when being arrested for drunken driving. Are we sure he wasn't also smoking something?


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

The reason my mate hates Mel Gibson is that he thinks the holocaust in an invention


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> > Born in New York, Mel Gibson was the sixth of 11 children and moved to Australia in 1968 after his father won an injury payout and the TV quiz Jeopardy.


Arent the yanks supposed to have used such devices to pay off people who grassed up commies during the 60s?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Wallsendmag II said:


> The reason my mate hates Mel Gibson is that he thinks the holocaust in an invention


His father supposedly is a Holocaust denier, but publically only disputes the number that were killed during the Holocaust. Mel Gibson has tried to distance himself from that - until his faux pas.


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

How very Californian:



> Every human being is God's child, and if I wish to honour my God I have to honour his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.





> I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.
> 
> I have begun an ongoing programme of recovery and what I am now realising is that I cannot do it alone.





> But I pray that that door is not forever closed.
> 
> This is not about a film. Nor is it about artistic licence. This is about real life and recognising the consequences hurtful words can have.
> 
> It's about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

StuarTT said:


> How very Californian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reading all this brought tears to my eyes.  :roll: :wink:

He is acting once again. :lol:


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Hasn't he made quite a lot of moolah out of producing and directing a film about a nice Jewish boy from Nazareth?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Maybe he was just pissed and pissed off at Israel...

They are getting on my nerves a bit too, what with all that needless killing innocent women and children that they insist on doing. :wink:


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Maybe he was just pissed and pissed off at Israel...
> 
> They are getting on my nerves a bit too, what with all that needless killing innocent women and children that they insist on doing. :wink:


Nah ... not taking the bait


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe he was just pissed and pissed off at Israel...
> ...


OK. Fucking bastard Israeli murdering c**ts - who happen to be Jewish. How about that?

Really. What some Hollywood bozo says whilst pissed is not a major controversy, compared to what the Zionists are currently doing to another nations people.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> s3_lurker said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Nope ... you'll have to do better than that. Are you looking for the Â£10 argument or the Â£50 argument?


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

So, what exactly did he say?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

garyc said:


> s3_lurker said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Excuse me..... until you know what yr talking about i suggest you drop the subject.

The Israelis arent the ones who deliberately walk into a local shopping centre/high street/restaurant/bus etc and blow themselves up.... The Israelis arent the ones who send missiles over from residential areas so that retaliation will cause civilian deaths. At least the israelis are sending out warnings to get out... I dont recall warnings from suicide bombers??


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Adam TTR said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > s3_lurker said:
> ...


Adam - I see you are new around here. Don't let ol' Gazza C wind you up. He specialises in trolling threads like these. He knows a lot about cars and driving but proves a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing when sharing his make-it-up-us-you-go-along thoughts on current affairs and recent history.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> Adam TTR said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Condemning Israel's actions in no way vindicates the actions of Lebanese terrorists.

I guess you two would have fully supported wholesale or targetted aerial bombing of the N. Ireland training camps plus the recruiting and safe haves estates in order to get at the the IRA terrorists in reponse to their dastardly deeds over here in the past eh? As long as the UK gave warnings for the innocents to get out first of course...Fortunately alternative policies were deployed and look at where we are now.

Israel has many alternatives other than to punish an entire nation for the activities of a very few. It seems blindingly obvious to me that they will pay for this campaign in the future.

Think about that before you in turn leap in and decide who knows fuck all about fuck all.

And I won't be excused as this is the Flame Room. Just as Israel will not be forgiven in the eyes of most right minded people for doing what they are now doing. That you may find it acceptable behaviour or in some way the only cause of action open to Israel is entirely up to you. I would not pre-suppose what you do or don't know about current affairs.

Oh, and before your dim parochial thoughts spring into action, condemning Israel does not automatically make one a Nazi or anti-semite or a sufferer of holocaust denial etc. It just means that one doesn't like killing of innocent women, children, old folk, _by anyone_.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Seeing television snippets of wounded or dead Lebanese with people sitting
on the ground crying and calling them all "innocent civilians" is the same
as looking at a photograph of the armpit of Christie Brinkley and saying, 
Here is the photo of a supermodel. Isn't she beautiful?" The armpit picture
is only a part of the story. When human beings see babies or mothers hurting
no matter what, we feel the pain. If we saw baby pictures of Charles Manson
we would want to cuddle him.

We cannot look at photos of so-called "innocent civilians" in a vacuum. It
is important for all "moral, decent" human beings to realize that the
compassion emotion is similar to the sex emotion. Often times, it interferes
with truth, logic and morality.

Listen up all you "Innocent Lebanese along with your innocent, Hezbollah
supporting government." Do you want to know why your towns, villages and
cities are smoldering? Do you want to know why 800,000 people are homeless
and 600 are dead? Do you want to know why your infrastructure is devastated?

The answer is..."That the Jews are simply not going to pack up their little
valises and walk into gas chambers again. The Jews will not be taken from
their homes and marched into the Mediterranean Sea by Nazis or
Hezbollah-Hamas-Syrian-Iranian, Nazi-like sympathizers.

The Jews in Israel or anywhere else are just not going to allow themselves
to be shipped away like you dream about every day. Attention all radical
Muslims throughout the entire world and Jacques Chirac. The Jews will not be
walking into death camps or graves ever again, and if you dare try it, Qana,
South Beirut, Tyre, Nabatiyeh, Bint Jbeil, Kounine, Beit Yahoun, Rashaya,
Baalbek, Majdel Zoun, Ayt-a-Shab, etc. will all look a whole lot worse than
Dresden and Berlin. And Tehran may become hotter than Hiroshima.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Adam TTR said:


> Seeing television snippets of wounded or dead Lebanese with people sitting
> on the ground crying and calling them all "innocent civilians" is the same
> as looking at a photograph of the armpit of Christie Brinkley and saying,
> Here is the photo of a supermodel. Isn't she beautiful?" The armpit picture
> ...


Nice copy and paste.

BTW didn't the Jews betray Jesus?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

its an extract of an e mail ive got...


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

>It just means that one doesn't like killing of innocent women, children, old >folk, by anyone.

OK - I'll bite. Not much on the telly.

Nice rant. As usual, long on rhetoric. Short on the facts:

The Irish analogy is irrelevant. It was an internal security issue. The IRA lived and operated within our national borders. Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

The Israelis only responded when their border was crossed (invaded?). Before July 12 was no dispute between Lebanon and Israel. The border was quiet until Hezbollah killed six soldiers and kidnapped another two and rocketed Israeli cities.

The killing of innocent women, children, old folk etc started when Hezbollah fired its rockets into Israel. I'm sure you know that the Katyusha rocket is purely a terrorist weapon in that it cannot be aimed precisely at a military target. As Hezbollah are lobbing these things in the general direction of urban centres its safe to assume their military aim is to kill and maim civilians (although if you only watch the BBC you probably won't be aware of that). I assume therefore you will be hapy to condemn then as well.

You did not offer an explanation as to why a sovereign state like Lebanon, which has a standing army, is happy to hand over control of its security to an unelected militia conducting military operations against a neighbouring sovereign state.

Hezbollah is a state within a state and an army within an army. The Lebanese have been unable to reverse this. Mainly because of the factional differences between the extremist Shi'a Hezbollah and moderate Sunnis. Hezbollah is affiliated to the Shi'a Jihadies of Tehran who wish to see sharia law and a new caliphate in our part of the world (ie the UK).

These are the people who are currently developing nuclear weapons and who will make Uncle Saddam seem like Father Christmas if given half a chance. They also have made it quite clear that it is their ambition to wipe Israel off the map. Surely even you would concede that, in this day and age, it is not entirely acceptable to have one soverign state declare its ambition to eliminate another. Notwithstanding your anti-Zionist stance, Israel is still a sovereign countryand a member of the United Nations and is entitled to defend itself against forces that want to end its existence. We did something similar in 1940. Was it disproporionate to flatten Hamburg and Dresden?

The moderate Sunni Arab countries are quietly hoping Israel wins this fight. Think about it. Have you seen TV news showing mass demonstrations against Israel and the USA in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt etc? Exactly.

I don't think anyone can condone the deliberate targeting of civilians. We are all horrified at the destruction in Lebanon. It is certainly easy to criticise the Israeli tactics of dropping bombs on apartment blocks. The Israeli's maintain they are targeting rocket launchers hidden in urban centres. It probably wasn't the best strategy on paper. But when your citizens are being blown up on a regular basis, needs must, Nevertheless I haven't seen any news items about Hezbollah warning the inhabitants of Haifa, etc to leave the area.

I also wonder how you square your condemnation of Israel's actions with the fact that you are a citizen of the UK which launched a war against Iraq which represented no threat to the UK's security and yet , with its American ally, killed a few hundred thousand innocent women, children, old folk etc etc.

It's a complex issue.

Flame away ......


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

>BTW didn't the Jews betray Jesus?

Good thing they did ... otherwise there would be no Christmas presents.

Mel "Oh Shit I'm Pissed Again" Gibson.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

s3_lurker said:


> >
> The Israelis only responded when their border was crossed (invaded?). Before July 12 was no dispute between Lebanon and Israel. The border was quiet until Hezbollah killed six soldiers and kidnapped another two and rocketed Israeli cities.


That's not quite right. Hezbollah has been doing that sort of thing for years, on the assumption that Israel will not retailiate because of their considerable cache of missiles. Whether for that reason or not, Israel has never responded in the way it has now (it most cases, not at all). Why it has chosen this point in time to do so, no one really knows other than those that took that decision. For sure, if their aim was ever to retrieve the two soldiers, that has failed.

And two wrongs do not make a right. Just because UK/US managed to get away with unilaterally deciding to bomb the living shit out of Iraq and probably kill as many innocents as Saddam Hussein does not justify Israel's equally unilateral actions.

Israel is a member of the UN, yet that's where its association seems to end. When has Israel ever engage with the UN before carrying out any of its retaliatory actions? Has Israel ever really tried an alternative to retaliation? Yes, there were some attempts when Clinton was around. But everyone knows Barak and Arafat would have sooner ripped each others throats out.

If may be a very complicated situation, but there is a very simple question: If the demise of Hezbollah meant the inevitable destruction of Lebanon and all its people, would Israel respond, "So be it" and would it be justified in going so?


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

[/quote]

[/quote]Just because UK/US managed to get away with unilaterally deciding to bomb the living shit out of Iraq and probably kill as many innocents as Saddam Hussein does not justify Israel's equally unilateral actions. [/quote]

Unilateral actions? Can you give any example of a country that has has NOT responded militarily to forces which infiltrate its borders and drop rockets on the heads of its citizens.

Leaving aside the matter of Britain's (probably) illegal invasion of Iraq I can certainly think of instances where the UK has unilaterally launched wars against other countries without direct provocation. Such as in 1956 where we chose to partner none other than Israel to overthrow Nassar's government. And that's leaving aside all the colonial wars started by the British in South Africa, Sudan, etc.

[/quote] Israel has never responded in the way it has now (it most cases, not at all). Why it has chosen this point in time to do so, no one really knows other than those that took that decision. [/quote]

The Israeli Government has made no secret of the fact that it responded in force this time because - unlike previous rocket attacks and ambushes made from within Lebanon - Hezbollah crossed the Lebanon/Israel border thus attacking and kidnapping the soldiers on Israeli territory.

Christ knows (well this thread did have a 'Jesus' theme) the Israeli's can be bone-headed at times in their sledghammer-to-crack-a-nut tactics. But I suppose things takes on a different perspective when the shrapnel is flying around your own living room.

No doubt Israel's PR has been abysmal. At least now they are showing video footage of the rocket launcher between the two apartment buildings before the bomb hits. And they are putting more troops on the ground (and in harms way) to eyeball the enemy and minimise civililan casualties.

If the Israeli army and air force had managed to neautralise the Hezbollah threat without causing death of ONE innocent civilian, would you still condemn them for acting to stop the attacks? And if so do you therefore condemn ANY country which responds to attacks on its soil?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

This is not about a country attacking another country, but a faction that happens to take sheltor in a bordering country attacking a bordering country. Not quite the same. Nor comparing 2006 to 1956. Nor equating a few dozen Hezbollah fighters encrouching onto Israeli land to an "invasion".

Hezbollah have crossed the border into Israel to carry out attacks on army positions many times in the past, with no recriminations. And weren't rockets fired after Israel had retaliated to try and force Hezbollah to release the two soldiers? Although how bombing the area in which they were believed to have been held would have worked, I don't know.

To be honest, if I was in charge and my country was under attack from a group of individuals who had been allowed to take sanctuary and carry out their attacks from a neighbouring country, I would do something similar - oust and occupy a sufficient part of the neighbouring country to prevent further attacks on civilians.

However, I would have done a lot more to try and prevent innocent bloodshed on both sides (predominantly Lebonese - although some (including Israel) would probably argue how innocent they are) - some precision bombing on known outposts and evacuation of civilians from Israeli towns close to the border. And then do what Israel is doing today: providing adequate warning for Lebanon to evacuate the area and to make way for peacekeeping forces, and then a re-populate of the area under controlled conditions.

Israel has always had a gung-ho attitude to their military actions, which I've never appreciated - some of them against unarmed activists and the like. The fact that it continues to act that way with apparent impunity and arrogance is what really annoys me. It's that sort of attitude which I feel has held up any reconciliation with the Palestinians, and has provided some justification for Palestinian activities - certainly in their eyes and to some degree in the eyes of the world.

Plus, on the point of these Katyusha rockets. They've been hyped up like the Scuds of the first Iraq war. Just look at their strike rate. Thousands fired, yet 'only' a couple of dozen killed. Hardly the V2 of the middle east is it.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> >It just means that one doesn't like killing of innocent women, children, old >folk, by anyone.
> 
> OK - I'll bite. Not much on the telly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)




----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Adam TTR said:


>


Collateral damage from Israeli strategy:



















Need I go on?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Think not. Shall we play a game of spot the terrorist?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

yeah they always show children, its propaganda... they dont show all the dead isrealis in the shopping centres or restaurants from suiside bombers do they


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

and that's not?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

What terrorism IS depends on your point of view and which side of the fence you sit on.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Ach what's to worry about....... am sure God will see us through!


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> What terrorism IS depends on your point of view and which side of the fence you sit on.


Tosh, agree 100%. I lived in South Africa through much of the 70's and 80's and, being a white boy at the time, we were taught that a terrrorist "looked" like a black man. Indeed, Mandela was public enemy number one, even though he'd been in jail for years.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Adam TTR said:


>


The picture damns the terrorists? And there I was thinking it was their actions. :roll:

I don't understand why the press would be so surprised that Hezbollah are doing this. Isn't it what happens in most cases? It happened in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Vietnam. Where a regime has no respect for it's own people or is an invading army (which pretty much what Hezbollah are in Lebanon) they are going to fight from the towns / cities. Not only do they use the civilians as shields, but they also hope to draw in the enemy on to their turf.

How well it works depends on how willing the enemy is to suffer collateral damage - and their desperation to get results. The Americans and the Soviets couldn't give a shit. The UN perhaps pushy footed too much. The Israelis may feel they have the right balance. Many, including me, disagree.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The press and new programs are the real terrorists as without the two bodies to spread the terrorist cause/words/action they would have no reason to do these things.

Reporting of all terrorist acts should be banned all around the world IMO. reporting it does nothing for anyone.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

BreTT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > What terrorism IS depends on your point of view and which side of the fence you sit on.
> ...


quotes<<Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter>> , was yesterdays politcal activist is next years politician,

Gerry Adams. Nelson M ,were all branded terrorists at one time. Whether they were, does come down to point of view.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Adam TTR said:


> yeah they always show children, its propaganda... they dont show all the dead isrealis in the shopping centres or restaurants from suiside bombers do they


I think you'll find that atrocities on jews have been sufficiently covered in news and documentary over recent years.

Think about the large media and comms groups of recent years.

Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, Reuters. All loyal and supportive of Israel.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Rather interesting I feel! A quiz for you....

How Soon We Forget . Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following multiple choice test. (The events are actual cuts from past
history. They actually happened! Do you remember?)

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred
by:

a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Kylie Minoque
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair
by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones & The Monkees
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kid
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Meatloaf
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Tarzan
b. Hillary Clinton (to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women
problems)
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 11 September 2001 four airliners were hijacked; two were used as
missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two,
one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a crash
by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme
Court of Florida c. Mr. Bean d. Muslim male extremists mostly between
the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Lawrence of Arabia
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Ned Kelly
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 the Sari Nightclub in Kuta Beach, Bali, was blown up killing
189 young mainly Australian tourists by:

a . The "Bundy" Polar Bear
b. Ho Chi Minh
c. Paul Keating
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. In July 2004, three London Underground trains and one London Bus
were suicide bombed by:

a. The Spice girls
b. The Beatles
c. The Four Top
d. 4 'British' Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and
40

Nope, .........I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling,
do you? So, to ensure democratic western Christian civilisation never
offends anyone - particularly fanatics intent on killing us - airport
security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile (or
target)certain people. They must only conduct random searches of
80-year-oldwomen,people in wheelchairs, little kids, airline pilots with
proper dentification, Secret Service agents who are members of the
U.S.President's security detail, 85-year old World War II veterans with
metal hips, and Boy Scout groups.

They must never "target" a 17 to 40 year old male who appears to have a
suspicious package tied around his body. This would be unjustified
discrimination!


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Quote: I can't remember who said it:-

"Not all Muslims are terrorists
but all terrorists are Muslims"

Pause for thought; when will the world ever live in peace and harmony?

Soon I hope.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TTCool said:


> Quote: I can't remember who said it:-
> 
> "Not all Muslims are terrorists
> but all terrorists are Muslims"
> ...


When people stop following religion.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

vlastan said:


> StuarTT said:
> 
> 
> > How very Californian:
> ...


AND trying to save his career. :wink:


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

Round about the time when Joe was cleaning up at Croft in his Lotus Elan, I was still at school and I remember reading an article that claimed that the Third World War would not be fought for political reasons, but for religious reasons and that it would start in the Middle East.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

StuarTT said:


> Round about the time when Joe was cleaning up at Croft in his Lotus Elan, I was still at school and I remember reading an article that claimed that the Third World War would not be fought for political reasons, but for religious reasons and that it would start in the Middle East.


I'm not an expert on these matters, it just seems to me that the Middle East is a hot bed of religious extremists from all denominations. So with regard to your post, we have religion and the Middle East in the equation so far. What next? Do you believe WW3 is an inevitable consequence? It seems to me that the people in that part of the world are, and always have been, burdened with a dangerous mentality, probably engrained in their personality through centuries of more of the same, and are their own worst enemies. I have no objection to benign religious beliefs by the way. Isn't that what benign religion is about? Peace, harmony, forgiveness etc etc.

Joe


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)




----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: I can't remember who said it:-
> ...


although IIRC, people in some middle-east countries are shot for not worshipping like their parents - "shame among the family etc..." just like if they were to marry someone *they* chose and not someone their parents chose

not going to happen anytime soon :?


----------

