Yep we would win all the armed conflicts, declared or not, by refusing to raise our weapons unless we saw a uniform. Sad little dodge.
Laughing thugs poured acid over mother as she walked her kids home from school
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Yep we would win all the armed conflicts, declared or not, by refusing to raise our weapons unless we saw a uniform. Sad little dodge.
I wonder about reacting from a place of vengeance in situations like this, but what's the first thing that comes to mind for people who leave their "homeland" for greener pastures but insist on bringing toxic baggage with them ? You bet, send 'em back.
As I said, just making an observation.. all have Islamic last names.. could just be coincidence... or maybe not. Either way it won't help Islamic relations in Britain.
Infatuated .. :hello1:
A few, but most of them made a big deal of their extra-special relationship with their dear and fuzzy lord.
And the aforementioned attacks/wars were done in the name of Christianity or were they wars of state?
it'll cetand expand their current reasoning portal'.
BTW LG, not to belabour it, but a gorilla only gets an inch and a half erection.
http://www.*****sizedebate.com/page11_gorilla-chimpanzee.htm
What difference does it make? People who loudly proclaimed their unquestioning belief in a deity whose last words on earth were "Love one another as I have loved you" deliberately burned tens of thousands, most of whom they knew were utterly innocent, to death.
By the way, I'm not in this debate. You asked a specific question, and I answered it. I really don't care who's more violent or more hypocritical this week, Christians, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, Buddhists, Republicans, Trekkies, or Patriot fans. They're all nuts as far as I'm concerned. The fact that one or another may be a little crazier this week is not significant to me.
What is terrifying about the Second World War was how quickly we went form the raid on Wilhemshaven in Sept 1939- where British pilots were forbidden to attack warships tied up at the docks, to the mass civilian fire bombings from the air.
the turning point I feel was the mass terror bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940.
In WWI millions of men died for acres of churned mud. I suppose that let the genie out of the bottle.
uh huh..... and while the allies screamed about the inhumanity of the nazi atrocities, like the London Blitz, they turn around and do the same thing, on an even bigger scale.
Uh huh... they sure did. When they had the means to respond they did so with full force. The allies knew who they were dealing with.
Its called war Gerry. I know you abhor it, with good reason, but that is what war is.
Sincerely,
Your favorite United S**t
So you call me a dodger for stating the obvious? It would be convincing if you could show me where Christians have splattered people with acid, charged women with a crime for being raped, beaten and raped women for wanting to got to school, made a bomb and planted it in a runners marathon lately. All this time, silence from the Muslims, our religions were the same way but mostly have changed.
Nah, go ahead and switch to wars to cover your butt.
Killing/maiming/beating...... doesn't matter how it's done, it is all the same in the end.
actually, you would be ONE of my favorites.
Does the Spanish Inquisition fit? Failing that, read Hitler's love for Jewry. No religion is free from its own persecutions. I haven't seen any evidence that this hate crime was religion motivated.
it would mean life sentences for all without parole...I have no problem with that
An eye for an eye means the victim is compensated equally. I have zero problem with that but like you would also draw the line at the death penalty. I have toyed with the idea of allowing it in extreme cases but have decided the cost is prohibitive due to the number of appeals allowed and the length of time it takes and the damage done to us as a society when a life is purposely taken.
I agree. It is also extremely irritating knowing that the cost of incarceration could frequently be avoided with proper social nets for kids who suffer abuse, hunger, neglect etc. Would be so much cheaper to nip it in the bud but many can't see the larger picture, have zero understanding of human psychology, can't connect the dots, like to keep things minimalistic causing a huge problem down the road.
Perhaps, I see your point but I think we still have to try.
No I don't like the term "hard labour" it conjures up images of other countries with abusive penal systems. I just want them to work at something and send a large portion of that money to the victim. It still has to be fair.
Strange as it may seem, I have no problem with that either, lol. Life without parole for anyone who commits a particularly heinous and vicious crime against persons.
And I look at the cost more as what it costs us personally. Because it does cost us personally, individually.
On that, stemming the problem before it becomes a bigger problem, I agree completely. If we spent half as many dollars on crime prevention as we do on locking people away after they've committed a crime, we wouldn't have as many people committing crimes. I'm certain of it.