Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Program Announcements / The Elimination of Evil - al Qaeda first shooter demo

Author
Message
Solidz Snake
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th May 2003 15:12
did it just died? nah, there's still more to come folks! Stay tune!

Snake? What happened? Snake? Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!! - Colonel Roy Campbell

Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 25th May 2003 20:00
Ok, this thread was supposed to be DEAD!!!!

Anyway it looks like I might have to just make another thread for the sole purpose of winging people of this one.

Quote: "For the sake of peace the pacifists wanted to leave the Iraqi's to their fate. They promoted the image of a corrupt, greedy dictator with no compassion or sense of guilt. For this reason it lost all credibilty of having any thought process at all. We would have pacifist terrorists if it wasn't for the fact that it contrary to its viewpoint. I'm not saying its a bad viewpoint just extreme."
I have only one the to say about that. ROTFLMAO! How ignorant can you be? This is the single stupidest topic this thread has come across. What next, you gonna say peace is the leading cuase of war? I seriously advise you to accully study a topic before you rant on it. You clearly have no clue as to what you're talking about. Pasifisim is lost on you, you don't get it, the only way you think you can solve a problem is with force. And don't go talking about saving people from Saddam's reign, if the true goal was to free people we would have done something well before now.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 26th May 2003 02:05
Dang, I really thought that was it. O well, goodbye.
Arrow and Architect, you'll never agree, can't you just forget about it now. In the end we all want the best for the world, but no-one really knows what that is. As Arrow says, if we all just keep to our own code of morals that's all we can do. As long as none of us is in a position of political power, our views won't make any difference anyway as politicians don't listen anymore.

Don't visit the Mad Matt Games Website
Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 26th May 2003 06:53
Agreed, I can't think of a better ending note (right now ;P ) that that. Now lets let this cursed thread die already!

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
the architect
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th May 2003 00:55
Arrow,

B*****ks! I spent ten years believing I was against war(I did anti-war posters etc) until I realised that I had never even fully reasoned why I was. I knew people got killed so that was it but its not enough of a reason.

The truth is while I feel war is not always the solution sometimes it is the only way.

I still believe in John Lennons song, Give peace a chance! but after ten years of sanctions and no result Saddam Hussein was still doing the same crimes against humanity, wilst its the ordinary working class who suffer. The key word, ordinary working class and would continue to do so after he was dead, since he had two sons who were as psychotic as he was. Apparently there is no evil so I will use psychotic.

Typical pacifist, no reasonable argument and reasonable solutions have you suggested except to lift the sanctions and let good ol uncle Saddam continue his lovely, little reign. All you can resort to is insults.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE HANDLED THE IRAQI PROBLEM? WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT RESULT BE?

Give me a good solution. Counter my arguments with arguments not insults. I have waited this last month to hear suggestions to an alternative to war.

Your conscience says no to war but my conscience says we should help all oppressed people.

Dead Head
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th May 2003 01:00
Ok, I'm new here, usually a rgt poster but i feel, as a protestant occupant of Northern Ireland living just over a mile away from the July hotspot, Drumcree church, i have to set the record straight about the whole IRA Northern Ireland thing.

Firstly the british are not occupying the country against its will, Northern Ireland is a British country, we are ruled by Britain, our troops were sent to Iraq, the army has as much right to be there as the American army does in its country.

The army have began to make there presence much less felt and trouble has not escalated much but if N. Ireland were to become united with the south many people would die fighting in its defence.
We do not like each other, stop trying to make us.

A war between britain and Ireland would be just as justified as a war between America and Afganistan. A terrorist strike from an organisation that happens to originate from afganistan against the americans gave call for a full scale war against the country.

However the IRA, a terrorist organisation from Ireland, has placed many attacks on british cities including London and Belfast but if a war were to be mounted against Ireland there would be outrage from the world.

The American people have no right to ask for peace in our country, they gave the terrorists the guns, they escalated the near civil war of the 70's and now they fight a war against terrorism, insane.

Much like how they armed taliban soldiers to fight off soviet invaders in the early nineties, now they are gettin killed by thier own weapons.

I feel that American should stay out of other countries buisness, keep your arrogant, supremist nature to yourselves and try not to start wars with countries just for:

O pperation
I raqi
L iberty.

thanks for hearin me out, had to rant a bit, everyone else was doin it [b]) and sorry to anyone i offended, it was not a personal thing.

Solidz Snake
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th May 2003 01:34
U offended me!! Now taste the wrath of my lightsaber!! (buzz!)



Snake? What happened? Snake? Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!! - Colonel Roy Campbell

the architect
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th May 2003 01:55
Pacifism the belief that war and violence are morally unjustified and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.

Dont call me ignorant. I know exactly what being a pacifist means and I know of one conflict where pacifism failed. Absolute! I also know that being a pacifist does not mean you are a coward. If my revulsion to war wasn't equalled to my revulsion to oppresion I would be a pacifist.

It is so hard for me to be a pacifist and live with my conscience. Sure, you can avoid conflict but at what price for who? Just because murder is being performed without planes and bombs etc does not mean we can turn a blind eye to it.

When we did nothing in Yugoslavia I was sickened and ashamed of the UN. It was impotent and useless. Imagine people come into your town, murder your family etc Its terrible and dispicable act. It should not happen.

In Iraq I felt the same for the victims of the bombing, imagined how awful it must have been to lose your family to it. The little boy with no arms! I have a son and hope he never needs know first hand what it is like! But then again we're also hearing that when it came to murder and brutality age was never a barrier.

I would admire your convictions Arrow if only I didn't realise was the concequences might be for others. All wars could be averted if everybody was a pacifist and a humanitarian. But guess what they are not.

It would be easier to say I am totally against war all of the time but I can't. I would have been if I hadn't studied the history books and considered the outcomes of some of the conflicts.

I'm knocking off now. I would like to see your views I mentioned in the last forum but I wont be replying. Been interesting.

the architect
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th May 2003 01:56
Not forum! I meant post.

Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 27th May 2003 06:27 Edited at: 27th May 2003 06:28
You make out Pasifism to worse than the war monger that cuase the pain and suffering. I don't know about you but I had a best friend, and soon to be brother-in-law, and a half bother (which I only just found out about) all on the list of possible troops for Iraq. It's not that I'm anti-war that I disapprove of the whole Iraq situation (I try not to let things that can't bewhelped bother me), it's the fact that the US marched in there without UN support, without a good reason (they MAY harbor Trrorist isn't a good reason), and most of all without proof that Iraq was a threat to the rest of the world. If Iraq has weapons of mass distuction why didn't the weapon inspectors find them and why why haven't we found them, especially with those spy satalite photos (insert fart noice here). Hell, we put Saddam in power in the first place and now we use the guise of terrorism to rid him of power?

If you think this was all about saving people, what about Tibet? Tibetan Nun are being murdered. raped ands torchured daily. One was locked in prison for over 10 years and was torchured and raped constantly, just for singing the Tibetin national anthom. Where are own troops hewlping these oppressed people? They're counting the money brought in by Chinese slave labor. Yes I believe these people should be removed of power, yes I believe that sometimes force is nessary to do that, but i don't think it sgould be that way, and I don't like it one bit.

Though war might have been the only hope for the people of Iraq, do you think that the so-called peace will last? They're already started to argue over petty thing. The only thing that the Iraq war did was lower the world opinion of the US some more and delay the fighting untill some other blood lusting dictator shows up. War is futial, it only causes more war.

By the way, Dead Head, I agree 100% with what you said.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 27th May 2003 07:43 Edited at: 27th May 2003 07:44
You think you're the only one with family who might be, or has been sent to the front? There are many others in the same situation Arrow, including me, and it dosen't make your position any more richeous.

War is not futile. It does not acomplish nothing. If we were all pacificts, it wouldn't be neccessary. However, we are NOT all pacificts.

You would have the US do nothing while tens of thousands of civilian Iraqi citizens lived out their lives under the tyrannical grip of a bloodthirsty dictator who would rather see the rest of the world slaughtered than leave his seat of power. You say that it is better to do nothing. To wait. Wait for what-- him to see the error in his ways? Waiting is, in this situation, both cowardly and stupid. Do you really want millions more people to be slaughtered in another 9/11? THAT is what would happen if we wait.

Yes, there is other evil in the world that should be stopped. But inaction will not improve it. In this situation, action will save lives and aid many more.

Critisizing Bush for making a choise, especially as you're putting your argument, is rather stupid. Do you really think it is, kinder, braver, or smarter to let millions die in inaction than hundreds die in action?

The UN wasn't going to make a choice. Bush waited. He gave them two last chances. They vowed that action would be taken if a deadline wasn't met. They lied. They dabbled with various forms of diplomacy, vetod several agreements, and generally wasted time. And, when the US finally sent troops in, they tried to get them to pull out-- tried to make another Vietnam, where troops died for a cause that was never achieved. I'm sure that at least most of the individuals there mean well, but as a whole, as the UN, they are more than useless.

And you and others with your view are like that, aren't you? You'll rant about the US, whine about how much power they have, throw stones from afar, and ignore the topic at hand. Inaction would kill millions. And yet you still whine, rant, and bitch. You've forgotten 9/11, if you ever truly cared. You've forgotten the miserable lives being led by the Iraqis. You've forgotten that absolutely no moves have been made to use Iraqi oil, and yet you use it as a tool for your twisted purposes.

I'm sick of these stupid anti-war protests. You say that Iraqis are dying because the US invasion. The amount of native deaths is at a record low for all wars on this scale, however, as you carefuly ignore. You ignore the fact that the troops in Iraq are, without orders, sharing their rations with local families and helping rebuild. You ignore the fact that the men and women in Iraq right now have been, for the first time in most of their lives, released from the grip of a leader who blithely uses banned chemical weapons on his own citizens.

I know I'm not going to convince any of you-- you've shut your ears and eyes. You'd rather let evil things happen and ignore them than try and save lives. But, and I quote... 'It's not the world that I am changing; I do this so this world will know it will not change me.'

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 27th May 2003 14:41
Dead Head: I mean no offence by this. I am from a protestant family, although I don't believe in God, and this is nothing to do with Sectarianism. The one thing I hate is when I see someone from Northern Ireland, or Wales or Scotland for that matter, kissing the Union Flag and worshipping the Queen. Have you no memory of history. In the Middle Ages Scotland Wales and Ireland all fought and lost bloody wars against the English and lost their freedom. In the few decades either side of the start of the 14th century Scotland fought back and won independence, but were then tricked in the 16th and 17th centuries into losing it again. Thousands of people died for the independence of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Now they all have their own parliaments. All it takes is for half of each country to vote for it and they have independence. In my opinion they are spitting on the graves of the brave people who fought and died for independence when they are kissing the Union Flag.

As for the English national anthem. Britain is supposed to be a multi-cultural society. Why, then, is the first word of the national anthem (God) only relevant to two religions (Judaism and Christianity). There are so many muslims and hindus and buddhists and sikhs etc in our country it should go something like God/Allah/Buddha/Vishnu/Ganesh/other save the Queen. Do only the Christians and Jews matter in this country. The same government that has no problem with this national anthem spends millions on advertising against racism. This national anthem basically says "If you don't believe in a God called 'God' you're dirt." No wonder we have such a problem with racism. Also, is the only person in this whole country who actually matters the Queen? <sarcastic remarks> It doesn't matter whether "God" cares about us or not as long as he saves the person who happened to be born into the right family. </sarcastic remarks>

Don't visit the Mad Matt Games Website
Dead Head
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th May 2003 22:13
Ok, I may be from a protestant family but i also do not believe in god and i do think that the violence between the north and south of Ireland is stupid.

I am just saying that as a resident of Northern Ireland I have witnessed a lot of violence and seen both the Portestant and catholic people in action, it is much better to be considered part of Britain. All i can say, Irish letter boxes are yellow! too weird for me.

And i do not believe that Northern Ireland ever had any "bloody wars" against england.

Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 27th May 2003 22:18 Edited at: 27th May 2003 22:18
Mouse, do you think for yourself or do you let the media and the goverment think for you? 9/11 is a horrable event, more so now that Bush is using it to start, as he put it, a crusade. By uing it as an excuse to attack who ever you don't agree with is only shoveling shit on the graves of those that died. Open your eye and think for yourself. Inaction would kill millions? How? We've found no nuclear weapons, no cemical weapons, no weapons of mass distruction. Inaction would kill millions, Action has killed billions! For some weird reason, I can't trust those who kill there own alies, (this 'war' had very high percentage of friendly fire deaths). You fail to see that the US is over there solely over there for money. "But, and I quote... 'It's not the world that I am changing; I do this so this world will know it will not change me.'" That's one hell of an arogent startment, I live in reality thus I reliese the whole world doesn't revole around me and it won't change or ever take notice if I'm just one face in a torch wielding mob. Personally, I'm not to be bothered by someone who isn't old enought to take Goverment class in high school. Once you get the facts, all of them not just the once force feed to you by big brother, then you have room to talk. Untill then you only look like a St. Benard trying to be the government's lap dog. Go hump someone else's leg.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 27th May 2003 23:09
That's amusing, coming from someone who spews out mainstream antiwar statements like carbon dioxide. If you think you're unique or have an intelligent point of view because you're different, you're quite wrong-- anti-war protests jusy like this one are quite common and all have the same baseless arguments.

We have found illegal and banned facilities and weapons in Iraq. There were a large amount of missiles, well over the UN limitations that we already knew were there, but were not destroyed.

I don't suck up to the US government. I think it's an extremely messed up system and it's getting worse every day. Many facets of it disgust me completely. But go look at, say, China, or Russia. Places where common people are treated and live like dirt. Places where 'political prisoners'-- in other words, anyone they want to put in jail-- are killed every day because of an organ, or a few drops of blood that might be needed by someone of importance. Places where foul and inhumane expiriments are practiced every day. The US is one of the very few remaining decent places to live on this planet, and I'll defend it as long as it remains so.

You keep saying that the US is an evil, supremist country. You have no evidence. You simply bring up issues like 'they have lots of guns'. Ignoring, as I said before, facts such as that the crime rate in areas where firearms are allowed to be carried is over three times lower than in areas where strong limitations are imposed.

The IRA was brought up as an example. Again, ridiculous. Is Ireland even independant? Hell no! England has 'helped it along'-- in other words, invaded and made it an occupied country-- for centuries. If Ireland's leader was affiliated with terrorists and large terrorist groups were known to be in that country, then yes, the English bloody well would attack, and they'd have a good reason too. THAT is the situation in Iraq. It is utterily incomparible to the IRA's attacks on England.

I have yet to see a single solid argument from your corner, Arrow. Until you manage to fabricate one, you'd do well not to waste others' time with baseless comments.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 28th May 2003 01:29
Anyway, back off the topic of British history the English would like us to forget.

Mouse: You are bang on. Inaction would kill millions.

As long as the US government leaves things the way they are American civilians are going to die, right? It's all true. As long as the US government continues to spend money on weapons so they can ensure they have a better way of life than the rest of the world, American civilians are going to die. Which choice was in reality inaction?

Another war on a Middle Eastern Oil giant?
Instead of spending money on war, spending money on raising the standard of living in the Middle East?

Which of these would change the world and which of these would leave it the way it is?
Quote: "China, or Russia. Places where common people are treated and live like dirt."

Why do you think people there are treated like dirt?
The Nazis got into power in the 30s because the economy failed and inflation went sky high. Since the nazis were socialists, people voted for them in that situation. Look what happened as a result.
Evil regimes often get into power in places with a low standard of living. Not nearly enough money is spent on 3rd world countries. There are two ways for Western governments to change this:
Raise taxes - No Way - We'd all hate that
Cut funding in other areas - Where?
The answer is in weapons. If you kick a dog, he'll bite you. If you give him a bone, he'll be happy. As long as the US continues to **** all over the Middle Eastern and 3rd world countries people will be brought up to hate America (They might be freed, but how many Iraqis will be told lies by ex Baath party members that America set out to kill their families). As long as that happens, people will join terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda.
If America gives money to Middle Eastern countries, they will have a high standard of living just like America and no-one will want to attack America, thus American lives will be saved. (let's face it, if you're not American, the US government doesn't give a ****)

Don't visit the Mad Matt Games Website
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 28th May 2003 02:32
That's ridiculous. 'Stop making weapons and nobody will be able to hurt you anymore!' Oh, please! Only a fricking idiot would do that, and luckily that lunatic Michael Moore isn't president right now.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 28th May 2003 03:00 Edited at: 28th May 2003 03:01
"If you kick a dog, he'll bite you. If you give him a bone, he'll be happy. As long as the US continues to **** all over the Middle Eastern and 3rd world countries people will be brought up to hate America (They might be freed, but how many Iraqis will be told lies by ex Baath party members that America set out to kill their families). As long as that happens, people will join terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda."

My point exactly, the only trouble is we gotta buy off far more countries than just Iraq to rid anti US hate, and most polititions would be rather lining there pockets with that cash.

"You keep saying that the US is an evil, supremist country. You have no evidence."

US put Saddam in power and they trained Bin Laddin. Ever hear of the Panima Canal and the war that started there? Can you own an atomatic weapon anymore in the US? Before Peral Harbor the US was completely happy with letting Nazis run all over Europe. How about all the countries that are offically supported by the US that use torture and murder as political tatics. Remember slavery? How about the origins of this country, I could go on for days. Mouse, grow up and reliese that as long people think they can get there way with violence there will never be peace and there will allways be suffering.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 28th May 2003 03:14
'Mouse, grow up and reliese that as long people think they can get there way with violence there will never be peace and there will allways be suffering.'

That's one of the most amusing things I've heard in a while. As long as there are violent people, violence will happen? No sh1t, sherlock! But there will always be violent people in the world. If a small band of people goes and decides to become pacifict, that's okay with them, but a country can't do that. No country ever has (that hasn't been so thourghouly destroyed that nobody knows about it anymore) and no sane one ever will.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 28th May 2003 13:46
Quote: "That's ridiculous. 'Stop making weapons and nobody will be able to hurt you anymore!' Oh, please! Only a fricking idiot would do that, and luckily that lunatic Michael Moore isn't president right now."

I only said to stop making weapons. The US already has over 10000 Atomic Bombs, as well as thousands of other things like cruise bombs etc. Why do they keep spending money on more weapons? When was the last time France/Germany/UK/US/Spain etc, basically any country with a high standard of living had a war with each other? Not since the NATO agreement anyway. If you settle for having about 5 weapons per US head and stop making more and spend all the money on developing the Middle East by the time friendly fire has destroyed all your weapons you won't need them anymore because all countries will be developed and will happily be allied together.

Quote: "My point exactly, the only trouble is we gotta buy off far more countries than just Iraq to rid anti US hate, and most polititions would be rather lining there pockets with that cash."

I'm not arguing with your point, but the US doesn't have to buy off other countries, they have to donate. It is in unfair trade that some countries are so poor, even though they are all commercial farmers. Actually, you are kind of right, they need to pay fair prices for the things they already buy and donate money to the countries where everyone is subsistence farming.

Don't visit the Mad Matt Games Website
Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 28th May 2003 19:16
On this, Witchbomber, we are in agreement. I think the point mouse is missing it we need more nonvoilent resolution like open trade or sending medical help to those that need it, rather then bombing the hell out of a country that has no air defence system.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 28th May 2003 20:23
Neither of you are listening.

Yes, we 'need' a more nonviolent resolution. Yes, we 'should have' a more peaceful way of dealing with the situation at hand.

But nobody is moving in that direction. Hate for the US is so high-- and no, this is NOT just because they 'make weapons'-- that they should not be the first ones to move. Other countries are still producing weapons, and lots of them. Other powers are generally less disliked and should take the initiative. So why do you throw all this crap at the US? Gods...

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 29th May 2003 02:57
Fair point, I was really only talking about the US, but other countries are doing the same. The US is only one example, but they are the best example, because they have got so many weapons, and they use them on their own allies. More coalition troops were killed by US fire than by Iraqi fire.
There is another reason I am looking at the US. The US has a lot of influence. Look at the EU just now. They have a single currency and are negotiating a European constitution. Another decade and it will be the United States of Europe. Whatever the USA does the rest of the Western world follows (except Russia and France on Iraq but that was only because Saddam owed them money). If the USA stops developing weapons and starts trading fairly with other countries and sending aid to developing countries, other countries will follow suit. Also, other countries have more of a need for defence. South Eastern Europe is within firing range of dangerous Middle Eastern states. I think it was Arrow who pointed out the only time last century America was involved in defensive war was for 3 hours in Pearl Harbor. They can just laugh at the rest of the world as they protect their terrorist states in the interest of oil, but they don't need weapons to do it.

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 29th May 2003 20:59
Saying that 'they use them on their own allies' is like calling your best friend a murderer because he witnessed his brother's death. You think they fired at their own allies on purpose? Disgusting...

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 30th May 2003 01:46
Okay, fair enough, they're American military, they're not the brightest people on Earth, but surely they would be able to recognise the difference between Iraqi and Coalition troops. Therefore they should not have fired on them. I can imagine dodgy Iraqi weapons going off target and hitting something they were not aimed at, but the US are supposed to have the best weapons on Earth, how the hell could they use that as an excuse?
Quote: "You think they fired at their own allies on purpose?"

Why did they fire on their own allies then?
I know the American military is thick but surely they are not that thick.

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 30th May 2003 22:49
Okay, fine. If you're such a sick, twisted individual that your brain is wired to think that Americans are all such monsters they'd kill their own allies-- and their own army members-- then you're far too brainwashed to convince. It sickens me to see the evergrowing amount of mindless antiamericans... well, you go hate away, and have a jolly good time with it.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 31st May 2003 00:43
I do not think they kill their own allies on purpose, I just think they don't take enough care to make sure they don't kill their allies.
And by the way, I am not fundamentally anti-American, if it wasn't for the USA, England would rule the world.

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Flashing Blade
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 31st May 2003 13:05
England would rule the world.

Sven will have England ruling the world again. Becham, Owen, Rooney, Ferdinand, Cole, Gerrard.... the strongest team since '66. We gona have Euro & World cups....

There's people on the pitch, they think it's all over, it IS now!

If you American you may not comprende this post.
It's just some friendly banter aimed at Witchbomber, cus I think he's Scottish
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 31st May 2003 15:08 Edited at: 31st May 2003 15:10
How are they going to rule the world with Bec**am if he's playing in the Spanish Second Division with Real Madrid B team? (If he's good enough for the B team that is)
Don't forget also in 66 the ball never crossed the line, En**and have never fairly won the World Cup.
Quote: "they think it's all over, it IS now!"

That's right, it is all over now, En**and have cheated their way to the world cup for the last time. Don't forget who beat you in 67.
Also, who won the last En**and - Scotland derby? Who dominated the game from start to finish? Also, I have a question for you - How many times did En**and play their "last game at Wembley"? I mean I know they lost to Scotland and Germany, but how many more times did they play their "last game"

May I also point out that apart from West Germany, no team (not even Brazil) have ever won a World Cup without first hosting the competition. Scotland is too small a country to be allowed to host it, otherwise we would have won it by now.

...and cut out the bad language.

o yes, and what nationality is Sv*n? What nationality is Alex Ferguson, who raised Bec**am? En**and have sh*te managers. When was the last time the premiership was won by an En**ish manager?

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Flashing Blade
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 31st May 2003 16:20
...and cut out the bad language.

Me? I've not used bad language. Unless you consider words like England, Sven, Bekham bad language - in which case LOL
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 31st May 2003 17:10
At least you mis-spelled the B word.

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 12th Jun 2003 01:27 Edited at: 12th Jun 2003 01:28
To be perfectly honest with all bias aside, I can't see how you think England will win the world cup. They look to me more like shock troops than big guns!

They had an uncomfortable win against Slovakia, an uncomfortable win against Serbia and Montenegro, and another uncomfortable win against Slovakia, not to mention drawing with Macedonia at home

They seem only to produce the quarter-decent performances and actually impress a few people when they are playing against the better teams.

This is the mark of a team of Shock troops. Other examples of such teams include Senegal, South Korea, Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Ayr Utd. Senegal and South Korea did well in the world cup but they'll never win it, they just had luck and belly-fire on the big days, but that won't carry them through. The same goes for Caley Thistle and Ayr Utd: Caley Thistle beat Celtic twice and Ayr Utd have won more games than they've lost against SPL sides (excluding The Old Firm), but without massive improvements to their squads neither of them will win the Scottish Cup. Neither of them have even managed to come close to winning the Scottish First Division over the past couple of decades.

Let's face it you're talking a load of crap. By the way, excuse the language, but after Germany's flukey last-minute win I'm not in a good mood tonight.

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Solidz Snake
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 12th Jun 2003 03:23
Brazil Rulezzz

Snake? What happened? Snake? Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!! - Colonel Roy Campbell

Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 12th Jun 2003 19:48
Good point Solidz, Brazil rules and that's that. England are absolutely no where near the quality of Brazil - they still lost to them even when Brazil had a man sent off. How can you possibly expect England to win the World Cup when they can't even beat a team of ten men?

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Rob K
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 12th Jun 2003 20:44
I think the Star Wars theme tune should start when you open this topic... what a stupid saga.

On to football, Brazil are way better than us, we just managed to hide it.

Do you want Windows menus in your DBP apps? - Get my plugin: http://snow.prohosting.com/~clone99/downloads/tpc_menus_102.zip
Solidz Snake
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Jun 2003 06:58
i can almost hear back the commentator saying these to 3 of the stars of Brazil:


1. "That was the most spectacular goal in this entire World Cup.."

2. "Another Brazil star player enters into the field! This man can practically rip off any defense of any country.."

3. "Oh my goodness, he's back! Can u believe it! We thought he made it clear with the first goal, but he made another swoop to seal Brazil's victory..."

Sumthing like that

Snake? What happened? Snake? Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!! - Colonel Roy Campbell

Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 14th Jun 2003 13:01
Quote: "On to football, Brazil are way better than us, we just managed to hide it."

You only managed to hide it because they had ten men. Fair enough, you scored the first goal, but Brazil don't care about that. Their philosophy is that if the other team scores 5, they'll score 6.
Just to rub salt into English wounds I'll remind you of 1998, when Brazil beat Scotland 2-1, the same margin by which they beat England, except when Scotland lost they lost to eleven Brazilians, not ten.

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Rob K
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 14th Jun 2003 13:56
I just said England suck at football didn't I? No need to provide any examples?

Do you want Windows menus in your DBP apps? - Get my plugin: http://snow.prohosting.com/~clone99/downloads/tpc_menus_103.zip
Solidz Snake
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Jun 2003 16:11
lol! relax guyz, just a lil' misunderstanding of writing, thats all!

Snake? What happened? Snake? Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!! - Colonel Roy Campbell

the architect
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 01:38
I promised to back off but I am sick of the attitude that the English slaughtered the helpless welsh, the simple scot and the idiot Irish.

1st - The scots use to raid english soil constantly(part of their lifestyle), the atrocities commited by their Rebaulds(camp followers) has been convieniantly forgotton(the french hated them) and they plotted with the French, allowing a back door to invasion for France. Almost every pitched battle fought in the Scottish Wars of Independance were in England. ooohh - SHOCK! Dont use Braveheart as reference - its the greatest work of fiction ever.

2nd - The welsh was also a 'backdoor' for foreign invaders, were as quick to betray each other, and raided english land - just like the scots! Also it was a welsh king on the English throne who banned the welsh language.

3rd - The Irish were killing each other long before we arrived.

Dont think the English are all bad. Yes we did flex our muscle in the middle ages, we were certainly no angels, and yes we did invade france - but that was because france was stealing legitimate vassals of the English king. Remember though that England has had Scottish kings and queens, welsh monarchs etc Henty VII was welsh!

That without each other we would have amounted to F~~k all!

I do agree though that the anthem should be land of hope and glory as oppose to God save the Queen.

the architect
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 02:56
In my opinion they are spitting on the graves of the brave people who fought and died for independence when they are kissing the Union Flag.

The union flag is actually that - it is not the English flag. The collection of all boundaries in Britain.

Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 04:52
My god, the flames contenue.

This thread is cursed, nothing posted here can find agreement. Hell I was flamed for wanting war to end for crying out load.

Why don't we just let it die, again.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 18:12
Because they're doing the same thing you did when you didn't, if you catch my meaning, Arrow. Give them a grace period of as long as you argued.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 20:05
Quote: "the simple scot"

<sarcasm>Yes, that's right, the Scots are really simple. They couldn't do anything intelligent.</sarcasm>

Who invented TV?
Who invented the telephone?
Who invented the bike?
Who invented tar?
Who invented tyres?

I would also like to point out that with the exception of the bike (which led to the invention of tyres), every single one of those inventions was necessary in the development of the internet, on which you are currently posting your lies.

Who won at Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn?
The English outnumbered the Scots ten to one in these battles, yet the Scots still won. That was no brute force, that was a tactical victory.

So don't ever call us simple!

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Witch Bomber
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 20:17
Aside from that, what the hell are you talking about?

Quote: "Almost every pitched battle fought in the Scottish Wars of Independance were in England. ooohh - SHOCK! Dont use Braveheart as reference - its the greatest work of fiction ever."

Actually, I'd say Lord of the Rings was the greatest work of fiction ever - and absolutely none of that was true, at least some things in Braveheart were true.
But anyway, wasn't it Braveheart that suggested Scotland invaded England in the Scottish wars of independence?

And why do you think Scotland had alliances with the French?
It was our only option for survival. We were a small poor nation living next to a massive power-hungry monster, we needed some form of protection. If England had allied with the Scots and the Welsh (or at least kept peace) they wouldn't have been forced into overseas alliances to survive and England would have been a lot better off.

Quote: "The Irish were killing each other long before we arrived."

How dare an Englishman say that? Especially one who is always talking about the problems caused by the IRA and Loyalists!
Why do the Irish fight each other?
Because half of them are catholics and half of them are protestants.
And who invented the protestant sect?
The F**king B****rd English!!!!
If it wasn't for the promiscuity of the English king there wouldn't be all these problems with sectarianism!

Quote: "No sober man dances unless he happens to be mad"

If that is the case, what happens when a madman gets drunk?
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 20:27
This is utterly ridiculous. Both of you are going on a rabid, pointless argument about events that happened centuries ago and we know hardly anything about. Grow up and put aside your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's fued already. This is pathetic.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Arrow
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 21:59
Mouse, I'ld settle down on this one, the topics that they are talking about now is the origins of some serious hate. If you haven't noticed, there has been nothing short of a civil war going on in Iriland (spelling). Terrorism and bombing were common a few years back, I've heard things have settled down a bit but it still is bad.

Teenage Male Geek + Female Remotly Intersted in Common Geek Activities = Teenage Male Jackass
Ian T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 17th Jun 2003 22:38
Yes, I have noticed.

Ever heard that Stan Rogers song 'The House of Orange'? I recommend you listen to it. It's not country, so it most likely won't send you into fits of agony.

--Mouse

Famous Fighting Furball
Soyuz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2003 14:49
If it wasn't for the Scots and the Irish and the French the world would be a nicer place. Actually the Irish are ok apart from the ones that blow up innocent civilians over something that took place between their grear great great grandfathers.

The Scots are only capable of one thing after drinking more than three beers - they always resort to singing anti-english songs. Compare this to an english lad who after three beers will sing about football and women. So tell me, which nation is the one persisting hatred?

The french are just smelly but they got fit women. Actually when it comes down to it, deep down I'd say the english actually respect the french. I have to say I spent a year in France and not one french man mentioned any anti-english crap or conflicts that took place in our past. Compare this to a Scot who will jump at the first opportunity to criticise or slag off the english! I present to you Witch Bomber!

If you actually read through the posts above you'll see that the english guys are making light hearted comments where as Witch Bomber is really getting wound up and giving off the strong anti-english vibe. Keep at it dude - you're funny in a kind of "we laugh at you" way!
actarus
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location: 32 Light Years away
Posted: 18th Jun 2003 15:08 Edited at: 18th Jun 2003 15:08
1:Scotland rules because they kicked English asses out.

2:Quebec rules for the same reason...(actually we also defeated the Americans)

But that's all centuries ago like said above.



Although,somehow France still finds new ways to suck.

*actarus runs and screams 'Bite me' gna gna!


Seriously,what has that become now,the official racial venting thread?


Anyways,


-If it wasn't for the Scots and the Irish and the French the world would be a nicer place


Yeah,right poor little opprressed English people LMAO!

Modeling Tip of the Week:The more details you put on a model,the more you will learn from it!

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-04-28 01:16:07
Your offset time is: 2024-04-28 01:16:07