 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
...to a game of Cowboys and muslims.
Bunch of chicken shiites.
DE
Discussion is locked
too bad we have something known as 'due process'.
if arrested with all that incriminating evidence, the death penalty should be the very least awarded.
a public hanging would be preferable, televised, world wide, naturally.
david williams
C'mon, David.
>>a public hanging would be preferable, televised, world wide, naturally.<<
I can't think of a better way to let the Muslim extremists win and bring on an unbelievably destructive religious war between Islam and Christianity. To be Christian (and human) we have to treat with respect and dignity even those who have personally done nothing to deserve that treatment.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
that both DW's and DE's posts are examples of the following extracted from the ToS?
"The use of inappropriate or offensive language is not permitted in these forums. Inappropriate or offensive language includes, but is not limited to, any language or content that is sexually oriented, sexually suggestive or abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, profane, hateful, or that contains racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable material of any kind."
I find the "C'mon David" very mild in this case...
They actually find the terrorist and arrest them. What a unique idea!
Cowboys and Indians are out of date. Don't work no more, as proven in Iraq.
Hi, Rosalie.
Much of this mess is the fault of the British, for how badly they handled the Middle East and the Arabian peninsula when they held sway there in the late 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
And there went 1,400 years of history of interaction between Christians and Muslims.
Get a grip DK - cause what you said is utter tripe. I again request members to read at least a little of the Crusades etc.
Ian
Hi, Rosalie.
I honestly don't know, and worry a bit. I should probably e-mail him... Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Ed? I have e-amiled him and got no response -- it's been almost a week since his last post, which wasn't in any way a remarkable one.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
And our coalition with the U.S in Iraq has got nothing to do with this?
You really come up with some weird ideas sometimes.
It's no point blaming Britain for something they should or shouldn't have done 100 years ago, or whatever, the current animosity of al-quida(sp) towards us is because our british forces are out there in Iraq fighting al-quida sympathisers.
Whether I am in favour of our action or not, doesn't change what we are doing out there.
I stand by what I said to Blake in the old forum, before it vanished, I wanted to see the inspectors exhaust their actions before we took any further actions ourselves. I said we will have egg on our faces if no weapons are found, and it's worse than egg, the terrorists were plotting to explode chemical weapons in Britain. British intelligence some how cracked the plot this time, but next time we may not be so lucky.
I tried to answer this before but gateway errors prevented me.
We have had far too much on our plate with the IRA terrorists to ever consider supporting any terrorist organisation. In fact an Irabian terrorist organisation actually supplied the IRA with weapons and explosives to use against us.
So you can see how off target your remark is.
Did you know that we have an airport named after the one who sponsored the responsible organization for the attacks of the WTC and the trains in Spain and the Pentagon and many more attacks on innocent people? It's called Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport!
Whether you like him or not (or were even in the US and/or knew who he was then or not), whether you think he was a good or bad president, no matter all that, it doesn not justify using indirect means and insinuation that his actions then are responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. Again trying to blame the US for attacks against the US.
And yes, you did
the one who sponsored the responsible organization for the attacks of the WTC and the trains in Spain and the Pentagon
Disgusting.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Do you really hate the USA so much?
That everything has to be our fault? sure we've made mistakes and questionable in hindsight decisions.
But I still find your attempt to link blame for WTC destruction on 9/11 to Reagan disgusting and repulsive.
Not surprising though, I can't remember you approving of anything the USA has done. It would seem you want to change the USA into something totally different from what is has been and is. Sad. Even if not perfect, we're not the devil by a long shot. It's wrong to forget the good as much as it's wrong to forget the bad.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
It seems incredible that a post of mine was removed today which shared the same sentiment.
It appears that a left wing moderator is currently going on a "remove the Bush supporter" rampage.
Did Reagan support Al Qaeida thru the CIA, yes or no? That's all you have to answer...
I don't have numbers of $ for 1998 to Afghanistan mujahedeen to help them fight Soviet invasion. But even we gave them money, do you really equate money then to being responsible for the Twin Towers? Twisted logic. So no, I don't think Reagan supported Al Qaeda. Some of the same people went from one group to the other, but still not the same organization .
In approximately 1989, bin Laden and co-defendant Muhammad Atef founded "Al Qaeda," " an international terrorist group ... which was dedicated to opposing non-Islamic governments with force and violence."
* "One of the principal goals of Al Qaeda was to drive the United States armed forces out of Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) and Somalia by violence."
PBS link
Fortieth President
1981-1989
Official US page
of timing and it's reltionship to your question of did Reagan support Al qaeda?
No and yes you always demanding, like a trail attorney wanting to make a witness's testimony sound one way when the witness means another.
Can you address the question of timing and what Reagan supported? since you've implied he was responsible for the WTC destruction?
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Chickens out - just like a few others in this forum.
The sign of a weak person is the inability to say sorry when they are wrong. Now let me see. . . . .
Well, sometimes there's just not much to reply is there.
We actually supported the fighters in Afganistan against the Russians. I remember news stories on how tough they were and refused to surrender to the Russian troops.
Even if had been the group called Al qaeda way back then, that did not justify him linking Reagan to the destruction of the WTC.
He sounded like the Reagan airport honor was an honor to the destruction by the terrorists.
I bet everyone here knows people that have befriended others until they got what they wanted, then turned on them. Groups of people behave the same way. And it's honest to admit that probably the main reason we helped them as much as we did was using them to fight the cold war with USSR.
IT still doesn't excuse his insult by implying that we caused the attack on ourselves. It's another way of saying it's our own fault they want to kill all of us.
Nonsense, utterly insulting nonsense.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
but this thread ain't about you being in Britain...
Apart from the fact that the terrorists would not have been able to do what they did on 9/11 without an airport.
see what Ronald Regan airport has got anything to do with British intelligence, and being attacked.
Charlie, you obviously support terrorist scum, but please don't try and wash it off onto me.
it wasn't me who supported the "terrorist scum" it was Reagan who financed them. And I would be surprised if Thatcher wasn't involved in that financing one way or the other...
But I know for sure that Thatcher would have nothing to do with terrorists. The Russian leaders called her "the Iron Lady" and if she did support any group anywhere in the world she wasn't frightened to say so.
But she hated terrorism. The IRA attempted to blow her up in a Brighton hotel during a Conservative party conference. No Charlie, she wouldn't support terrorism.
I will not be making any more replies to this subject. You can believe me or not, and frankly I don't care.
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic