However this time it is nice to hear of Islamic extremists killing themselves in ways that do not involve blowing themselves up on a bus in London or in a pizzeria in Israel in order to murder a bunch of civilians. More of this and faster please.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Islamic extremists kill themselvesJune 11th, 2006 |
 68 comments to Islamic extremists kill themselves |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Of course, none of these people have been convicted of a crime, and it seems likely that is there was any evidence the U.S. Government would have charged them.
Put a noose in each cell and encourage them.
No – alleged Islamic extremists (or at least people who have allegedly fought against the USA). As there have been several people held at the camp who were subsequently found to be entirely innocent, it is plain wrong to pre-judge their guilt (although that’s the only judgement they are ever likely to see). To then celebrate and wish for the further deaths of possibly innocent people is immoral and distasteful in the extreme.
Ok three in one day
All the suicide notes written in arabic
A desperate spontanious plea for redemption and justice as the guardian would have it
Or just two fingers up at the west
and a celestial virgin or two.
Let me know when the rest of them
spontaniously combust.
I’ll write the Guardian leader myself!
I would not pre-judge their guilt of being a terrorist (however I see them more as a type of POW, so I really do not see this in judicial terms).
However it is a safe bet they were religious fundamentalists, therefore if they want to kill themselves, I for one will shed no crocodile tears for them.
If religious fundamentalists of any flavour get the urge to follow their example, I would feel no urge to talk them out of it.
Their very act of suicide with a plea for redemption in hopes to incite violence makes them terrorists, so no innocent blood has been shed… even if they we’re innocent prior to incarceration.
Muslims don’t commit suicide.
Let’s see, we have people who claim an ideology that fears the power of the state gleefullly celebrating the suicide of people imprisoned indefinitely without evidence of wrongdoing and without due process.
Do you at least have the two brain cells left that can be rubbed together in order to understand that you are incredible idiots?
Seriously.
Either every claim you have made about your ideology was a base lie or you are very, very, very, very. very, very, very, very stupid.
Lol, felix.
In defence of the general readership, the gloaters above don’t appear to be regular posters.
I would guess that their suicides were at least in part designed to have an effect on the outside world, not just to end the suffering of the individuals. But I doubt very much that it was a well orchestrated as, say, Bobby Sands, whose suicide was very much the continuation of his struggle by other means.
The difference, of course, is that Bobby Sands was justly imprisoned, and these people aren’t. Unlike 90% of liberals, I don’t consider Sand’s death to be the fault of a cruel state (although there were plenty of episodes in the struggles where HMG did act oppressively).
When Ngodup burnt himself alive in public, protesting the continued occupation of Tibet, he was obviously continuing the futile struggle for independence by other means – call it PR or war or whatever.
But, of course, no-one (outside of Xinhua, anyway) was crass enough to accuse the guy of being a PR stuntist who didn’t value his life.
I’m still left baffled at why people, esp. libertarians, condone the notion of ‘enemy combatant’. These differ from POWs simply by NOT wearing the trappings of the nation state and the military arm of government – the two things that I thought libertarians disliked most.
Perhaps the failure of the Mujahedeen to wear crisp uniforms justified the way they were treated by the USSR, eh?
The committed suicide without a large weapon on their back. Surely this is a good thing?
People seem to forget that some of the so-called innocents in Gitmo when released end up fighting coalition forces in Afganistan and Iraq.
I seem to have got lost – I was looking for a Libertarian website.
felix, the incredible idiot is someone who cannot see that getting western idiotarians to leap up and down was no doubt the object of the exercise.
I regard defence as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and in case you have not noticed, there are Muslim extremists out who we are at war with and whom we need to be defended against.
I doubt all too many people in Gitmo need to be tried for anything just as German prisoners taken in WW2 did not need to be put on trial to establish they were enemies either.
That’s correct, we are a rationalist site which happens to take libertarian positiions when they are rational. If you want a site which taken a libertarian position even when it is irrational, perhaps you should try lewrockwell.com
“I regard defence as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and in case you have not noticed, there are Muslim extremists out who we are at war with and whom we need to be defended against.”
Sorry, until I read this I agreed wtih the poster you are replying to. But now I see.. of course, what a stupid viewpoint I held. I had totally forgotten that terroists wore a uniform for purposes of easy identification.
And that’s the reason why places like Guantanamo Bay exist, a place to put enemies without uniforms in this war. Or did you think this was a simple law enforcement matter rather than a war?
Idiotarian indeed.
Goodness gracious! thank you Felix and J
The scales have fallen from my eyes!!
Let’s let them all out. They are obviously clean limbed young muslim chaps, some British who just happened to be studying Arabic at Kabul Polytechnic (how crappy your grades have to be to end up there at the end of the UCCA process is anyone’s guess) and just got caught up in the excitement so to speak.
Like Perry I believe defence to be the paramount job of the state. Most of the rest we can take care of ourselves.
Like the earlier comment points out, this is not a thing you can deal with using courts and lawyers. I don’t trust the state either but I trust them a shit load more than the muslims we’re fighting. If it comes to choosing between letting muslims out from Gitmo, many of who will pick up a gun again, or trusting the crummy government to get the right people, I’ll trust the government. It is a shitty choice but the alternative can be much worse.
Some of them may (or may not) be innocent.
Who cares?
When Palestinians aim their rockets and bombs ONLY at the “guilty”, when jihadists saw the heads off only the guilty, when they bomb only military targets, when they cease targeting schoolchildren…
then and only then will I give a stuff about a few suicides at Gitmo.
Beslan.
Some industrious somebody could probably compile a list–which I believe would be mercifully brief–of New York rescue workers who committed suicide due to the traumas of 9/11. I’d trade ten Gitmo populations to have just one of them back again.
Yes indeed Sanity inspector!
I am put in mind of Terry Waite et al.
The kidnapped by the religion of peace.
Those that knew bloody well they were innocent
but didn’t go in for sycronised suicide.
How hate filled you people are! So some 3,000 Amercans died on 11/9 some years ago. In my lifetime (48years) millions of people have died at the hands of the US and her allies, and countless more have been imprisoned and tortured to preserve the “American way” whatever that is.
And, as for defence, do you really think that running around the world killing inocents as you chase shaddows will make you any safer. Grow up.
Wow! weeks of nothing then a troll!
But why are they always called Thomas?
Come by here Thomas Bach…
And I will enlighten you to the ways of the world.
Or at least clear up a few loose ends.
In[n]ocents? You’re the one who needs to grow up, Pollyanna. Better yet, go move to North Korea.
Oh and by the way
Tom Bach
Would you like to Itemise
These millions for us?
You know if some Internet correspondents disclosed that they held a BNP three-digit number membership card it would come as no surprise. Except of course they would spell “Negroes” with an “N” rather than a “K” (Kneegrows). Liberal website: You’re ‘aving a laugh aren’t you?
My theory is that this post was “flypaper for fools” and they were curious who would take the bait.
These people were captured on the battlefield. Most understand the concept of “enemy combatant.”
To just set them free…not take them prisoner, let them continue to fight because they don’t meet Geneva POW guidlines (uniformed state sponsored military etc) would have been insane.
They weren’t scooped up off the streets or in their homes because of suspicions.
Disturbed, depressed and unbalanced people commit suicide all the time, even in jail. Were these simply “menatlly disturbed” captives or was it, in their fanatical minds, their only method of further destroying the credibility of “The Great Satan”?
They can’t fight us on the battle field nor can they defeat us by suicide bombing our military. They understand quite well that the only way they can defeat us is by swaying an already hostile media which in turn sways the opinions of the masses.
For those purists who see the capitvity of these people at GITMO an example of government power gone mad I must remind you that we are at war and will be for some time. Where shall we draw the line? Who’s “rights of freedom” do we protect? I say the right for citizens to live, raise their families and persue their dreams is more important than the rights of some manical thugs whose aim it is to kill them.
We all value freedom and fear an over-reaching government but not everyone in the world agrees with this idea of freedom. Everything has a price even the ability to live in freedom (what there is of it).
A free society/nation is only free as long as it maintains the ability to defend itself. Sometimes at huge costs.
*pursue
Among my peers, this news was regarded with sadness and regret. Just when I mentioned that this might not actually be bad news, Bam! “What!??” “Have you no/don’t you [insert word used incessantly by blind moonbats here]?” Pity me! I am awash in a sea of stupidity! (Since when is treating those who condone terrorists who blow up innocents more important than protecting our own innocents – something encompassed by that whole “national security” idea.)
The truth is that the vast majority of those detained at Gitmo have at least collaborated/assisted/condoned our enemies. Until our enemies start fighting according to international standards – or at least close, i.e. not slaughtering innocents as a chief component of military strategy, I see no reason to stop detaining them.
While we’re on this subject, is it not remarkable that there’s been no terrorist attack on American soil since 911? Truly, that must be a terrific accomplishment – history will tell us whether it has been Bush’s doing or pure luck. The unfortunate byproduct of this phenomenon is that American leftism (by that I mean the creed followed by barking, apologizing moonbat liberals) has flourished under a false notion of security.
The truth is that the vast majority of those detained at Gitmo have at least collaborated/assisted/condoned our enemies
And you know this how? Because it has been established in a court of law, or because a government of habitual liars says so and you believe that this time, they are telling you the truth? If the fact is so obvious, why would it be such a burden for the government to argue its case in front of a judge?
If the government told you to wear a seat belt, you would whine like an infant, but when the government tells you it can put you in a cage for any or no reason and keep you there for the rest of your life without having to ever justify its decision, you accept this as if it is nothing.
That is, to put it mildly, foolish.
While we’re on this subject, is it not remarkable that there’s been no terrorist attack on American soil since 911?
There was. Anthrax.
Let’s note, of course, that in this thread we have people arguing that the presence of terrorist attacks justifies the indefinite detention of people with no judicial oversight, and, also, we have people arguing that the absence of terrorist attacks justifies the indefinite detention of people with no judicial oversight.
I’m asking not to be rude, but because I really want to know – why don’t you people move to a dictatorship that has the sort of authoritarian tendencies that you seem to crave?
Is it too much to bear for you that any country in the world remain free?
People seem to forget that some of the so-called innocents in Gitmo when released end up fighting coalition forces in Afganistan and Iraq.
Evidence, Andrew?
Even if you can produce an example, which I doubt:
1. It proves nothing about the other prisoners; and
2. If you were arbitrarily imprisoned, kept in isolation, and harshly treated, would that make you feel more positive about your captors?
We have a winner!
@Askari: So you are saying that, based on evidence never heard in a court – military or otherwise – and certainly never heard by the public, it is justified to imprison someone indefinitely with no easy way of identifying that they are in fact guilty? (As it happens, I’d like all prisoners – war or otherwise, whatever the circumstances – to be heard before a court. It’s not *that* difficult is it? And it does act as a rather useful counterbalance to a possible minority abuse of power (while it is still far from perfect))
But, of course, I forget. A few people declared it a war. So it’s all justified?
What makes you think this power can’t/won’t be used against political dissenters? In short, what makes you trust the government (on this issue yet seeminly nothing else)?
Do I view it as merely a law enforcement issue? Hard to say. A war is, I think, people(s) trying to overthrow a regime rather than just commit a crime. So, I suppose it’s both law enforcement and a war in a way. I fail to see why some people trying to overthrow a regime justifies us giving huge amounts of power to said regime and letting them violate basic standards of proof of (war) crimes and human rights.
And yes, I do believe /suspected/ criminals have human rights. Good thing to, as we’re all suspected criminals now.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
Felix,
The GITMO detainees were captured on the “battlefields” or in situations where they intended to do harm. Information on these people are subbmitted through the proper channels and to anyone who has a “need to know.”
Thanks to a commentor on another site, I found an intelligent discussion on this matter:
(Jurist.Law.pitt.edu)
It’s worth a read. Here’s an excerpt:
“…Security Council Resolution 1368 recognized that the United States had the inherent right of self-defense recognized under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations…
Thus, under the laws of war, the purpose of detaining these enemy combatants is to ensure that they do not return to engage in combat activities against the United States and, in this unique situation, to allow American officials the opportunity to gather any necessary intelligence about the terrorist’s organizational infrastructure, financial network, communication system, weapon supply lines and plans for future terror attacks. As is the practice in all wars, the purpose of detention is not to punish the enemy combatant, but to protect the host nation from future acts of violence by the enemy. ”
Felix, This is a military matter not a matter for civil or criminal court. These aren’t people “arrested on suspicion” or caught in a police sting. The U.S. Military, by law, can detain these indiviuals for the duration of the war if they determine it neccessary.
“And you know this how?”
I read. The information is out there. All you have to do is read and listen to news reports carefully. Have discussions with knowledgable people, listen to the debates. Educate yourself on military law. Of course, this would be a huge waste of time for everyone including you since you’ve determined it to be a pack of lies.
“Because it has been established in a court of law…?
No, it’s a military matter.
“or because a government of habitual liars says so …”
Felix, I suppose I have to answer that with the obligatory “I’m no fan of the Bush Adminsistration but..” disclaimer (and I’ not for completely unrelated reasons). Our government, with all of its imperfections, has a fairly decent “checks and balance” system. It’s not completely fraud proof and definately not “screw up” proof. I have a lot of disagreements with this administration and have always been skeptical of politicians but I haven’t seen any evidence of habitual lying.
I suppose I could call them habitual liars if I didn’t like them or if I had evidence. So if you have evidence please tell me. I’m sincere about this.
“If the government told you to wear a seat belt, you would whine like an infant…
I wouldn’t whine. I’d cuss.
“but when the government tells you it can put you in a cage for any or no reason and keep you there for the rest of your life without having to ever justify its decision, you accept this as if it is nothing.”
Are you crazy?! NOT ON YOUR LIFE! Is this what you think the American government is doing? Felix…who is telling you this?
“I’m asking not to be rude, but because I really want to know – why don’t you people move to a dictatorship that has the sort of authoritarian tendencies that you seem to crave?”
Felix, if you are referring to the military as “authoritarian” you are correct. I should know after spending 20 years in it. The U.S. Military is not a democracy nor is it meant to be. It is, however, controlled by civilians (congress, senate, president) who we elect and send to Washington. Among many things, this prevents the military from becoming a dictatorship. They work for us and their primary job is to protect us, our nation..OUR FREEDOM (what there is of it).
“Is it too much to bear for you that any country in the world remain free?”
I think its we who should ask you this question.
“but when the government tells you it can put you in a cage for any or no reason and keep you there for the rest of your life without having to ever justify its decision, you accept this as if it is nothing.”
Are you crazy?! NOT ON YOUR LIFE! Is this what you think the American government is doing? Felix…who is telling you this?
Does it matter?
Felix has his head so firmly embedded in his posterior that he seems to think these people were picked up off the streets of the US on suspicion of not being anglos, and that they are entitled to all of the rights of a US citizen.
Nevermind the utter and complete lack of precedent for handling prisoners captured in a war zone in such a way, and the rather explicit international laws (aka the Geneva Conventions) spelling out what a combatant has to do in order to qualify for the rights and protections described in that document.
No, Felix has made up his mind, don’t bother him with facts.
ps: thank you for your service.
Oh boo hoo.
The Amish are religious fundamentalists. Would you celebrate them killing themselves too, Perry?
Difference between Amish and Islamists: the Amish don’t inflict violence nor their ideology via force on others.
That’s a huge difference. If Mike cannot understand that, then we should have nothing to say to him anyway.
Wobbly, Guy, I was referring to Mr de Havilland’s attempt to display multicultural credentials by not criticising Islam alone when he said
“If religious fundamentalists of any flavour get the urge to follow their example, I would feel no urge to talk them out of it.”
What Mr de Havilland meant to say, is
“If religious fundamentalists who inflict violence or their ideology via force on others get the urge to follow their example, I would feel no urge to talk them out of it.”
Well I don’t know about Perry
but I encourage religious fanatics of whatever stripe to kill themselves.
Shit why argue with them about god and the afterlife
when one quick click of the trigger will suffice to show them the error of their arguement.
If perchance they end up in paradise all well and good.
At least they are not getting in the way down here.
kcbiskit,
Thus, under the laws of war, the purpose of detaining these enemy combatants is to ensure that they do not return to engage in combat activities against the United States…,
Yet the US insists that the Guantanamo detainees are “unlawful combatants”, and thus not beneficiaries of the international laws of war (which is to say conventions on the treatment of military captives). You can’t have it both ways.
Their detention is arbitrary, based on invented legalistic (not legal) pretexts and not governed by any established law, but by a concentration-camp rulebook.
That isn’t military law, BTW; nor is military law the same as the ‘laws of war’. Military law is the national law governing a country’s military personel. It is generally a nested jurisdiction within the usual law of the country with its own procedures and penalties.
RAB, you asked me to itemise the millions killed by the US in my lifetime. Well the Veitnam War alone gives us the following:
US military dead 58,148 + 9,000 SUICIDES by ex GIs
South Veitnamese military 223,748 deaths
North Veitnamese civilian deaths approx 2,000,000
South Veitnamese civilian deaths approx 2,000,000
Cambodia, allthough not at war with the US approx 3,000,000 civilians
Then there’s Laos, etc.
Would you like me to continue?
Oh, and of course lets us not forget those who continue to die as a result of the use of atomic weapons in Japan
Thomas O’Neill –
You’re taking the piss, yes? The US military killed 223,748 South Vietnamese military? And 2,000,000 North Vietnamese civilians? And 2,000,000 South Vietnamese civilians? And 3,000,000 Cambodians?
Really, are you serious? Or are you just a retard?
The foreign policy of the US government is THE cause of attacks against US targets. The so-called war on terror cannot be won. It has to be ended by reverting to a reasonable foreign policy. The US government should take the foreign policy of e.g. Switzerland or Finland as examples. Those who supposedly fight against terror are those fostering it.
No Pete Im not taking the piss, and I’m not a retard. The figures I gave are for those killed in the conflict. The US sustained the conflic for their own ends and therfore are responsable for the deaths, just as the German goverment of the time were responsible for the deaths of the 14,000,000 Germans who died in World War 2. Remember that the US dropped a larger tonnage of explosives on Veitnam and bordering countries than was dropped durring WW2. What do think was happening on the ground? Or are you a retard?
“The so-called war on terror cannot be won.”
Look at what the administration has done (and how they’ve done it) as opposed to what they say or what some warbloggers want to believe and it’s obvious that there is nothing to the war on terror beyond trying to win elections.
and presumably it doesn’t bother perry that one of the three had been determined to be harmless and was going to be released (they just hadn’t gotten around to telling him, perhaps they enjoying messing with his mind too much).
“there is nothing to the war on terror beyond trying to win elections”
I have to disagree michael. There are people making vast amounts of money. Pretty much the same people who are making money from the war on drugs I would imagine.
Mr O’Neill,
You are not a retard, just misguided. There were strategic and moral justifications for the wars the US has waged since ’45. Yes, wars kill people and I always thought an important ingredient to sucess was to kill more of them than they kill of you. Alas it failed in ‘Nam.
I’d have more time for you if you mentioned the many killed by such regimes as Pinochet’s or the House of Saud which did so with indirect US support.
Your point about the A-bombs in Japan is both puerile, scientifically bollocks and completely irrelevant because it was by far the least violent, most effective way the most murderous war in history was ended.
Next time your life and liberty is threatened by Islamicists, Communists or whoever comes next I advise you to roll-up your Guardian and defend yourself with that. It’s 100% guaranteed not to work.
“was” should be “could have been”
Who Tom Bach? The Taliban!!?
So let me see..
The US managed to kill 2 million N Vietnam civilians
and an equal number of S Vietnamese civilians.
Those smart bombs wernt nearly so smart back then were they.
No mention of North Vietnamese MILITARY deaths I note or their chinese “advisors”
I think I hear a chorus of “we are one, we are the children” coming on and I’m a bit far from the Barfroom.
So if you will excuse me…
Nick, people can always justify the wars they fight. That does not alter the facts, THE US HAS KILLED FAR MORE PEOPLE IN MY LIFETIME THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. By a long way. I could of course mention:
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1964
Belgian Congo 1965-66
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicuragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991- ongoing
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanista 1998-ongoing
Yugoslavia 1999
Rab, thanks for backing my point, the North Veitnamese Military and the Chinese advisers do, of course add to the total numbers killed by the US.
While you’re at it, why don’t you toss in the Germans and Japanese killed in WW2?
And you’ve completely missed RAB’s point.
Sigh! Your right Wobbly Guy.
Irony is what some folk think they are doing whilst watching Coronation Street.
Didn’t something like 60,000,000 people die in the so-called “Great Leap Forward”?
Cheers TWG, sane as ever. I just think your sanity and RAB’s wit are wasted on this pathetic Troll.
Yes they did Ted.
But then they shouldn’t have been standing there should they?
The health and Safety Dept did warn them.
Yet the US insists that the Guantanamo detainees are “unlawful combatants”, and thus not beneficiaries of the international laws of war (which is to say conventions on the treatment of military captives). You can’t have it both ways.
Sure we can. Lawful combatants are entitled to certain considerations that unlawful combatants do not qualify for, but the treatment of unlawful combatants is ultimately at the discretion of whoever is detaining them. Simply put, just because they can be executed does not mean they must be executed.
Their detention is arbitrary, based on invented legalistic (not legal) pretexts and not governed by any established law, but by a concentration-camp rulebook.
You detain a combatant to prevent them from taking up arms again, this applies to both legal and illegal combatants. While it would arguably be permissible to execute unlawful combatants on the spot (some disagree), the political considerations in this situation are such that refraining from doing so is likely to result in more international cooperation in counterterrorist operations.
That’s a political/diplomatic decision, not a legal one, and the President of the US certainly has the authority to make such decisions with regards to prisoners held by the US military.
Thomas O’Neill
Yes, maybe I am retarded. Shit, I thought that a sensible dialogue could be had here.
RAB – “but I encourage religious fanatics of whatever stripe to kill themselves.
Shit why argue with them about god and the afterlife
when one quick click of the trigger will suffice to show them the error of their arguement.”
Charming. Well, I suppose everyone needs an “other” to hate and feel superior to.
Nick M wrote (to answer Thomas O’Neill):
There were strategic and moral justifications for the wars the US has waged since ’45.
Of course. I just happen to disagree with those justifications.
A-bombs in Japan … it was by far the least violent, most effective way the most murderous war in history was ended.
That’s what I thought as well, but now I am not convinced of that anymore. The Japanese wanted to surrender anyway but feared that their emperor (for them a religious figure) would be shot as war criminal. The US negotiators left that unclear when they insisted on “unconditional surrender”. Therefore they surrendered only after the two A-bomb drops. For me it seems more plausible that the US government wanted to show Stalin what they are capable to do.
Next time your life and liberty is threatened by Islamicists, Communists or whoever comes next I advise you to roll-up >your Guardian and defend yourself with that. It’s 100% guaranteed not to work.
The actions usually taken by the government of the mightiest state on earth are threatening my life and liberty far more than any Islamicists, Communists or whoever could ever do. I would rather prefer not to be bothered by their counterproductive security services. Of course no US president would do this in the near future but I’d be glad to see all US military ordered back to the US and all military bases outside America closed. And of course I’d like to see no taxpayer money be paid anymore to help any foreign regimes survive.
Mike, I once offered to buy Verity a sense of humour.
If such a thing was possible, I could have made a small fortune on this thread.
How?
Nobody seems to be in the market for a sense of humor at the moment.
Rope, OTOH…
Suppose you’re right Rosignol.
Roll up for your rope!
Ball gags and rusty knives
Mohammed being eaten by pigs snowstorm paperweights….
Pete, I too had hoped for a sensible dialogue and although I don’t mind being called a retard, a Troll???, a pathetic Troll or a Pollyanna, I do think the name calling is a bit juvenile.
Rab, there was me thinking irony was like silvery or goldy, and it turns out its conected to some TV programme. Oh well, live and learn.
“And it turns out to be connected to some tv programme”
Hmmm
You’re not from around here are you Bach?
I dont do this often but Live and Learn as it were.
The irony referred to comes from what people frequently do in front of a popular British tv soap prior to taking their fresh crisp clothes on the town.
It had nothing to do with ivory silvery or goldy.
I hear John Cleese is writing a book for people like you.
Tut tut Rab, you,ll really need to try to keep up to speed. If I was’nt from “around here” I wouldnt have known Coronation Street was any kind of tv programme. Nor would I have reffered to 11/9 in my first post. And in my neck of the woods ironing is something women know they’re doing whilst watching the soaps.
Ah the women do the ironing in your neck of the woods do they?
Over to you Ladies…