Ginger_Warrior

Even despite having the least popular American President of all time (thanks to the war), having over half of your population wanting a full withdrawal from Iraq, and having proved that extremism only gets worse when you decide to "retaliate"? al-Oueda had been going for decades before 9/11, and they'd also been quite a successful terrorist organisation. The US "retaliation" has only given them a (in their eyes) justifiable reason for committing the atrocities they do. All you've done is added fuel to a pretty big and wild bonfire opf terrorism in the Middle-Esat, and actually made your borders less secure.

The only game I know like that is HomeWorld, and I don't think it was a MMORPG, so I have no idea really.

Merseyside's head of police (whatever title that is) actually called this week for the age to be extended to 21. So yeah, we could pay tax and die for our country for five years and not be able to drink... :-s Personally, I regard myself an adult as soon as I have to start paying adult prices at the cinema (yet I can't see an adult film :-k)...

Cheers for pulling a random number out of your [wagon]. How does a $600 phone equal into $4,800 of food? Never mind the fact that the arguement is completely irrelevant. Y'know.. if he is true I could be rich. - buy iPhone - trade for 4800 worth of food - sell food - buy 8 iPhones - trade for 38400 of food - etc Did you even try reading the link the guy I was responding to posted before you attempted to flame me, this time unprovoked? It might explain why it equals $4,800...

I agree wholeheartedly with hohto. Splatmster, you really highlight the problem with, thankfully, a minority of Americans. You feel that just because 5,000 of your own people died in 9/11 (and don't get me wrong, that's tragic), you have a right to go about the world and do whatever you like, at whatever cost to anyone else, just to make sure that another 9/11 doesn't happen again. Aside from the fact this kind of attitude only makes it more like another 9/11 will happen, it's also just plain arrogance and immoral. Now, I don't condone the actions of al-Queda for one moment, but if you wonder why people are willing to go to such extremes to inflict damage on your country, then your actions really explain that question.

Carry on stereotyping... I don't have a lot of time for people that do. So you blame all Muslims for 9/11? You blame all Europeans for WWII? you blame all Southerners for the American Civil War? I've not seen that case, but just because a tiny minority of them caused whatever happened to happen doesn't mean all emos should be held ransom over their foolish actions. hey your a mod, your going all raciest all sudden. Emo= Tight Losers LOL... A) I'm not a mod, I'm a crewbie. Read up on the difference... B) Read the disclaimer in sig... C) How am I being racist? You'll find I was actually being the opposite. D) You're being stereotypical, don't accuse me therefore of being prejudice... :-s

$4,800 worth of food could be given to poor starving children for every iPhone bought. Now, explain to me how Capitalism's a good system? :(

Do you accept that kind of things? as long as it prevents another 9/11 So you'd be perfectly willing to allow yourself or a family member to be subjected to the same treatment if the government randomly decided that you/they could potentially be a terrorist eventhough there is no evidence to suggest it? I doubt it. Ah, you see, that is where you are wrong. It is not random, if they take someone to prison they have some reason, it may not be concrete, but they have some reason to suspect that person. if they took me, hey i know im not a terrorist so i have nothing to fear. the way i see it is that most of the world wants us to just open up gauntanomo and let all of the people in there (including the 95% that are terrorists) walk free. does anyone seem to remember the repercussions After 9/11? how the government was massivly investigated so they could shed the blame on them? well now when OUR government is doing what it needs to do to keep more people from dying they are getting blamed again! dont talk to me about Why we went to war in Iraq, that is irrelevent now. right now we need to concentrate on finishing what we started. the reason we arent going to pull out and let them settle it is the fact that the shietes and the sunnies will kill thousands of each other. we are the only thing keeping that from happening. Well, you're not particularly doing a good job of that are you... they're still doing it. The issue we have is the whole philosophy of "sentance without trial". If your government is so adament they're terrorists, then why can't you hold them at Guantanamo only while they're waiting for a trial? In fact, why can't you hold them at any other cell while they await their trial, and just get rid of the controversy of Guantanamo? We don't have a problem with you hunting down terrorists inside your own country - what we have a problem with is holding people in cells without having a fair trial just like any other crime requires.

Slight contradiction there? And yes, I could tell it sarcastic. There's a difference however between sarcasm and intolerance of others.

A Nokia 3220: :oops:

Sumpta - define love. I'm not saying for one minute teenagers have the capacity to love each other like a middle-aged couple can - they're still developing emotionally. But as a teenager, I still have the capacity to feel emotionally attached to someone else and to want to spend time with them and to also like them in a more caring way over a sexual desire to be with them. In these years, I'm defining who I am, and that involves working out who I feel emotionally attached to, and who I want to share my life with in a more long-term relationship. Basically, what I'm saying is that the term "love" varies on what age you are. At 17, I believe that I love the person I do care for the most I can - for me that is love.

Carry on stereotyping... I don't have a lot of time for people that do. So you blame all Muslims for 9/11? You blame all Europeans for WWII? you blame all Southerners for the American Civil War? I've not seen that case, but just because a tiny minority of them caused whatever happened to happen doesn't mean all emos should be held ransom over their foolish actions.

Don't hold me to to this, but I think you have to have been in the UK and working for at least five years before you can declare yourself a citizen of the UK. I dunno, I don't like talking about this kinda stuff. The UK's traditionally always been open with its borders, so it's kinda un-British to talk about Britishness really, and I hate it when you hear all the headlines saying, "They're coming over here and stealing our taxes". Bit OT there...

Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, neither am I going to, but I'll ask you this question if you don't mind. Who's to say that those "100,000" innocent Iraqis (wouldn't mind a source on that as well :wink: ) were actually innocent and that not 70,000 of them were actually part of the enemy? We don't know the whole story back here in our Western Civilisations because we aren't over there. So who's to say they are innocent? They are an enemy, I'll give you that, but not ours. They're being killed in sectarian violence... it's the Iraqi civilians who are part of opposing sects or those cooperating with the coalition that are usually getting targetted by the car bombs, not the coalition troops. Those that are the enemy of the coalition (ie, the rather ironically-called "insurgency") usually get soaked up by extremist groups, who then go to countries such as Pakistan to train (again, ironically) Jihad. As for the source, here you go! They claim 654,965 "excess deaths" through from March 2003 to July 2006. Ah thanks for that. Though you'd therefore have to say that they are not "innocent" deaths (I'd say innocent people are those trying to escape the war and not be a part of it) but the vast majority of these people aren't innocent, as they're all trying to kill people here or there and they have enemies trying to kill them. Its war on many fronts with many sides. So saying their 100,000 innocent deaths isn't entirely correct right? Either way its still 100,000 deaths which is a horrible tragedy for many people's loved ones. Your backward logic makes me laugh... On the news, where do they say the car bombs go off? I think you'll find mostly, it's in marketplaces, or places where lots of people gather. If they were so intent on killing the occupation, they'd be bombing your troops, but they're targetting innocent civilians - civilians that are trying to reestablish the infrastructure of the country. Also, the vast majority of Iraqis actually want to stay in a country called Iraq - they don't want to be split up into their sectarian groups, which disproves your theory of how everyone is an enemy with someone else. So, yes, there have been 100,000s of innocent deaths since the declaration of war in March 2003. Only those who engage in sectarian violence cease to become innocent, however, most Iraqis are not interested in sectarian violence, and so most of the Iraqis are actually innocent.

Isn't the whole point of jeans is that they lose colour and get ripped up pretty easily? That's why only pay ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã12 at most for mine... then again I'm tiny so it would probably be about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã15 if I was taller.

Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, neither am I going to, but I'll ask you this question if you don't mind. Who's to say that those "100,000" innocent Iraqis (wouldn't mind a source on that as well :wink: ) were actually innocent and that not 70,000 of them were actually part of the enemy? We don't know the whole story back here in our Western Civilisations because we aren't over there. So who's to say they are innocent? They are an enemy, I'll give you that, but not ours. They're being killed in sectarian violence... it's the Iraqi civilians who are part of opposing sects or those cooperating with the coalition that are usually getting targetted by the car bombs, not the coalition troops. Those that are the enemy of the coalition (ie, the rather ironically-called "insurgency") usually get soaked up by extremist groups, who then go to countries such as Pakistan to train (again, ironically) Jihad. As for the source, here you go! They claim 654,965 "excess deaths" through from March 2003 to July 2006.

Dude... Why so harsh? :? Well at first they just annoyed me, now I seriously can't stand them, ever since I watched on 60 minutes those 2 poor girls who got wrapped into the emo trend and decided that they'd create a suicide pact together and kill themselves. There is nothing normal about being emo and it annoys me greatly when they whinge about people thinking differently of them when they listen to that style music and dressing strangely. A tad harsh, but I can confidently say I'm more accepting in real life of them believe it or not, its just when I get my true feelings of them across when I write things down it comes out more harsh then normal. :wink: That is an incredible extreme example. That's like saying (so-called) CHAVs go about shooting guns at each other, getting little girls pregnant, which of course is only true in a very few cases and has nothing to do with the fact they're CHAVs, but just that they're immoral people. I'm friends with a few emos, and I can safely tell you hardly any of them are as you describe. Most of them are just content listening to the music they love and having a laugh with each other. This doesn't make them abnormal, no more than it's abnormal talking with people you'll never see on an internet forums such as Tip.It.

This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P splatmster24, so 100,000s of innocent Iraqis can die just as long as 5,000 Americans are spared in the future? Please justify that, because I'm struggling to come to grips with the selfish arrogance of that statement... Isn't it 3,000 American troops dead now? So, thanks to this war, you've actually replecated 9/11's tragic effect by three fifths...

Got boring quite quick TBH, but a very clelver and addictive game!

How is Christianity needed for morals and teamwork, when people were 'teaming up' to build the Pyramids of Giza under a pagonistic religion? :-k

Now I remember why you're mocked throughout the forums. He's not half as mocked as you or Abbysalwhip for spamming :wink:

This is undoubtedly part of something much bigger. Two cars in London, an opportunistic attack on Glasgow, raids in Merseyside, Cheshire... the list goes on. What's noticable is it's everywhere, not in one concentrated place... Let's look on the bright side though and commend the unquestionable bravery and dedication of our police force. Three attempted attacks, yet no-one killed - signs of an effective approach to terrorism IMO.

slight incongruence there surely... Not really... I never said Tony Blair was right either, in fact I believe he was wrong to go to Iraq. I don't fault Bush for going into war because he felt it was the right thing to do, I fault it because I feel it was the wrong thing to do. This topic is about Tony Blair as a leader, and I find someone who can stick to their morals and not be drawn away from them a good leader. I'm not gonna fault someone for doing what they think is right, Bush included, and I think you'll find I did criticise Blair earlier on for going to Iraq. I was saying that in the future, decisions made by whoever in the US administration should be questioned, as they should in all walks of life.

There's only one difference between the effort we put into RS and the effort we put into our jobs - one we do for fun. In fact, logic would suggest we should be more depressed over losing an item in RS than we should in real-life, since we actually wanted to work for that item, rather than being forced to to get through life.

I've actually been reading over some of the posts on this forum, and I've come to the conclusion that Jagex need to get tougher with this issue. It's no secret I love Pok̮̩̉̉mon, and only two weeks ago Nintendo took action against those who use certain Action Replay codes to go on NWC and battle people at an unfair advantage. Nintendo are clearly sick to death of cheats hacking into their games and ruining it for people who would rather compete on a even playing field, and I don't blame them. If I was Satoshi Tajiri, I wouldn't want people ruining the challenge of my game like that! What this shows is that gaming companies are eventually coming to grips with those who would rather hack the game's program than play the game honestly - online gameplay has given them that power. So why is it that Jagex don't do the same? I don't play XBox Live, but I'd hazard a guess they follow a similar policy - if you're going to compete against others online, you don't cheat! Jagex have to start employing more staff. It winds me up when we hear of Jagex's profits, and the Gower brothers in the Times Rich List, yet the game goes under-funded like this with clearly not enough staff. If Jagex are ever going to get to grips with this problem, they have to start employing staff who's sole purpose it is to locate rule-breakers, with particular attention to autoers. I'm sorry to say, but my time with Jagex is up... the only reason I still pay for RS membership is for my work on TiF and the odd game of CW. Aside from that, I'd have left RS long ago thanks to all of the problems that could be easily solved if Jagex payed more attention and consideration to their game. What's perhaps also noticable is Nintendo didn't feel a need to scream their actions form the rooftops, as Jagex seem to like to do. Personally, I'd find the announcement of 8K accounts banned a week for cheating a huge embarassment rather than a sign of improvement...