Boy, Greece sounds so open & free!

it is really quite simple. radical muslim conservatives consider it their responsibility to wage holy war against all non muslims, as we are to their way of thinking decadent unbelievers. the US, as the current head of the free world, is their obvious target because of our prominence and our support for Israel. Believe it or not, if some how they were ever able to topple the US, the rest of you would be next, including traditionally neutral nations such as Sweden.
this philosophy applies not only to Christian nations but even their own more moderate muslim brothers. Don't believe me, read about how radical muslims assasinated Anwar Sadat, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Look at how they're trying to assasinate Karzai (sp) in Afghanistan.
You can't negotiate with these people; they accept nothing less than 100% of their philosophy.
I'm no complete expert but I did take a year of Islamic Civ in college so I know a little about it.
 
You can't negotiate with these people; they accept nothing less than 100% of their philosophy.

Precisely. That's why during the peace negotiations a year or two ago when Arafat was going to get 98% of what he wanted, he declined the peace agreement. He would have been assassinated by his own people if he had accepted. Our freedom of religious beliefs simply makes us the "worst of the worst" as far as the radical Muslims are concerned. If we were gone they would turn to the next nation who wasn't 100% in line with them.

They (Radical Muslims) WILL NOT negotiate. Their religion has become a borderline mental illness in which they feel everyone must die who doesn't believe the same as they do. They are obviously not afraid of dying, and that is the only to stop them.

I want to clarify a point I made earlier that seems to have been twisted. You seem to think that I said I didn't care if innocents were killed. That's not exactly what I said, so let me clarify. I hate to see anybody die. It's not like I enjoy the fact that we are at war, but if it comes down to them dying or us dying, I'm obviously going to choose them. Would you do any differently? If we are going to go through with it and go to war, then we need to do it full scale, annihilate, and get it over with. The problem is that we try to do it nicely, which is impossible. We would gladly stop fighting if we knew for a fact that we wouldn't be attacked again, but the bottom line is that Al Queda (sp?) is still plotting attacks. They won't stop trying to kill us until they themselves are dead.

Also let me clarify that for the most part I DO NOT support most of what our government does. I'm about as "Anti-Government" as you can get. I like George W. only because I feel he was the lesser of two evils (Al Gore). American citizens were killed needlessly and as an American citizen I feel we need to retaliate and protect ourselves from it in the future. I will never apologize for defending myself against terrorism.

I personally feel that we need to get the hell out of the rest of the world. Aside from religion, the main reason why we are involved in all this shit in the middle east is oil. Like it or not, we NEED oil to survive. The shame of it is that there have been studies done that show we (USA) could possibly have our own "Saudi Arabia" up in Alaska, but because of environmentalists here, there is no drilling. I personally think it would be better to not be dependant on madmen in the middle east and supply our own oil. Then you would see the rest of the middle east kissing our asses because of all the money they would lose from their largest customer.
 
you know how the mullahs promise the suicide commandos that if they die in pursuit of a jihad, they'll receive six honeyed virgins in the afterlife as part of their reward? Honeyed Fuckin' Virgins? There are alot more than six right here on this earthly plane, woooooo hoooooo!:lol:
and really why go for the virgins when the rest already know what they're doing!!!:)
MetalGod71: If I ever travel to the great Northwest we will have to get together for a few frosty cold beers.
 
Pittsburgh! Boston! Columbus! You all suck!

New York City fucking rules you all! Bow down! ;)

Actually, I have ties to everything...been to Boston about 20 times and my college roommate lives there w/ his fiancee right now (plus, the Red Sox suck ass).

And my boss & confidant lives in Steel City. Been there 3 times now too. Not a bad place, actually.

And lastly, I lied about Columbus. All I know is they have a very bad hockey team. :D
 
Originally posted by markgugs
Pittsburgh! Boston! Columbus! You all suck!... (plus, the Red Sox suck ass). And lastly, I lied about Columbus. All I know is they have a very bad hockey team. :D
1. yes the Sox have kind of piddled out here, now Pedro is in his annual breakdown...they'll never be able to outspend Steinbrenner.
2. and the Bluejackets do blow but I'm not much of a hockey fan so I don't care.

with the new luxury tax can Steinie keep both Petitte and Clemens? I hear he may be considering a lawsuit..
 
Originally posted by lizard
1. yes the Sox have kind of piddled out here, now Pedro is in his annual breakdown...they'll never be able to outspend Steinbrenner.

We're going to get something straight right now, because I am SICK AND TIRED of all other baseball fans pointing the finger at Steinbrenner as the root of all that's wrong w/ baseball.

Fact: More than half the owners of major league baseball franchises are far wealthier than George, yet why don't they compete? Peter Angelos (Orioles owner) is MUCH wealthier, and his O's team of the mid-to-late-90s was barely a .500 team. How about Rupert Murdoch's LA Dodgers? I won't even go into Hicks' Texas Rangers.

My point is that Steinbrenner puts his profits back into the Yankees, whilst many of these other so-called owners pocket their money, then cry poverty or whine that the Yankees are "ruining the game." If they cared about winning as much as the Yankees, there'd be no problems and baseball would be a far more competitive landscape.

NOTE: The above rant is not directed at you personally, Lizard. You just happened to open the can of worms I feel very strongly about.
 
While there may be a few owners richer than Steinbrenner, I think maybe they just have common sense to not keep "raising the bar" on players salaries compared to Steinbrenner. This (pro sports) is kind of a sore subject with me. See, I don't care if an owner wants to pay an athlete all the money in the world. That's his business, and HIS money. Hell, if somebody wanted to pay me 25 million a year I'd jump on it. Where I have a problem is when these teams hold cities hostage to fund new stadiums and arenas to pay for it. The smaller market teams (such as Pittsburgh) must build stadiums and luxury boxes to keep pace. I don't like my tax money being stolen. If the team doesn't generate enough revenue to make payroll, then what gives the owner the right to go to city council and hold taxpayers hostage.

I think the point about Steinbrenner is that what he is doing is not good for the game. Realistically, there are maybe 4-6 teams that even have a shot at a world series title every year. That tends to hurt the sport of baseball. On the other hand, the salary cap in the NFL seems to promote parity among teams.

See what I mean?

Boy this thread sure got off topic! :eek:
 
okay! lets talk about soccer!
fussball_bayern.gif

hey MG71, have you cut your hair since your videos?:lol:
 
I've been doing Systems Analyst/Application Development stuff for about 9 years. I always had it in a ponytail and it was never much of a problem. About two years ago I just got sick of it and hacked it. I wanted to make sure I made it through the 1990's when it was trendy to cut your hair off.:p At it's longest it was a little past my waist. I was hoping to audition for Sanctuary! ;) Just kidding.