Author Topic: Norway's Terrorist Sanctuary (Read 1012 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #15 on:** May 23, 2005, 12:59:28 AM »

Thumping on Gschmaltz is significantly more entertaining than cat punting.

Well, maybe i exaggerate a bit..

...marginally more entertaining.

Nash · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:04:14 AM »

Ya see, Hang. That's where we differ.

I think that if you sat down and really had a heart to heart with your troublesome cat, and that if you two really opened up and shared with eachother, then all of the violence might have been avoided.

NUKE · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:12:18 AM »

Good read Nash.

I suspect that there is a little bit of myself in GS's posts, although I don't really go rant against other countries.

I think GS posts what interests him and what is on his mind. He may get pissed off at the US and what our soldiers do and can't help but post it.

Maybe he likes being able to poke at actual Americans on this BB.

If I could speak and type Chinese, I'd love to go screw with them on a Chinese BB.

As for myself, I may seem like a horses ass, but I can also be the nicest guy in the world in r/l. I am opinionated and rude here at times, but I do respect most people here and try not to personally attack anyone or their countries.

Hangtime · « **Reply #18 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:17:56 AM »

Nope.

The cat thinks it's in charge. Unfortunately, I disagree. When we communicate our grievences with each other the outcome is not unsurprising.

Observe....

!!!!MEOWRRRR!!!!

*punt*

See??

It's hopeless. So's Gschmuck.

But, like you say; despite the absurdity of the premise under discussion, the exchange of (ahem) 'ideas' is entertaining.

rpm · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:19:31 AM »

Just as Guns and others have said in this thread, nobody's perfect.

Hang, you are literally blinded with hatred and have 1 too many fingers raised in your avatard. If you feel so strongly about being righteous against terrorists, why don't you return your home to it's rightfull owners the Native Americans who were murdered by terrorists. Maybe you should pay reperations to the slaves that were captured and taken from their families by terrorists. C'mon Hang, do the right thing if you want to be high, mighty and righteous. Otherwise STFU, fool. You're embarrasing the rest of us.

straffo · « **Reply #20 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:22:29 AM »

I'll give some Amerukaan a French passport and throw them back in 2003 with the obligation to read this forum.

How many will melt down ?

Nash · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:23:53 AM »

Your real life personality aside, Nuke, on here you are deceitful.

You say things that you don't believe are true, in order to gauge/amuse yourself over the reaction.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. I hold this to be truth.

Gscholz, for whatever his failings, I never doubt the sincerity of his words. And I would bet that everyone here knows that as disagreeable as his words often are, they come from a sincerity and a belief in them.

Hangtime · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:28:27 AM »

Good lord RPM; I've been an bellybutton my entire life... I could take umberage at the 'fool' bit; but hey, WTF, the shoe fits.

Nicely, I might add.

Edit: re; the 'hatred' bit.. there's a short lits of folks I 'hate', the guy that raped my kid, a few other folks of that caliber. Nobody on the short list hangs out here. Sometimes I do stir the dookie hard enuff that it splatters.. sorry if i got any on yah.

NUKE · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:29:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Your real life personality aside, Nuke, on here you are deceitful.

You say things that you don't believe are true, in order to gauge/amuse yourself over the reaction.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. I hold this to be truth.

Gscholz, for whatever his failings, I never doubt the sincerity of his words. And I would bet that everyone here know that as unagreeable his words often are, they come from a sincerity and his belief in them.

Nash, I do not say things which I do not believe to be true. When I argue, I absolutely believe and stand behind my arguments and views.

Maybe you can't understand some of my views and dismiss them as trolls, but you'd be wrong.

Abortion, religeon, the reasons for the Iraq war....... you name it, the views I take are absolutely mine.

In fact , just you saying that actually pisses me off. You say you don't want to argue, but make a statement like that and hold it as truth without an example of what you mean?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:38:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Your real life personality aside, Nuke, on here you are deceitful.

You say things that you don't believe are true, in order to gauge/amuse yourself over the reaction.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. I hold this to be truth.

Gscholz, for whatever his failings, I never doubt the sincerity of his words. And I would bet that everyone here knows that as disagreeable as his words often are, they come from a sincerity and belief in them.

Canadian -> English Translation:

"I think GScholz is sincire in his his views because I agrre with most of them. I think Nuke is insincere in his views because I disagree with most of them."

Hangtime · « **Reply #25 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:49:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I'll give some Amerukaan a French passport and throw them back in 2003 with the obligation to read this forum.

How many will melt down ?

You still waterin down the wine with anti-freeze?

NUKE · « **Reply #26 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:52:22 AM »

Nash, even though you didn't ask, I'll tell you my views on your BB persona.

Pluses: You are obviously smart, funny and creative. I can usually get a chuckle out of most anything you post. You also more than are willing to concede a point.

negatives: You can be pretty mean and petty. You have no moral compass. You blow with the wind and second guess yourself to the point that I sometimes wonder if you even have any solid beliefs about anything. You don't take any hard stands on anything, because you seem too weak and unsure about anything to do so. You are rarely able to argue your own points and when pressed to do so, you resort to your creative humor to delfect your weak argument style and lack of knowledge.

Nash · « **Reply #27 on:** May 23, 2005, 01:56:25 AM »

Nuke, thanks.

I enjoyed reading that. I appreciate your compliments and will endeavor to take your criticism to heart and effect change in those areas in as much as I am able to. Cheers.

straffo · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2005, 04:25:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
You still waterin down the wine with anti-freeze?

well ask Naso or anyone living in the Italian "boot"

Momus-- · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2005, 04:57:48 AM »

From one of the articles linked to:

Quote

Norwegian authorities have opted against indicting controversial immigrant Mullah Krekar on charges he financed terrorism and was involved in political murders in northern Iraq. Dropping the case may help clear the way for Norway to deport Krekar back to Iraq....Norway's cabinet minister in charge of immigrant matters, Erna Solberg, has repeatedly said she wants to get Mullah Krekar out of Norway.

How are they backstabbing anyone here? They want the guy out of their country and preferably back in Iraq where presumably he can be dealt with. They however are not about to abandon the due process to which anyone in Norway is rightly entitled.

The SVIK.ORG website is missing any balancing context at all. The charges leveled at Norway by that site could almost certainly apply to any western country, the UK and USA included.

The Frontpagemag article is the usual neo-right smear-laden anti-european hatchet job masquerading as serious writing and again lacking in any real context. Over emotive-rubbish such as:

Quote

As long as Norwegians, British, Danes, Belgians, or Dutch do not get killed, they have a right to recruit murderers of Egyptians, Jordanians, Algerians—and Americans.

Why doesn't the author at least mention in passing the US attitude to the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). This is an organisation classified by the US as a terrorist group in 1997 but which was engaged in acts of terrorism from a much earlier date. MEK's presence in the north of Iraq was one of the "facts" cited by the pro-war lobby as evidence of Saddams involvement in terrorism. Could this lack of a contextual view of the issue be because the US recently granted financial aid to this group and hosted a meeting in Washington for a cadre of MEK leaders? This is a group with a past record of killing US personnel by the way.

The biggest supporter of the anti-western terror network such as it is, has been the USA's strategic partner Saudi Arabia. That is a fact. Take any and all articles such as the frontpagemag one above in that context.

With respect Hangtime, this is a complex subject on which it would probably not be wise to make rash generalisations at the risk of laying yourself open to charges of double standards.