UK Ignored Bin Laden Warning - Extremist Says

[LoungeMachine]

Extremist: UK ignored bin Laden warning

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 Posted: 1135 GMT (1935 HKT)

LONDON, England (AP) -- The leader of a defunct Islamic militant group has blamed Prime Minister Tony Blair's government and its "crusader views" of Muslims for the July 7 suicide bomb attacks.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Anjem Choudary, leader of the disbanded Muhajiroun extremist group, also said the British public shared the blame for ignoring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's warning last year that Britain would be attacked if it did not withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Omar Bakri, the Muhajiroun group's radical founder and spiritual leader who is apparently being closely watched by British security forces, had on many occasions glorified suicide bombings in Iraq and by Palestinian militants in Israel.

Choudary himself has been reported as saying that Islam regards as legitimate the kidnappings of Westerners in "occupied Muslim lands," such as Iraq.

Choudary criticized Blair's meeting Tuesday with two dozen members of the Muslim community to discuss anti-terror legislation the government plans to introduce by the end of the year.

"This is not the time for talking; it's time for action," he said. Blair, he added, has "got to do something (about the policies) which have caused 7-7."

The Muslim leaders who met Blair, said Choudary, did not represent the Muslim community in Britain. He said they were hand-picked by the government because they agreed with Blair's foreign and domestic policies -- which he claimed were the root causes of the London bombings on a bus and three Underground trains. At least 52 people were killed as well as the four suspected bombers and about 700 injured.

Had Blair tried to meet with Bakri or other extremists such as Palestinian cleric Abu Qatada, called bin Laden's "spiritual ambassador in Europe," it would have been "a very different picture."

But he said he believed Bakri would have refused to meet Blair had he been invited. The preacher, he said, "would see Tony Blair as someone with blood of Muslims on his hands, a murderer of Muslims, an occupier of Muslim lands. He's the last person Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed would want to speak to."

To avoid a repeat of the attacks, Choudary said, the government has to heed warnings.

"Those four individuals who carried out the operation cannot be blamed solely for 7-7," said Choudary, who is director of the Sharia Court of the United Kingdom and chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers. Sharia is Muslim law as derived from the Quran.

"I think ultimately, the British foreign policy -- the occupation of Iraq and the support of the state of Israel and the draconian laws which they have introduced over the years in this country -- have a lot to do with why 7-7 took place, and I think one has to wake up and look at the reality," Choudary said in the telephone interview.

He said the legislation was a reflection of the government's "crusader views, their anti-Islam and anti-Muslim views."

The British government is preparing to create a new offense of "glorifying or endorsing" terrorism, such as praising suicide bombers as martyrs, he said.

"I think also the British public need to take part of the blame because they completely ignored warnings which Sheik Osama bin Laden gave about a year ago, saying unless they did something about the British foreign policy and unless they did something about the brutal nature which Tony Blair operates internationally, then England was a potential target," Choudary said.

He said the secular as well as moderate British Muslims, including Iqbal Sacrani, head of the Muslim Council in Britain, deserved blame.

"They've been saying all along that al Qaeda doesn't really exist, there's no such thing as jihad (holy war), nobody's going to do it in Britain.

"Whereas people like us, we were giving the warning, were saying: 'Look, you've got to do something about your policies, you've got to do something about the colonial way in which Britain functions,"' Choudary said. "And unless and until Britain does something about that, then they only have themselves to blame if they suffer repercussions like 7-7."

When in operation, Muhajiroun -- the name is Arabic for "The Emigrants" -- promoted what it called an "Islamic renaissance" and advocated the creation of an Islamic state in several countries, including Britain.

The group angered mainstream Muslim organizations, which complained it recruited members on university campuses and encouraged supporters to join armed struggles abroad.

Choudary has in the past hailed the 9/11 hijackers on the United States as the "Magnificent 19."

He criticized new proposed legislation as hypocritical. "Why do you want to start introducing new laws to say Muslims can't talk about jihad when you know very well that it's a perfectly legitimate struggle in Palestine, in Kashmir, in Chechnya and even in Iraq," Choudary said.

"When Muslims talk about jihad, suddenly they're cast as terrorists and they're threatened with deportation. I think this is double standards, that's blatant racism, isn't it?"

[Angel]

The Canadian attack can't be too far away. We've been named on the list, and I think us and Italy are the only two named that haven't been hit yet. Mind you, if they do hit us, it would cause major changes to immigration, so they may hold off. After all, they can come over here on fake passports, etc. but once they're here an investigation has to take place before they can be deported, even if they falsified records to get here. Of course, they can't be found once the investigation takes place and they want to deport them! They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if (when) they attack here.

We're in the process of sending a whole wack of troops over to Kandahar - and the Canadian public has been told point blank that our job there is to kill people, and that we will more than likely have casualties ourselves. Most of this country doesn't give our soldiers a second thought, and don't even know that we are at war. Pisses me right off! They're risking their lives, and their nation thinks they're doing pansy ass peace-keeping. :(

[Redballjets88]

no one realizes anything canada does...most people dont realize that canada had troops helping on d-day and throughout WW2

[Angel]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
no one realizes anything canada does...most people dont realize that canada had troops helping on d-day and throughout WW2

Our troops did a hell of a lot more than "help" on d-day and throughout the war! But you are right, our contributions don't get recognized. Sometimes it's our own fault though. We don't stand up and say: Look what we did! We just do it, hopefully get a thank you, and continue on. Took GWB 3 fucking years to thank us for all the diverted flights & passengers that we allowed to land, AND took into our homes! Which is a BIG part of the anti-American sentiment that is rampant in this country today. :(

This is from 2002, but it's still true:

http://www.indefual.net/canada/pride/2002afghan.html

LONDON - Until the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed by a U.S. warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.

It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.

That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: It seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved.

Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10% of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.

Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British." The Second World War rovided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack.

More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third-largest navy and the fourth-largest air force in the world.

The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated -- a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.

So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality -- unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer, British. It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves -- and are unheard by anyone else -- that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth -- in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular non- Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of- control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace -- a uniquely Canadian act of self- abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.

So who today in the United States knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan?

Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun.

It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost.

This week, four more grieving Canadian families knew that cost all too tragically well.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Angel
Our troops did a hell of a lot more than "help" on d-day and throughout the war!

Thanks for being our water boy! ;)

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

As I remember the US took 2 out of the 5 beaches on D-Day and fucked up in one of them...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
As I remember the US took 2 out of the 5 beaches on D-Day and fucked up in one of them...:)

That (Omaha Beach) wasn't our fault.:D

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Angel
Took GWB 3 fucking years to thank us for all the diverted flights & passengers that we allowed to land, AND took into our homes! Which is a BIG part of the anti-American sentiment that is rampant in this country today. :(


Shut the fuck up. We'd do that for you if anyone gave a shit enough to attack Canada. And we wouldn't sit around waiting for a thank you. :rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That (Omaha Beach) wasn't our fault.:D

Very debatable...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Very debatable...:)

No...the geography and bad luck were mostly to blame. It's true the naval guns and bombers missed their targets due to cloud cover. There was also an intelligence failure, the Germans had an elite unit of SS troops practicing live fire coastal defense.

I think the biggest problem was the beach was an enclosed kill box basically, whereas all the other beaches were surrounded by towns where soldiers could move in and outflank the defenders, Omaha had a sea wall backdrop that ran in almost a parabola, containing the US troops advance initially.

The soldiers themselves did well under really shitty circumstances.

[Seshmeister]

I think it's interesting that only new troops were used because they thought veterans would refuse...

I think the US soldiers were very brave and got a shitty deal but is it not true that the beach should have been bombed by the US airforce/navy to provide craters for cover but they fucked up?

Also was there not a huge fuck up with the armour being dropped off in too deep water?

I could be wrong as well but I don't think the guards on the beach were elite SS troops but they were regulars.

I saw a disturbing documentary about one of the Germans that was 'working' a machine gun on the beach until he ran out of ammo. The guy had fired literally 10s of thousands of rounds and after he was told to leave his position he kept going. They reckoned he was respnsible for at least 1400 casualties. I suppose if the Germans had won the war he would be seen as a hero rather than a fucking weirdo psycho, such are the ways of war.

He said he had absolutely no regrets...

[BOMBER]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
no one realizes anything canada does...most people dont realize that canada had troops helping on d-day and throughout WW2
How do you know this for a fact?
That's a pretty big assumption.

[Seshmeister]

Not really. Same goes for Australian troops too.

It's a perception.

How many non US troops did you see in Saving Private Ryan?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Not really. Same goes for Australian troops too.

It's a perception.

How many non US troops did you see in Saving Private Ryan?

It's a shame, because from what I've read, both CANADIAN and AUSSIE troops had a fearsome reputation with their enemies.

[BOMBER]

I can only speak as an Australian and I'm proud to say that's not our perception.
If most people in the states don't realise then that may well be the case.

[Seshmeister]

The way I see it the US had huge economic and strategic benefits to be gained from WWII and joined the war only after being attacked directly, Britain was fighting for it's existence but Canada and Australia were fighting on principle.

[BOMBER]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The way I see it the US had huge economic and strategic benefits to be gained from WWII and joined the war only after being attacked directly, Britain was fighting for it's existence but Canada and Australia were fighting on principle.
Spot On.
I think we're all pretty glad they joined in though or things could have worked out a little differently.:)

[Seshmeister]

Well maybe but to be honest the Russians won the war.

I do think Australia and Canada have the high ground though.

You can't generalise too much but it's interesting that the two countires have such different attitudes nowadays.

Australia seems to want to be the best at rugby, cricket, swimming and the genocide of indigenous populations.

uh uhuhuhhuh ;)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I think it's interesting that only new troops were used because they thought veterans would refuse...

Very true. Although the idea is that "green" troops would take chances that veteran infantry would never take.


I think the US soldiers were very brave and got a shitty deal but is it not true that the beach should have been bombed by the US airforce/navy to provide craters for cover but they fucked up?

Yes, from what I read in Ambrose's "D-DAY," the bombers went to far inland and missed because the target was obscured by clouds. And the German fortifications were quite well designed and constructed. The naval guns stopped too soon because they were afraid of killing their own as the troops approached the beach head. And they were afraid of tipping off the Germans because they may have hit the beaches with Panzers if given enough time.

What saved the day was that three destroyers (two US Navy, one Royal Navy) came in and gave direct fire support even though they risked beaching themselves in the shallows.

Soldiers were throwing smoke grenades to "illuminate the targets."


Also was there not a huge fuck up with the armour being dropped off in too deep water?

The American commanders were not believers in the "funnies," that is armor modified to "swim" to shore. Many of the tanks were flooded and sank as a result. But the German gun positions would have wiped them out anyways.


I could be wrong as well but I don't think the guards on the beach were elite SS troops but they were regulars.

I think there was a German unit in the area, as opposed to the Polish and Russian draftees expected, that was from the Calais region practicing defending against amphibious beach assaults. They may not have been SS, but they were Wehrmacht in any case.


I saw a disturbing documentary about one of the Germans that was 'working' a machine gun on the beach until he ran out of ammo. The guy had fired literally 10s of thousands of rounds and after he was told to leave his position he kept going. They reckoned he was respnsible for at least 1400 casualties. I suppose if the Germans had won the war he would be seen as a hero rather than a fucking weirdo psycho, such are the ways of war.

He said he had absolutely no regrets...

You know, I think I know which guy you're talking about. He's sort of short, and has a slight build and was very young at the time (maybe 17?). He's a little more contrite in the American documentaries.

The truth is that not many German machine gunners manning MG42s survived that day. There are accounts that Omaha was the only real instance in WWII where American GI's conducted open, wholesale executions of prisoners. They were pissed because they believed that the Germans were targeting medical personnel and that they dropped mortar rounds to kill all of the weaponless American soldiers up against the sea wall that the Germans could not directly shoot.

Well, out of six beaches, odds are your going to have one pisser...:)

[BOMBER]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Well maybe but to be honest the Russians won the war.

I do think Australia and Canada have the high ground though.

You can't generalise too much but it's interesting that the two countires have such different attitudes nowadays.

Australia seems to want to be the best at rugby, cricket, swimming and the genocide of indigenous populations.

uh uhuhuhhuh ;)

Cheers!

:gulp:
Here's to hoping we say that way with the cricket,oh and of course being the best with the genocide of indigenous populations of course.;)
Cheers,mate.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BOMBER
I can only speak as an Australian and I'm proud to say that's not our perception.
If most people in the states don't realise then that may well be the case.

Most people in the States do not realize. But I meant that the Australian (and New Zealand) reputation is that they were very effective and tough soldiers in any battle they fought, and were highly respected by the Germans as soldiers.

[Seshmeister]

You know Nick you could have saved yourself a little work there just by posting 'You are completely right as ever Sesh...':)

The whole thing is all about context I guess. What was it 2000 killed?

On one hand horrendous nightmare on the other total irrelevance in the context of 30 million killed elsewhere.

That's the power of movies I guess.

Don't get me wrong I was greatly moved by the film particularly those first 20 minutes which were a work of genius, I just wish there was a bit less cheesiness at the end of the fillm and that more people had the imagination to look at that and then try in their minds to multiply it by 10 000 to get a handle on the insanity of the war as a whole.

I give credit to Speilberg showing surrendering troops being killed - it was one of the bravest moments for him in the film.



Cheers!

:gulp:

[BOMBER]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Most people in the States do not realize. But I meant that the Australian (and New Zealand) reputation is that they were very effective and tough soldiers in any battle they fought, and were highly respected by the Germans as soldiers.
Oh your right mate,it's all good.:)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BOMBER
Here's to hoping we say that way with the cricket,oh and of course being the best with the genocide of indigenous populations of course.;)
Cheers,mate.

Well as a Scot you know who I'm supporting in the cricket but I wish your guys could maybe be a bit less arrogant.

I think it must be something in the convict genes...:)

[BOMBER]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Well as a Scot you know who I'm supporting in the cricket but I wish your guys could maybe be a bit less arrogant.

I think it must be something in the convict genes...:)
I think 5-0,is that arrogant enough for you?;)

[Seshmeister]

I would not be unhappy with that result...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You know Nick you could have saved yourself a little work there just by posting 'You are completely right as ever Sesh...':)

Well, you weren't completely right :p


The whole thing is all about context I guess. What was it 2000 killed?

On one hand horrendous nightmare on the other total irrelevance in the context of 30 million killed elsewhere.

That's the power of movies I guess.

You've got that right. To the the Red Army, losing 2000 guys in the opening volley of an offensive was a very good day. Although, the first three waves were essentially completely wiped out. But 2K was the worst on any beach that day, and that's not bad at all really in the grand scheme of things.


Don't get me wrong I was greatly moved by the film particularly those first 20 minutes which were a work of genius, I just wish there was a bit less cheesiness at the end of the fillm and that more people had the imagination to look at that and then try in their minds to multiply it by 10 000 to get a handle on the insanity of the war as a whole.

I agree. The script was a sentimental piece of shit real WWII veteran writers mostly tried to avoid in the 50's and 60's.


I give credit to Speilberg showing surrendering troops being killed - it was one of the bravest moments for him in the film.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Yes, I remember that some ex-US Army Rangers were very upset by the film "The Longest Day" when it was released because it showed surrendering Germans mistakenly being killed by American soldiers at Point Du Hoc. Since then, I've read many of the German defenders were taken out for a "10-mile forced march (lasting) five minutes."

[Seshmeister]

It's a difficult one isn't it?

In the context of seeing your all buddies cut down is there a defence of murdering the enemy when they surrrender?

I see 7 UK troops have just been charged for maltreatment of Iraqi looters.

Who knows but I guess it's a good thing that we keep trying to raise the bar.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Angel
Our troops did a hell of a lot more than "help" on d-day and throughout the war! But you are right, our contributions don't get recognized. Sometimes it's our own fault though. We don't stand up and say: Look what we did! We just do it, hopefully get a thank you, and continue on. Took GWB 3 fucking years to thank us for all the diverted flights & passengers that we allowed to land, AND took into our homes! Which is a BIG part of the anti-American sentiment that is rampant in this country today. :(


LMMFAO, Don't hold your breath for a thank you from any country.
The fact that Bush gave you one says a lot, just not enough about how both America and Canada really rely on each other ecomically.

Our governments are closer allies than any of the citizens from both understand.
But that is a tad biased on my part because a couple of the best friends i have ever had were Canuck's, lol.

But on to my point:
Now i have given the whole "Terrorism" thing quite a bit of thought, which was concluded today when the news that London was hit again broke.
And i have come to the conclusion that ANYONE who believes for one second that the government will protect them, is buying into a fantasy of unrealistic proportions.

It was made very clear to me that there doesn't have to be a lot of planning to pull off an attack given the free access any-damn-terror-minded-fucks has to our borders.

All it takes is a good idea for a small, yet deadly, bomb of some sort that is built by many different groups.
Then they all set a time, pick their targets, and go to it.
At any given time there could be a series of detonations all across our country bringing mass carnage to our front doors.

My point is that the US Government has put out this scenario that we can't be hit without an ellaborate plan that takes years to put together, and that's just plain bullshit.

It makes me wonder sometimes if our own covert operators AREN'T behind some of the attacks over the last 20+ years in some kind of twisted political power grab.

Let me put it this way, I have taken the opportunity to look over some places in my own town where if I wanted too, I could kill a few thousand people and spend less than $1,000.00 doing it.

Could i bring the country to it's knee's like that?
Probably not, but with just a little more money and people willing to join the cause, it could be done in shorter time than you think.

I guess what i'm really wondering at this point is this, Who exactly are the Terrorist's we're supposed to be fighting?

I don't have the true answers to this, but i do have a hell of a lot of questions and absolutely ZERO faith in the people i once trusted running things.

The borders are a problem, yet they remain wide open?
Bin Laden master minded 9-11, but he isn't a priority over Iraq?
The Christian "LOONS" got Bush a second term, (yes, i know who i voted for) and he's done nothing to fight for issues they trust him to bring forward...of course they have all become too snowblind and sheepish to see he's dropped a ball he never really picked up.

I dunno, i'm surrounded by idiots who can't do simple math.
But things not adding up didn't get by me, and i want answers that are not coming.

But trust me, If i wanted to kill at least 1,000 innocent people, I could do it with one to two days of planning and what's in my wallet right this moment.
Our government wouldn't be able to stop me any more than they can a terrorist.

So i conclude that the Patriot Act, and the whole Homeland Security JOKE is just a gorilla beating its chest claiming to have power it doesn't have to garner support through fear mongering.

If you disagree with me, then prove me wrong because i certainly don't know what else to think anymore.

But i am sure of one thing, I don't have to stick my nose in dog shit to know it stinks.

Roth On!

[Seshmeister]

I think we're now officially in agreement Cat.

I don't know if that's because we've both given this some thought or we're both turning into fucking internet lunatics...:)

[Angel]

Originally posted by BOMBER
being the best with the genocide of indigenous populations of course.;)
Cheers,mate.

I'm sure we've got to be running a close second on that one! ;)

[Angel]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Shut the fuck up. We'd do that for you if anyone gave a shit enough to attack Canada. And we wouldn't sit around waiting for a thank you. :rolleyes:

You wouldn't have to. We would be thanking you as it was occuring. YOU obviously don't know how important politeness is in this country. It's part of our CULTURE. The first time that Canadian politeness was noted was in the mid-1600's - when we were still "New France".

So, you SHUT THE FUCK UP! Probably the four most often used expressions/words in this country are: "Please" "Thank you" "You're welcome" and "I'm sorry". You know, if more Americans would take the time to learn about other nations, you'd probably have more allies, and less problems in this world.

[Angel]

Originally posted by Cathedral
LMMFAO, Don't hold your breath for a thank you from any country.
The fact that Bush gave you one says a lot.

You're wrong there Cat. We are praised and thanked EVERY YEAR from various European nations for liberating them during WWII. The adoration of Canadians in the Netherlands is awe inspiring at best.

George saying thank you though means diddly squat. (Is that a Canuck expression, I'm not sure) He was here to try to get us to sign onto the Missile Defense Shield and I'm sure that's the only reason why he said anything. ;)

C'mon Cat, this is GWB we're talking about here - he wouldn't do ANYTHING if he thought there wasn't something in it for him. :D

[FORD]

Congratulations Hosers, on getting your own "God Hates" (www.godhatescanada.com) site from that fucking inbred fool Fred Phelps

[Cathedral]

Maybe a little of both?
I have just become fed up with the way politicians play games in order to persue an underlying agenda.

There is simply no way to know the limits they will go to for that agenda.

How does one trust someone like that?

You can't.................

[Angel]

Wow, you're tune has sure changed from a couple of years ago! I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact, I think you look at things with a more open mind now, and that's a GOOD THING! :D

[Angel]

Originally posted by FORD
Congratulations Hosers, on getting your own "God Hates" (www.godhatescanada.com) site from that fucking inbred fool Fred Phelps

Yeah, we're special now! ;)

He'd better be careful though. After all, this is God's Country. :D

(Look out, Angel - they're coming for you now)

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Angel
Wow, you're tune has sure changed from a couple of years ago! I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact, I think you look at things with a more open mind now, and that's a GOOD THING! :D

But the anger i feel is bad, lol.
It's clear to everyone that things must change, yet the train keeps plowing ahead, oblivious to the squeak of the wheels.

Well, as 1 of the ball bearings in this wheel, I want a new foreign policy and a new kind of politician.
I want the two oldest political organizations to sit one out and learn that the people are the beginning, middle and end of any great Nation on this earth.

All that grows from greed is destruction, and world history is chock full of it proving that point.

So what, that guy over there is from another land, are we not still humans?
Blood is Blood, Blood In, Blood Out......life is Life and Death is still Death.

I don't get it anymore, the world has become a cluster fuck of whatever, whenever, wherever...no matter who gets caught in the middle.

I've just had enough................

[bobgnote]

They knew to ATTACK, put in some 7s,9s,11s, to WIN.


Originally posted by Seshmeister
I think we're now officially in agreement Cat.

I don't know if that's because we've both given this some thought or we're both turning into fucking internet lunatics...:)

The pigs and other bureaucrats have gotten into collusion with various media, and they all plan to let in lots of foreign money real steady, then MORE, for a land-grab when the real estate bubble breaks is the CPC 182 or 18 USC 245, lots more where that is.

If insurance or banks go, somebody will jump in. UNLESS there is some NBC all over us.

for sure, the funding mechanisms will all go down locally, in the US, coming soon in Ca, an implosion we feel, won't kill us, but it will kill all kinds of outlying folks, London now, WHO'S NEXT? so, let's see if Tommy can hear me, I think so, and I know the judge can.