Al-Queida ?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I think the way forwards is to deport the extreamists from overseas that preach hate and to prosectute those that are home grown.

Even those who are British citizens? What about those who are on British soil legally and have committed no crime? If they have committed a crime in Britain then why not prosecute them on British soil?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Skyrad 0]

Maybe that read wrong, what I mean is if they are citizens of elsewhere deport them/ban them from the UK. If they are British citizens (ie:homegrown) prosecute them within the UK. The British Gov are currently making laws to stop people from glorifying terrorism, though I question their need to do so. I would have thought that there is current legislation that covers this. MrMK2 any thoughts?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

The British Gov are currently making laws to stop people from glorifying terrorism,

Can you give us more information on this one? Sounds like the thought police to me.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

influence they need to be stomped on in Pakistan, Eygypt, Yemen and elsewhere not by us or the US but by the respective governments.

Universally agreed upon, I believe. But how does this happen?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

MrMK2

eh, close enough.

There are a number of proposed bits of legislation regarding the build up to the sort of acts we saw in London.

The first as you point out is some kind of offence of glorifying terrorism. I think the govt. is referring to it as "indirect incitement". This one I'm not exactly sure we need... though that will depend on precisely what form it takes. There was a minister (I think it was Hazel Blears) speaking last week on the radio about the proposals and they indicated that there would be a requirement that the offender had some form of intent that their words would encourage their audience to commit terrorist acts... thus merely glorifying it without any thought that anyone would go ahead and commit terrorism would not be enough to be guilty of the offence.

Since the new law would require the intent that the audience would then go on to commit a terrorist act at least partly because of what the offender said; this really ought to be covered by the current offence of incitement to commit a terrorist act / public explosion etc.

It's an odd stance for the govt. to take. One I think is primarily designed to make it look like they're doing something although I'm not sure they actually are with this one. It doesn't really matter what you say for the purposes of a charge of incitement, be it "go commit suicide bombings" or "suicide bombers are martyrs". As far as I understood the position, either would be covered by our standard laws on incitement so long as the speaker intends for the audience to act on their words. Maybe Cherrie ought to have a quick chat with her hubby and clear the position up for him.

(note that the govt. does not anticipe this to be a inroad on our freedom of speech as you will still be able to say "suicide bombers are martyrs" so long as you're not doing it with the intent of getting others to go commit suicide bombings. But as I've said, I don't really see this as much of a change. That said, I'm sure some people will think a little harder before the exercise their rights to free speech after this law comes in).

Other proposed legislation would firstly criminalize conspiracy to cause an explosion overseas (really all this does is close a loop hole and shouldn't really be that controversial) and acts which are preparatory to committing a terrorist act.

This is the change that will have some real teeth. At the moment British law recognizes attempt as being an act "more than merely preparatory" to the offence. Thus you would probably be guilty of attempting to cause a public explosion if you made a bomb and put it in a bin. You might not be guilty of that offence though if all you did was to gather together bomb making equipment and ingredients and learn how to make a bomb. That would probably be found to be an act merely preparatory to the offence and not an attempt.

I think rightly so, there is now talk of criminalizing such activity, even where it does impinge on our freedoms to collect together various bomb making products. So long as the powers that be are intelligent enough not to start prosecuting people who have two different kinds of bleach under their sink (and the legislation forces them to be that intelligent), then the situation would be acceptable in my opinion).

The one other new bit of legislation is the offence of giving or receiving training in terrorist techniques. This could prove to be rather difficult and I expect to see a lot of arguments in parliament over this. Whilst toddling off to some Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan rightly ought to be an offence of some kind, there's talk of criminalizing giving or receiving training in the handling of "hazardous materials". I wonder what this covers. As yet we don't know. Will chemistry teachers have to get a license to reach chemistry? Will students need licenses? Are we simply going to do away with GCSE and A-Level chemistry and physics altogether? I want to know more. And I want to know what on earth the govt. thinks such a broad offence is going to even come close to being workable.

As always, the devil will be in the detail. There's no real information out there yet about precisely what the govt. wants in this new legislation. The full information will come out when the bills are published and that is when the real debate will start.

[Skyrad 0]

Thanks

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

The one other new bit of legislation is the offence of giving or receiving training in terrorist techniques. This could prove to be rather difficult and I expect to see a lot of arguments in parliament over this. Whilst toddling off to some Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan rightly ought to be an offence of some kind, there's talk of criminalizing giving or receiving training in the handling of "hazardous materials". I wonder what this covers. As yet we don't know. Will chemistry teachers have to get a license to reach chemistry? Will students need licenses? Are we simply going to do away with GCSE and A-Level chemistry and physics altogether? I want to know more. And I want to know what on earth the govt. thinks such a broad offence is going to even come close to being workable.

So SAS training will now be illegal.

What about those who already took advanced courses in electronics, physics and chemistry? Do they have to be brainwashed?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

So SAS training will now be illegal.

In the wishy-washy joe-schmo-public version of the bill the govt. has outlined yeah...

Just goes to show how wide ranging the wording they've given is. I have no doubt they'll have to re-think or dramatically re-word it before it goes before the Commons.

Quote

What about those who already took advanced courses in electronics, physics and chemistry? Do they have to be brainwashed?

The law won't be retrospective - pretty difficult to make it so under our constitution. They've also made a big thing about how it won't effect anyone who has already received such training.

[Skyrad 0]

One has to look at the problem holistically. There is no simple quick fix in this war on the militants. This is a war which if it to be successful must be fought on many fronts. These primarily can be broken down into the following ‘fronts’ Military, Political and Diplomatic. By the very nature of these fronts, a dialogue must be opened with the enemy be it indirectly via third party brokers or directly.
Military action when fighting an unconventional Asymmetrical war in which the UK/US are engaged must be intelligence led, low profile (If not covert) and targeted. Collateral damage is counter productive and is of great value to the enemy, great measures should be taken to avoid such damage. Targets should only be eliminated when their intelligence value is outweighed by the risk of their continuing existence, when this point is reached decisive action to remove them should ensue swiftly but in such a manner that minimum risk to non combatants is achieved.
As already mentioned in this thread, Al Qaeda is not a cohesive group but a flat organisation of many groupings. This is both their strength and their weakness. There is no head to cut off this dragon but the separate groups are held together in certain places by ‘link men’ these players by their very nature must connect between groupings and by their exposure they are vulnerable as are the cells they contact.
Political, to remove the support of the militants one must first remove the causes of the grievances to which they rally their troops. There are the obvious ones, these being the Palestinian issue (to which Al Qaeda has strategically aligned itself) as well as the Iraq situation (which itself is a symptom of US/UK philosophy on foreign economic policy) and the belief on which these policies are founded.
American universalism, the belief that the US government now has, that the American way is the only way forwards for the world. This was the view submitted to the US congress in the US defence doctrine paper on 20th Sept 2002. In which it states that the last century ended with ‘a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise’. In this light pre emptive strikes of the nature of Afghanistan and Iraq make sense to many Americans but to those outside America they are seen as an attempt to remake the world in an American image.
As we have seen in Iraq overt pre-emption does not lead to the end of terrorism but simply to a fertile recruitment ground for terrorists. American plans for regime change increases suspicion and hostility among those governments that the US needs the support of to change the balance of popular local support away from the terrorists. Attacking ‘Rouge states’ is counter productive as it does not disable terrorist networks and terrorist groups flourish in failed states and states where there is no discernable government.
America has a military power unrivalled today, but that power has to be driven by an unassailable economy, which America no longer has. The US is the worlds largest debtor (Japan being the strongest economy) the military can not therefore be sustained in its overseas campaigns for any longitudinal period and the American public are not willing to pay the blood price for empire building. This means that the US needs to recruit allies in the region and across the world to continue the war by proxy; alienation of other states is therefore counterproductive to the aims of the war.
American values work only in America due to the socioeconomic cultural circumstances that exist there and they do not export well even to ‘similar’ European mother cultures. To attempt to impose them on Islamic Arab/Asian nations is likely to end in chaos in much the same way that Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to implement national self determination in central and Eastern Europe did after WWI.
Political: Economic. America now argues that ‘Market States’ are the only legitimate mode of government but that isn’t to say fiscal buoyancy in the ‘global economy’ is the most important requirement. The belief that a state must work for prosperity of its citizens as a ‘Market State’ in the infant ‘global economy’ is not as important as a state that meets the human needs of security from violence and disorder and recognition of cultural identity.
America is going to have to swallow the bitter pill that such states need not be democracies. People will often chose a strong state over a weak democracy if it fulfils their needs. Strong states better fulfil suppression of terrorism than failed or eroded weak states in which they grow. As has ever been the case in politics fear is more potent than hope of gain. (As Senator, John Kerry learnt to his expense) states that deliver safety are more legitimate than those that promise wealth. The ‘Market State’ is an American invention best left in America.
The spreading of democracy is counter-productive to the US/UK war aims in the war on terror. If the house of Saud were to fall, the main stated aim of Al Qaeda would be accomplished. If democracy were to be installed in Saudi Arabia the house of Saud would fall, the Wahibists would take power and Al Qaeda would have a choke hold on the hydrocarbon fuelled economy of the US/UK. Condoleezza Rice speaking about democracy in Arabia along with US plans of regime changes have given hope to the enemy and helped to undermine the Saudi government as well as alienate an ally. The spreading of democracy has to be dropped by the US if it wishes to beat Al Qaeda. In Arab states the belief in the American model is rejected and attempts to impose it will only unite the US enemies further.
On a local level recruitment of Halwala ‘bankers’ and couriers must be carried out to gain intelligence on fund movement so that the fiscal taps can be screwed down on the terror groups.
Diplomacy: America due to its unsustainable economic situation and domestic political situation must gain the assistance of the UN, NATO, SEATO the EU, the Arab league and the League of African Nations in its fight against Al Qaeda if legitimacy is to be given to its actions, it must no longer be seen to pursue the road of isolationism. This will also assist in removing an argument of its critics and a tool for recruiters of its enemy. It is also no use to carry a large stick if one does not also how to speak softly.
Honey is easier to swallow than vinegar and whilst the use of targeted lethal force should be used, incentives for those that help must also be given. Where possible they should have an effect on the indigenous populations of hostile areas not ‘just’ line the pockets of officials.
America now has a Christian fundamentalist government, which is part of the drive to remould the Middle East in the belief that a major conflict will fulfil biblical prophecies of a conflict in the region. It uses terms of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ with no apparent regard for the lessons of history, that yesterdays enemies are now our allies.
American values are not universal values and attempts to impose them outside of the US will result not in people believing they have been liberated but oppressed.

In summary, Al Qaeda is a modern enemy, it uses global multi media communications, targets economic institutions and is highly mass media aware using attacks on symbolic targets to disseminate its message. Its ideology is also modern as it believes that acts of terror can bring about a better world in which it belives. This owes more to Bolshevik & Neo Marxist ideology than to Islam. To defeat Al Qaeda a total war of a different kind must be waged, and Wahabism is just the kindergarten.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Botellines 0]

Very well thought. You may want to send a copy to comander_in_chimp@whitehouse.gov

I would like to remark the importance that the military, political and diplomatic fronts walk in the same direction.

[Skyrad 0]

Thanks, I spent a while last night giving it some thought. Suprised there's no comments either way on my view.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[chuteless 1]

The name of the reporter that interviewed Osama Bin Laden was Robert Fisk.

Here is what Osama Bin Laden told him (in part):


QUOTE:



UNQUOTE

Osama Bin laden and Al Qaeda are both mentioned in the Bible, and it clearly states that is EXACTLY what Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda WILL do, bring America to a former shadow (likeness) of itself.

The former "shadow" of the USA was how the land of the USA stood before 1776, when England ruled the eastern part of the country to the Mississippi River, the French ruled what is known as the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, China had earlier contact ( some indicate before Columbus) along the western coasts, and Russia ruled what we now call Alaska.

That is the way the United States will be divided again, within the next few years, right after OBL and Al Qaeda destroy the military and Financial sectors of the USA, along with the administration.

You might recoil at such a suggestion,but the Bible does not ( CANNOT ) lie. Everything I have stated above, WILL come to pass, and George W Bush will NEVER finish his second term.

Sucn nuclear devastation will take many millions of lives, , and as well as being stated clearly in God's WORD, it is coded together with many other aspects of what I have stated herein. Each aspect reinforces the other, and it will be a matter of a very short time before you will see it for yourselves.

All coded references and details as written in the Bible point to 2006 as the year, but one thing is for certain, it will be before the end of Bush's second term.

Americans in their unrivalled arrogance continue to cry out " God Bless America", and yet they continue to turn their collective backs on God. Even DZ.COM forums are filled with arrogant disrespect, because if those showing it would take the time, the would discover for themselves that their approach is all wrong.

Americans ( and other nations like Canada) have turned to worshipping other gods such as sports, materialism etc. ,calling it alternative lifestyle. They have exploited the poor and called it lottery. They reward laziness and call it welfare. They allow millions of unborn babies to have their brains sucked out and call it freedom of choice.
Americans neglect to discipline their children and call it building self esteem. They fill the airways with every kind of pornographic material and call it freedom of expression.

WHY would anyone expect God to bless America???????? God blessed America and they turned their backs on Him.

He had done so for many years, and America has become a great nation, but then degenerated into every abominable thing that God hates.

I doubt many (if any) of you Americans can say WHY America has supported Israel, without reservation all these years.

It is so declared in God's WORD, but when America goes down the tubes in the near future, Israel will then be at the mercy of millions of Arabs.

The support and assistance America gave Israel will be blamed for the demise of America at the hands of the murderous Islamics, but America's actions and lifestyle, their rejection of God Almight, Jehovah, will be the reason for their downfall.

Israel will never be defeated, for the Israelis are God Chosen people, . God had promised Abraham that He (God) would make of the Israelis, a great nation, and He would bless them that bless Israel, and curese them that curse Israel. That will never change.

Even in the center of the Capital city of Israel, you will find America. JER USA LEM


The Islamics are a tool.... ( see Revelation 16: 17) until the words of God are fulfilled, and the destruction of New York City (and the United Nations) and Washington.D.C.

If you wish to read the first mention of the demise of America in the Bible ( for there are many) read Daniel, Chapter 7, and start at verse 2.

Daniel speaks about four great "beasts" coming up from out of the sea.

This is the sea of humanity, and these are four nations.

The first mentioned is The LION , England , and it had EAGLE'S WINGS, (the USA,) which grew out of the back of British rule in 1776. Note though, that Daniel watched "UNTIL THE EAGLE'S WINGS WERE PLUCKED"

The next is the BEAR, Russia.

The third is the LEOPARD, France,

and the fourth is the DRAGON China.



Once an eagle's wings are plucked, it cannot attack or defend itself, and that is what will be brought upon the USA. Total Chaos.

These four beasts are they that owned America's lands before it became America, and they will own it again....like it or not.

The war in Iraq is in the Bible, and Geo W Bush, and just about every other major player,.and even if they are not mentioned, they ARE encoded to connect with those that are.

Well, I am off on a trip into Northern Ontario for a few days.. That should give you something to chew on for awhile.

Bill Cole,

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Thanks, I spent a while last night giving it some thought. Suprised there's no comments either way on my view.

Sorry -

1 - I agree that a more tactical attack of the terrorist organizations would have been a better way to deal with terrorists organizations (versus a war on the country - tactical removal of Saddam and his people may have been more clean, but likely reviled in the general world just the same). Although it is a bit James Bond'ish in concept. Provided setting up the infrastructure is already in place. Much of the recent couple of administrations here leads me to believe many of those resources were gutted. So good idea, but the timeframe needed is likely prohibitive.

2 - I very much disagree that the government or the people are in any way primarily Christian-Fundamentalist at all. If you look around, that's the exception, not the rule. No more than we are primarily militant left wing nuts, either - we have equal proportions of both and although both are rather loudmouthed and self serving, they are not the majority even when combined. Our melting pot is much bigger than you guys give us credit for. Compare this country to the diversity of the entire European continent plus some more, not the individual nations and you'll be much closer to the truth.

3 - All the middle or your dissertation is very Euro-centric and others here can break it down and show the stereotypes used to write it, but it's pretty typical of wishful thinking and is espoused here quite a bit already. Your only difference is it was more wordy.

Nicely written though, the real problem is it's based on perceptions of the past in a present context instead of thinking to the future. I was pretty thrilled at the start, but it just seemed to digress to how the US is at fault for the woes in the world (edit: let me restate this. The overlying assumption here is that the US's success as a world power is a fluke - the market model is wrong, the political basis is wrong, and work ethic is wrong, the overall basis of a typical person's life in this country is wrong; and we somehow accidently took all those wrongs and came up with something that is tremendous, but so fragile (like Mr. Burns' medical condition in the Simpson's episode) - Hard to swallow that. But then, I could be the one in denial - nawwww can't be). And the US taking a concessionary position here is a mistake and that is the basis of your entire post.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Well, Bill - If you say so, we'll find out sometime prior to Nov '08. (~"GWB will not finish his term")

I suspect some here will keep this post in mind to decipher you ability to translate Revelations. I do agree with the symptoms about society breaking down, but I consider this a breakdown in common sense and courtesy and attribute it many factors. You might agree but would attach it to devotion to religion. At least your view is crisp and simple and easy to handle once you accept the basic premise on faith.

have a nice trip.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[madscape 0]

Mr Cole, almost all of your postings cast you as a bitter, angry old man who clings to his religion, and uses it as a baseball bat to beat people over the head if they don't subscribe to your theology of a bitter, angry vengeful god who hates everyone who doesn't belive everything you say/your interpretation of the Bible.

I do not believe the one ought only use the KJV, lest one be damned to hell. If that's a pre-req to salvation in your eyes, I guess I will not be seeing you in the afterlife.

Yours seems to be a mean-spirited brand of evangelicalism, wherein one's prey is berated into drinking your flavor of Kool-aid. Like a animal trainer with the whip of damnation and the carrot of salvation (if we live as you do).

Who's to say you are correct? I know you'll say you're right because that is what you interpret the bible as saying, but that is textbook circular reasoning.

Are you really content being so rude in your delivery of your theology? You berate America, but isn't your country (Canada) as doomed?

God and Jesus are about love, not instilling in you a sense of disdain of/superiority over those not pious enough for you.

You must really alienate a lot of people with your sledgehammer-like Draconian theology.

Love, not intimidation, scare tactics, and belittlement, is the way to win someone over.

Hellfire and Brimstone types really seem to be unhappy people...

[billvon 3,108]

>Mr Cole, almost all of your postings cast you as a bitter, angry old man . . .

No personal attacks. Your one warning.

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

I very much disagree that the government or the people are in any way primarily Christian-Fundamentalist at all. If you look around, that's the exception, not the rule.

Interesting insight here (one person's opinion, one location). My brother has lived in Brazil the last 10 years; he lived in Houston TX, Austin TX, Indianapolis IN, and Santa Fe NM before that.

He said he was astounded at the degree of overt public Christian religiosity.

He particularly noticed it when he took his wife to Space Center Houston (a semi-destination center associated with NASA in Houston). He said there was a Christian singing group there, singing their little hearts out with all kinds of people who were obviously not Christian wandering around.

Fine. But when was the last time you saw a Muslim troupe in a public space? MAYBE if it's designated as a "cultural awareness" day. But it's not the same.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[madscape 0]

Quote

>Mr Cole, almost all of your postings cast you as a bitter, angry old man . . .

No personal attacks. Your one warning.

Pardon me. I was not calling him such, I was only saying that such was the impression his postings gave.

Is there a differentiation made on these bords between saying "Person X's postings make them seem 'Y'," and "Person X is 'Y'?" For that was my intent. Beg pardon if that was not clear.

[Pendejo 0]

Wow, what a great illustration of how "some people" can take a holy book and interpret what is written in that book to mean what ever they want. Isn't this exactly what the Muslim extremists are doing with another holy book?

Being a "PK" I was pretty sure I had studied the areas of the bible you are referring to, but just in case I went back and re-read them. I'm somewhat confused.... I can't find a reference to the good old U.S.A or America anywhere in the Bible. Nor can I find the name George W. Bush listed anywhere. Perhaps you have a different version than I (and the rest of the world) have, please enlighten me as to the book, chapter, and verse that this is written.

Ok, that last line was all sarcasm.... But I couldn't help it

So why would someone as smart as God write a book to humanity that is a guide on how to live and so on and then put in all this "coded" stuff you refer to? Where is the book that tells us what is "coded" and what is not? If there is not a book or scroll or parchment with this information who says what anyone thinks is "coded" is really coded? Its interesting to me that people can't seem to take anything at face value. The people seem to have the need to re-invent things every so often to say its "new."

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[billvon 3,108]

>The people seem to have the need to re-invent things every so
>often to say its "new."

On a more practical level, end-of-the-worldists have to keep changing their predictions when the world does not indeed end in the year 666, or 1000, or 1666 or whatever. The Jehovah's Witnesses alone have predicted the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI) half a dozen times dozen times since 1900:

1915
1918
1920
1932 (not TEOTW, just the end of christianity)
1975
1994

Then of course there's REM, who claimed in the 1980's that it _is_ the end of the world as they know it (but they feel fine.)

And who can forget the Branch Davidians, who predicted TEOTWAWKI in 1995. Their leader was one of the few who was near correct; he helped engineer the end of his own personal world in 1993.

In the 1600's, James Ussher, a preacher who estimated a great many time periods in the bible, predicted the world would end on Oct 23 1996. These are pretty safe predictions, since the forseer doesn't ever have to admit he's wrong.

In 1997 alone, TEOTWAWKI was supposed to happen at least six times. They all had excellent and clever interpretations of the bible to back this up.

So Bill's prediction is not all that unusual. His is one of the dozens of EOTWAWKI predictions over the next decade. I suspect it will end up needing revision as well.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He said he was astounded at the degree of overt public Christian religiosity.

Key word there is "overt". We certainly have a few small special interest groups (left, right, religious, anti-religious) that are in your face, every face, all the time (cripes, look at Speakers Corner). This does throw visitors for a loop and makes them think we are all loud and in-your-face activist busybodies.

You know, a very activist 1% of a big population is still a lot of people, but does not represent the other 99 except as an exaggeration. Look at your large circle of friends and you see it.

And isn't that what this post is about? {For the slow people - the ~1% of the militant muslim terrorists that is causing some of the world to generalize that behavior onto the innocent 99% remaining?)

Edit: as far as your brother comparing that to Brazil, well, we are very big (so is Brazil), the public sites are few so the activists concentrate there, and, by the way, we are pretty big in this country about free speech (except in the universities and the kids where only PC speech is allowed). Funny, the most activist bleeding heart individual I know is from Brazil and her information is nutty.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhino 0]

Bottom line people.. Everything that goes up will come down. Our government is out of control. The ego of the past half a dozen or so administrations pretty much dooms the us govt. Everyone wants to take a shot at the bully and that's what we have been. bullies in the eyes of most.

I love my country. I don't love how it is run.

Russians would have never thought their country would have fallen and broken apart. It happened. The US could easily fall and break apart. It could happen. I don't think it will it could. We are a country of resourceful and resilient people. We could and likely survive as a country of people through anything.

Now.. While our govt isn't perfect it's better than most. I LOVE my country. I'm ashamed of congress and the white house and the way that they have conducted themselves..

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Then of course there's REM, who claimed in the 1980's that it _is_ the end of the world as they know it (but they feel fine.)

Now THAT is FUNNY!!!!! (note to self... never read something that funny while eating a twix bar.... it makes the screen look funny)

I remember people that go to the church that my dad pastors at (Baptist) being worried when 2000 came along. It was funny to me to hear stories of how some of them were hiding in their basements (even though dad had asked them why they would try to hide from God.)

Quote

These are pretty safe predictions, since the forseer doesn't ever have to admit he's wrong.

This is the best example one can give concerning why they predict it the way most do.

Although I am the kind of guy that if I'm still around when Bush makes it through his whole term I will probly get kicked out of the forum for reminding the poster that he said it wouldn't happen (so I will apologize now for all the fun I will poke, I know I shouldn't, but I also know my limitations.... and thats way out side of my limits!!!)

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Although I am the kind of guy that if I'm still around when Bush makes it through his whole term I will probly get kicked out of the forum for reminding the poster that he said it wouldn't happen (so I will apologize now for all the fun I will poke, I know I shouldn't, but I also know my limitations.... and thats way out side of my limits!!!)

Hey maybe they should add another rule to the Beer Rules of Skydiving:

If you predict the end of the world & you're wrong, you owe a case of beer.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The first as you point out is some kind of offence of glorifying terrorism. I

Doens't Germany already have a similar law in place?

We are all engines of karma