Casurf1978

You're oversimplifying the situation. Look at all the London bombers. Three of the four were home grown and fit in perfectly with everyday life. The parents didnt even know about them or what they were upto. You cannot put any responsibility on the majority of the Muslim population of Leeds for not catching these kids.

Ah the religious Nazis of SA. These are the same f-ers that wouldn't allow firefieghters to enter, nor the women to exit a burning building since the women did not have the proper clothing to cover their faces. The solution, leave in there and let them burn.

The West will always be a target for extremist, but he does bring up a valid question. How has the war in Iraq impacted terrorism? Also has it turned moderates into extremist thus providing new recruits to these organizations. Has it alienated some of our allies in the mid east? All those a valid questions that really need to be looked at. In your post a few pages down you list numerous terrorist attack, but one thing that separates the UK one from the rest is that the terrorists in the UK were home grown, ie UK citizens. Why did they turn? Did the UKs participation change their outlook on their country? Unfortunately we will never know the answers to these questions. All we can do now is speculate, but these questions should be addressed.

Ok I know you said no cops, but if I was the arresting officer I would tell one or two inmates that he assaulted a disabled kid before throwing him in jail with the rest of the general population. Still, this guy is a poor excuse for a human being. I feel sorry for his two girls. Makes you wonder what type of parent he might be.

So an illegal from any 3rd world nation could come here rob a a bank, kill a few cops and civilians and all you would do is send them home. How could we be sure that his country actually enforced some sort of justice on him.

Really insightful stuff Tom. When I saw R.A.B I thought the same thing. It has to be a Black relative. Would she be that obvious. Then again reading the HBP it pretty much pointed to Snape being the HBP. The book was in his previous office, the spell used on Draco was pretty evil and Snape was there and cured him in the nick of time. I think Draco is pretty much dead. His only purpose was to get the Death Eaters inside of Hogwarts and Draco did not kill Dumbeldore, it was Snape who finally did the job. He has no more use to Valdamort and remember Dumblefore said to him that Lucious is better of in Azcabhan since he gave away one of the Horcruxes. Maybe the Malfroys have served their purpose to Valdamort. I think you are on to something with your Dumbledore theory though. On a side note. Now that Dumbledore is dead all his protections spells are gone too, even the one for Privet Drive.

Agreed. I stand corrected, Martel did not drive em out. He just stopped them. Very good points. Off on a tangent. Maybe the Crusades served a different purpose rather than drive the Muslims out of Jerusalem. Rescuing Jerusalem being just a nice little addition. Remember Byzantine had fallen to the Turks and rescuing Byzantine from them could've healed the rift caused by the Great Schism, thus uniting the split Empire under one Pope and under his terms.

Steel, I think you really, really need to read up on your history. The muslims in Jerusalem did not pose such a huge threat as you make them out to be until 1040 when the Turks overan the Arabs. The real threat came from the Moors until Charles Martel defeated them in 734. If Martel had fallen Islam would've spread all throughout Europe. Not only did Martel defeat them (and save christianity) but he started to drive them out.

How about the ones who drive slow in the car pool lane .

It was Peter Arnett who did that interview. Saw it once, gave me the chills looking at Osama's eyes which were very calm and collective during the whole thing. Arnett has some pretty big cajones for doing that interview.

Wonder if he's a candidate for a Darwin Award.

Agreed. On a lighter note if they did attack the safest place would be close to a Wal-Mart. Last thing the Chinese want to do is blow up a Wal-Mart.

Whats more of a drain with our prison is the non violent criminals locked up. Over 1/2 of the 2.1M population locked up is for non violent crimes. Lets tackle that first before talking about illegals. The studies I've seen show 25% of illegals make up the population. Show me the university studies done. I put up some numbers from very credible sources. Then why do industries hire them? If they are not needed why does the agricultre sector hire such a huge amount of illegals. If our economy did not need them then there would be no work for them. Simple supply and demand. There is a demand for cheap unskilled labor and they supply it. 7% of Cali's GDP comes from illegal labor. Back when the study was done it was 63 billion dollars.

The numbers are out there. All you have to do is look for them. I'll use Cali's economy since its pretty huge. Charles Cozic wrote Illegal immigration: Opposing Viewpoints in the late 1990s when prop 187 was on our ballots. His figures surprised me. Illegals contribute 7% of our annual GDP back then it was 900 billion. Former Gov Pete Wilson left this little figure out when he said illegals were costing us 7 billion in health and services. Here's an intresting study by the CATO institute regarding immigration. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imsum.html Here's a nice little fact for those that say illegals use more than provide. " Illegal aliens contribute about as much to the public coffers in taxes as they receive in benefits. New data suggest that the undocumented pay about 46 percent as much in taxes as do natives, but use about 45 percent as much in services." Bottom line is our economy needs illegal labor. Illegals get paid 15-20% less than natives for unskilled labor. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to see how this impacts manufacturing/service costs. There is a demand for it and it is being filled. If there was little or no thurst for cheap unskilled labor then illegal immigration wouldnt be such a huge problem.

Very true, not only in Mexico all throughout central america. It's bad on the local economy too (whole other subject). Guess what they are spending that money on though: American made appliances, clothes, music, movies etc. Bottom line is illegal immigration=mega bucks for some industries.

It's not only the lefties fault. Both sides ignore this issue because of money. Some business and industry prosper from cheap labor and pass it on to the consumer. The SF chronicle did a report and found all types of industry use illegal labor, from hospitality to agriculture. The latter being the one which employed the most. Over 50% of the workers are illegal and paid meager wages. Like someone said you want cheap fruits and vegies stop bitching about illegals. Do you actually think a college student is going to clean rooms or mow a lawn during the summer. Hell no. Most are looking for internships in their fields. Which looks better on a resume: mowed lawns for the summer or interned at Boeing. Yes illegal immigration is a problem, but offer better solutions than militarize the border or hire college kids.

You actually believe Farah? The guys pretty much a joke just like Moore is in my book. AQ wants nukes, who doesnt know this. Farah loves to instill the fear of God into the public and create a panic. The following is a lot more credible into suitcase nuke scenario than Farahs psuedo intel report. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

I think looking at body count is not a good judge if we are winning the war on terror. You cant expect grandeous attacks all the time from AQ. Look at the London attack. Occured on the day the G8 summited started. I would imagine security in the UK would be pretty stringent during this time, yet they still pulled it off. Also saying that we havent been attacked (US soil) since 9/11 is also not a good barometer. They found a weakness and exploited it to the max. Remember that 9/11 is 8 years after WTC '93. You cant expect them to do that again. I'm pretty sure that they are studying us right now and looking for another weakness to take advantage off. Personally I think they are getting more creative and precise in their attacks. To hit the Underground during rush hour on the day the G8 summit starts is pretty well planned out.

Arent there between 3k-5k princes? It would be kindof hard to find who is supporting what organization. Also they could funnel money to 'charity' groups which are fronts for terrorist cells all in the name of helping out. Here's something you might enjoy. It's the Blog of a man living in Riyahd. He stopped posting in April 2004, prob because they found out about him. Intresting insight into the life of a Saudi person. http://muttawa.blogspot.com

Agreed, but to blindly go into a situation w/o having a plan with an end game or knowing your enemy is ignorant and stupid. Like Sun Tzu said: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself your chances of winning are equal. If ignorant both of the enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril" It seem the terrorist know more about us than we do about them. They knew when and where to strike in order to cause the most amount of fear and terror.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I read some where that there were a few instances of suicide bombers during the Cuban revolution. They didn't target civilians but rather high ranking Batista military officials. I would also say that suicide bombers are not as prevalent in our culture because of the way we view the act of suicide. If it were somewhat acceptable I'm sure it would be more common.

Good points Ron. Would you also say that since in some middle eastern countries religion and government are married that it in a way justifies these terrorist attacks. They would missinterpert statements from the Quran as justifiable acts in order to protect their country and way of life. I'm not saying the recent attacks are justifiable or picking on the mid east and Islam. Just trying to take a look at this from a different perspective.

So whats the point? Does every single right need to written down in the Constitution. Isn't that what the 9th is for. Some people should not own guns. I'm sure many here would agree that violent felons shouldn't legally have the right to own a gun. They commited a violent crime and IMHO forfeited their rights.

How is it special? If two consenting adults want the rights that come with being married why would anyone deny them that. It's not like everyone is jumping at the chance to get married.

Of course things are not fair. We are not talking about taxes or pay scales. It's about the 1049 benefits marriage carrys with it. There are 1049 with some states extending 350 plus more. Huge ass list. Some of the major ones though: Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Tax Breaks Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison. That would be a pretty good debate.