View Full Version : Glasgow bomber dies
DeHaviLand
03-Aug-07, 00:55
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/homepage/int/ne/nhdr/h1/t/-/news/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6928854.stm
Not sure that he'll be missed by many.
mr do dar
03-Aug-07, 08:30
i didnt want him to die . i wanted him to get better so we could make his life hell for the rest of it . or even put im in prison tilll the day he dies the burn him again . people like that make me so mad . if they want to blow things up tell them to get back to there own country were its normal [evil]
pentlander
03-Aug-07, 08:47
Did anyone hear the names of the two bombers
Singhe Majeep & Maheed Sonfire
Good riddance. They will soon find that they are not in paradise with Allah.
i didnt want him to die . i wanted him to get better so we could make his life hell for the rest of it . or even put im in prison tilll the day he dies the burn him again . people like that make me so mad . if they want to blow things up tell them to get back to there own country were its normal [evil]
yes he never spared a thought for the thousands of innocent people that he tried to maim or kill.
The Angel Of Death
03-Aug-07, 09:17
Anyone up for a whip round for him ???
Im quite happy to donate a few liters of unleaded should get the creamation going !!!
NickInTheNorth
03-Aug-07, 09:56
Did anyone hear the names of the two bombers
Singhe Majeep & Maheed Sonfire
can't muster more than a gentle graon for that one :roll:
Good riddance. They will soon find that they are not in paradise with Allah.
How can you make such a statement - there's no evidence :)
Just another wasted life. Seemingly the guy had a PhD, rather than do something constructive he chose something destructive - I would deeply love to understand why!
i didnt want him to die . i wanted him to get better so we could make his life hell for the rest of it . or even put im in prison tilll the day he dies the burn him again . people like that make me so mad . if they want to blow things up tell them to get back to there own country were its normal [evil]
May I suggest that makes you no better than him.
I don't even know which "their own country" is but there is something pretty terrifying about hatred that can drive an intelligent man to this. Just as there is something pretty terrifying about the attitude of the men (boys?) in Aberdeen who beat up an 11 year old boy simply because he came from Poland.
the nomad
03-Aug-07, 10:55
He'll be getting well crisped off where he's going. Rot in hell!!!
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 12:24
Wonder If anyone saw the Richard Dawkins TV prog. "Root of all Evil".
I feel so very sorry for the bombers, misguided in religious terms, but often oppressed as a group and with a fair political point to make. Of course hurting people is wrong, but the maxim applies to everyone, not just western victims.
Which of us knows how they would behave if brainwashed by a different regime? Many of us are brainwashed here, both in terms of politics and religion.
Its easy to apply some bitter, "Burn in hell" soundbites, but maybe we should consider what that kind of vitriol implies.
Take care.
didn't see the programme but am currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 13:01
Good luck with that Victoria. I find Dawkins to be a very limited human being, seriously challenged in his ability to appreciate or include other possibilities than his own propositions.
He reminds me of David Irving in that respect, another idiot whom I have had the misfortune to hear talking.
It is natural in these days of paranoid anti-fundamentalism that those opposing religion will be heard more readily.
The problem I have is that his arguments are all based on telling us why we think the way we do, why we behave the way we do. I don't see much to prove it is more than blind speculation, and is that not what he is accusing those who have 'belief' of?
;)
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 13:08
Oh, and for all the blood thirsty idiots posting here, would you suggest that the 21/7 conspirators were put to death for attempting what they did?
How about putting to death anyone who has tried to murder but failed?
These guys failed.
In our society, we try at least to make the punishment fit the crime committed.
He may have survived and become a valuable asset to our intelligence services, we may have been able to help him discover he had been programmed.
Shame on you all.
pentlander
03-Aug-07, 13:31
Oh, and for all the blood thirsty idiots posting here, would you suggest that the 21/7 conspirators were put to death for attempting what they did?
How about putting to death anyone who has tried to murder but failed?
These guys failed.
In our society, we try at least to make the punishment fit the crime committed.
He may have survived and become a valuable asset to our intelligence services, we may have been able to help him discover he had been programmed.
Shame on you all.
There is a difference between a failed attempted murder and someone who drives a car full of gas petrol and nails into a terminal filled with men women and children.
I am personally against the death penalty and would rather see someone like this fool locked in a 3' x 3' cell till they die.
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 13:44
There is a difference between a failed attempted murder and someone who drives a car full of gas petrol and nails into a terminal filled with men women and children.
I am personally against the death penalty and would rather see someone like this fool locked in a 3' x 3' cell till they die.
Obviously there is a difference of scale, but my point was addressing the blood lust amongst the posters on this thread. They obviously advocate Capital punishment; I want to know where they would draw the line.
;)
Boozeburgler; "I find Dawkins to be a very limited human being"
What a pompous statement - what are your qualifications for stating such - do tell!
Have you read the God Delusion mentioned above? it's in Tesco Wick in paperback by the way.
However you are correct: "He may have survived and become a valuable asset to our intelligence services".
Good luck with that Victoria. I find Dawkins to be a very limited human being, seriously challenged in his ability to appreciate or include other possibilities than his own propositions.
He reminds me of David Irving in that respect, another idiot whom I have had the misfortune to hear talking.
It is natural in these days of paranoid anti-fundamentalism that those opposing religion will be heard more readily.
The problem I have is that his arguments are all based on telling us why we think the way we do, why we behave the way we do. I don't see much to prove it is more than blind speculation, and is that not what he is accusing those who have 'belief' of?
;)
I'll reserve judgement until I finish the book.
He failed in his attempt to kill and maim people- thankfully. No matter what his intent, he wasn't a murderer.
He will have been in excruciating, unimaginable pain ever since and he's now dead.
That doesn't seem enough for some folk -and we pride ourselves on being "civilised". :confused
Imo it's just a sad waste of a life. I can only feel pity for him and his family. :(
Penelope Pitstop
03-Aug-07, 14:11
I won't be shedding any tears for the guy.
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 14:18
As you should, sorry if it is a spoiler for me to suggest he is a fandango!
"That is really all that needs to be said about personal
'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had
such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that
it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it,
especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its
powerful workings." (P92)
Such bee droppings I dislike. Experience is subjective; he cannot successfully prove anyone's experience is unreal. Yet his whole approach is that of the condescending schoolteacher, and he suggests that the only tool you need to see through religion is a rudimentary understanding of psychology. My ex is a Clinical Psychologist and a believer, my wife studied psychology and is a believer, as I am too. He is simply wrong, and I feel the brevity of "The argument from personal
'experience'" in chapter three indicates he does not want to devote too much time drawing attention to the one argument for belief that he simply cannot refute.
But the idiot insists on trying.
;)
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 14:23
The God Delusion is an excellent read.
I was delighted to see some moderate voices on the side of compassion. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind".
As for Dawkins being less than brilliant, hmmm... Again it's easy to sound smug and fire of quick one-liners, but his credentials, background and position speak for themselves.
We should look more critically at evidence (be it for the existence of a deity, or an individual's motives) before we start spewing aggression, which is never helpful in any event.
Take care
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 14:30
I don't think that Dawkins, or Hitchen or Shermer etc etc should pay more attention to "personal experiences".
Our senses are easily misled, especially when we have a preferred target for their investigation. That is why science prefers to utilise evidential investigations and double blind trials.
My goodness if there is a god he/she has a lot to explain.
Just another wasted life. Seemingly the guy had a PhD, rather than do something constructive he chose something destructive - I would deeply love to understand why!
Read this (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/08/02/why_is_half_of_iraq_in_absolute_poverty) it might give you some idea.
"What fisherman looks for water in dry, dead riverbeds?
He who hopes for spiritual progress, but cultivates neither wisdom nor merit."
His Holiness the 7th Dalai Lama
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 14:39
Fred you are a star.
I wish more people would open their eyes.
I also wish there was a practical solution to this mess. It sure ain't piling on the criticism. Funny how a "shooter" in a western army uniform is one of our boys doing a good job and a bomber in a truck is a terrorist.
Now please nobody be deliberately obtuse here. I am against all violence; thing is there is no way to legitimise it!
As you should, sorry if it is a spoiler for me to suggest he is a fandango!
"That is really all that needs to be said about personal
'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had
such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that
it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it,
especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its
powerful workings." (P92)
Such bee droppings I dislike. Experience is subjective; he cannot successfully prove anyone's experience is unreal. Yet his whole approach is that of the condescending schoolteacher, and he suggests that the only tool you need to see through religion is a rudimentary understanding of psychology. My ex is a Clinical Psychologist and a believer, my wife studied psychology and is a believer, as I am too. He is simply wrong, and I feel the brevity of "The argument from personal
'experience'" in chapter three indicates he does not want to devote too much time drawing attention to the one argument for belief that he simply cannot refute.
But the idiot insists on trying.
;)
As you said yourself you are a beliver and he is not and you are both arguing your point. The whole point it there is no proof for either of your arguments.
I don't read books like these to be swayed one way or another...I simply like to know what other people's views are. I know what I belive and I don't feel the need to shout about it try and convert anyone else.
I do agree with some of your points on Dawkins though.
Angela: "He will have been in excruciating, unimaginable pain ever since and he's now dead."
No he wasn't; he was in a coma.
Angela: "He will have been in excruciating, unimaginable pain ever since and he's now dead."
No he wasn't; he was in a coma.
so what!
who cares what level of pain he was in.
Its easy to see how the hatred grows and grows....:~(
Victoria: "who cares what level of pain he was in".. "Its easy to see how the hatred grows and grows...."
All I said was he was in a coma!
sorry bekisman I think I read more into your post than was necessary.
percy toboggan
03-Aug-07, 15:55
Just another wasted life. Seemingly the guy had a PhD, rather than do something constructive he chose something destructive - I would deeply love to understand why!
Because he felt he had a cause worth fighting for in the name of a religion.
A religion which is twisted by some to become a standard rallying call for destruction and death, like a writhing desperate being kicking out with arms and legs at all that seems to be oppressing it. In truth the main opression is coming from within it, from people who desperately need an age of enlightenment. Because they have not progressed much since the middle ages when death and destruction were everywhere. If they are not very careful these extremists are in danger of making the (alleged) 10% of Muslims who support them 'pro-actively' genuine 'enemies of this state' and as such legitimate targets for deportation or imprisonment.
Once more proof , if it were needed that educational attainment. however lofty, is no substitute for common sense and a reasoned mind.
I have never doubted it. Have you?
p.s. He is one less to keep in Prison. Fed, watered and protected.
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 16:06
As you said yourself you are a beliver and he is not and you are both arguing your point. The whole point it there is no proof for either of your arguments.
I don't read books like these to be swayed one way or another...I simply like to know what other people's views are. I know what I belive and I don't feel the need to shout about it try and convert anyone else.
I do agree with some of your points on Dawkins though.
Victoria, I am not arguing for my beliefs, purely taking an opportunity to have a pop at Dawkins, as irrelevant as I know it is!
My beliefs are philosophical in nature, and are amongst the many that Dawkins ridicules. I would suggest that there is overwhelming 'evidence' for my beliefs, and that belief itself is the most persuasive argument.
I feel no need to shout about what I believe either, I rarely discuss it. Neither do I set out to devalue anyone else's belief, which is the reason I find Dawkins continued diatribe objectionable, carried on as it is through the media and his academic work.
Why does he feel it necessary to debunk the idea of belief per se?
It seems to me he must argue perpetually for his case that the world around us is purely causal, and every important facet of the world must be observable or contained within scientific definition.
Two immovable points of view may negate argument, but I am only expressing my view to those whose ideas I might benefit from hearing, much as I read the fool's book for the same reason you are reading it.
;)
A fool who recognises his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a fool who considers himself wise - that is what one really calls a fool Buddha
Boozeburgler: "I would suggest that there is overwhelming 'evidence' for my beliefs,"
What 'evidence' is that? or am I too a 'fool' a 'condescending' 'idiot' 'a very limited human being' and does this character assassination of poor old Dawkins relate to us who have no belief or who have read his works?
My beliefs are philosophical in nature, and are amongst the many that Dawkins ridicules. I would suggest that there is overwhelming 'evidence' for my beliefs, and that belief itself is the most persuasive argument.
Evening Boozeburglar,
I respect your right to believe what you will, but agree totally with bekisman in questioning what overwhelming 'evidence' you quote.:confused
Karia
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 18:32
Boozeburgler: "I would suggest that there is overwhelming 'evidence' for my beliefs,"
What 'evidence' is that? or am I too a 'fool' a 'condescending' 'idiot' 'a very limited human being' and does this character assassination of poor old Dawkins relate to us who have no belief or who have read his works?
An excellent point bekisman. How can there be proof for such intangible twaddle. Dawkins pedigree speaks for itself
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 18:38
If 60% of the world's population would agree that X is orange, you might refer to this as evidence that Y is not.
If 70% of the world's population believe in some form of God, and another 10% have some form of belief that relates to the existence of something beyond what is in the physical realm, it is evidence that Dawkin, science in general and the other 20% have not proven their 'argument'. I await the evidence they provide.
;)
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 18:59
If 60% of the world's population would agree that X is orange, you might refer to this as evidence that Y is not.
If 70% of the world's population believe in some form of God, and another 10% have some form of belief that relates to the existence of something beyond what is in the physical realm, it is evidence that Dawkin, science in general and the other 20% have not proven their 'argument'. I await the evidence they provide.
;)
Firstly, if 100% of the population believe the earth is flat, it remains (almost) round. The number of people who believe something is not a feature of its veracity.
Secondly it is difficult to prove a negative. Prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden etc etc.
Common sense and available evidence suggests the most feasible explanation is most likely (The principle of Occam's razor). Note I didn't say the expalanation with most support. There is no evidence for a supernatural being and it is for theists to prove he/she /it exists, not for science to disprove.
thefugitve1993,
Couldn't agree more!
Karia
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 19:45
Just what evidence do you expect, a hand coming down from the clouds?
;)
Any Omniscient being has a 'take' on what's needed for evidence,...or else they are less than 'omniscient'.
karia
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 19:57
Just what evidence do you expect, a hand coming down from the clouds?
;)
No, let's just settle for any kind of evidence whatsoever.
Before you tell me that the trees are a lovely shade of green, or a bunny rabbit or a sunset is amazing, that is not evidence of any supernatural phenomenon (funnily enough)!
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 19:59
Firstly, if 100% of the population believe the earth is flat, it remains (almost) round. The number of people who believe something is not a feature of its veracity.
Secondly it is difficult to prove a negative. Prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden etc etc.
Common sense and available evidence suggests the most feasible explanation is most likely (The principle of Occam's razor). Note I didn't say the expalanation with most support. There is no evidence for a supernatural being and it is for theists to prove he/she /it exists, not for science to disprove.
I would have said that the simplest explanation for the existence of so much belief in God amongst so wide a range of the human race is that God exists. That takes into account all the facts, all the evidence.
Difficult to prove there is no God? It may prove to be so, but it would also be difficult to prove there is no earth.
;)
Boozeburglar
03-Aug-07, 20:05
No, let's just settle for any kind of evidence whatsoever.
Before you tell me that the trees are a lovely shade of green, or a bunny rabbit or a sunset is amazing, that is not evidence of any supernatural phenomenon (funnily enough)!
You are obviously touched by the Dawkin trait of ridiculing those who disagree with you.
The fact is I am discussing the nature of the debate Dawkins is having, you are using it as a springboard to enter a simplistic argument.
Ho hum.
:(
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 20:08
I would have said that the simplest explanation for the existence of so much belief in God amongst so wide a range of the human race is that God exists. That takes into account all the facts, all the evidence.
Difficult to prove there is no God? It may prove to be so, but it would also be difficult to prove there is no earth.
;)
That takes into account no facts and zero evidence. A belief does not constitute evidence. Faith by its very nature is belief without evidence. The proof that there is no earth thing is surely a complete non seceteur, what is that about?
Belief in god/s offer the hope of life after death, something we all aspire to in our fragile version of humanity & therefore wish to believe.
We are all terrified of 'being no more', people WANT to believe that there is a god and therefore...a 'hereafter'.
You can 'prove' that there's an earth.....jump up and down!:eek:
karia
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 20:18
Belief in god/s offer the hope of life after death, something we all aspire to in our fragile version of humanity & therefore wish to believe.
We are all terrified of 'being no more', people WANT to believe that there is a god and therefore...a 'hereafter'.
You can 'prove' that there's an earth.....jump up and down!:eek:
karia
I can take no issue with any of that. Common sense triumphs over mythical being
Dealing with this 'Glasgow bomber' (Failed) it's rather sobering to read Dawkins words; (The God Delusion. Page 281 line 33); "Such hostility as I or other atheists occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement". Quite agree. whilst (Boozeburgler) out of interest, you've read of course page 240/1 re; Lot and Chapter 19 of the Book of Judges, you accept this as the word and is part and parcel of your beliefs?
My own lack of belief is not bought about by reading texts; religious or otherwise, my own personal experiences of life 'at the sharp end' - as compared to armchairs - and not the idea "that everyone else does so must be true" reasoning has brought me to my own conclusion, fear not, I have no intention of trying to change a person's own beliefs.
Each to his/her own but please don't denigrate folk who want to read such books, quote "Yet his whole approach is that of the condescending schoolteacher" - so go ahead Victoria enjoy the read!.. and Boozeburgler, re thefugitive1993: "You are obviously touched by the Dawkin trait of ridiculing those who disagree with you".. hmm kettle black et el?
Boozeburgler writes: "70% of the world's population believe in some form of God, and another 10% have some form of belief that relates to the existence of something beyond what is in the physical realm" eh? ah, so Father Christmas IS REAL - I knew it! (so think 8,000,000 kids in UK alone) Nonsense of course.
So you REALLY believe that because so many people believe in the existence then it must be true - what facile reasoning is that!
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 20:42
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone with my no god stance, and I certainly, didn't aim to ridicule or "springboard into a simplistic argument". It is a subject I feel strongly about, and really for three reasons:
1. The "Root of all evil" notion, bombing crucifying, warmongering etc
2 The perpetuation of misinformation in a way that amounts to brainwashing. Studies show that theists (in general) have a lower IQ than those with no belief in the supernatural and the brainwashing often, not always, affects the most vulnerable
3 I was a victim of the God cult. Guilty for thinking the wrong thoughts and worrying that the right ones might be wrong. By heck my children are given good moral values, but no religious claptrap.
OK, it's just a view point, and if anyone can give me evidence for a better one I'll listen
thefugitive1993
03-Aug-07, 20:47
Incidentally Karia and Bekisman. Very pleased to see critical thinkers out there.
As a onetime blind follower of bunkum, it humbles me.
Read this (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/08/02/why_is_half_of_iraq_in_absolute_poverty) it might give you some idea.To see where the particular site is aiming it's propaganda here is another of it's racist anti- Semitic, oops, sorry, we have to hide behind calling it anti-Zionist now, pages with a further "Conspiracy Theory" about 9/11. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/pastnews.php/2006/09/27/israelis_inadvertently_admit_complicity
Of course, you are entitled to believe such sites are the "Fount of all Truth" if you wish, each to their own.
With 90% burns it is virtually impossible for anybody to survive. I wonder how many other countries would have even bothered to try under the circumstances?
It just goes to show, despite what people with certain Tendencies would have us believe, as a Nation we are even willing to threat even those who "allegedly" try to cause us serious damage the same as we would treat any other person. (I include the word "allegedly" specifically for those who wish to try to make us believe the obvious is in some doubt)
I would go so far as to say that had he been an elderly person he would have received nothing like the same amount of care and attention.
Mind you, far be it from me to prevent the small minority who wish to portray many members of this Forum, and even this country, as evil, blood-thirsty monsters from doing so. At least they provide some sort of comic relief to a deadly serious matter.
Thefugitive1993, as you are obviously very well aware it is far to easy to be sucked into accepting the teachings of certain extreme groups be they religious or political and how clever they are at hiding their real intent.
In truth, I find there is very little difference in either of them in either their motives or their tactics. Both try to make you accept that you are part of some evil and corrupt lifestyle which, unless you accept and follow their teachings and instructions, however extreme those may be, will lead to your doom.
"The society you belong to is evil in it's intent and doomed. Only I can see the truth and only believing what I say and doing my bidding can save you!"
It's surprising how they are the only ones who know the "facts" and how everybody else is too stupid to see it.
To see where the particular site is aiming it's propaganda here is another of it's racist anti- Semitic, oops, sorry, we have to hide behind calling it anti-Zionist now, pages with a further "Conspiracy Theory" about 9/11.
Truth is truth (http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565062429059712736) as who says it.
Well, to add my tuppenny's worth..... It's always an uncomfortable thread on forums when when religion is discussed - but each to their own opinion.
What I personally feel very fearful of is the intelligent British-born person who allows themselves to be led down a path which then causes untold harm, destruction and grief to the very people with which they share this country and indeed our beautiful planet.
What a waste of an incredible power it must be to be able to 'programme' or 'brainwash' another person to this extent - very scary times indeed.
thefugitive1993
04-Aug-07, 00:13
Well, to add my tuppenny's worth..... It's always an uncomfortable thread on forums when when religion is discussed - but each to their own opinion.
What I personally feel very fearful of is the intelligent British-born person who allows themselves to be led down a path which then causes untold harm, destruction and grief to the very people with which they share this country and indeed our beautiful planet.
What a waste of an incredible power it must be to be able to 'programme' or 'brainwash' another person to this extent - very scary times indeed.
I agree with all you say, except perhaps the discomfort about talking religion. Healthy debate is excellent and religion should be no more taboo than any other topic. A robust God can take it and a steadfast aetheist should be up for it too.
Very good to see the thread moving away from the initial almost fanatical, burn 'em in hell line to one dominated by respect for life and diversity (Still can't go for the God thing though)!
Boozeburglar
04-Aug-07, 00:15
Job done then.
I agree with all you say, except perhaps the discomfort about talking religion. Healthy debate is excellent and religion should be no more taboo than any other topic. A robust God can take it and a steadfast aetheist should be up for it too.
Yep, I'm with you there too - I feel discomfort simply because I watch others getting very passionate about their beliefs (which is right) but then deny others the self same right - it reminds me of my ex-stepfather, whose mantra was 'your opinion is WRONG, because it differs from mine'.........
Give a little, take a little, & remember that we all share this place in which we live - I might have that as my headstone - if I wanted to be buried... which I don't.... I now hush up.
I find Dawkins to be a very limited human being
Yes, I do as well, I find that We (the human species) are all fairly limited, that makes us human....and animal. But I probably disagree with your point of view (reading between your lines).
Just what evidence do you expect, a hand coming down from the clouds?
How come all that stuff occurred a few thousands years ago (it is in the Bible)and now it has all stopped?:confused
Has God died, I wonder?:roll:
I agree with all you say, except perhaps the discomfort about talking religion. Healthy debate is excellent and religion should be no more taboo than any other topic. A robust God can take it and a steadfast aetheist should be up for it too.
Very good to see the thread moving away from the initial almost fanatical, burn 'em in hell line to one dominated by respect for life and diversity (Still can't go for the God thing though)!
I can never understand why people get so heated about religion. Its another topic, another point of view, another choice. We never get such emotion about trucks, motor bikes, favourite movies, music football teams (well, maybe 'yes' on that last one). Why can't some people be believers and some not... and each side accepts the other's choice?
On the matter of the bomber.... whoo, hoo! Though I think they should have kept him alive for much longer so that he could continue to burn in hell for his deeds.
Well, to add my tuppenny's worth..... It's always an uncomfortable thread on forums when when religion is discussed - but each to their own opinion.
What I personally feel very fearful of is the intelligent British-born person who allows themselves to be led down a path which then causes untold harm, destruction and grief to the very people with which they share this country and indeed our beautiful planet.
Yes, how could any intelligent British-born person start an illegal war that would kill so many people, commit crimes against humanity, genocide, it's unthinkable.
What a waste of an incredible power it must be to be able to 'programme' or 'brainwash' another person to this extent - very scary times indeed.
Yes I know. The government destroys two Muslim countries then when a few Muslims decide to fight back here they just say "religious fanatics who hate our freedoms" and everyone is stupid enough to believe them. How do they brainwash an entire country to that extent?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.