Er can you please show us the part in the school corriculum where this is taught? Or are you just making it up again.
No. You can’t.[/quote]
Oh yes you CAN…
Irnman
Your continued self delusion that you are Master of all is continually shown as such by your fantastically bad grammar.
Did you even finish school? Most of the non-English speaking guys on this forum can manage a coherent sentance (deliberate) better than you. Oh and its SENSES, and your a renouned authour?
As far as I am aware, Britain has never napalmed a single civillian village - unless of course Bessbrook, Crossmaglen and Forkhill were all charred messes when I was there and I missed it?
Oh and (sorry about this Mods) - fuck off you sanctimonious, patronising twat. Who the fuck do you think you are, you fucking knobhead?[/quote]
Huh. In Iraq the British employed air force for the purpose of suppressing local revolts most widely and for the longest period. Full-scale bombing in Iraq by eight RAF squadrons began in October 1922 and continued until 1932, the year that the British mandatory rule of Iraq officially ceased. Various types of bombs including delayed and incendiary bombs were dropped in attacks on villages where militia were believed to be hiding, and in some cases petrol was sprayed over civilian houses in order to intensify the fires ignited by the bombing. Tents and other types of Bedouin dwellings and even their cattle became targets, resulting in the death and injury of many women and children. British Forces justified this indiscriminate bombing by claiming that their operations ‘proved outstandingly effective, extremely economical and undoubtedly humane in the long run’ as they could swiftly put down revolts and riots. One of these RAF squadron leaders in Iraq was Arthur Harris, who later headed the RAF Bomber Command during World War II. Based on their experience in Iraq, the RAF leaders concluded that the best way to defeat the enemy was to conduct “strategic bombing” on civilian dwellings, in particular those of industrial workers.
The question is, who the fu*k do your think YOU are you little pissmoputh hypocritical fatherless azzwipe? Well punk?
Like it? If you can dish it boy, be prepared to take it. 
You are putting in a factual comment in with a false, personal opinion.
Yes Muslim children are taught the Koran, they are not taught to hate.[/quote]
Are you having difficulty understanding something? Read this s l o w l y:
Muslim children are taught from the Qouran in the Middle East every day of their lives. They read the Quoran at home. The Qouran has numerous statements of hatred toward Christians and statements that they must be killed and eliminated form the earth.
Let that sink in. Take your time.
OK. Now, knowing this, do you really think that a religion based society such as the cultures of theMiddle East are going to ever stop producing terrorsts when they are taught from the Qouran? Also, do you really think that the Muslims will ever denounce their own holy book?
Ofcourse not. Now, I hope you can see that my statement that Muslims are taught to dislike the west every day is true and that it directly relates to what is going on and what will be going on in our world untill the end of humanity. The population of Islam is growing faster than the population og the Christian west. Do you see a big rosey picture somewhere?[/quote]
You are a condesending troll of the highest order. The best thing everyone here could do would be to just ignore your posts. They have no value other than to annoy and I for one am getting sick fed up with the way you never answer any questions. Now your a feking Iman as well and know the ways of religion.
Heres my list of what Iron-Fool is now master of:
Ballistics
Small Arms
Jet Technology
Love and Sex
Chemical Warfare
A world renouned author
Religion - specialises in the Koran, which he obviously has read?
Please feel free to add to his list of achievments.
No. You can’t.[/quote]
A friend sent me this recently, assuming, rightly, that I would find it amusing.
Having read some of Ironman’s posts, I’m now less sure of the humour.
Recently, Dr. Laura Schlessinger said on her radio show that
homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned
in any circumstance.
The following is an open letter penned by a listener and posted on the
Internet:Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to
follow them.a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9).
The problem is my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are
purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can’t I own Canadians?d) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser
abomination than homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this?f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is
expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football
if I wear gloves?i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16)
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is enduring and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
[/quote]
There is nothing in your post about Christians being taught that Muslims are evil and should be killed.
Nonsence. I have made no such remarks. If you want to put words in someone’s mouth, do a half-azzed job of it.
I am still waiting for you to prove that the Quoran is not studied by the Muslim terrorists that are in the Middle East.
The bible is studied by both the IRA and the UDA but the movements are primarily political not religious and the bible does not state. “if your neighbour uses contraception he should be kneecapped with a berreta at 3 in the morning, for this is the word of the lord” Neither does it state. “If your neighbour has many children by one women, and akss the state for support in the raising of their children you msut burn down his premises and all of those in his family” Terrorism is not a religious concept. You are miles off kilter with social norms. Get back on your trolley!
I think (in an entirely liberal way) I have jsut seen the dangers of free speech.
Whilst everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion, I think it should be made illegal for certain people to have n audience.
Oh dear.
IRONMAN, you stated that the war on terror would go on and on, because Islam would continue producing terrorists. To me this sounds like our enemy will never be vanquished, more simply we will not win the War on terrorism. You stated our enemy could not be beaten because Islam as a religion had the sole purpose of fighting Christians and the west. You failed to account for the fact that terrorism is not a muslim phenomena. it is a a social historical and cultural entity more akin to politics than religion.
You have drawn the conclusion that because the terrorists share a faith that the faith is the determing factor in terrorism. What if we stated it was due to living at altitude? having dark complexions? having facial hair? by your own reasoning.
How many terrorists have dark complexions? Indonesia, South America Caucasus, Balkans, Its evident its the dark skin that makes them terrorists! - THIS IS A PARODY PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS AS RACISM.
I am merely trying to identify how the fact that terrorists individuals share a common religion makes all persons of that religion a threat.
editted to include highlights of the Northern Irish multi demonintaional new terrorist Bible
There is nothing in your post about Muslims being taught that Christians are evil and should be killed.
Unbelievers, apostates, pagans, idol-worshippers yes, Christians and Jews no. I take it that means we agree that in general, muslims aren’t taught that they should kill christians and vice-versa.
[quote="“IRONMAN”"]
Unbelievers of God you Numpty… The above doesnt mention killing Christians at all. Grr feck ramble rant…
You read the quotes from the Quoran.
Why? No one ever said they didn’t.
You read the quotes from the Quoran.[/quote]
Yep, and none of them have anything to do with killing Christians. Other users have gone through this explaining the accepted meaning of each verse (sura?).
As far as I am aware, Britain has never napalmed a single civillian village - unless of course Bessbrook, Crossmaglen and Forkhill were all charred messes when I was there and I missed it?
Oh and (sorry about this Mods) - fuck off you sanctimonious, patronising twat. Who the fuck do you think you are, you fucking knobhead?[/quote]
Huh. In Iraq the British employed air force for the purpose of suppressing local revolts most widely and for the longest period. Full-scale bombing in Iraq by eight RAF squadrons began in October 1922 and continued until 1932, the year that the British mandatory rule of Iraq officially ceased. Various types of bombs including delayed and incendiary bombs were dropped in attacks on villages where militia were believed to be hiding, and in some cases petrol was sprayed over civilian houses in order to intensify the fires ignited by the bombing. Tents and other types of Bedouin dwellings and even their cattle became targets, resulting in the death and injury of many women and children. British Forces justified this indiscriminate bombing by claiming that their operations ‘proved outstandingly effective, extremely economical and undoubtedly humane in the long run’ as they could swiftly put down revolts and riots. One of these RAF squadron leaders in Iraq was Arthur Harris, who later headed the RAF Bomber Command during World War II. Based on their experience in Iraq, the RAF leaders concluded that the best way to defeat the enemy was to conduct “strategic bombing” on civilian dwellings, in particular those of industrial workers.
The question is, who the fu*k do your think YOU are you little pissmoputh hypocritical fatherless azzwipe? Well punk?
Like it? If you can dish it boy, be prepared to take it. [/quote]
I really honestly think the man deserves some sort of action for this, i think it just overstepped the mark.
Nonsence. I have made no such remarks. If you want to put words in someone’s mouth, do a half-azzed job of it.
I am still waiting for you to prove that the Quoran is not studied by the Muslim terrorists that are in the Middle East.[/quote]
Im still waiting for you to prove that Middle East Schoolchildren are taught to hate in class.
You read the quotes from the Quoran.[/quote]
I have.
They say unbelievers (kufr or kafir), neither Christians or Jews.
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians – whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve”
“…and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant”
“O you who believe! Be helpers of God – as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, ‘Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?’ Said the disciples, ‘We are God’s helpers!’ Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved.
But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed”
Maybe we could have a site war? That way we’d have at least two years before IRONMAN turned up. Arriving at the start of a war is unconstitutional.
(Apologies to Gen. Sandworm and the rest of the overwhelming majority of septics on this site who aren’t oxygen thieves)
[edited to remove the word ‘any’, previously before ‘IRONMAN’]
Well having read through the latest ramblings of the Great One I am convinced that he needs help of some kind. I also think that Gen Sandworms post summed him up. He did seem to back off a bit after that, but has now gotten himself back into rant central again.
His totally offensive remarks are just out of order.
Still, he is I suppose entertainment in a Laurel and Hardy sort of way.
:lol:
Would Ironman then make several hundred films about how he won the board war single handed? He could cast some Brits (with traditional English accent and silly moustache) to burn churches and be general baddies
It’s OK for you to bring to light things like this about the US but it’s not ok for others to do it about Britian eh? Hypocracy.