Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

In the fight against "TERROR" ...

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-05 21:17

is ignoring human rights and due process acceptable? How far can the line be pushed back?

Discuss.

Name: John 2005-12-05 21:32

>>1
Which side in this war are you referring to? The ones that kidnap and decapitate people, blow themselves up at funeral processions and lock little girls inside burning elementary schools, or the ones that are fighting them so this kind of shit doesn't happen to them on their own grounds? I think I can guess which side you mean by your putting the words 'terror' in quotes and caps... You are a bonafide idiot, and a perfect example of a far-left nutcase. Get the hell off of this board.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 0:48 (sage)

Get the hell off of this board.

Hey, dude, you may not like >>1, but who the fuck do you think you are to tell him to get off the board?

The only idiot here is you.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 1:19

>>2
Are you stupid? The ones fighting terror obviously are not the ones perpetrating it.... oh wait! Is that what they're doing? Maybe that's why it is so confusing to you. Why don't you answer the question. Is ignoring human rights and due process acceptable? On anyone's part in fact. Maybe what you mean is playing dirty is ok. That stooping to their level will win the war. Ha, they've already won.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 2:29

Fact: there would be less verbal diarhea if nobody cared at all.
Like the chinks. Let's follow the chinks.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 3:55

>>4
Can you provide examples of "ignoring human rights and due process"? And no, holding non-uniformed combatants indefinitely doesn't count. Neither does playing loud music and making the room cold.

Name: John 2005-12-06 8:53

>>3
I'm sorry, but people of that kind of idiocy do not belong in intelligent discussions...

>>4
Like I said, our soldiers are not the ones blowing themselves up at funeral processions, or slitting their daughter's throat because she was raped, or crashing planes into skyscrapers, or locking little girls inside of a burning school because they didn't have their faces covered and couldn't be seen in the open. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WE'RE FIGHTING. IT IS THEIR STATED GOAL TO DO THESE SAME THINGS TO US, BUDDY. I can't believe I even have to fucking explain this to you. These bastards have no rights.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 9:03

War crimes are apparently acceptable to many Americans,
as long as they're committed by Americans.
Which is why bombs go off,
and planes get crashed into towers.

Name: John 2005-12-06 9:50

Look at this >>8 guy, and do you see? It doesn't matter to these leftist people if someone has a knife at their throat, if they have to kill the person to save their own skin, they'd still think they're a criminal themselves... Unbelievable.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 15:11

>>9
Leftists wouldn't have the balls to step on a bug, how can you expect them to defend themselves?

Name: JOHN 2005-12-06 15:22 (sage)

THE WORLD ONLY CONSISTS OF LEFT AND RIGHT. IF SOMEONE IS STUPID, THEY'RE CLEARLY LEFT. IT'S THE WAY OF THINGS.

Name: John 2005-12-06 15:42

>>11
What's your point?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 15:44

>>12
That you're an idiot?

Or do I have to spell that out too?

Name: John 2005-12-06 16:00

>>13
>"you're an idiot"
That's all I hear from people on this board in response to my comments. So go ahead, have at it, spell it out for me exactly how my philosophy is wrong. Go for it, flush objectivism down the toilet with your leftist "logic". Try me.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 16:58

>>14
Although there is more I would like to say, I'll keep it simple so you don't get sidetracked. You are the one bitching about people not answering your questions. Yet I still don't see you answering the question in this thread. The question is a yes or no question. IS IGNORING HUMAN RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS ACCEPTABLE?

Name: John 2005-12-06 19:01

>>15
If you're asking whether or not it's ok in any and every sense to torture the people that are doing the sorts of things that I've described several times in my previous posts, then my answer is "yes". Is ignoring human rights and due process acceptable? No... But for some reason, you don't seem to think any of this applies to the terrorists. I don't want to know what you call it in your book, but I call it "justice".

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 19:33

Hey, John, you don't get it (again).

Reread >>1 very, very carefully. Now reread it again. Look up every word in the dictionary. Now, does it say or imply terrorist anywhere in there?

This terrorists angle is all your bullshit interpretation. You're the one who came up with it, not the OP. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 19:48

>>16
If I understand correctly your "justice" means an eye for an eye. That's fine, even I think those that perpetrate the acts you described deserve it. But that "justice" tortures first and ask questions later. There are innocent people believe it or not. Not every towelhead is out to rip out your throat, but they will be after they get fucked over for no apparent reason. This is why eye for an eye does not work. You should've learn this stuff in elementary school.

Name: John 2005-12-06 19:58

>>17 "Now, does it say or imply terrorist anywhere in there?"
Um, in the [i]TITLE OF THE THREAD[/i]? >_>; Durhurhur!
Yeah, you knew I was just waiting for an opportunity like that, didn't you...

>>18
It's not exactly "eye for an eye", but what the hell would you suggest a country do in response?
Nothing? Negotiate? Surrender? Everything else that liberals and democrats are suggesting these days?
Look, I don't like the idea of torture period. However, if that's what it takes to bring even more of the bastards to justice, then so be it.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 20:57

>>19
Deliver justice while staying within the bounds this country had vowed to never cross. Doing nothing will not stop them, but doing the same thing they are certainly is not a long term answer. How much credibility does a theif have in telling someone to not steal? It's ludicrous.

Name: John 2005-12-06 21:12

>>20
We're not doing the "same thing they are". We're not teaching 9-year-old boys how they too can one day blow themselves up and have 42 buhjillion virgins in heaven, we're training soldiers to hunt out the ones that want to teach the 9-year-old boys how they can blow themselves up. If we don't kill the bastards, they're just gonna blow us all up until everything is dead but Islam. That's their goal. And the only way to kill the bastards is to hunt them out street to street, because they're not really a very large bunch of people. There's no negotiating with them, they don't want the liberals' appeasement. They want our blood and our heads. I bet I'm sounding pretty repetitive by now, aren't I?

Yeah, violence and death and war sucks, get over it. The only purpose it serves is to prevent more of it, and as long as you have nutcases like these terrorists on the planet, it'll keep happening. I'm tired of this "War Is Not The Answer" crap. It sure wasn't the answer for Hitler, was it? ­¬_¬

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 21:27

The question is not whether we should fight terror or not, but how we should fight it.

In world war 2, fire bombing and nuking cities in the full kinowledge that innocent civilians would die in agony was necessary.

How far should we push back the boundaries in this war? No one is suggesting we should capitulate or let them do what they want.

Name: John 2005-12-06 21:39

>>22 "No one is suggesting we should capitulate or let them do what they want."
Plenty of people in the media are, but...

How else are you going to fight the actual people but street to street?
And what boundaries should there be? Hordes of genocidal communists aren't that much worse than a much smaller horde of genocidal and ideological terrorists with tanks of nerve and sarin gas, and perhaps with nukes by now if we hadn't stepped in... People just don't seem to recognize the threat simply because it's a smaller group.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 21:50

Believe it or not, you're all liberal faggots, half of you just don't accept it yet.

Name: John 2005-12-06 22:02

>>24
haha o wow D:
kthx2u bai

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-07 14:41

>>23

How about, stop pursuing policies in the Middle East that lead to terrorism?  That way, we don't NEED to fight them street-to-street!

Name: John 2005-12-07 20:43

>>26
Uh... Wow. Could it be that they're terrorists by nature of THEIR OWN CONVICTIONS AND RELIGION? :O
Jesus fucking christ, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-07 20:55

Religion is just an excuse. The anger comes from real and perceived problems caused by the US.

Why aren't they blowing things in South America or Canada? Oh, that's right, they aren't involved.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-08 10:40

>>27

As if there was any doubt before, with this post you proved yourself to be the most ignorant person on 4chan, including all of /b/.

Have you ever even left your home state?

Name: zeppy !GuxAK3zcH. 2005-12-08 11:37

>>24
>>27
in
>>29's words, you guys are the most ignorant people on this board. You're dragging down the anonymous name ;P

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-08 16:38

>>23
You're like a giant bucket of straw man fallacies, aren't you?  And what does having to fight them in the street have to do with torture and forgoing due process?

>>27
Oh, now it's because of their religion that they want to kill everyone?  Educate yourself a bit about Islam, you ignorant shit, and stop believing all the Christian conservative bullshit people say about it.  Do you see Muslims declaring Jihad on the Chinese for not believing in Allah?  Do you think they just randomly decided to go with America because they thought fucking with the world's most powerful nation would make things interesting?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-08 16:50

>>27
So Islam is a religion for terrorists is it? Then have your done your part for your country and gone around razing all the mosques in sight? For god's sake, there could be wmd lolipop convoy saddamist qaedas in there.
>>31
Well you see, the conman didn't like the subject so he successfully changed topics to 9yr lolipop licking street fighers.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-08 21:54

>>28
Lol, yeah, islam is a religion of peace, and everything they say on TV is right.

>>31
Oh, now it's not because of their religion that they want to kill everyone?  Educate yourself a bit about islam, you ignorant shit, and stop believing all the leftist tolerant bullshit people say about it.
Fixed.
May I suggest http://www.faithfreedom.org ?  Read what an ex-muslim has to say about what he saw in first person and from the inside - what the media won't tell you because it's not politically correct.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-08 22:27

>>33
None so faithful as the converted, eh?  That site is nothing but biased-out-the-ass ramblings from some random nutbag who became obsessed with talking shit on his ex-religion.  Half the stuff he says could be said about Christianity as well.

You truly don't know anything, do you?  Read up on some history.  You'll find that the Muslims, in the height of their power in the world, ruled one of the the most tolerant empires in history.  The Koran specifically tells people *not* to force religion on others (whereas the Bible insists on the exact opposite).  Likewise, it doesn't tell people to kill non-believers either, as I hear so many people claim--it tells them to attack any direct threats to Islam.  That's where the ideas of terrorism come from, but the reason we don't see all Muslims around the world turning terrorist is because most of them are smart enough to understand that the US is not attacking the religion of Islam, and has no intention to do so.  Well, at least most of us don't, other than a select few dumbasses such as you and the author of that website.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 11:36

>>34
Half the stuff he says could be said about Christianity as well.
Not half, but some things, and yes, they could be said and, for my part, they are said. Don't think I'm a christian zealot fag, I hate all religions, but I acknowledge islam as the worst one by far.

You truly don't know anything, do you?  Read up on some history.
I did. But this is not the 10th century. This is today.

The Koran specifically tells people *not* to force religion on others
It also specifically tells people to kill infidels, torture them, beat them to death, and many other cute things. RELIGION OF PEACE

Likewise, it doesn't tell people to kill non-believers either
Now who's the ignorant one? Go read the goddamned koran, then come back to rant.

most of them are smart enough to understand that the US is not attacking the religion of Islam
Ask "most of them" outside the USA.

Well, at least most of us don't, other than a select few dumbasses such as you
I'm not American.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 16:25

I would glady kill, tourture, mame, whatever is needed to prevent American deaths...

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 17:16

>>34
Apart from the slavery, invasions of eastern europe and standard practice of mass executions.

Don't go saying that "THE WEST DID TEH SAME TO THE AZTECS AND BLACK AFRICANS", at least we acknowledge what happenned was wrong. Now you do the same. I want a formal admition. Repeat the following.

"The Koran contains many ambiguous terms which have persuaded and encouraged many Muslims to commit acts of great evil and barbarity."

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 17:17

>>36
And I would gladly kick your ass ^_^

But in any case, if doing so is acceptable, then I suggest we nuke the fuck out of each other until everybody dies.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 17:24

>>38
He said whatever is NEEDED. ^_________^

He won't extort other nations for their wealth, just kill despots and terrorists (same thing) who threaten war against the US and torture those who won't reveal their whereabouts.

People like you would gladly capitulate to the terrorist's demands, regardless of the fact that if you give in to fear once, those who use it as a tool will use it again and again until your face is being stamped on and you are too weak to fight for justice and liberty.

Name: John 2005-12-09 20:20

Wow, what happened to this place? I'm gone a couple days, and suddenly there's sensible people on here. Keep it coming. You know these kind of comments strike some chord of truth in 'em, otherwise they wouldn't be so hostile. > "And I would gladly kick your ass ^_^"

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 20:44

It's always been like this you were just blindsided with hatred.

Name: John 2005-12-09 21:14

I don't hate anybody, I don't think I've even used the word "hate" on this board. What's your particular problem?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 21:24

By the way you talk it's reasonable conclude you at least hate terrorists, muslims, liberals, etc. So what, not even them? Maybe there was some imposter John that I got confused for you.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 21:36

Moo-slimes all need to be put down. They are all vermin from fucking hell.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 21:44

>>41
No, no, he was blindsided by victim complex. No one was agreeing with him so only leftist scum exist.

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

Name: John 2005-12-09 21:46

I don't hold any one of those groups in high favor, no. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, and liberals ... well, I'm sorry, but I just can't be too agreeable toward a group of people that have pretty much declared a war on idividualism... And hey, the definition of liberalism includes belief in "the essential goodness of the human race", so by definition they're a bunch of idiots as well. =3

Name: John 2005-12-09 21:51

>>45 >> "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
Ok, communists. I 'do' hate communists...

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 22:03

declared war on individualism? ... what? That deserves a new thread.

Name: John 2005-12-09 22:07

Yeah, maybe it does, but I've got enough threads already, don'cha think?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 22:18

>>39
People like you would gladly capitulate to the terrorist's demands
No no no no! You've got me all wrong. I wouldn't torture people, and I wouldn't mass destroy a country full of people, but I wouldn't give in to terrorist demands because I don't consider these to be people. And either way, I'm not that stupid to do what terrorists say because that's like offering my ass and lube.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-09 22:26

Not all muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are muslims, but they're pretty fucking related. Around muslims, never relax. And the world needs to relax.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-10 6:50

Hay guys wut about american terrorists? lol

4/19/95 NEVAR FORGET

Name: John 2005-12-10 9:14

>>52
What about em? Terrorists are terrorists. Keel 'em all. :B

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-13 23:01

i don't think anybody should die. terrorists included. death does not solve anything.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 8:25

>>54
It sure didn't solve the Nazi problem in WWII, did it? *Rolls eyes* I guess Tookie Williams shouldn't have been executed the other night, either. Someone robs your store, blows half of your daughter's head off with a shot gun in front of your very eyes, then he kills both of you. How would you feel about that?
Well, on second thought, maybe death is too good for these people. I think they should die the same way their victims did. Make a special court just for death penalty cases (which is in the power of congress to do), so there's less of a wait time to be executed. Then make some sort of death machine and carry out the sentence within three months. That'll bring the murder rate down a ton, I guarantee it. :D

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 9:28

>>55

all people are humans, no matter how heinous the crimes they commit. committing a violent crime does not transform you into a demon or an animal. i don't think anyone deserves to be slaughtered like a dog who bit his master.
why are you so angry at criminals? i cannot even force myself to get angry at them - i just feel very, very sad for them. i can change the way i think, but i can't change the way i feel about these things.
oh, and in the situation you described, i would not feel anything, because i would be dead and rotting in the ground. all three of us would be - myself, my daughter, and the criminal. i really cannot comprehend how adding another grave solves all the problems and makes it a happy ending.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 13:21

>>56
They were demon-animals before the committed the crime.  You are obviously a naive person who has never met a real sociopath.  They can't feel remorse or anything, all they know is how to satisfy their own needs.  It's hard to think there's anyone in there.  Those people are better off dead.

Not all criminals are sociopaths, mind you, but knowing one I feel a lot better about euthanizing them.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 20:41

>>56
You suffer from OCCD: obessive compulsive compassion disorder. Your feelings won't lead you to justice nor resolve. The justice system and the electric chair will. Take the man who raped and murdered little 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. Rapes her, makes her kneel with a little purple dolphin plush inside a trash bag, then buries her alive. What kind of punishment do you think that bastard John Couey should get, >56? I'd bury him alive myself if the judge would let me...

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 20:59

People who want to kill someone because he killed someone make me sick. They are just going down to the same level as the killer. It is disgusting.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 21:43

>>59
Wanting to kill somebody out of justice for killing a little 9-year-old girl in the manner I described is the same level of evil as the evil committed by the original killer? I'd like to know how you'd deal out retribution for a crime of that sort... Hey yeah, I'm sure the guy felt a lot of remorse for his actions, maybe he should receive counseling. I've read he was a drug addict, maybe he should get tax-payer-funded rehab. Typical irrational compulsive compassion...

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-14 22:48

>>59
What would you recommend we do?  I agree that we shouldn't kill killers (just lock them up forever where they can get their asses pounded by sodomites), but not because I think killing them is a bad thing (it's money issues.)

I don't think that you suffer from OCCD, it's more of an inability to be flexible in thought...  Killing is ALWAYS wrong to you, even though the act may destroy something that would kill again. 

You have to understand that unlike most people, those who are able to do things like what >>58 described can best be said to be nothing more than the substance that makes up their bodies.  They see other people as objects, to be used, consumed, etc... and they don't understand why everyone thinks it's such a big deal when they torture and kill someone.  Those people need to be severed from the rest of humanity.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 0:04 (sage)

People who want to kill someone because he killed someone make me sick.

While I generally disagree with the death penalty, the motivation (perhaps instinct?) that many people have to kill those who kill others can be considered a self-correcting feature. We didn't always have a formal legal system.

He's a serial killer? *slit* Well, that's no longer a problem.

Oh yeah. Don't make up stupid terms, >>58. We have evidence for OCD, but OCCD is some bullshit politically-laden term you just made up as an insult. Good argumentation there, mate.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 8:29

>>62
But I like my stupid term. =(

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 12:34

>>39

The tactics you describe are exactly the ones used by warlords throughout the ages. What is your freedom? Our freedom is more free than everyone else's, I see, because it stands under our flag?

People like YOU, sir, would gladly march into the enemy's guns and call it honor. You cover bury own fear in anger, and spread hate in a proliferation of destruction and ignorance. We do not just kill despots and terrorists. We kill women, children, and all those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as our enemies do.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 12:35

>>64

*You bury your own fear

Fixed.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 13:01

>>64-65
Warning! Thinking beyond acceptable bounds! Suicide bombs are terrorism. American cluster bombs ripping children to shreds are not terrorism, they are freedom and democracy. Please report to the nearest newsmedia outlet for re-indoctrination.

(OFFICE USE ONLY)
SEC-REPORT/97-3200234-K940
RECOMMENDATION: SURVEILLANCE LEVEL 1
FORWARDED TO THOUGHTCRIME DIVISION 2005/12/15

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 15:52

>>66
We don't do that retard. 

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 16:33

>>67
Are you saying that with a George Zimmerman guarantee? Or just shit pulled out your ass to make you feel better at night?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-16 16:11

>>60-62
How about letting the law take care of the scum instead of bashing a possibly innocent man with hammer? I think that the legal system is much more reliable and accurate in punishing criminals than a random member of the society. I do not blindly trust the legal system but I do trust them more that the random person.

>>60
Retribution is bullshit from the legal standpoint.

>>61
You relishing the thought of the criminal being "pounded by sodomites" or killing him make me sick.

Killing is not always wrong to me but it is very high on the scale of wrong for me. Somehow, what the criminal in >>58 did and the proposed punishment is to me close on the scale. Maybe I just don't have an imagination.

I trust the legal system much more that I would trust you.

>>62
We do have a good legal system now.

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-17 1:58

It amazes me how sad nationalist fervor somehow translates out to a total lack of understanding.

How would *you* feel, if an outside country suddenly decided that OUR president was unfit to run the country and a risk to the free world? How would you feel if certain people in our country were deemed terrorist and the solution was killing rought 30 innocents for everyone 1 terrorist?

What would you do if your brother, mother, son, best friend was one of these innocents slain?

Don't give me your rebuttal about WHY this HAS to happen...just tell me straight up and honestly how you would feel. You've got no job, there barely any propects and some invader killed accidently wiped out your family. Would you REALISTICALLY accept it and move on?

All I'm saying is that if we reacted to 9/11 with violence, then  why is wrong for anyone else to react to our daily infringement upon the third world with that same violence?

ANSWER ME

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-17 6:32

>>69
We do have a good legal system now.

Our system is so/so. It sorta kinda does something, ya know? There are all kinds of problems with the system otherwise. Anyone who has dealt with the judicial branch knows it has some major shortcomings.

Having said that, I agree with your sentiment. I'm just pointing out that the instinct once served a purpose, and you can be certain it will again. In some areas of the world, it still does.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-17 9:48 (sage)

>>70
Well said.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-17 23:50

>>70
Shit happens.  I don't start bombing a train company when my family gets wiped out in a subway accident. 

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 0:26

>>73
So you do nothing. Pathetic.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 0:31

>>74
Depends on if there's any gain for me to do something.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 2:04

You gain some sense of justice/satisfaction... maybe, but the issue here is not a train company, it's an invader. The invader shouldn't be there. This isn't shit just happening. Because the invader is there the chances of the accidental annihilation of family has skyrocketed. You've lost everything, nothing to lose. So there's got to be something to gain.

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-18 2:27

Exactly. A train accident is just that- an accident. The train company didn't set-up shop there totally unsolicited by the community or local government.

You fail at analogies, just like you fail at sucking cock. This is why your daddy pulls it out all the time and gives it your little sister.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 7:41

>>67
"We don't do that retard."

O RLY?

President George W Bush yesterday admitted that he personally authorised a secret spying programme on American soil and vowed to go on approving such operations.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1669942,00.html

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 13:55

>>78
Hell, I'm a libertarian and I don't think that's a bad idea.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 13:55

>>77
You don't know what it means to lose everything, just like you don't know what it means to fail at sucking cock. How's that analogy?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 14:14

>>79
I'll kill you. It's ok under the anarchist "ideology" (or lack thereof).

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-18 15:17

>>80

Shitty, like your dick when you pull it out of a little boy's asshole- pedofaggot.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-18 16:59

>>82
HAHA, don't be jealous I'll let you suck off my shitty cock.

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-18 21:42

>>83

No thanks, gaylord. I'll just let you remove the feces from your penis via the usual method- a retard's mouth. Please spend more time reading and less time hang about during after-school hours look for kid's bike seats to sniff.

Or do the only honorable thing, my little ditch-pig honkey weeaboo....and End yourself, please.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-19 2:33 (sage)

Holy fuck. You fail, >>84.

Even for a flame, that fails. Where'd you learn to flame so badly? Are you 12?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-19 8:34

>>Like I said, our soldiers are not the ones blowing themselves up at funeral processions
Suppose this is true, but what ir worse, weddings or funerals, hm?

Can't say that I truly care really, I'm neither American nor from the Middle east, what they do for their paycheck is their problem.

But for christs sake, fix the gas prices!

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-19 15:47 (sage)

>>85

Flaming is for faggots. My profane word strings are designed to attack gaylords at the core of their inherant faggotry.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-19 17:22

You were the first one in this entire thread to start talking about cock. You go on in disturbing detail about successful cock sucking, your homosexual pedophilic adventures... and sniffing bike seats... what the fuck is that about? You sir need to seek help. Your insults are also childish and pathetic.

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-19 18:42

lol welcome to 4CHAN,
GAYWAD

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-19 21:10

>>81
Where the fuck did I say "anarchist"?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-19 21:33

>>89
gtfo world4ch please

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-20 0:03

>>91
no u

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-20 0:23

We need name filter for anti-chan to 12yr old failure.

Name: anti-chan 2005-12-20 4:15

Shut up you fucking baby. If you're so pissed off at my supposed inability to shit-kick your self-esteem...why don't your remove the saddle from my nutsack, stop riding my dick and show us how it's done (in the butt).

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-20 9:45

gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-20 17:24

>>94
Lol wut? Lurk less

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-22 21:57

>>66
Warning! Leftist persecution complex! Possible facts incoming! Scatter! Scatter!

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-23 1:11 (sage)

>>97
GET TO DA CHOPPAH

GOO GOOO GOOO

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List