Tell you what Richard - how about you get me a picture of a young girl dear to your heart (maybe a daughter, niece etc) and I'll photoshop it showing gary glitter having some fun with her.

See if you like it !

ps - you did know that was a picture of moses' daughter didn't you ?

if you didn't - maybe you'll now understand how he feels.

 

When he posted the originals I thought it was a stupid thing to do, and true to form some lurker did 'the feckin obvious' and photoshoped one!

But that's S-Net for you...........

 

Even for Scoobynet - photoshopping someone's daughter is a .

 

Diablo, you're entitled to your point of view (on the previous page). The Scottish empathy thing is touching, but really, i think you're being not just a little naive, and to some extent missing the point of what we've been saying. We won't sort anything out on Scoobynet of course, but let's just see how this pans out over the next few years. I'll be amazed if this country doesn't see some fairly major racial tensions again, especially if the economy dips significantly. All the ingredients are there, ready to be ignited.

 

Yeah, for normal people it is, but then again how many normal people frequent S-Net (apart from me!)

 

Even your average psycho-nutter-troll has limits - apparently .

 

Don't get them going Tel...... I can hear the cry's of "Freedom...." aka 'The Braveheart Syndrome' kicking in as I type

It's (racial tension) happened everywhere else, so why not here? And I'm just glad I live a long way away from any likely 'riot zone'.........

 

Only a few sonny, only a few..........

 

What's with her ears too, they look like they were attached by a Bosnian welder.

 

Is there a code of conduct - maybe even a professional body with rules etc .

 

I was going to ask you the same thing......

 

There is only one word to describe gripper - nonce.

He is a borderline paedophile quite frankly, how many people photoshop and make abusive comments about kids.

 

Duplicate post

 

That will be two words then

 

Tel,

I don't condone the actions of the terrorists, of course I consider their actions deplorable.

I accept that there are many different reasons why the British Government take the stance they take. Its not rocket science.

But I can also understand that such a stance will result in a backlash, a backlash against the UK and as you have suggested, a backlash internally.

The Scottish empathy thing is about understanding what moses' point actually is, as it is apparent that many people posting on this thread don't.

The empathy is about the fact that there is far less racial tension in Scotland. Its measurably different here.

Hell, all the "Fenians" and "Huns" are too busy with each other to worry about the "Pakis" and the rest of the ethnic minorities (which is exactly what they are in Scotland, minorities).

But all joking (and politically incorrect terms apart), inter racial relations are different here. Our problems are more sectarian - and they are being overcome.

"We" hurl abuse and hatred at each other on match day, and yet most manage not let that spill over into their daily lives, where it becomes jovial banter.

If there even is an arm of the BNP in Scotland, it has little or no support. We may all be part of the UK, but our issues are different - a point that is clearly evidenced by this thread and others like it.

You only consider it "touching" because you don't fully understand it.

Perhaps my position is naieve in the context of the UK as a generic whole. But i'd suggest it is nothing of the sort as a Scot living in Scotland.

Cheers

D

PS - Unclebuck, you really are the most predicably inane poster on this board. I'll admit that I'm an obnoxious c unt. I've never hidden or argued that point. What's your excuse?

 

To what extent do you think that white people have generally come to accept each other, much like i suggested was the case in Northern Ireland, and which you're also suggesting is the case in Scotland?

Do you think this is because people now generally accept that there's a more important threat to their lives, and it's not an internal wrangling over the niceties of essentially the same religion?

 

Tel - ask him about the Engerlish .

Sometimes I reckon I'd get less abuse as a muslim than I do as a fat guffy ****

 

Yeah that's true, let's not bring the St George's cross into this!!

 

beheading a captive aint islamic, but i believe its merciful, u r being merciful to the pow or invaded by not abusing him or harrasing him, u r keeping him alive and feeding him and then beheaded him, thats a honourable and peaceful way for a captive to die, rather than being captured


**

oh dear moses. merciful? with a knife? i wonder what daniel perle and ken bigley would make of your preposterous notion of "peaceful" and "honourable" ways to be murdered by terrorist loons. as i understand it and if reports are to be believed, the beheading of perle took approximately two minutes.



and by the way, neither perle nor bigley were POWs as they were both non-com civilians. by direct implication of your own words, you view civilians as combatants. do you view civilians as combatants or is this just an unfortunate choice of words on your part? i'd suggest you are careful and judicious in your reply.

just to clear a few things up for you:

soldier: a combatant empowered by government and recognised legally around the world to fight. protected by signatory states to the geneva convention only. indescriminate killing of civilians not a stated objective. apparently not protected from the EU Bill of Human Rights, militant lawyers nor the international court of justice.

mercenary: gun for hire, by private individual or government, murky legal status, not protected by the geneva convention or anything else for that matter.

freedom fighter: paramilitary who targets combatant-only personnel wherever possible, typically in pursuit of domestic liberation from foreign occupation and/or invasion. not protected by the geneva convention. protected by the EU Bill of Human Rights and the ICJ. example: maquis; anti-soviet mujahideen.

terrorist: paramilitary who indescriminately targets combatants and civilians (more usually civilians) in pursuit of political ends for maximum impact, regardless of victims' location, nationality, race or religion. not protected by the geneva convention. protected by the EU Bill of Human Rights, militant lawyers and the ICJ. example: PIRA; FARC; al-qaeda; baader-meinhof etc etc, the list is endless.

 

Deaf ears, HG, deaf ears.

 

**

yup. hold on for the inevitable "yeah but, no but" pollard-esque response ...

 

At all levels people in Scotland are working to wipe out the sectarian issue. From Schools to Football Clubs, it is slowly becomming socially unacceptable to be a biggot. You'll never completely eradicate it, but you can become a more tollerant society.

You see kids in rangers strips playing with their celtic following mates. That just would not have happened ten years ago.

Personnally I believe much of it down to younger, more moderate and forward thinking ministers and priests, an apathy as regards religion generally, greater integration in schools, a national effort to stamp it out, and, equally important, real efforts by the football clubs concerned.

Its still there, and will be for a long time to come, but it is getting better.

As for it being due to a more important threat to their lives? No, I don't believe this has very much at all to do with it. For now, at least.

Many Scots don't consider there to be a significant threat - no doubt because Scotland has yet to be specifically targetted.

 

Holy Gost,

In light of the above, how do percieve the Israeli attacks on civilian targets?

Also, The IRA considered themselves freedom fighters, in pursuit of domestic liberation from "foreign" occupation. (And lets ignore the point that, arguably, the IRA was nothing more than a pocket lining exercise for those at the top)

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. You are also, I suspect, applying western definitions, eithics and culture to a global problem - correct, probably, naieve? Most certainly.

Not arguing any particular side here, just curious?

 

Who said they were targeting civilians? just so happens that the terrorists are fortified within civilian homes......... and the civilians were told by Israel to **** off out of it before they tw4ted them...

 

Israel has a well Documented history of attacking civilian targets. Hell, the brits and the yanks do too, if you include WW2, the Gulf War, and most recently, Iraq.

But don't let the facts get in the way now...

 

It's not the Napoleonic Wars....... the days of two armies facing each other across a battlefield are long gone.............

You are such a drama queen.....

 

I'm not baiting, I seriously would be interested in information that says that the Israelis target civilians directly. I would also need this from an independent (ish) source.

Please can you provide this?

Ted

 

 

Intresting concept the "Civilian" very easy to see who are soldiers and who are "Civilians" isnt it?

12 year old boy must be a civilian but he is caught ferrying RPGs between houses still a civilian?

15 year old boy must be a civilian but as he approaches checkpoint he trys to set off body explosives but only detonator expolodes he survives,Civilian?

Middle aged female pushing childs buggy which has C4 inserted in to the frame,Civilian?

The widespread action of alerting terrorists of army patrols in the area by light,special noise etc,actions of civilians?

My point is that in this theatre of war civilians are very hard to identify and the lack of a uniform means nothing so Israel has never targeted civilians however they must attack the terrorists where ever they operate quite often if not nearly always with the support of the civilian population not nice but a fact of life i am afraid.

 

I am afraid you you will find yourself on a bit of a loser with Dogboy...

No proof required, at least in his ickle bubble