Beawulf

I noticed 3 people so far have voted he is innocent, care to comment?

comm badge, direct rip from ep

comm badge, with engine sound reduced

I hope that works

I dont have a problem with the episode in general, but I dont think the crew of the other ship (cant remember the name anymore) were written to be liked, and so naturally I didnt like them or what they do. The episode also wasnt entirely focused on the rapes, it was part of a larger story.

The sig however only focused on one element of the episode, and with the text "the adventures of Lt. Thorn...'ride em hard, keep em talking' " portrayed that element with a different slant than I think the writers of the series originally intended.

perhaps furious could explain the joke, to me the sig only seemed to glorify rape by refering to them as adventures....what am I missing?

that sig was in poor taste, rape is never acceptable under any circumstances. the phrase 'ride em hard, keep em talking' is obviously about rape. And to refer to Thorn's actions as 'adventures' is to glorify rape and the deprivation of liberty. It may not have been your intention to put that sort of behaviour on a pedastal but that is essentially what your sig did. Personally I am not dissapointed to see it go and I'm not the person who complained.

guilty. although I dont think he should be put to death. why give him an easy way out? life in prison is worse than death.

saddam is one of many leaders guilty of crimes against humanity, robert mugabe in zimbabwe is another. someone should deal with him, not much in the way of natural resources in zimbabwe though, so there is no financial incentives for anyone to do anything... what a world, where money is more important than human life...

howiepoohs, I've sent you an email with the soundclip from an episode I just watched. Hope it suits.

edit: damn it bounced back.

TNG 5x10 New Ground

 

Warp without warpdrive. Worf meets his son.

 

I rate this one :) :D :) (3.5/5, above average)

 

Did someone notice the ponytail?

Worf met his son for the first time in TNG 4x07 Reunion

The Klingon Grand Chancelor is poisoned and Duras and Galron compete for the leadership. Worf discovers he has a son.

I rate it 3/5 "meh"

Well this is sort of on topic and I had a good laugh with it.

 

Should Iraqis be allow to carry guns?

 

I don't want to stir up trouble with this, it's just for fun.... :)

Ahhh, CNNNN is hillarious. It was a tv series made here in Australia a couple of years ago. Check out the report war on kyrgyzstan I love how they interview people off the street in the US.

The melting point of steel is 1500º C (2770º F) while the maximum temperature of an open hydrocarbon fire is 1700º F. (Jet fuel is made of hydrocarbons.) The fires that burned after the jet fuel was exhausted (rugs' date=' curtains, furniture and paper) reached - in a few pockets - 1832°F. So the fires were nowhere near hot enough to melt the steel columns of the towers.[/quote']

 

There is a type of failure called 'creep' that you may not have considered. It essentialy involves a material that is under constant stress (like building supports), once the material is heated to only 40% of its melting point it will begin to fail, however as the name suggests it isnt a sudden failure, however the regions affected would become unable to support the weight of the floors above speeding up the process. Because the lower floors werent affected initially the majority of the building was able to stay upright. For me this makes sense how it was brought down with the floors collapsing like dominos, appearing to be like a controlled demolition. edit: just my thoughts, I dont claim to know either way.

 

I saw an interesting documentary about the design of the worlds largest buildings, especially in Asia where they need to take into account the risk of earthquakes, if the WTC had similar structural redundancies they reckon they would never have fallen. Shame NY isnt an earthquake zone from that point of view.

 

 

Those Northwood articles were a very interesting read. I like the fact that wikipedia links to the document on the national archive website. If a government decided to go along that path I would personally hope they would choose an option that involves the loss of less life...one could argue that the buildings werent supposed to fall....which naturally would have meant that fewer people would have died. Or another point of view could be that they (bush etc) had nothing to do with it whatsoever, but had intelligence that it was going to take place and chose not to act. Thus getting justification without getting their hands dirty.

 

 

imo if the government hasnt done anything wrong, then they should be able to have the issue debated. To paraphrase GhostShadow, if they are innocent of domestic terrorism it shoul d be easy enough for them to prove it. ;)

"We must go forwards not backwards, sideways not forwards, and always twirling, TWILING TOWARDS FREEDOM!"

I think there is something in that for all of us.

thanks guys :D

various nameless people having gone a bit too far attacking people rather than ideas, but overall I dont think this thread has gone out of hand. I value GhostShadow's differing opinion, shame the pressure of studies are diverting his attention but that is life.

I am wondering why we havent heard from the other 16 people who voted the war on terror was going awesome or say that another country should be invaded.

We force NO ONE to be our ally, they see the econimic beifits and the military benifits and become our ally.

Well actually...back up till 1975 Australia's PM was Gough Whitlam, he did alot for the people of this country. He removed university fees, abolished the remnants of the 'white australia' policy, introduced free health care for everyone, mandated equal opportunities for women in government...

At around 1975 the lease on American bases in the country were up for renewal (or cancellation) inparticular the CIA base at pine gap. Pine Gap base is one of Americas largest and most important intelligence bases, and is used for sattelite and missile tracking, and has become the frontline base in the star wars program.

At the time the CIA was giving funds to the opposition leaders and the governer general to get them in their back pocket because America was concerned about their interests while we had a left government in power. Information was being leaked about CIA activities at the base, the spying on Australians and the PM, and America wasnt honouring its agreement to shareintelligence gathered at the base. The CIA became concerned Gough Whitlam was going to cancel the lease and demand the base closed.

To cut a long story short, at this point the CIA and the opposition leader (who had the CIA agent in-charge of Pine Gap staying with him) pressured the governer general to dismiss Gough Whitlam which he did*. The opposition then took power, the lease at Pine Gap was renewed. America has successfully overthrown our government.

So.....I dispute your comment that America doesnt force anyone to be its ally.

* under an archaic part of the constitution, the Governer General, who is appointed by the Queen, is able to dismiss the Prime Minister.

And America never sold WMD to terrorist' date=' America's Government did sell weapons to terrorist to fight the cold war. i.e, Osama.[/quote']

 

 

I was saying they sold weapons to Iraq. There have been several links posted with imformation to back this claim, and from various sources....

 

 

According to a congressional transcript

"The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted . . . We continued to approve this equipment until just weeks before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait,"

Made in the USA

Some of the items provided by companies and government agencies are sarin, anthrax, nerve gas, mustard gas, plague, west nile, nuclear detonators...

 

 

it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above.

Who Armed Iraq

 

among the chemical weapons which had been sold to Iraq were some of the very most lethal available: Sarin, Soman, Tabun, VX, Lewisite, Cyanogen Chloride, Hydrogen Cyanide, blister agents and Mustard Gas. Some of the powerful biological agents sold included anthrax, Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum (causes a tuberculosis-like disease) , Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens and Escherichia Coli.

The Tuite Reports

 

 

and some more:

Wikipedia: US providing Iraq with weapons for Iran war

 

Rumsfeld & Saddam

 

CIA involvement in Baath coup

"I dont think it is right for a parent to "teach their kid to be gay"

 

Is there an award for most redneckedignorantstatement of the year on this forum??

Wooohoo!! what do I win??

Also I think my comment has been slightly missunderstood. It was in a response to GhostShadow who said a guy at his school had been taught to be gay by his parents. I personally dont think it is actually possible to "teach" sexuality. Which was why I questioned if GhostShadow had actually witnessed anything or if it was just hearsay...which appears to be the case.

Essentially what I think is wrong is denying someone from exploring their own sexuality naturally, or pressuring them one way or another. Note I think this applies more to straight parents who think they can change a gay son, healing through prayer or some harebrained mental treatment. Gay people who have had to go life dealing with people who cant accept their sexuality are in my opinion more likely to be understanding of any persuasion their children might have.

edit: I want that award :P I think it's hillarious

Also American companies where not the only one after oil. Did you know that France approched the pentagon with a proposal that they would send 18' date='000 troops to help invade Iraq, if only after the invasion France would be intitled to select a location in Iraq and place an ocupation force there and basicly "imperialize" it. French offer to join invasion of Iraq

Note in the second sentance of that article, the word "rumor".

That site is clearly biased if they are passing rumors around as news. The majority of your links have come from strategypage.com I have noticed.

no one is gernealizing here.... NOT ALL TERRORIST ARE ARAB, ISLAMIC, OR ANY ONE SPICIFIC RACE OR RELIGION.

 

Ever Hear of Somalia?? They are black, and you guessed it, terrorist.

Somalia is a country, that is quite a generalization to say they are terrorists.

happy birthday TFMF!!! hope you had a great day

what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I dont see how the US can justify circumventing the Geneva convention and denying people their rights, by holding them for years without trial in guantanamo bay. The US even admitted to detaining children there.

I keep hearing people justify the denial of rights by saying they are terrorists, which is essentialy generalizing that all muslims are terrorists. The people there were captured during the invasion of their country, they took up arms to defend their soveriegnty. There is no logic in jumping to the conclusion that this makes them all terrorists. I imagine there are also terrorists who also fought against the Americans. I believe there is a saying in the US: it is better to let 10 guilty people free than jail 1 innocent.

is it so easy to throw away principles?

Things like the patriot act are a bit of a concern, especially when they include a shoot to kill policy. I wouldnt want to be a student (carrying a bag) with muslim appearance where these laws in effect. I believe they are justified in fearing the safety. It isnt accurate to say that if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, what about the Brazillian guy in London who was shot, after he was restrained, 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, with 3 other shots missing. Leaked documents quote scotland yard saying he was targetted based on his appearance.

oh, and yeah. all the M1A1 Abrams sabo rounds have depleted uranium in them. It is more effective, kinda slipped my mind opps. ;P

 

But i rather we be using them, and it is not a crime unless they can persicute us, lol. ( I probly shoudnt be laughing but my trigger happy friend is at my side putting a rather interesting spin on this one )

I find it interesting that the US was pushing for immunity for its soldiers from the International Criminal Court so they wouldnt be accountable for crimes. Why would anyone need immunity from prosecution unless they are going to do the wrong thing?

Bush was so certain there were going to be WMDs in Iraq because America had been selling them to Saddam for decades, and knew what Saddam would do with them. I guess securing access to the oil was enough to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others back in the 80's

I am sure they had reason.

Nope, no justification.

Isreali commander kills 13yo girl

US soldiers kill unarmed civillians

"give me fredom or give me death"

I agree, and I think the terrorists would to. The main issue that is driving people to the cause of terrorism is the state of the Palestinians, and how they are denied freedoms on a daily basis. So they want freedom or death.

like i said' date=' these terrorist are not nice people,these ppl are willing to kill them self to take our freedom and to have us live in fear, i am willing to die for our fredom and to insure we live, i just wnat us to live... more appropriate people can choice how we live.[/quote']

 

I think they are willing to kill to get their freedom, or the freedom of their 'brothers'*. They arent so interested in taking yours...they arent trying to force Americans of your land are they?

 

I dont agree with the methods of terrorists, there is no justification for attacking citizens. But if we are to deal with terrorism we need to look at what is causing it, prevention is better than cure. The main cause is the plight of the palestinian people, for which America is also blamed as they supply alot of weapons and financial support to the area, and have also blocked UN efforts to step in or sanction Israel for some of its more questionable activities.

 

Attacking Iraq has also provided a cause for new terrorists, which is merely fueling the fire. But it is done, nothing can be said to turn back time. America staying there will encourage more terrorist attacks in the area, but pulling out early will more than likely lead to civil war so there isnt a clear-cut solution. Maybe a group of international peace-keepers should take over until iraq can defend its citizens?

 

 

 

*I imagine there are individuals who are taking the opportunity to kill for the sake of killing, and are using a 'cause' as justification. But these psychopaths arent limited to any particular culture. eg. sarin gas in Japan, US soldier shot unarmed teenager in custody, Israeli soldier shot 12yo girl.

I voted for borg cube, according to googlefight it wins by 18 thousand :)

I agree all the something vs something threads are tiresome, in future I recommend people save time and get the results from googlefight

It might be worthwhile to point out forum rule 4 at this point in the conversation.

4. Please be kind and curtious in your responses

I think the war on terror is driving more people to the cause of terrorism, the invasion of countries doesnt help either.

Something I find interesting is the amount of weapons both conventional and chemical that the US government and US companies supplied Iraq with over the last few decades. Donald Rumsfeld himself played a part in this during the US' support of Saddam in the Iraq vs Iran war. America provided Saddam with chemicals such as mustard gas, sarin, and 14 viruses including the west nile.

Wikipedia: US providing Iraq with weapons for Iran war

Rumsfeld & Saddam

CIA involvement in Baath coup

I think the discussion is going just fine in here :P

I dont think it is right for a parent to "teach their kid to be gay"

 

I don't think its even possible. The case of John/Joan seems to have proven that sexual identity isn't something that is simply taught.

I think it is possible, in certain cases, that there's more than one way to become gay. From what I know, however, it's extremely unlikely that any gay couple would try to interfere with their child's development, one way or the other. I certainly do not believe that simply having gay parents is going to make a child gay.

I agree with both of you, I dont think it is something that is or can be taught, or that results from the environment you grow up in. Which is why I was questioning GhostShadow's example.