Top 2014 Names

Equally the shelling of Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby by the German Navy during WW1 or the Zepellins dropping bombs etc etc etc.

However there is a clear distinction between what Glids meant and the actions of a formal war between nation states. Random goons going around imposing their stupidity and bigotry on others under threat of death is clearly not terrorism but criminality. They are murderers. They are not freedom fighters or anything like that. They are murdering savages.

 

beat me to it.i thought we all knew the difference between total war and terrorism

 

In my book anyone who plots within the uk to blow shit up or kill people to promote a religious ideology should take a look at Guy Fawkes night traditions from atop of the bonfire. I'll bring the firelighters and matches.

 

dude, shit dont burn.
fed feet first slowly in to a sanding machine.

 

Then made to eat salt and vinegar crisps.

 

with a knife and fork,
set about them. bloody savages.

 

You 2 are sick, no wonder the jocks are used as our shock troops

 

not sick, just imaginative.

 

1. I doubt the RAF pilots had a great deal of choice in the matter. They were conscripted to do this job and not really consulted about how keen they were to do it.
2. They were already retaliating for German bombing of UK cities.
3. It was seen as unpleasant perhaps, but necessary to end the war and the suffering that went with it.
4. There was a final and achievable objective. I can't believe that hacking some army band-player to death on a London high street or nail bombing a shopping centre or pub really compares.
5. It was in the context of a clearly defined and declared war.
6. The RAF pilots weren't living in the community they were bombing.
7. It wasn't a "civil war".
8. The RAF weren't living with a lot of outmoded beliefs about invisible sky-gods - at least if they were, that wasn't what was defining their actions.

Well, that's the starter list, anyway.
Drifting from names, but I suppose it's all connected, seeing as the initial post was interesting for it's undercurrent of moral outrage. Had the top name been Peter, I can't think it would have been posted, unless by you perhaps

 

Or tossing hand grenades into internet chat rooms.

 

Someone bit.

 

And when considering the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, not that I'm taking a position on this, it may be worth noting that Saddam's regime was involved in processing detainees in ways like this (vats of acid being involved I think).

 

Or Smoky Bacon?

 

sounds like hanging was to good for him.

 

Perhaps the popularity of the name Mohammed suggests that there are a lot of normal, honest, decent muslims living in the UK. Has anyone thought of that? I mean, we all cheered Mo Farrah didn't we..?

 

My old workmate Mo never tried to behead me even once. Mind you, he was a lazy bastard.

 

Is McHammed a Scottish muslim ?

 

I had a work colleague Muhammad , he was from Dubai but originated from India - lived in my house for a while , didn't like dogs but he cooked a mean curry

 

Your previous post said:
"Someone who targets completely innocent civilians, going about their lives, deliberately in the name of whatever bloody cause they like, is a terrorist in my book. Very little (or no) difference between nail-bombing IRA Catholics, or beheading Islamist jihadists. Scumbags all."
From your latest post, your position now seems to have shifted a great deal since you have set out eight exceptions and qualifications to it - some of which would also apply to (e.g.) the IRA.

 

Pete you are just as guilty of making statements and then not justifying them when challenged. The difference is that you ignore the challenge whilst others will take the time to justify their own position.I am more than happy to post links if you wish me too?