Happy Face

That wouldn't have been possible. Holy war on Iceland is no less possible now than on any other European nation. Probably easier in terms of security.

Given their stated primary motive, why have Isis been as yet unable to convince anyone to attack the Christian state of Iceland as part of their holy war?

I didn't ignore Toonotls source I said it's one of the best methods of recruiting people. The way I see it, it's more about convincing them that their religion should not be a barrier to them engaging in a fight that they already feel motivated to wage. Funnily though, you've ignored the ISIS statement I quoted. Have a read of these examples too.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/boston-terrorism-motives-us-violence

I repeatedly ignore it.... but stated 3 posts earlier that it is a factor ISIS statement on Paris attacks Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State, and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign. The devils advocate twats. They know it's all religious shite.

No, I base my view on what suicide bombers have said their motivations were (I can provide links if you like) and what the pentagon (a source I quoted) says motivates muslim animosity. Religious extremism is a powerful recruiting too, not the only one and I don't think the primary one. Nice rant though, no matter how untrue.

Can you show me where I said either of those things? I don't think all political campaigns need complete transparency, I think where they have been discovered to be doing wrong then exposing that is in the public interest. I don't believe private citizens should have complete protection. I am not suspected of any wrong doing or to be in possession of any information that would expose wrong doing, so I AM entitled to a different standard as is any private citizen not doing any wrong against the law or the public interest.

Give em to @bigchrisholt instead

You don't have to belittle every post I put in here I'm not claiming any earth shattering expose has been performed. It's just a funny one.

In a John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast by RT on Saturday courtesy of Dartmouth Films, whistleblower Julian Assange categorically denied that the troves of US Democratic Party and Clinton work and staff emails released this year have come from the Russian government. “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source,” Assange told the veteran Australian broadcaster as part of a 25-minute John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films. https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/

Love the hard as nails rhetoric followed by the personal niceties. Comes across pyooa psycho.

We pity them because they are victims of men and religion. But then, they pity us because we're heathens and will go to hell. Let's all just bask in our warm feeling of superiority and enjoy it.

Aye, that bit when Will Smith punched a Alien. Bosh! It was mint.

Yeah, pity is about what I'd place it at. Think revulsion goes a bit far. Good read from the perspective of an intelligent, burqa wearing woman here, rather than all us middle aged white men getting outraged on their behalf... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/26/muslim-women-feminism-burqas

So is the reason to ban the burqa because of how it makes us feel, rather than freeing the woman wearing it from her oppressor? Does banning the visual symbol of female subjugation (as you see it) fix the multitude of other areas in which muslim women are rendered second class citizens? Shouldn't the burqa be maintained as a symbol of that subjugation until they have equality in ALL areas of their lives, rather than swept under the carpet so that we can congratulate ourselves on the misapprehension that the least of their problems has been solved on our shores?

But also the best 3. Ashley delivering the goods.

He had majorities in both houses for his first 2 years http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/

Whey the discussion I was having with Parky was all about his view that the caveat meant Trump would be a perfectly fine choice. I was taking the opposing view to the one you agree lacks nuanced thinking. i was saying Obama has had plenty of power and Trump would too. That's why I found it odd you jumped in and started arguing the reasons why Obama could do nothing in his time, even when he had majorities across both houses. Hence the question being written in the format it was. I agree, you have wasted our time though.

I would never have thought to ask if you supported Trump. I assumed no-one on here would actually prefer him to Clinton. I asked if a victory for Trump would concern you "given the limits on presidential power that have so stifled Obama". Because you seemed to be agreeing with Parky that Obama's hands were tied on most important issues anyway. I couldn't give a shit what Randy the Racist thinks of that question.

I suspect it's all of the above. Chris Morris covered it off quite effectively in Four Lions I think. One thick religious fuck head, one thick angry radgee fuckhead, one thick simpleton fuck head and one politicised fuck head, The one that brought the rest together, organised them and used each of the others foibles to plan an attack was the most clued up political of all the fuck heads. The other 3 would have been harmless fuck heads without him.

He's getting a load of stick for comparing championship managers and premier league. Serves him right.

I did a @mikeashleylies watermark on one once when NUFCstats was nabbing stuff. Couldn't be arsed to keep it up though. Actually quite satisfying to see these things have a life of their own and get disseminated despite only getting one like on my own Twitter.

The US and UK claim their motives for intervening in the middle east are to stop evil doers like Saddam. Is that the reality? Or is that an excuse that can be used to garner support among their population for sending their young men and women to die in order to protect our own interests? Do you not think ISIS take a similar approach to convincing people to kill themselves? Try to convince idiots that it's a just and noble holy cause, when they obviously know it's polictical power wrangling.

Supporters who got their information off the internet I just wasn't sure how relevant Trump supporters were to the discussion about presidential power and how effectively Obama, his predecessor or whoever replaces him is able to exert it. I'm glad you're excited about your trip though. One of the popular nufc accounts was tweeting from a Trump rally yesterday (@ToonArmyMIA ). Was interesting to see how few people turned up. Will be interested to hear your findings on the psyche of a Trumpian.

MY TABLE!!! The thieving bastard

Someone mentioned that the other day and I looked at his account for the last active time. It had been within 24 hours.