So he was Not a terrorist!

[fullauto]

Enki... the god of Islam!

I can take alot of ****, but I hope that was a joke!

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Hey terroist hater, I don't think I'd invite Muslims to your BBQ. They'd dodge the pork and go straight for the watermelon...and leave none for the rest, thus reinstigating the conflict we thought was forgotten.

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

You, my friend, are a ****ing retard.

If I am retarded then you are a plant... next time you get sick, go see a botanist!

Firstly, why must you continue to use this pedophile bullshit as an argument?

errrr... because Mohammed(may piss be upon him) was a pedophile! (Why am I answering you? My bermuda is smarter than you!)

It's already been proven that your Christian ancestors married their children off before they were in their teens,

Oh, I guess this somehow makes the peodophile prophet a little less pedophilic! NOT!

and, to my knowledge ...

LOL! "your knowledge" is such an oxymoron!

...atleast, the only religious figures in modern times that have committed acts of pedophilia have been Christian...

again I ask (and not you stupidwumbat because you aren't smart enough to answer with anything coherent) How does this make mohammed(may piss be upon him) any less of a pedophile?

so enough with that **** already.

pedophile prophet.

Secondly, most of the lands that was conquered by Muslims was filled with strife and war and had been for centuries UNTIL IT WAS CONQUERED BY THE MUSLIMS.

WHAT?????? ... Earth to retard! Reality calling.

Palestine is just one example, and Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in PEACE there, along with many other areas, UNTIL you christians initiated the Crusades. Not a moment of peace inbetween? How retarded are you?

Do you know anything about the Crusades? Obviously not! The crusades were started by the Saracens(muslims) invading the Byzantines(Christians)... Do you prefer Scotts 29/3/3 for greenness?

Firstly, you bring into the argument a figure that you COMPLETELY misenterperet, and then tie him to a religion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with him. Congratulations, you are a ****in dumbass.

Firstly, Secondly, Firstly... I have never tried to teach a plant how to count by ordinal numbers before, but here goes "Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly"...

You should change your name from "Stupidwumbat" to "Stupidbladeofgrass".

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

errrr... because Mohammed(may piss be upon him) was a pedophile! (Why am I answering you? My bermuda is smarter than you!)

Oh, I guess this somehow makes the peodophile prophet a little less pedophilic! NOT!

MRIH,this is seriouly gettin' old.Every argument with you leads to this.And we keep explaining,yet you act deaf and dumb(well maybe it ain't an act,who knows?).
I'll try and explain and I hope you get it.As CW already said,christians in the past had no objection in marrying 9 year olds.And the only people alive today who still do it are your christian priests(well they don't marry them,but you get what they do).

The hilarity of the whole saga of Christians like you accusing the Prophet(Pbuh) of committing "child molestation" is that this contradicts the basic fact that a girl becomes a woman when she begins her menstruation cycle. The significance of menstruation that anyone with the slightest familiarity with physiology will tell you is that it is a sign that the girl is being prepared to become a mother.
Women reach puberty at different ages ranging from 8-12 years old depending on genetics, race and environment.
Women in warmer environments reach puberty at a much earlier age than those in cold environments.
Marriage at the early years of puberty was acceptable in 7th century Arabia as it was the social norm in all Semitic cultures from the Israelites to the Arabs and all nations in between.And at that time your precious america didn't exist,therefore your rules didn't apply back then.

The Prophet's contemporaries (both enemies and friends) clearly accepted the Prophet's marriage to Aishah(RA) without any problem. We see the evidence for this by the lack of criticism against the marriage until modern times. However, a change in culture has caused the change in our times today.

Even today in the 21st century, the age of sexual consent is still quite low in many places. In Japan, people can legally have sex at age 13, and in Spain they can legally have sex at the age of 12 years old.A 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old woman may be a "pedophile" in the United States, but neither in China today, where the age of consent is 14, nor in the United States in the last century. Biology is a much better standard by which to determine these things, not the personal choice of human culture. In the U.S. during the last century, the age of consent was 10 years old. California was the first state to change the age of consent to 14, which it did in 1889. After California, other U.S. states joined in and raised the age of consent too.

So MRIH,stop using this as your only argument.Start speakin' like an adult.Or as the saying goes,act your age not your shoe size.

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

You should change your name from "Stupidwumbat" to "Stupidbladeofgrass".

OH,call him what you like.He still smarter than you.And how many times have you used this line?It's so ****in' old,I can see the RUST!!God!OIL IT UP A BIT!

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

MRIH,this is seriouly gettin' old.Every argument with you leads to this.

I know you are too illiterate to read.. So I'll explain it it to you. Your prophet of terror(may piss be upon him) ****ed a 9 year old girl. No amount of back-peddling, explaining, or BS changes this FACT! If you you like pedophilia, if you forgive him, or if you simply don't care then fine... but you can't change the facts!

And we keep explaining,yet you act deaf and dumb(well maybe it ain't an act,who knows?).

Keep on explaining away facts, it'll never work. You might as well explain why the sky is not really blue.

I'll try and explain and I hope you get it.

Yawn ....

As CW already said,christians in the past had no objection in marrying 9 year olds.And the only people alive today who still do it are your christian priests(well they don't marry them,but you get what they do).

So ****ing 9 year-olds is ok in islam. I don't doubt it for a minute... It's the religion of pedophilia.

The hilarity of the whole saga of Christians like you accusing the Prophet(Pbuh) of committing "child molestation" is that this contradicts the basic fact that a girl becomes a woman when she begins her menstruation cycle.

OK OK OK, ****ing 9 year olds is OK with you sick bunch of ****s... I don't care (it's ancient history anyway) but the fact still remains. And that fact is: Mohammed(may piss be upon him) ****ed a nine year old girl!

The significance of menstruation that anyone with the slightest familiarity with physiology will tell you is that it is a sign that the girl is being prepared to become a mother.

She was a bleeding nine year old, I hope ole' Mo didn't get his dick dirty!

Women reach puberty at different ages ranging from 8-12 years old depending on genetics, race and environment.

So, you say by age 12 all women are primed for their muslim master's to begin their life-long sexual abuse on them?

Women in warmer environments reach puberty at a much earlier age than those in cold environments.

Except when the weather's nice they can be deflowered by age 10?

Marriage at the early years of puberty was acceptable in 7th century Arabia as it was the social norm in all Semitic cultures from the Israelites to the Arabs and all nations in between.

I'm sure it was. The sheep were probably a bit nervous as well.

And at that time your precious america didn't exist,therefore your rules didn't apply back then.

WTF??? Ok, america didn't exist (it probably did, it was just inhabited by peaceful indians who ****ed their nine year old daughter-in-laws?????)

The Prophet's contemporaries (both enemies and friends) clearly accepted the Prophet's marriage to Aishah(RA) without any problem. We see the evidence for this by the lack of criticism against the marriage until modern times. However, a change in culture has caused the change in our times today.

Kind of like Stalins' contemporaries accepted the murder/assination of 10 million Russians political enemies? No one dared complain!

Even today in the 21st century, the age of sexual consent is still quite low in many places.

Nine year olds?

In Japan, people can legally have sex at age 13,

I'll take your word for because I don't care... Mohammed(may piss be upon him) ****ed a 9 year old, not a 13 year old.

and in Spain they can legally have sex at the age of 12 years old.

again not "9 years of age"

A 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old woman may be a "pedophile" in the United States, but neither in China today, where the age of consent is 14, nor in the United States in the last century. Biology is a much better standard by which to determine these things, not the personal choice of human culture. In the U.S. during the last century, the age of consent was 10 years old. California was the first state to change the age of consent to 14, which it did in 1889. After California, other U.S. states joined in and raised the age of consent too.

Maybe we oughta drop the age o' consent down to 9? Just to please you?

So MRIH,stop using this as your only argument.

This is hardlymy only argument, unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that I don't really care how perverted the prophet of death(may piss be upon him) was.

Start speakin' like an adult.Or as the saying goes,act your age not your shoe size.

Funny, my shoe size is "Nine". Am I ready for the prophet of pedophilia(may piss be upon him)?

 

[Crazywumbat]

If I am retarded then you are a plant... next time you get sick, go see a botanist!

errrr... because Mohammed(may piss be upon him) was a pedophile! (Why am I answering you? My bermuda is smarter than you!)

Oh, I guess this somehow makes the peodophile prophet a little less pedophilic! NOT!

LOL! "your knowledge" is such an oxymoron!

again I ask (and not you stupidwumbat because you aren't smart enough to answer with anything coherent) How does this make mohammed(may piss be upon him) any less of a pedophile?

pedophile prophet.

WHAT?????? ... Earth to retard! Reality calling.

Do you know anything about the Crusades? Obviously not! The crusades were started by the Saracens(muslims) invading the Byzantines(Christians)... Do you prefer Scotts 29/3/3 for greenness?

Firstly, Secondly, Firstly... I have never tried to teach a plant how to count by ordinal numbers before, but here goes "Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly"...

You should change your name from "Stupidwumbat" to "Stupidbladeofgrass".

It doesn't make him any less of a pedophile, but so many Christians have done the same thing and you turn a blind eye to them. What, its acceptable to rape children as long as they belong to the "true religion"??

Earth to fundamentalist, reality outside your Christian safe box calling.
You want some websites with research done to prove what I said? Fine.

http://www.harunyahya.com/32terrorism_middleeast_soc08.php

http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusades.htm (Yes, it was written by an athiest, so ****ing deal with it)


And so what, I mistyped and said firstly twice, atleast, unlike you, Im not above admitting that I make mistakes...And "stupidwumbat"? Wow....you're almost as clever as you are intelligent.

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

While members of all three religions were living in peace and harmony in Palestine, the Christians in Europe decided to organize the 'Crusades.'

Wow,see MRIH,since you're so hell bent on debating the past,how do you explain christians breakin' the peace?
We can all use the past in all our arguments too but that would make us sink to your level.Still answer the question about your peace breakin' brothers!

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

OH,call him what you like.He still smarter than you.And how many times have you used this line?It's so ****in' old,I can see the RUST!!God!OIL IT UP A BIT!

CrazyWumbat,can you believe MRIH gave me bad rep just for sayin' this?And he wrote in a little message,''Him agreeing with you,does not make him smater''.LOL MRIH,CrazyWumbat hates my religion too,he just happens to hate yours ever so slightly more.

 

[Mr X]

BBC. Sunday 24 July, A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was a Brazilian electrician unconnected to the incidents.

The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27. Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks and added: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."



My cousin was a victim of government's mistakes


Now I wonder how many innocent people are in jail..dead because of a mistake! Wakeup BLAIR

Ms. ArabChick

Yeah I saw that on the news....I just want to know,why was he running for?
...the guy is in the middle of crowded london for crying out loud.

 

[hugo]

Yeah I saw that on the news....I just want to know,why was he running for?
...the guy is in the middle of crowded london for crying out loud.

He thought the police were playing tag. Good thing he ain't no longer in the gene pool.

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

Latest news shows that the metropolitan police withheld information about what really happened.Someone leaked the documents to the ITV NEWS.
The brazilian guy was just a normal citizen on his way to work.He didn't jump over the ticket barrier.Hell,he even picked up a free newspaper.
And once he was in the train,he was restrained in a chair by one officer.Then the other officer shot him,mercilessly and dragged him to the floor,were he unloaded 8 bullets in the guy.3 others missed.
I think that answers your questions.The first information given to the public was full of lies.

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Latest news shows that the metropolitan police withheld information about what really happened.Someone leaked the documents to the ITV NEWS.
The brazilian guy was just a normal citizen on his way to work.He didn't jump over the ticket barrier.Hell,he even picked up a free newspaper.
And once he was in the train,he was restrained in a chair by one officer.Then the other officer shot him,mercilessly and dragged him to the floor,were he unloaded 8 bullets in the guy.3 others missed.
I think that answers your questions.The first information given to the public was full of lies.

What's your source AIG... (let me guess. "AL Jazeera")

 

[snafu]

What's your source AIG... (let me guess. "AL Jazeera")

You read my mind

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

No,you stupid leftovers from a diarrhoea sufferer.
ITV NEWS,CHANNEL 4 NEWS,BRITISH ****IN' NEWS.Your media is so behind!

Met chief accused over Tube killing


The cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes has accused Scotland Yard chief Sir Ian Blair of telling "lies" and demanded he resign for allowing his family to "suffer" since his death.

As Brazilian government officials prepared to travel to London to meet the inquiry team, Alessandro Pereira claimed Mr de Menezes had been "murdered" by police and said those responsible must face prosecution.

Asad Rehman, from the Justice4Jean campaign, added that Sir Ian's integrity had been called into question by the affair and claimed he was "no longer capable" of being responsible for his force.

But Sir Ian, who has rejected the resignation calls, instead turned attention back to the investigation into the London bombings by speaking of a possible link between the July 7 and July 21 attacks.

He revealed that senior officers now believed that the two terror cells that targeted the capital could have been using the same training instructions.

But there was only anger from the de Menezes family at the end of a week which has seen a string of new revelations about the police operation that led to the death of the Brazilian electrician.

Documents leaked to ITV News cast doubt on much of what was previously believed about his shooting and highlighted what his supporters claimed were a "catalogue of disasters".

Delivering an emotional statement on the family's reaction to the week's events, Mr Pereira said: "I want Ian Blair to imagine how we felt having to listen to the lies about Jean - to see Ian Blair on television telling those lies.

"The police knew Jean was innocent. Yet they let my family suffer. Ian Blair let us suffer. For three weeks we have had to listen to lie after lie about Jean and how he was killed.

"The police even went to Brazil. They met my family. Yet they still didn't tell us the truth. Did they think because we are poor Brazilians we do not deserve the truth. If that was Ian Blair's son would he not want the truth ?"

 

[hugo]

The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes E-mail this
Print this
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Iraq, 24 July 2005

The prevailing "split-second decision" thesis, which has dominated UK press reaction, might be more reasonable if the police had received serious, credible information that de Menezes was a suicide bomber a short time before and really believed they were in hot pursuit of him on his way to carry out an attack. But the claim that the police officers only had a split second to act is contradicted by what is already known. The Observer reported on 24 July that de Menezes' "address in Tulse Hill was identified from materials found inside the bombers' unexploded rucksacks on Thursday and was immediately put under surveillance. When Menezes, dressed in baseball cap, blue fleece and baggy trousers, emerged from it at around 10am on Friday, he was followed. When he headed for the nearby tube station, officers decided to arrest him. An armed unit took over, ordering him to stop. He did not. His unseasonally thick jacket apparently prompted concern that he had explosives strapped beneath."

What is already known, therefore, is that almost 24 hours before they saw de Menezes emerge from his house, police had put it under surveillance based on information they found at the scene of one of the attempted bombings at lunchtime the day before. If the overriding goal of the police is to prevent further attacks, why did they not raid the house right away? They might have discovered sooner what they found out too late -- that de Menezes was totally uninvolved in any terrorist plot. The police clearly had more than a "split-second" to act and they need to explain why they did not act.

Yet, something made the police suspicious between the time de Menezes left his home on Friday morning and the time he ran from an armed squad drawing their guns on him. What was it? Surely de Menezes can't have been the only Londoner to leave his house on Friday morning heading for a Tube stop. We are told that it was his fleece jacket that was "unseasonably thick." Here in Chicago, a thick jacket in July would almost surely be unseasonable, although I often take one out at this time of year because I find the airconditioning in most buildings excessive. But in London? I have frozen through many northern European summers in my life, but perhaps the weather has been hot lately. So far as we have been told, all previous bomb attempts in London, like those in Madrid, were carried out with rucksacks, not suicide belts. Did the police have any reason other than de Menezes' appearance that morning to suspect a change in tactics? Had they searched his house when they had the chance, they might have satisfied themselves that he owned a fleece, but no explosives, without needing to kill him.

From all accounts I have read, including this one which is highly sympathetic to the victim, Jean did run from the police. It does semm like the house should have been searched before.

 

[builder]

Latest news shows that the metropolitan police withheld information about what really happened.Someone leaked the documents to the ITV NEWS.
The brazilian guy was just a normal citizen on his way to work.He didn't jump over the ticket barrier.Hell,he even picked up a free newspaper.
And once he was in the train,he was restrained in a chair by one officer.Then the other officer shot him,mercilessly and dragged him to the floor,were he unloaded 8 bullets in the guy.3 others missed.
I think that answers your questions.The first information given to the public was full of lies.

I'll back you on that one. The Brazilian gov is considering a law suit to protect their other citizens in pomgolia.

 

[eisanbt]

Her source is simply the News, I heard the same reports form CTV and CBC news. The Brits were lying to us and they got found out.

 

[builder]

Her source is simply the News, I heard the same reports form CTV and CBC news. The Brits were lying to us and they got found out.

Oh, so it's not just the US gov who lie their arses off to save face? How surprising.

 

[Mr X]

Latest news shows that the metropolitan police withheld information about what really happened.Someone leaked the documents to the ITV NEWS.
The brazilian guy was just a normal citizen on his way to work.He didn't jump over the ticket barrier.Hell,he even picked up a free newspaper.
And once he was in the train,he was restrained in a chair by one officer.Then the other officer shot him,mercilessly and dragged him to the floor,were he unloaded 8 bullets in the guy.3 others missed.
I think that answers your questions.The first information given to the public was full of lies.

hmmm AIG...so what your saying is this"normal citizen" was picked at random by scotland yard...chased..wait..tailed..then they shot the dude 8 times for kicks?.Hmmm thats weird..jeez