alspals's Profile

31 Jul 2005

Quote by x-man0223
why dont you all go out for a drink just the three of you and during the night bring it up in conversation about the 3rd male and to say that(even tho you proberly enjoyed it) that you was not sure that it felt 100% that night or somthing along those lines this will then give his wife a chance to say what she needs to say and then the hubby will know
i know that i havent been in that situation ever or yours but it is worth a shot before it all gets ruined for you

..sound idea Xman...at least that way if it goes tits up I can say it was my fault!

View Post

31 Jul 2005

..wondering whether any other members have experienced or can offer some advice for a strange situation I find myself in..for the past couple of years I've been meeting a nice couple and enjoyed some mutually stimulating times with them. In recent months, our meets have become more adventurous and on the last occasion involved a 3rd male..great time was had by all..or so I assumed until I got a phone call from the fem who said that she was terribly unhappy about the way things were developing.
She's quite happy 'vanilla' swinging but prefers an exclusive relationship with one other male or bi-fem. Hubby is a really nice guy, but obviously isn't hearing the discrete signals she's been giving him. She's a naturally submissive girl and doesn't have the confidence to bring this up with hub as she doesn't want to upset him...but she feels that things are only going to get more lary and uncontrollable, from her point of view. She hasn't asked me to say anything, but I keep feeling that I could talk to him and maybe bring into the conversation reference to how she's feeling without letting on that I've spoken to her. They really are a fab couple and I'm sure that hubby would be mortified if he felt his wife was getting involved in stuff she wasn't totally happy with.
The dilemma I have is whether to open my big gob and risk our good friendship, but hopefully help them move forward or say nothing and just hope that they manage to sort things out between them..any suggestions would be appreciated. biggrin

View Post

30 Jul 2005

Quote by chocmadam
...........are there ANY white males who like to swing with black females on this site?
I can count the ones i've seen on this site and still have many fingers left! :cry:

..iz it cos I is black?! :cry: :cry: :cry:
rotflmao

View Post

29 Jul 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
scandal? postie? wishy? bang on IMO!
i'm sick and bloody tired of hearing about muslim terrorists. i'm sick of hearing about extremist nutters killing innocent people. i'm sick of hearing there is no justification whatsoever for such attrocities, and how it's just SOOOOO disgusting they could suggest we might possibly be responsible for any of it?.
i apologise profusely to anyone affected by the london bombings, cos you'll prolly hate me, but i used to live about 6 doors down from one of the bombers in Colwyn Road, so it's a tad close to home for me too in that respect!
we, in the west, have declared war on afghanistan and iraq, for our own ends. we variously declared that this has everything to do with WMDs, has everything to do with a clear and present danger, has everything to do with liberating the oppressed people of the world. what absolute shite! whatever the pretext, we in the west went to war on at least 2 countries without good cause ((( plus others caught up in the whole sorry mess! )))
those who are on the other side of this war do not have reconnaissance satellites, aircraft carriers, fighter bombers, tanks, and what have you, nor do they have the luxury of designating a particular area of operations where they can bring overwhelming firepower to bear!?
what they do have is . . . RPG's, AK-47s, and suicide bombers? and as far as i know, hitting the supply lines, at their source, and reducing the will of those people to fight a war, have always been perfectly reasonable tactics? dresden? hiroshima? "shock and awe" bombings? terror tactics in every sense of the word?
if we finally have innocent dead in this country, well that's the nature of war? a war we instigated, a war that we have declared is a "global" conflict? well a global conflict includes the UK too? no surprise they hit US where it hurts is it, and we too have casualties?
i have nothing but sympathy for the dead in london, but the hypocrisy of those who pretend to hold the moral high ground while they prosecute the "War on terror" absolutely makes my blood boil!
n x x x

The above would have made sense if the suicide bombers had been Iraqis. But they weren't, so you'll forgive me for being a tad skeptical about their motives. Iraq may be their excuse, but it isn't their reason.
..and equally a raid on Iraq on the basis of a 'universal' war on terrorism as claimed by Bush, would have had some legitimacy had the Iraqi's carried out 9/11 or other terrorist atrocities in the West or been found in possession of WMD's.
Nice bit of selective quoting there.
I don't think anyone has directly implicated Iraq in 9/11 have they? But I take your point about the WMD. I think that was just an excuse too. Still doesn't justify deliberately taking out civilians.
..apologises for quoting you selectively, I didnt change the intonation of what you were saying.
Bush may not have actually made reference to Iraqi's being involved in 9/11, but what it did do was give him an opportunity to wage war on 'terror' in whatever guise he wished to define it. His thinking was 'Saddam had WMD therefore HE (not his country) was a legitimate target'. This flawed logic didn't anticipate the thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq, even after Saddam was deposed and consequentley a maelstrom of anti western feeling in that country. As Bush hijacked the West's universal abhorrence of 9/11 to justify a war on Iraq, the 'Moslem' terrorists who instigated 7/7 have done exactly the same thing with the US and British invasion of Iraq, even though they were not indigenous Iraqi's and the argument had little to do with them...finally, as you quite rightly say, neither justifies deliberately taking out civilians.

View Post

29 Jul 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
scandal? postie? wishy? bang on IMO!
i'm sick and bloody tired of hearing about muslim terrorists. i'm sick of hearing about extremist nutters killing innocent people. i'm sick of hearing there is no justification whatsoever for such attrocities, and how it's just SOOOOO disgusting they could suggest we might possibly be responsible for any of it?.
i apologise profusely to anyone affected by the london bombings, cos you'll prolly hate me, but i used to live about 6 doors down from one of the bombers in Colwyn Road, so it's a tad close to home for me too in that respect!
we, in the west, have declared war on afghanistan and iraq, for our own ends. we variously declared that this has everything to do with WMDs, has everything to do with a clear and present danger, has everything to do with liberating the oppressed people of the world. what absolute shite! whatever the pretext, we in the west went to war on at least 2 countries without good cause ((( plus others caught up in the whole sorry mess! )))
those who are on the other side of this war do not have reconnaissance satellites, aircraft carriers, fighter bombers, tanks, and what have you, nor do they have the luxury of designating a particular area of operations where they can bring overwhelming firepower to bear!?
what they do have is . . . RPG's, AK-47s, and suicide bombers? and as far as i know, hitting the supply lines, at their source, and reducing the will of those people to fight a war, have always been perfectly reasonable tactics? dresden? hiroshima? "shock and awe" bombings? terror tactics in every sense of the word?
if we finally have innocent dead in this country, well that's the nature of war? a war we instigated, a war that we have declared is a "global" conflict? well a global conflict includes the UK too? no surprise they hit US where it hurts is it, and we too have casualties?
i have nothing but sympathy for the dead in london, but the hypocrisy of those who pretend to hold the moral high ground while they prosecute the "War on terror" absolutely makes my blood boil!
n x x x

View Post

28 Jul 2005

..sluttiest thing I've ever done??
A ripe melon
...jeez I had that kinky fruit dripping when I'd fiinished...I'm sure I heard it ask for a post coital cigarette!!
rotflmao

View Post

28 Jul 2005

...on a (nearly) empty National Express coach!

View Post

25 Jul 2005

Quote by jay33
Basically gf told me the other day that she had been seeing sum1 behind my back for two weeks. The met at work n have only been out in groups off people, but they have started pulling and now reall fancy eachother. She says she still loves me but is really attracted to him. So far ive tryin to give her space to think about wot she wants but she dusnt know.. She wants to meet him to see if she really does like him or if she is just curious..
Ne1 got ne advice etc?

..sad to hear that Jay. You don't say much in your post about the history with your girlfriend or your domestic situation. I guess if your young, and live independently of each other and don't have kids it's probably easier to call it a draw and go your separate ways. If you're a bit more established then some diplomacy is required..you're probably feeling bloody angry, but now is the time to take a deep breath and try to have some sensible dialogue with her..why she did it? how she sees her future etc? Just keep reinforcing to her what a nice guy you are (by your actions, as well as your words) and hopefully she will come round. Something else you don't say is whether you're jointly involved in the swinging lifestyle or has she become suspicious of you playing alone?? confused

Good luck mate biggrin

View Post

24 Jul 2005

M I S T E R
B O O M B A S T I C :bounce: rotflmao

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Couple of other points to counter some viewpoints:
The gentleman was very aware of the situation in London. He was even considering buying a motorcycle to avoid using the tube (see the BBC news sites). Not the actions of someone who does not understand the risks of the tube. This puts it back into the realms of Heathrow in my mind. I would be damn careful, and poeple with guns going after 'me' are likely to be Police. After all I would expect it, terrorists would be shooting everyone.

so what is the point you're making? That he did have something to hide? If he was a law abiding, legally resident person then his reasons for running can only have been because he felt frightened, unsafe and paniced..bit of a sad reason to die, if that was the case.

Back to heathrow, bet all the security is not visible. After all it makes them easier to avoid. I have been stopped in Kingston highstreet by plain clothed officers, you dont argue. I have also walked into an armed officer in my front garden, I was challenged but not shot, I did what I was told. (BTW that was someone in the next estate that threatened his family while drunk, my house just had a good view of his)

..the point I was making earlier was that a someone running through a airport concourse would have a higher expectation of being challenged fatally by the police than someone going about their lawful business on the streets of London.

I understand that there are reasons the poor man may have run. I do not think at the end of the day that his motivations mattered. The viewpoint of the Police is what matters, from their point of view this man ran into a train of innocent people after being challenged. It could not look worse from their perspective.

..think we agree here. The police no doubt thought he represented a threat...seems stupid to just go around shooting people for the hell of it...but it still needs to be investigated and not swept under the carpet or on the other hand become a witch hunt of police officers

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by deancannock
if there is a shoot to kill policy I for one support it. If the police have reason to belive you are going to kill any number of innocent people catching a bus or riding the tube....Then i for one am glad the police are willing to protect us.
Each day they put there lives at risk for us..its time we start supporting them.

..I don't think many of us are not supportive of the police..but that should not extend to having blind faith. The vast majority do a sterling job..but they have a responsibility to account for their actions when things go wrong...just like anyone in any other occupation.

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by goodtimez
How do you get a man to cook dinner everyday for 2 weeks without whinging??
Easy - Just buy him a gas barbeque!!
Sunday evening, it's freezing, raining and wind blowing buy my hubby is in the kitchen, happily putting "stuff" on skewers. Ready for a 2 min break in the rain, whip out the barbeque.
Can someone tell me why it is such a masculine thing? cos of course a woman couldn't possibly be capable of handling a barbeque. Is there a woman on this site that does the barbeque and the hubby doesn't interfere? Or possibly any woman in the country?
If anyone at Nottingham Munch would like any hints or tips on barbequing please see Mr Goodtimez, he will be available to answer all questions between 8-9 pm

Ps..does putting 'stuff on skewers', whipping out his barbecue and having a woman handle your barbecue have a kinky hidden meaning??! redface

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by goodtimez
How do you get a man to cook dinner everyday for 2 weeks without whinging??
Easy - Just buy him a gas barbeque!!
Sunday evening, it's freezing, raining and wind blowing buy my hubby is in the kitchen, happily putting "stuff" on skewers. Ready for a 2 min break in the rain, whip out the barbeque.
Can someone tell me why it is such a masculine thing? cos of course a woman couldn't possibly be capable of handling a barbeque. Is there a woman on this site that does the barbeque and the hubby doesn't interfere? Or possibly any woman in the country?
If anyone at Nottingham Munch would like any hints or tips on barbequing please see Mr Goodtimez, he will be available to answer all questions between 8-9 pm

pmsl..don't buy him a George Foreman grill....he'll be doing it indoors too!! lol

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by welshBIcouple
However, I do believe some of the things I wrote, and when I use the term "bleeding heart liberals" I DO NOT mean the ones who stopped kids up chimneys, or started the welfare state etc etc. But more the PC brigade who seem to be headed up by Cherie Blaire and her ilk (Expect some lawsuit soon)
Once again sorry , and will stop there
SORRY !!!!!!

..no worries Welshcouple...Wales is probably the safest place to be right now!

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by KitKat
We should not assume that the man who was shot was innocent, just because he was not carrying a bomb. There are many other things that he could have been guilty of that would make him run from police.
We should not assume that just because he ran, he was guilty of something, or stupid. There are many reasons why he could have run, it may have been his environment when he grew up that made him assume that a police officer with a gun would shoot first and ask questions later. His running may have been a conditioned response in him, triggered by the tension of the hightened security state.
On the other hand, he may just have been deaf and late for an appointment.
As for the police officer. In this country, one of the ways we express our freedom is through lack of indeminity that police officers/service personnel/other armed security personnel have in these circumstances. The incident will be investigated and if the officers informed are found criminally culpable, they will be charged. That is the price we expect our security forces to pay when they take up a gun as part of their duties.
All those involved, those connected to the victim, and those connected to the police officers involved will now have to face the consequences, legal, emotional, professional, political of these events.
There is only one thing that is I am sure is 100% wrong - that is making a moral decision about the shooting based on the sketchy evidence that is available.
lhk
Kat

...couldn't agree more smile

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by welshBIcouple
At the end of the day, it looks like the cop in question truly believed that there was a risk to the general public.
I am sure there are going to be plenty of things written about what was said, what was not said, what witnesses heard, what they were dressed like (the cops and the victim) etc etc etc.
BUT, and I really do believe this, the Cops that were chasing this man must have TRULY BELIEVED that there was a risk to the general public - and actually when you think about it, the cops are putting their own life in danger - chasing a man who could also kill them - and he is doing this because he is trying to protect us all.
HE IS RISKING HIS LIFE TO PROTECT EVERY OTHER INNOCENT PERSON AROUND HIM !!!!
Now a few points on this:
1. It takes a special, brave person to put their life on the line for others. Our armed forces (and also now our home security forces) do this every day when on the job.
2. Do you really think if the copper had an INLKING of doubt that this man was not a SERIOUS threat (based on any information he had been given in his earpiece) that he would still have shot the guy - knowing full well the full weight of the "bleeding heart liberals" would come down squarely on his shoulders - He would have to be a pathological idiot to shoot someone who he thought was innocent.
3. The guy ran !! Pure and simple, he has been in this country for 3 years, and i assume also for the last few weeks, so knew exactly how "tense" it all is in the capital at the moment. - EVEN if as some people have said, they guy thought he was running from 3 (or more) whilte men intent on giving him a kicking for being a muslim, I am sure that security etc would have been on the scene faster that you could say BOO. He should have dropped to the ground and spread his arms !!
I am sorry that this has gone on for so long, and I promise to finish once I have made two more points
1. The guy should NEVER be charged with anything, in fact he should probably be given an award or something. Also, he should receive all the councelling etc he needs to make sure this unfortunate event does not ruin the rest of his life.
2a. The bleeding heart liberals that seem to be *unfortunately* running this country should f**k off, if you use the tube on a regular basis (I don't anymore, but have done up until 2 years ago) - I have a lot of friends in and around london that still do, and it scares the sh*t out of me on a daily basis !!
2b. Still on the bleeding heart liberals, sorry, including the one I have read on this thread, WE ARE IN A WAR, America has been since Sept 11, and this atrocious attack was before afghanistan and iraq was invaded.
I have so much more to say now, but am not going to because I could go on forever. There is so much tangled up in this, but above all else, and my last statement is
THE COP THOUGHT THERE WAS A RISK TO PEOPLES LIVES - AND DEALT WITH IT - END OF

..what is a 'bleeding heart liberal'? Presumably you're talking about the people who campaigned to stop children being shoved up chimneys, got women the vote, improved wages and working conditions for the vast majority of British people, created the welfare state, comprehensive education and health services for everybody...
..before you accuse me of being a bleeding heart liberal..I work in law enforcement myself and have a very tough stance about criminality and punishment. I have also seen how the power given to people in authority can be quite intoxicating, so you continually have to be checking your actions.
Personally I don't think the officer involved will be too concerned about the outcome of any inquiry (I'm not talking about a criminal one neccesarily), as it will probably be proved he acted in good faith..but that shouldn't mean that a transparent inquiry is not carried out because: 'he had a tough call to make', 'we are at war', 'people should know that these are difficult times', 'if you're innocent and run, you should expect a bullet in the head'! In fact any debrief will take account of all these factors before any action is taken.
At times like this high standards should apply, because once folks (of whatever race, religion, background) lose faith in the criminal justice system, they start to take the law into their own hands..usually with terrible consequences..we can see it happening the world over.
What I don't want to see is a situation such as in the Caribbean where the first response is to 'shoot first'..ask questions later, with apparently little responsibility for explaining actions later. This has led to a proliferation of gun toting criminals, who carry guns because they believe 'untouchable' policemen are legitimate targets.
It's a sad place we live in when a police officer, even one acting with the best intentions, can shoot someone and it's something that people think can just be swept under the carpet, without there being a proper investigation as to what actually happened.

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by tallnhairy
I do feel terribly sorry for this man, his family and the policeman involved as he had no way of knowing this man was innocent, that's why a shoot to kill policy has to be backed up by cast iron surveillance and intelligence.

I am sorry this man was shot, but he was shot for the obvious reason that he was a threat. If you run into heathrow, charge through a secure area in a bulky jacket, and head for a crowd of people you will get shot. Try the same thing in most countries and you will get shot.
OK it is unusual in the UK to get shot by the Police for simply running away, but this man did a lot more than run away. It was where he ran than got him into trouble. If he was innocent then the people who are to blame are the terrorists. They made the enviroment that made him seem a risk, and in the end they got him killed.
You miss the point I was trying to make in my post Tallnhairy. I was not seeking to blame the police, I was trying to offer reasons why this guy ran away. A situation of running away in Heathrow airport would be totally different. There the police are highly visible, they wear clear & distinctive uniforms and therefore are easily identifiable as law enforcement officers. Here the situation is quite different. The dead guy was followed on the streets, where he wouldnt expect to be engaged by armed policemen. Maybe he was aware he was being followed and was spooked by it? If he was what was going through his mind at the time? At what point did the officers identify themselves to him as armed policemen? I say again, I'm not making excuses for terrorists or crticising the police..but as I said in my original post on this thread (before it was established that this guy was an innocent victim), it is important that there is a proper investigation of any shooting of civilians by police officers so we all know that things were dealt with properly.
As to the guy wearing a bulky coat..should it be made illegal for people to wear coats in summer? I heard a Brazilian journalist on the Beeb this morning saying that it's quite normal for Brazilians to wear coats over here in summer because they think it's bloody cold..as simple as that!!

View Post

24 Jul 2005

Quote by BigBoi
Thats the first thing you DON'T do. Where is the logic in running away from 3 armed policemen? It's London. It's not like it's an anarchistic society where the people rule themselves. We have police and they do their job well. You don't run from them. Even if he was caught - he was innocent (apparently) so he had nothing to hide. You don't run when you're innocent. Never

...he's innocent
...he's apparently lived in the uk legally for three years..
...he has a job
..he's chased through London streets by a load of young blokes in casual clothing
why did he run?
..he was a foreigner, ..maybe his English wasn't so good
..maybe he didnt want to get caught with a pocketful of weed
..maybe he had mental health problems
..maybe he thought his pursuers were anti muslim, who had mistaken him for one and he was going to be on the end of a serious kicking..(this has already happened to my mixed race son, who has no connection with Asian communities, religion or extremist views in anyway, his colouring just makes him look Asian)
..maybe it was simple panic
I do feel terribly sorry for this man, his family and the policeman involved as he had no way of knowing this man was innocent, that's why a shoot to kill policy has to be backed up by cast iron surveillance and intelligence.

View Post

22 Jul 2005

Quote by Sexysteph
I really feel for the Officer - He will be the one having to face the interogations by colleagues for all the fecking Do-Gooders God they make my blood boil

...I echo that Steph...well done to the Bobby involved, hopefully he saved a lot of lives this morning by sacrificing one.
It is though right & proper that there is a 'cold light of day' inquiry into the shooting, so we all know that things were done properly. What none of us I want is the development of a trigger happy police force who feel justified in using weapons indiscriminately against anyone in the future.

View Post

22 Jul 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
but we have to put up with a little pain to live in a truly democratic society!

If I invite people to my house and some people are boring the arse off me, I might ask them to go to another room. That's because my house is not a democracy.
And neither is this website.
As I've said before, posting on someone else's website is a privilege not a right, and frankly it's a privilege that is becoming more and more abused by some incredibly selfish people.
..wow Ice, got the bit between your teeth today rotflmao

..if I invite someone to my house I do so in the knowledge that there is a chance they or their unknown partner/offspring might bore me to death or do something offensive..if it were just that they were boring I wouldn't be so rude as to ask them to go to another room!! Maybe lock them in the dungeon or piss in their dinner might be appropriate, but I certainly wouldn't ask them back again!
Unlike my own domain, boring posts (I think we're talking boring, rather than offensive here??) on a website, can just be ignored until they slip off the front page and die a miserable, slow death..it's not like boring posters are putting their feet up in your living room! rotflmao

View Post

22 Jul 2005

Quote by blonde
You are Ops or Mods to enforce the site rules.......... not your own !!!

That's a killer argument with which I completely agree. I don't want the mods to presume to disallow anything that isn't already disallowed by the AUP, but I do think they should have the means to exercise some judgement over what's likely to irritate people pointlessly and put it somewhere where we can enter at our own risk. wink

But what gives anyone the right to decide what is likely to irritate people pointlessly !!!
We decide ourselves by not answering............ the thread moves down the page until it hits page 2 !!!
I dont want to be on a nanny site !!! Do u really ?
Hey, she's good in't she??!! Well said Blonde...I too agree that the boring threads are extremely tedious and have a lot of sympathy for Sarge's comment...but we have to put up with a little pain to live in a truly democratic society! biggrin

View Post

15 Jul 2005

Quote by Chief moo
hi ppl,
I'm a newbie to these forums and i would like to get into this 'Doggyswinging' lark that you all do.
Been told that the best way to get involved with ladie's,men, couple's is too say a little about me....................
.........but i'm finding it hard to put into word's about myself (which i hope wont effect my chance's ) and my life.
so to find out about me click this link below

It was rather handy that some body put my life on the web.

W O W :upset:

View Post

13 Jul 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
I say things on here I wouldn't dare say if I were a mod, so it's not quite as one-sided as we sometimes imagine.

..at the end of the day, it's all about doing so with decorum, good manners and respect for ones fellow man..
eg..would you mind awfully, putting on a condom ol'boy? rotflmao

:angel:

View Post

13 Jul 2005

..have to say I agree with much of what you say Saxon. The Mods undoubtedly in the main do a great job, but occasionally do overstep the mark imo, particularly with sections of our community who need the encouragement and empathy most...newbies. It has often appeared to me that some Mods feel that 'newbies' need to be 'blooded' in some way..like new recruits in the military and then get defensive when they receive criticism for doing it.
Personally, it's disappointing seeing Mods reply to criticism by using phrases like 'that's my opinion/decision, like it or lump it'..comments like that usually proliferate in far less free thinking regimes than the alternative lifestyle we try to enjoy...isn't that why we're here?... because we don't want to conform to the rigid boundaries of conventional society..so being a newbie, you would logically expect a fair, sympathetic hearing to whatever it is you have to say...or any criticism to be free from overt sarcasm and/or aggressive language. The qualities that make a good Moderator are probably similar to those that make a good teacher...sensitivity, fairness and a firm hand when needed! :jagsatwork: smackbottom

View Post

13 Jul 2005

Quote by Wishmaster
This is a very informative web page that details how HIV is transmitted. Learned a few things myself there!!! :shock:

...that's a fantastic link..well spotted. It should be required reading for all of us engaged in this lifestyle :shock:

View Post

8 Jul 2005

Quote by longhandle8

..as you point out, the necklace quote is not attributable to Nelson Mandela..it was spoken by Winnie, his ex wife who had her own agenda and was soon ostracised by Mandela and his polictical organisations. Although it is difficult to justify any kind of terrorism which has a murderous objective..I think it is useful to remember the post war political situation in South Africa and the lack of democracy & opportunities that existed for its indigenous population.

You're right, change was needed.
But t's how change anywhere is achieved that troubles me. I don't believe the end justifies the means.
..I have to agree Jen and try to live my life with that motivation. But there have been many times in history though, where the act of terrorists has justified the means (in the eyes of the terrorist)..the latest example being the train bombing in Madrid which very quickly resulted in a change of government..and the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq..the previous government had been one of the few loyal supporters of Blair & Bush.
Guess thats an option if you want to be dictated to by terrorists but doesn't help the rest of the world who are trying to build global co-operation against such acts. In the end, we can only hope that global pressure will eventually force such extremists to refrain. In the meantime, lets hope our tolerance can rise above the provocation from some who have nothing but contempt for the country that provides for them and the people they live with !
..hope you don't think I'm supporting terrorism Longhandle...I was simply pointing out how, in the eyes of a terrorist, they can see their actions justifying the means..the Madrid bombing being a case in point.

View Post

8 Jul 2005

Quote by PoloLady
.... in a now, 'democratic' South Africa..as bad as things appear to be, at least everyone has a legal right to vote

and get shot, tortured or have their house dulldozed if they vote/could have voted the wrong way!
Yes I did mean the conventional DIY lol

... I was actually referring to the Republic of South Africa, rather than Southern Africa, which would include Zimbabwe where the 'relocation' atrocities are happening smile

View Post

8 Jul 2005

Quote by Libra+Love

..as you point out, the necklace quote is not attributable to Nelson Mandela..it was spoken by Winnie, his ex wife who had her own agenda and was soon ostracised by Mandela and his polictical organisations. Although it is difficult to justify any kind of terrorism which has a murderous objective..I think it is useful to remember the post war political situation in South Africa and the lack of democracy & opportunities that existed for its indigenous population.

View Post

8 Jul 2005

Quote by PoloLady
Define soon? How many years before that happened?
OK the guy took a better route in the end.
Although it is difficult to justify any kind of terrorism which has a murderous objective..I think it is useful to remember the post war political situation in South Africa and the lack of democracy & opportunities that existed for its indigenous population.

It's not quite honky dorie at the minute is it?
Of course the Great British Empire had no part to play in the current situation. Bringing tribes together, forming new regions and countries and then in the decline of the Empire - handing back what wasn't theirs and letting the tribal groups fight it out amongst themselves.
Without spending all day on this (I still have DIY to do) we should take some of the responsibility for helping to get it right and as I have said before sort out the people like Mugabe.
..from memory, I guess Nelson had split up from Winnie within a year of being released from prison..so he wasn't exactly dragging his feet.
Regards your second point...I totally agree..can't see what I said that brought about your comment. I'm certainly not saying that terrorism is in anyway justified in a now, 'democratic' South Africa..as bad as things appear to be, at least everyone has a legal right to vote, whereas they didnt before the end of apartheid and therefore perhaps felt morally justified in engaging in terrorist activities.
Hope you have a successful DIY day...and I trust you mean DIY in the conventional sense? :shock: lol

View Post

8 Jul 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
My point being is that some people on here are praising the US for helping us during the war thus giving us freedom.. My point is this is a country that even their own citizens had to fight for freedom. Have you got it now ice pie.
Anyway off to work now

I fail to see how America's civil rights record invalidates its role in WW2. They are two completely different issues aren't they? dunno

Have a safe day at work. I'm putting my feet up today, and after yesterday, I need it. confused

...nonetheless, it's ironic that a country that trumpeted and continues to do so, it's commitment to freedom and equal opportunities globally, had such an appalling record in its own backyard...whilst it was fighting world wars. During WW II, even blood supplies for their injured servicemen were segrated ffs...black men were good enough to die for their country..but didnt have equal rights at home or on the battlefield!

View Post

Forum