Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/2/08 06:50 PM, jimbobster wrote: If they thought he might be a prime target, why did they even bother sending him there?

Because if no-one knows that he's there then he can't be a prime target - hence the need for a press blackout.

On another note, what's wrong with you people who are saying you'd like to see him (Harry) killed? If you want to see someone who was serving his country dead for no good reason then there is something quite blatantly fucked up about you.

(Again, I apologise for resorting to swearing to get my point across, but it's hard to convey genuine anger on a forum)

At 2/29/08 02:45 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: As I don't see the point of a Royal Family/Think that most English higher-uppers are more full of themselves than Haggis, I wouldn't really be fussed if he was killed.

Hang on, so you're saying that because you personaly don't agree with the idea of a Royal Family (who, just incase you decide to take the ¨they cost the taxpayer¨ arguement, cost the taxpayer less than £1 per person per year), and/or you choose to stereotype a group of people, you think it's fine for a person who is trying to serve his country to be killed?

I usually try not to resort to insults and the like, but in this case I feel obliged to inform you that you are a cunt.

With the news that Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan for 10 weeks, under a press blackout (BBC), which is obviously for his safety, as a successful attack on him would be a great boost to insurgent morale, making him, as he has been dubbed, a ¨bullet-magnet¨.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one (or at least I hope so) that's outraged by his exposure. Nothing has productive has been gained by alerting the world to his deployment. As a result the MoD has decided to pull him off the front line, which is something that he wanted to avoid.

This is essentially a rant about the people who found it necessary to tell the world of his deployment - I've never liked the paparazzi culture we live in, but in this case I can't see any way that they can try to justify it: he has not ¨chosen to be in the public eye¨ - he was born a Royal, it is not something that he has chosen to be, and as I've mentioned, the press blackout was for his, and his comrades', safety, something which has clearly been compromised dramatically.

I'm curious as to whether anyone here thinks that his deployment should have been publicised.

I can see no reason why they should not have nuclear technology, especially if they only use it for power (as in electrical power, not political).

It's simply unfair that powerful western countries are allowed it whilst eastern countries are denied it as they may be a threat to said western countries. The west has been and is a bigger threat to the east than vice versa.

There have been two posts so far (i think) saying that the eastern countries in question are wrong or even "evil"; is it fine to say this and then critisise them for calling us evil?

At 7/11/06 06:46 AM, DearonElensar wrote: They should embrass file sharing and support it, i know there are albums i brought because i could listen to them for a while which i wouldn't have bought i've i only could listen to a 30 sec preview or something.
The problem with the RIAA is that they try to scare people, and get people to stop sharing with force.
But they should work togheter with the "scene", explain to the people why it hurts the finicial side, and go into discussion with people on the subject (and then i mean people like us).
But trying to scare people away never worked, and putting a better protection on it won't work either since people will just be more driven to break the protection.

Exactly.

For example in England a while ago some kid's parents got fined £3,000 (give or take) because he was downloading loads of copyrighted stuff which is completely unfair as they're making a scapegoat of one kid and punishing his parents who almost certainly didn't know about it.

At 6/16/06 10:27 AM, sdhonda wrote: "An eye for an eye and the world will be blind"-Ghandi

excelent quote

its hard to believe the blatent sadism of some of you, the law should protect the innocent, not punish the guilty

Has anyone read/seen etc. 'One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest'?
It is a clasic example of when people are given too much power. If such a law as you are sugesting were passed, inevitably innocent people would be punished - would you like to have this done to you?

Firstly, half your points are flawed, I won't point out which and why cuz I czn't be arsed.
Secondly, those points which have som truth to them are just stereotyping white people in general.
Thirdly, your comment about Christmas directly contradicts your one about the holocaust - homosexuals were also masacred then.

In conclusion: Shut up you facist scum.

I don't think torture can ever be justified, it's bad enough when commited by an individual, but by governments etc.

Incidently do people believe that torture happens in Guantananmo Bay?

At 4/25/06 07:02 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 4/25/06 06:55 PM, afliXion wrote:
It stole and distorted all its stuff fromthe Bible.

That's not true. It only took the stuff that was true in the Bible and then clarified all the falsehoods in it.

Christianity.

If you believe that an Absolute, Omnipotent and Omnipresent Supernatural Being can feel pain, sure.

Actually Christianity (and Judaism) and Islam all stem from the same events with their own slant on events. I don't wanna offend anyone but its impossible for one acount of events to be absolutely true.

And if by your second remark you mean Christ dying on the cross then Christ was (as far as my knowledge of the Bible goes) the human embodyment of God, key word being human.