old nuns raped , some beheading done

They must be aware of the risks, just being there. It must be worth it to them. Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near that place.

They're Catholic nuns. Of course it's worth it to them.

There are few groups of people with metaphorical balls as big as Catholic nuns.

Lol. My mother when to Catholic school, and she would always tell me stories about how mean the nuns were.

Some are mean, some are the sweetest people you'll ever meet.

Yup, I grew up right across the street from a Catholic church.
 
Usually when it comes to ' beheadings ' as the method of death its a PARTICULAR religion thats at fault Luddley . Course , everyone knows that !!
 
Usually when it comes to ' beheadings ' as the method of death its a PARTICULAR religion thats at fault Luddley . Course , everyone knows that !!

Duh.

Edited to say -

There are lots of gods and lots of religions. Pick a god/religion and you'll usually find that people have been murdered and tortured in the name of that god.

OTOH ...

10639625_734517666614748_7257337553318336304_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
changing the subject , trying to make some point ehhh Luddley ?? Thing is that when beheading are done its usually one single religious group doing them !! Heck , beheading is punishment meted out by their religious law as they ' strike nonbelievers at the neck ' !!
 
changing the subject , trying to make some point ehhh Luddley ?? Thing is that when beheading are done its usually one single religious group doing them !! Heck , beheading is punishment meted out by their religious law as they ' strike nonbelievers at the neck ' !!

I answered a question with my opinion.

That is not changing the subject.

And its a fact that many millions of have tortured and killed in the name of a god and/or an religion.
 
changing the subject is ok then I guess . So let me say that Governments have killed more people all over the world then anything else . How many millions just in WW2 ??
 
When are the Neo-Cons going to call for us to invade?

Oh, wait...no oil. :(

So you would suggest that we invade a country when there is absolutely nothing in it for us?
^^^ Spoken like a true Right-Winger.


Well its not as though the US gives a large mouse's behind about human rights.

The US? Why, was it the US who committed this atrocity? I don't think so. So what are you talking about? We should invade and risk our own soldiers for another country's human rights? Again, I don't think so. We have to stop doing this and hurting ourselves unless there is something in it for us. We NEED to be a little more selfish I think.
 
When are the Neo-Cons going to call for us to invade?

Oh, wait...no oil. :(

So you would suggest that we invade a country when there is absolutely nothing in it for us?
^^^ Spoken like a true Right-Winger.


Well its not as though the US gives a large mouse's behind about human rights.

The US? Why, was it the US who committed this atrocity? I don't think so. So what are you talking about? We should invade and risk our own soldiers for another country's human rights? Again, I don't think so. We have to stop doing this and hurting ourselves unless there is something in it for us. We NEED to be a little more selfish I think.

I don't disagree. I did not say that at all. Nor did Synthaolic say "we [should] invade a country when there is absolutely nothing in it for us". You read these incorrect statements into what was actually written.

We give lip service to being committed to human rights but the truth is, if they don't have oil, we turn our backs.

IMO, we need to cut our mostly useless military and put our people to work rebuilding our own nation.
 
When are the Neo-Cons going to call for us to invade?

Oh, wait...no oil. :(

So you would suggest that we invade a country when there is absolutely nothing in it for us?
^^^ Spoken like a true Right-Winger.


Well its not as though the US gives a large mouse's behind about human rights.

The US? Why, was it the US who committed this atrocity? I don't think so. So what are you talking about? We should invade and risk our own soldiers for another country's human rights? Again, I don't think so. We have to stop doing this and hurting ourselves unless there is something in it for us. We NEED to be a little more selfish I think.

I don't disagree. I did not say that at all. Nor did Synthaolic say "we [should] invade a country when there is absolutely nothing in it for us". You read these incorrect statements into what was actually written.

We give lip service to being committed to human rights but the truth is, if they don't have oil, we turn our backs.

IMO, we need to cut our mostly useless military and put our people to work rebuilding our own nation.

Unless we INVADE and occupy a country, there is NO WAY to secure human rights for the people.
 
changing the subject is ok then I guess . So let me say that Governments have killed more people all over the world then anything else . How many millions just in WW2 ??

About 70. Only around 15 to our account. The rest is on you and the Soviets.
 
changing the subject , trying to make some point ehhh Luddley ?? Thing is that when beheading are done its usually one single religious group doing them !! Heck , beheading is punishment meted out by their religious law as they ' strike nonbelievers at the neck ' !!

I answered a question with my opinion.

That is not changing the subject.

And its a fact that many millions of have tortured and killed in the name of a god and/or an religion.

That might be true, but there is no denying that this particular religion (Islam) at this particular time is the only one causing such death and destruction.
 

Forum List

Back
Top