Robert Ap Ioan

You miss the point I was making; deliberately, I am tempted to say. Why should we engage with you when you won't engage with us. Do you actually care about our opinions and are you willing to open your mind to the possibility you could be wrong? If not I suggest we treat you as a troll and ignore what you say. There isn't any point in trying to engage with you. Discussion only works when people are willing to discuss.

Do you ever stop and think how stupid your posts are? I know that I am not the most verbose on the forums, Kyubey's response proves my point, but at least I am not trying to defend the indefensible. I hope you enjoy reading what you have posted in a few years time, hindsight is a most unpleasant thing when you read you own words. Many questions have been asked of you in this thread, how many have you answered properly? None as far as I can see.

You do realise that the nation of France had been around for a long time before the beheadings began right? ISIS was doing the beheadings from the beginning trying to form a new state.

Islamic State VS Western Governments - Who is more morally wrong? Both sides are morally equal. Western governments in their bombarding of the middle east are acting as a recruiting sergeant for ISIS. ISIS want to be bombed as it reinforces their belief that Muslims are being persecuted by the West. Donald Trump plays straight into their hands, as does anyone who declares all Muslims to be terrorists (I'm looking at you Daily Mail and Murdoch press). The only way to fight ISIS' appeal in the West is to make Muslims feel more welcome and for Muslims to be integrated much more into our communities. That take work from both sides, for proof of this look to Northern Ireland. ISIS are delibrately evil in their actions, committing atrocities which they then boast of, against people who have no means of fighting back (The Yazid have be brought up in this topic already). The west has been evil through neglect and foolishness, ISIS through deliberate fault. The moral coin has two sides.

And don't demand that you be allowed to have a firearm. Unless you have a reason to own a firearm, why should you?

So what you are saying is that you will believe something that can be proved to be utter tosh over the words of someone who is European and knows about European history. Have you ever studied the Treaty of Versaille? It trammelled the German people into the ground, they were more than willing to elect someone who would tell the rest of Europe where to go. Hitler used this to his advantage. Hitler militarised Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versaille. Gun control had nothing to do with his rise, in the light of which how seriously can you take the poster you posted? I would advise that Fox News isn't considered a very good source of news by the intelligentsia and that John Lott might be accused of biased researching and reporting. Your comments on gun control/crime rates, I assume, is not born from experience. Even in this poverty stricken valley, crime doesn't really impact on my life or most of the people I come into contact with. I don't read of mass deaths from firearms in the UK, because there hasn't been any for the best part of the decade. Stabbings happen occasionally and are headline news more often than not, happening in areas of high population. There has only been one murder in my area in the last 20 years or so. Immigrants haven't really effected crime stats, apart from hate crime stats, anyway aren't you descended from migrants escaping religious persecution? I take it that you don't realise that the majority of terrorist attacks are undertaken by home grown terrorists? Most of the IRA were british citizerns, the Lockerbie bomber was unusual in not being British. What he said...... I think you have a point, but there also needs to be healthcare checks on gun ownership, most of the people who take part in massacres tend to have suffered with mental health issues and yet are still allowed to buy firearms. You can read the previous threads for my views on militias and their ineffectualness. I can't remember the last time that someone got shot in Cymru (apart from the case of the hairdresser in Casnewydd) and killed, let alone more than one person in an incident. Our gun laws might be far from perfect but they do work. I am not saying ban all firearms, in fact I was holding a Sharps rifle on Christmas eve and occasionally use an competition air gun legally, but that we should treat firearms in the same way that we treat Cars. To drive you need a license(which requires background checks into health - physical and mental), valid insurance and road tax paid once you have proved that your vehicle is roadworthy. My understanding of US law suggests that this isn't the case in the US.

LMAO......wait you're serious. You really believe this propaganda.

Your arguement is severely flawed here. Oil is an inanimate object, it cannot cause anything by it's own doing. War is the putting into practice words spoken, but War is the actions of people. Words and ideas go hand in hand and words have great power.

Cromwell won....

Put an Apple in his mouth, stick him on a spit and turn him over a fire for 10 hours......then pore apple sauce over the tender meat you have produced.

They still live today in an area known as the Levant.

Real Egyptians, in terms of DNA and genetics are actually the Copts - the descendants of the people who built the Pyramids. Celts tend not to have blonde hair, Scots tend to be ginger and pale skinned, like their Irish cousins. Welsh folk tend to have dark hair for the most part. Genetically Welsh DNA comes from Spain as much as central Europe.

English sort of, the links are more with Scandinavia and Normandy. Cymro and Scoti are native to the Islands of Britan.

My point is that Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion.

Technically Abu Haddad is correct, hereditary Jewishness always comes through the mother. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish.

Nadolig Llawen a blwyddyn dda i chi pawb! Happy Christmas and a good new year to you and all.

ee, this is good news!

Pwy wnaethe! (Who dunnit?)

I would say that the best Moderation I have seen is at the Ship of Fools forums. The mods there post both as mods and members - when they are posting as Mods they make a point of saying so. They also have a low tolerance for trolling in the discussion forum(purgatory) but let people get away with a lot more in the Rant area(Hell).

1. What do you guys consider racist? I would say that racism is treating someone else as inferior because of their cultural background, regardless of what you actually know about that person. 2. Do you believe there a such thing as racism against whites? Definitely, racism isn't limited to skin colour. 3. Do you find the Confederate Flag offensive? Personally no, I find the Confederates views on the world offensive but the flag itself looks quite groovy. The same goes for the Swastika flag of the Third Reich, from a design point of view it has it's merits. Would I fly/own either? No because it would be seen as supporting what the originators of the flag, which I don't. 4. Thoughts on racial stereotyping? There's racial stereotyping and there is Racial Stereotyping. Some stereotypes run so deep in the cultural DNA that I suspect that most people don't even realise that, by using a word or phrase, they are being racist. A case in point is the word Taffy, for describing a Welsh person. There is a deeply offensive dogrel that goes with the word, which you can look up, that I suspect(hope) that most people don't even know about when they use the would Taffy. I have been called Taffy in England, which irritates me as I come from the next Valley over! I am a Rummie not a Taffy! There is also the factor of people you know and people you don't know. I can say outrageous things to some of my friends, because I know where the limits lie, other people I would not assume something based on their race or ethnic background. I think that Racism is based on ignorance and stereotyping is based on taking short cuts. 5. Should racism be banned, or is it a necessary downside of free speech? I am not sure that it would be possible to ban Racism, I think making it something of a cultural taboo is no bad thing, but also every country has it's foibles which it's neighbours find absurd, that is usually the source of stereotypes, for good or for bad. When it comes to free speech I think I would sum it up thus - "with great freedom comes great responsibility, the responsibility to not be a massive jack-moke."

Linux was amazing until I had issues I couldn't work out how to fix, so Unix is best when you know what you are doing. Windows is more aimed at the average joe in the street.

Not until you are not allowed firearms. Country music is too depressing

If you believe in the Bible, which I do, then you have to interpret it in context. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that owning a weapon is an essential part of our belief and there is nothing to encourage self defense........turn the other cheek and all that.....

Of course the early church is well known for self-defense.........oh wait, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" was written in 197AD. Jesus says plenty about not fighting back, not so much about self defense. I think this is correct, but allowing the freedoms that you have with firearms isn't going to help lower the death toll from firearms. We have many of the same issues, I live in one of the poorest areas in Europe but I don't see much violent crime. Stabbings make frontline news, outside of London, because they are so rare.

The church father's day "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church". The Christians never fought back.