Wham! Bam! ..Thank You Cam

[sadoldgit]

The Sun's headline following the death by drone strike of two British Jihadis. Not too dissimilar to the "Gotcha" headline when the Belgrano was sunk. I have no sympathy for terrorists and they get what they deserve but they are still human beings and to announce their deaths with comic book headlines is just another depth plumbing attempt by The Sun to ingratiate itself with White Van Man. If it isn't enough to have to live with the shame of what their kin had done or planned to do, to have to deal with this fatuous headline must be heartbreaking for the family and loved ones of these people.

[hypochondriac]

I expect the knowledge that their loved ones joined isis and were plotting to kill people is harder to bear than some silly little headline from the Sun.

[sadoldgit]

Perhaps you are right. You approve of the front page then?

[Colinjb]

It was a tasteless headline, but that's the Sun for you.

 

As for the pro-active action to defend our country, good work.

[sadoldgit]

It is more then just a tasteless headline though isn't it? It could stir up more hatred against us and help recruit more susceptible people to IS. The covert taking out of terrorists is one thing, taking the p*ss on the front of a national newspaper another.

[Sour Mash]

attempt by The Sun to ingratiate itself with White Van Man.

Emily Thornberry, is that you?

[Colinjb]

It is more then just a tasteless headline though isn't it? It could stir up more hatred against us and help recruit more susceptible people to IS. The covert taking out of terrorists is one thing, taking the p*ss on the front of a national newspaper another.

 

Which brings us into a far deeper discussion of freedom of expression or whether this should have been reported in the first place.

 

Clearly, this information was made public as a deterrent to those who may be tempted to join ISIS and seek to kill people in this country. Should that be something they are considering it is my feeling that a newspaper headline is probably not a key factor behind it.

[hypochondriac]

It was a tasteless headline, but that's the Sun for you.

 

As for the pro-active action to defend our country, good work.

 

This basically. It's an idiotic headline designed to attract attention and sell papers from an idiotic paper that has previous for doing stuff like this. It's hardly a surprise and they will probably sell more papers from it.

[hypochondriac]

It is more then just a tasteless headline though isn't it? It could stir up more hatred against us and help recruit more susceptible people to IS. The covert taking out of terrorists is one thing, taking the p*ss on the front of a national newspaper another.

 

If someone is turned into an isis fighter on the back of a sun headline then you have to question if they weren't really already in that mindset in the first place. Everyone knows what the sun is like, it's not like it has huge amounts of credibility to begin with.

[sadoldgit]

I don't think they would do so just from reading one Sun headline, but it is the sort of thing that can add fuel to the fire. And I know that many people treat The Sun as a joke, but there are also who take this sh*t seriously, and that is the problem. They play to the lowest common denominator and they do get listened to, sadly.

[hypochondriac]

As someone said earlier, I don't think you should start censoring things because of the chance of a terrorist attack. There is freedom of speech to be considered here. You could of course argue for it to be removed because it's a rubbish headline or a bit insensitive but not imo because you may p*ss off some extremists. From the sun's point of view it's a great headline anyway because it gets them talked about.

[Lighthouse]

"Come and join ISIS. Everyone will think you're a bit of a knobber and laugh at your death in the national media." It's not really selling it to me. I think if somebody is suggestible enough to join a cult like that, stuff printed in the mainstream media isn't going to sway their decision either way.

 

I can't say I'm that bothered about the headline, they're just selling papers. There's nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned, those people are complete scum and any attempt to humiliate them in death is fine by me.

[sandwichsaint]

'Brooks back with a Bang!' see what I did there? Scum paper, they've had a promotion in our local store for the last couple of weeks where they've been giving them away. 'Would like a free copy of the Sun today?', thankfully the take-up is pretty low.

[Manuel]

If only people would stop buying it.

[saint1977]

'Brooks back with a Bang!' see what I did there? Scum paper, they've had a promotion in our local store for the last couple of weeks where they've been giving them away. 'Would like a free copy of the Sun today?', thankfully the take-up is pretty low.

 

Not as low as it would be in Liverpool. I still think their 'Hillsborough: The Truth' headline was the worst, followed 'By Gotcha' and then this nasty, tacky effort.

 

I can't stand ISIS either but there are some serious issues at stake which even the Sun's IQ-challenged readership should be aware of.

 

What I find equally repugnant is Brooks' return, why doesn't Murdoch go the whole hog and bring back jailbird Coulson as well?

 

Will never buy that paper and the best thing to do with it is what Ronald did with Olaf Thon's short in Euro 88.

[Saint86]

Which brings us into a far deeper discussion of freedom of expression or whether this should have been reported in the first place.

 

Clearly, this information was made public as a deterrent to those who may be tempted to join ISIS and seek to kill people in this country. Should that be something they are considering it is my feeling that a newspaper headline is probably not a key factor behind it.

 

Disagree completely. This happened and was kept quiet.

 

However, we have clearly wanted to go into Syria for a while and the government felt they couldn't get the backing. The Syrian refugee crisis in Europe and the trouble it has caused has given them a way to get backing to go in. They can now construct the argument that intervention at source will help to stem the flow.... And on top of that, this assassination a few weeks ago was bound to get support, so by releasing it before the MP's vote was an easy way to get public support for action in Syria. Master stroke by the politicians and a good slap down for some scum on the way. Personally I would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS let alone someone actually actively organising terrorist attacks against my country.

 

Yet if you read the guardian, defending the country against these people was ilegal, wrong, and the government should be hounded for it. Sorry, but it is very worrying when people take the side of these terrorists. You are either with them or against them, there is no middle ground and there should never be a middle ground. We are at war with these people in all but name, the country needs to wake up on mass and back their annihilation.

[Colinjb]

Disagree completely. This happened and was kept quiet.

 

However, we have clearly wanted to go into Syria for a while and the government felt they couldn't get the backing. The Syrian refugee crisis in Europe and the trouble it has caused has given them a way to get backing to go in. They can now construct the argument that intervention at source will help to stem the flow.... And on top of that, this assassination a few weeks ago was bound to get support, so by releasing it before the MP's vote was an easy way to get public support for action in Syria. Master stroke by the politicians and a good slap down for some scum on the way. Personally I would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS let alone someone actually actively organising terrorist attacks against my country.

 

Yet if you read the guardian, defending the country against these people was ilegal, wrong, and the government should be hounded for it. Sorry, but it is very worrying when people take the side of these terrorists. You are either with them or against them, there is no middle ground and there should never be a middle ground. We are at war with these people in all but name, the country needs to wake up on mass and back their annihilation.

 

There does seem to be something of a contradiction there mate. That it was kept quiet in the first place but then tactically made public....

 

But of course, the reason for the eventual release makes sense in the context you express.

[sadoldgit]

Disagree completely. This happened and was kept quiet.

 

However, we have clearly wanted to go into Syria for a while and the government felt they couldn't get the backing. The Syrian refugee crisis in Europe and the trouble it has caused has given them a way to get backing to go in. They can now construct the argument that intervention at source will help to stem the flow.... And on top of that, this assassination a few weeks ago was bound to get support, so by releasing it before the MP's vote was an easy way to get public support for action in Syria. Master stroke by the politicians and a good slap down for some scum on the way. Personally I would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS let alone someone actually actively organising terrorist attacks against my country.

 

Yet if you read the guardian, defending the country against these people was ilegal, wrong, and the government should be hounded for it. Sorry, but it is very worrying when people take the side of these terrorists. You are either with them or against them, there is no middle ground and there should never be a middle ground. We are at war with these people in all but name, the country needs to wake up on mass and back their annihilation.

 

If something is illegal then it is only right and proper that whoever committed the illegal act is brought to book over it. We do not have capital punishment in this country and there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty? Is now the PM the sole arbiter of who we can kill and who we cant? No one is taking the side of someone who commits a terrorist act. By my understanding neither of these characters had. Is it beyond our capability to bring these characters back and give them a proper, fair trial? We all know now that the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was b*ll*cks. Are you happy to believe Dave where he tells you these guys needed to die? Where is the evidence? I see you would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS - so much for freedom of speech too. Isnt it better that we enter dialogue and try to come to some kind of understanding with people who don't agree with the way that we live rather than continually killing each other?

[sadoldgit]

Not as low as it would be in Liverpool. I still think their 'Hillsborough: The Truth' headline was the worst, followed 'By Gotcha' and then this nasty, tacky effort.

 

I can't stand ISIS either but there are some serious issues at stake which even the Sun's IQ-challenged readership should be aware of.

 

What I find equally repugnant is Brooks' return, why doesn't Murdoch go the whole hog and bring back jailbird Coulson as well?

 

Will never buy that paper and the best thing to do with it is what Ronald did with Olaf Thon's short in Euro 88.

 

The situation with Brooks is just sticking the finger up by Murdoch. He has been talking the p*ss out of us for years and this is just another example of how he does it his way and doesn't give a sh*t about anything else. Sadly most of his customers don't get it until he comes out and trashes them directly, as he did with the population of Liverpool.

[sandwichsaint]

Disagree completely. This happened and was kept quiet.

 

However, we have clearly wanted to go into Syria for a while and the government felt they couldn't get the backing. The Syrian refugee crisis in Europe and the trouble it has caused has given them a way to get backing to go in. They can now construct the argument that intervention at source will help to stem the flow.... And on top of that, this assassination a few weeks ago was bound to get support, so by releasing it before the MP's vote was an easy way to get public support for action in Syria. Master stroke by the politicians and a good slap down for some scum on the way. Personally I would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS let alone someone actually actively organising terrorist attacks against my country.

 

Yet if you read the guardian, defending the country against these people was ilegal, wrong, and the government should be hounded for it. Sorry, but it is very worrying when people take the side of these terrorists. You are either with them or against them, there is no middle ground and there should never be a middle ground. We are at war with these people in all but name, the country needs to wake up on mass and back their annihilation.

 

Although of course if the action of the Government was illegal (I don't know if it was or not, that's why I used 'if') then it makes the Government no better than the terrorists themselves. Either we have a rule of law, domestically and internationally, or we don't. A large part of terrorist activity can be traced to 'illegal' action in the past but if you're happy for the usual suspects to keep throwing fuel on the fire you annihalate away, but don't forgot that every action has an equal and opposite (over)reaction.

[hutch]

If something is illegal then it is only right and proper that whoever committed the illegal act is brought to book over it. We do not have capital punishment in this country and there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty? Is now the PM the sole arbiter of who we can kill and who we cant? No one is taking the side of someone who commits a terrorist act. By my understanding neither of these characters had. Is it beyond our capability to bring these characters back and give them a proper, fair trial? We all know now that the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was b*ll*cks. Are you happy to believe Dave where he tells you these guys needed to die? Where is the evidence? I see you would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS - so much for freedom of speech too. Isnt it better that we enter dialogue and try to come to some kind of understanding with people who don't agree with the way that we live rather than continually killing each other?

It's Government policy. They declared it publicly last year.

[sadoldgit]

As someone said earlier, I don't think you should start censoring things because of the chance of a terrorist attack. There is freedom of speech to be considered here. You could of course argue for it to be removed because it's a rubbish headline or a bit insensitive but not imo because you may p*ss off some extremists. From the sun's point of view it's a great headline anyway because it gets them talked about.

 

I don't agree with censorship either but there is such a thing as common decency and most of the media have handled the news in a serious and respectful manner. You are right, The Sun will be talked about because it is doing what it does when it signs up people like Katie Hopkins. It is attention seeking. It is just a shame that the attention it gets doesn't see it go the way of the News of the World.

[Sour Mash]

If something is illegal then it is only right and proper that whoever committed the illegal act is brought to book over it. We do not have capital punishment in this country and there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty? Is now the PM the sole arbiter of who we can kill and who we cant? No one is taking the side of someone who commits a terrorist act. By my understanding neither of these characters had. Is it beyond our capability to bring these characters back and give them a proper, fair trial? We all know now that the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was b*ll*cks. Are you happy to believe Dave where he tells you these guys needed to die? Where is the evidence? I see you would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS - so much for freedom of speech too. Isnt it better that we enter dialogue and try to come to some kind of understanding with people who don't agree with the way that we live rather than continually killing each other?

If British Intelligence services strongly believe that these individuals are actively taking part in terrorist activities, what would you propose the British Govt do to stop their actions?

[sadoldgit]

"Come and join ISIS. Everyone will think you're a bit of a knobber and laugh at your death in the national media." It's not really selling it to me. I think if somebody is suggestible enough to join a cult like that, stuff printed in the mainstream media isn't going to sway their decision either way.

 

I can't say I'm that bothered about the headline, they're just selling papers. There's nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned, those people are complete scum and any attempt to humiliate them in death is fine by me.

 

The thing is though that not everyone will think of them as a bit of a knobber and laugh at them. To a great many people they are seen as heroes and martyrs and we play into their hands when we don't take them seriously. We may think they are being humiliated but there are plenty of people who will be looking to avenge what we have done with yet more plots to kill innocent people. All we are doing is perpetuating the circle. At some point both sides are going to have to sit down and reach a compromise. All conflicts end with talks. It is just a question of how many more people have to die before we reach that stage.

[sadoldgit]

Picking up on the point of annihilating ISIS. For every terrorist we kill, we create more. We will never annihilate them because they are everywhere. The good old days like Waterloo where armies faced each other on a battlefield and the outcome was decisive are long gone. I am sure the people who recruit future terrorists will have a field day with the front page of The Sun today as they will every time we launch a drone and cause "collateral damage."

[RedAndWhite91]

In my eyes these guys surrendered all of their rights when they went off to fight for a murderous group like ISIS who have committed horrific atrocities in the name of religion. If these guys want to hurt us, should we sit back and let them?

 

We hung people who collaborated with the Nazis... Imagine if in 1944 the government had the Britisches Freikorps all killed in an airstrike or something, would people be questioning their government's actions? I don't think so personally?

 

The Sun headline is stupid - But what do you expect from the Sun?

[Batman]

https://www.facebook.com/LordChips/videos/10153011938595863/

[sadoldgit]

In my eyes these guys surrendered all of their rights when they went off to fight for a murderous group like ISIS who have committed horrific atrocities in the name of religion. If these guys want to hurt us, should we sit back and let them?

 

We hung people who collaborated with the Nazis... Imagine if in 1944 the government had the Britisches Freikorps all killed in an airstrike or something, would people be questioning their government's actions? I don't think so personally?

 

The Sun headline is stupid - But what do you expect from the Sun?

 

We were at war with Germany. This conflict is a lot less black and white. We may be at war with terrorists but they don't wear convenient uniforms and they don't come from just one country. The rules of engagement are a lot more cloudy than they used to be.

[sandwichsaint]

Disagree completely. This happened and was kept quiet.

 

However, we have clearly wanted to go into Syria for a while and the government felt they couldn't get the backing. The Syrian refugee crisis in Europe and the trouble it has caused has given them a way to get backing to go in. They can now construct the argument that intervention at source will help to stem the flow.... And on top of that, this assassination a few weeks ago was bound to get support, so by releasing it before the MP's vote was an easy way to get public support for action in Syria. Master stroke by the politicians and a good slap down for some scum on the way. Personally I would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS let alone someone actually actively organising terrorist attacks against my country.

 

Yet if you read the guardian, defending the country against these people was ilegal, wrong, and the government should be hounded for it. Sorry, but it is very worrying when people take the side of these terrorists. You are either with them or against them, there is no middle ground and there should never be a middle ground. We are at war with these people in all but name, the country needs to wake up on mass and back their annihilation.

 

Although of course if the action of the Government was illegal (I don't know if it was or not, that's why I used 'if') then it makes the Government no better than the terrorists themselves. Either we have a rule of law, domestically and internationally, or we don't. A large part of terrorist activity can be traced to 'illegal' action in the past but if you're happy for the usual suspects to keep throwing fuel on the fire then you annihilate away, but don't forgot that every action has an equal and opposite (over)reaction.

[Batman]

I suppose that if say Jihadi John was positively spotted in Syria and drones over head were following him

we should wait it out and try to get him around the table for a chat?

[hypochondriac]

Picking up on the point of annihilating ISIS. For every terrorist we kill, we create more. We will never annihilate them because they are everywhere. The good old days like Waterloo where armies faced each other on a battlefield and the outcome was decisive are long gone. I am sure the people who recruit future terrorists will have a field day with the front page of The Sun today as they will every time we launch a drone and cause "collateral damage."

 

That's just rubbish. The front of the zero has virtually zero impact on people becoming terrorists. You're trying to make an issue that isn't there.

[Lighthouse]

The thing is though that not everyone will think of them as a bit of a knobber and laugh at them. To a great many people they are seen as heroes and martyrs and we play into their hands when we don't take them seriously. We may think they are being humiliated but there are plenty of people who will be looking to avenge what we have done with yet more plots to kill innocent people. All we are doing is perpetuating the circle. At some point both sides are going to have to sit down and reach a compromise. All conflicts end with talks. It is just a question of how many more people have to die before we reach that stage.

 

Sit down and reach a compromise... with people who throw homosexuals off the top of tall buildings. Without wanting to go all Godwin on you, that sounds a bit like Neville Chamberlain. The Taliban have already shown what people can do if you sit back and fail to act. Groups like ISIS need to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

 

Potential recruits wont be appeased if we just let them get on with it and don't interfere. Every single member of that organisation needs a Tomahawk down their chimney, starting with the leadership, working our way downwards. Get the leadership, the guys doing the brainwashing, recruiting and training. People aren't rushing off to join ISIS because of some stupid Sun headline. They are doing it because they are being hoodwinked into thinking it is a just cause by highly intelligent, extreme sociopaths.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It is just a shame that the attention it gets doesn't see it go the way of the News of the World.

 

It would do , if it wasn't so popular. Its not some obscure publication, its the nations number 1 paper. The best thing about it is its trolling of lefties and their response. They have a pop at Murdoch because they haven't got the balls to tell the great unwashed that they're ignorant half bakes for buying it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Perhaps a comprise would be that they can throw Homosexuals off lower buildings or bungalows.

[sadoldgit]

Sit down and reach a compromise... with people who throw homosexuals off the top of tall buildings. Without wanting to go all Godwin on you, that sounds a bit like Neville Chamberlain. The Taliban have already shown what people can do if you sit back and fail to act. Groups like ISIS need to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

 

Potential recruits wont be appeased if we just let them get on with it and don't interfere. Every single member of that organisation needs a Tomahawk down their chimney, starting with the leadership, working our way downwards. Get the leadership, the guys doing the brainwashing, recruiting and training. People aren't rushing off to join ISIS because of some stupid Sun headline. They are doing it because they are being hoodwinked into thinking it is a just cause by highly intelligent, extreme sociopaths.

 

We have negotiated with all kinds of sociopaths before and are still doing so now. How many conflicts have ended with only the total annihilation of the other? Do you really think it is possible to wipe ISIS out? It isn't that simple. And they aren't rushing out to joining ISIS because of a Sun headline, they are rushing out and joining ISIS because of what lies behind the Sun headline.

[Special K]

We have negotiated with all kinds of sociopaths before and are still doing so now. How many conflicts have ended with only the total annihilation of the other? Do you really think it is possible to wipe ISIS out? It isn't that simple. And they aren't rushing out to joining ISIS because of a Sun headline, they are rushing out and joining ISIS because of what lies behind the Sun headline.

 

Nothing to do with years of indoctrination from extremist Imams and fellow Muslims then? Oh, OK, that's good to know.

[sadoldgit]

Nothing to do with years of indoctrination from extremist Imams and fellow Muslims then? Oh, OK, that's good to know.

 

Or the fact that we have killed goodness knows how many Muslims over the years because we thought that they were hiding non existence weapons of mass destruction? Makes it easier to recruit wouldn't you say? Not forgetting the Middle Ages where we sent thousands of God fearing Christians to the Middle East to butcher those nasty Muslims. Good to know we have the moral higher ground.

[Batman]

I suppose that if say Jihadi John was positively spotted in Syria and drones over head were following him

we should wait it out and try to get him around the table for a chat?

 

soggy?

[sadoldgit]

I suppose that if say Jihadi John was positively spotted in Syria and drones over head were following him

we should wait it out and try to get him around the table for a chat?

 

That is not what I am talking about as well you know. I am not talking about dealing with individuals, I am talking about ending this conflict. If you really think we will win it by taking out one here and one there then good luck with that. No one will win this conflict which is why, at some point, the talking will have to start.

 

By the way, look at the numbers. We spend thousands on a drone and take out one or two people. They spend a few bob on a suicide vest and take out dozens. If you were playing the odds, unless we start using nukes, who do you think could keep it going longer for less? You have been involved in the military, I don't need to tell you how hard it is to fight a guerrilla war, which is exactly what we are up against.

[Special K]

Or the fact that we have killed goodness knows how many Muslims over the years because we thought that they were hiding non existence weapons of mass destruction? Makes it easier to recruit wouldn't you say? Not forgetting the Middle Ages where we sent thousands of God fearing Christians to the Middle East to butcher those nasty Muslims. Good to know we have the moral higher ground.

 

No, your point was that The Sun has influenced UK Muslims to go abroad to train as extremists to either fight for ISIL or to return home to commit acts of terrorism. This is plainly ********, unless you can provide any evidence to back it up. What has been proved though is that some of those choosing to go abroad to fight for ISIL have done so after being "radicalised" over here. Which is the point I was making, just to clear that up.

[sadoldgit]

I really don't think I said that The Sun has influenced UK Muslims to go and train as extremists. My point was that front pages like that do not help the situation and will only add to the problems between us. As you point out, some are "radicalised" over here and the sort of thing being propagated by The Sun plays into the hands of those who are doing the recruiting. There are Muslims who feel under threat and the "gotcha" attitude isn't going to help them feel any better. Some of those will want to do something about it. That is why I said it is about what lies behind The Sun's headline. You would like to think that Jingoism went out in the last century but not according to The Sun.

[Whitey Grandad]

Disrespectful.

[sadoldgit]

We think that we are right. That we have God on our side. We think they are wrong, that their God doesn't exist and that they are deluded. They are a threat to us.

They think they are right. That they have God on their side. They think we are wrong, that our God doesn't exist and that we are deluded. We are a threat to them.

The killing will go on and on as it did in all of these other conflicts over the years until someone has the common sense to say enough. At some point it will happen, but how many have to die in the meantime?

[Lighthouse]

We think that we are right. That we have God on our side. We think they are wrong, that their God doesn't exist and that they are deluded. They are a threat to us.

They think they are right. That they have God on their side. They think we are wrong, that our God doesn't exist and that we are deluded. We are a threat to them.

The killing will go on and on as it did in all of these other conflicts over the years until someone has the common sense to say enough. At some point it will happen, but how many have to die in the meantime?

 

Well, that's not going to be ISIS is it? They will just keep on murdering innocent people who disagree with their medieval beliefs.

 

You write that in a kind of, 'we think we're right and they think they're right' kind of way. Well we are right, they are wrong. There is no debate to be had here, those people are barbaric and need to be stopped.

[Sour Mash]

It is more then just a tasteless headline though isn't it? It could stir up more hatred against us and help recruit more susceptible people to IS. .

 

I really don't think I said that The Sun has influenced UK Muslims to go and train as extremists..

 

I think you did.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

The Sun's headline following the death by drone strike of two British Jihadis. Not too dissimilar to the "Gotcha" headline when the Belgrano was sunk. I have no sympathy for terrorists and they get what they deserve but they are still human beings and to announce their deaths with comic book headlines is just another depth plumbing attempt by The Sun to ingratiate itself with White Van Man. If it isn't enough to have to live with the shame of what their kin had done or planned to do, to have to deal with this fatuous headline must be heartbreaking for the family and loved ones of these people.

Yep couldn't agree more thats Liverpuddlians, Argentinians and Muslims now. Wonder who's next?

[Lighthouse]

Yep couldn't agree more thats Liverpuddlians, Argentinians and Muslims now. Wonder who's next?

 

The Argentinians. You mean a government who invaded a territory in which the population was almost unanimously opposed to their sovereignty, leading to the deaths of over 900 people in an utterly pointless conflict, over a piece of land they have no legitimate need for. All in a vain effort to drum up national pride and distract their own citizens from the awful state of the economy back home.

 

Were we mean to them? Oh boo hoo.

[Batman]

Yep couldn't agree more thats Liverpuddlians, Argentinians and Muslims now. Wonder who's next?

 

what the hell have Argentinians got to do with anything?

[Whitey Grandad]

what the hell have Argentinians got to do with anything?

 

Gotcha! ?

[Batman]

Gotcha! ?

 

how many argentine terrorists did the sun create in 1982?