Lefties, liberals, guilt and murder

First topic message reminder :

In the wake of this migrants crisis the West needs to look at itself and judge it's behaviour.

we are all selfish deep down, and when the looking Glass is held up to us,some of us can't handle what we see, some of us hate what we see and have to compensate.

Because let's face it, it's not compassion you liberals see when you look into those black pits you call eyes, it's guilt.

That all consuming famous white western privileged guilt, and the desperate urge to ease it that most of you liberal parasites can't do without yet hate so much.

Hows does that work anyway??

What's a slice of guilt free peace go for these days??

5 minutes for a tenner??

A week in exchange for an annual subscription to save the earth children donkey monkey charity society or some other money making scam?? I bet the pressure on you liberals to appear on the social scene as being great humanitarians is high indeed.

The guilt induced panic gripping Europe is certainly sky high, the highest since WWII don't you know??  

why i imagine its almost compulsory fashion these days to have some bauble, some accessory to prove how much you care?? Perhaps a Syrian baby to carry  around in your handbag like a Paris Hilton toy dog??

Perhaps not a Syrian for the fashion conscious, i hear Iraqi children are next months fashion, so the good news is you can be a really good Internet humanitarian and probably get a couple of Syrians for half the price if you wait till next month and keep your guilt at bay for that little bit longer

Or better yet Perhaps like ole Bobby boy you liberals  could offer up your house and heart for some immigrants??

Or if you're really very very rich, and very very very white and therefore very very very very guilty your HOUSES and a flat for a few families,though i daresay at the cheap price of only 4 families, bob will be back to feeling guilty in no time at all.

I suggest you take a 100 families in

after all its Europe - always open and never full, come on in bring your friends, like our guilt, we have no upper limit to our moral obligation to immigrants.

Best vet them though first eh, wouldn't want some child beheading , woman raping gay killing lunatic Jihadists living with you now would you.

Of course not that's Madness!! We don't want THOSE kind of immigrants

But of course you may have to be a little racist and xenophobic if you vet them, but only a little bit.............

On second thoughts best not run the risk of being called racist, after all statistically speaking you're more likely to be abducted by an alien pirate ship driven by Elvis than you are to be killed by a terrorist.

So realistically the chances are that the 100 families busy roasting a freshly halal slaughtered goat round a campfire in your lounge have nothing but good intentions and multicultural enrichment to offer you.

victorismyhero wrote:
@ eddie

it does ...simply becasue they have all, mysteriously, lost all ID

becasue Isis has said there are its members amongst them....and I dont think they are lying on this...I mean you would wouldnt you...if you were isis?

suddenly they are all doctors.engineers/chemists/etc.....not ONE peasant amongst em???

and yet not one with papers or any proof of skills....


and we are going to let em in willey nilly with sod all checks ......and we cant check...it would atke forever and a day to prove even one of ems "claim"

Its the geography absurd argument again that holds the most contradictive view going.
You have no connection to many other people in this country who do not pay into the system.
They maybe children, housewives, disabled, those who cannot work etc but you bemoan people coming here all because of geography, as we are all human after all.
Your argument holds no sway, you are willing to help people who live hundreds of miles away from you but not thousands of miles away from you of which there only connection is an imaginary boundary created to form the name of this nation and its people. Not only this many people from this country are from many different ethnicities already.
Not exactly the best argument going is it? In fact as seen it contradicts.
In both cases they are human are they not?
Which says to me again you allow fear to reason your views here and a fear you place higher than many far greater risks you take daily. That it is an excuse you are using with fear in regards to the other claims you are making.
Why not be honest from the start and just say you fear people because you lap up the media scare stories?
This is why Germany is putting us to shame, they make no distinction or require what specialist skill that person has.

Victor wrote:oh and on the sensible "precautionary principle" it is up to the SUPPORTERS of any action to prove that it is safe, or that any risk can be adequately mitigated"

No, actually, we all live in a free society you and I, and what you are basically arguing for is non-freedom.  Based on that premise, it’s up to you to justify the departure from basic standards.

You speak of "them" with such contempt, vic:  “they are unknown aliens…”  So is anyone from Israel.  I mean, unless they are friends of yours.  Should we subject visitors from Israel to such inquisitions?  Maybe so.

I think you have simply prejudged the refugees, and you're damned if you are going to like them.  Prejudice in any setting is untoward.  Do you have reasons for your feelings, or is it just that they are Muslim?

Victor wrote:the wet letteuces have FAILED to do so....
relying on flawed historicity instead

WTF does that mean?  More RW pretentiousness?  The "historicity" of a statement about the past is its factual status.  It’s a self-contradiction.  Did you mean to say, ‘flawed history’?

Why are you talking about history? That whole post is a jumble; did daddy have an extra toddy tonight?

Veya, too late, I'm already anti-British to some, because I don't automatically put homeless British soldiers as more deserving than dying foreign children..

@les
You are a member of my reasonable and kind tribe

Eilzel wrote:So Eds, you think smelly can't be racist but Quill is?

I can't take seriously that kind of logic on this issue tbh.

Of course we all know Aylan is not the first. Some of us have supported taking refugees, from Libya, Calais etc, for a long time. This story has (thankfully) brought many in Britain around to our way of thinking, and ignoted a vicious RW response as a result. But I thank the media, they have a role to play and they did it well. It is sad it took Aylan's tragic death but NOW we see things moving the way they should have all along.

Of course to you that is irrelevant. Me, quill, didge, sass et al are just guilty and hate our own because we don't follow your tribal loyalties. That's your view, which you're entitled too. But Quill's original post sums up how that view is formed perfectly- even if he didn't express in simple, emotive words

That's precisely why aylan died elizel

He and others died because of liberal guilt sending out the medssge thst europe is open for business

It wasn't the messages of the neo nazis in europe that attracts them is it??

No its the lies of the liberals

Eilzel wrote:Vic, if such an atrocity happened I'd be outraged, as with any previous terror attack. But I don't think that is cause to not allow any refugees in. Same as any time we have taken people in in the past.

So in essence youre saying that a few terrorists attacks is price you're willing to make others pay in order for you to soothe your white liberal guilt??

And i say others because you live abroad now, but you still have family here don't you?? You willing to sacrifice them for your guilt??

Are they as willing to sacrifice themselves for your guilt?

Good to know that your outrage isnt sufficient to outweigh your guilt

Eilzel wrote:Haha, I'd be interested in his view, tell him I said hi, and look forward to debating with him in a few years time

I'm sure some have guilt, but not most. And no one here on NF (well, maybe veya...). Yet you were quick to take what smelly said at face value, and discard Quill's brilliant response,

Labels aren't ideal, but they can at least allow us to identify why we think differently. I am quite internationally minded; you are more family oriented, extending to greater concern for local issues (understandable given the various developments in both our lives). Neither of us is wrong, but it would be refreshing if you could see how people can show greater concern for more global causes over national ones without it simply being anti- anything x

But im wrong am i??

I also tend towards concern for local and national interest over international issues

That makes me a racist, a little Englander according to you

Sooooooo

eddie wrote:See I'm not even thinking about Syrians as terrorists?

Vic does that worry you?

Western governments have long feared the possibility of Islamic State militants quietly slipping across their countries' borders.

Now, amid the worst refugee crisis in decades, it seems this might have actually happened. How? ISIS loyalists have reportedly infiltrated the human tide of refugees flowing into Europe.

http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-crisis-isis-fighters-europe-islamic-state-extremists-exploit-refugee-flow-2085787?ft=61pb1

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So Eds, you think smelly can't be racist but Quill is?

I can't take seriously that kind of logic on this issue tbh.

Of course we all know Aylan is not the first. Some of us have supported taking refugees, from Libya, Calais etc, for a long time. This story has (thankfully) brought many in Britain around to our way of thinking, and ignoted a vicious RW response as a result. But I thank the media, they have a role to play and they did it well. It is sad it took Aylan's tragic death but NOW we see things moving the way they should have all along.

Of course to you that is irrelevant. Me, quill, didge, sass et al are just guilty and hate our own because we don't follow your tribal loyalties. That's your view, which you're entitled too. But Quill's original post sums up how that view is formed perfectly- even if he didn't express in simple, emotive words

That's precisely why aylan died elizel

He and others died because of liberal guilt sending out the medssge thst europe is open for business

It wasn't the messages  of the neo nazis in europe that attracts them is it??

No its the lies of the liberals

He died because thw est did not send the means to help the people fleeing that is the failing or sending ground forces to deal with the problem in Syria, What you propose is flawed and looks to turn around why people will reach out to places of safety
So there it was not lies at all, as how was it lies?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Vic, if such an atrocity happened I'd be outraged, as with any previous terror attack. But I don't think that is cause to not allow any refugees in. Same as any time we have taken people in in the past.

So in essence youre saying that a few terrorists attacks is price you're willing to make others  pay in order for you to soothe your white liberal guilt??

And i say others  because you  live abroad now, but you still have family here don't you?? You willing to sacrifice them for your guilt??

Are they as willing to sacrifice themselves for your guilt?

Good to know that your outrage isnt sufficient to outweigh your guilt

Wht do you constantly apply guilt to a national reaction to help people?
Guilt is a feeling where you have failed as an individual.
I have not failed where I help but the most I can do is apply pressure to my governemnt to intervene.
It does not requires guilt for me to want to help people in need of help.
All you are doing is making the most absurd reasoning to deflect from your own failings.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Haha, I'd be interested in his view, tell him I said hi, and look forward to debating with him in a few years time

I'm sure some have guilt, but not most. And no one here on NF (well, maybe veya...). Yet you were quick to take what smelly said at face value, and discard Quill's brilliant response,

Labels aren't ideal, but they can at least allow us to identify why we think differently. I am quite internationally minded; you are more family oriented, extending to greater concern for local issues (understandable given the various developments in both our lives). Neither of us is wrong, but it would be refreshing if you could see how people can show greater concern for more global causes over national ones without it simply being anti- anything x

But im wrong am i??

I also tend towards concern for local and national interest over international issues

That makes me a racist, a little Englander according to you

Sooooooo

Well lets look at this.
Is your reasoning to help humans?
Yes
So why are you selective over helping humans?
Humans are biologically one race.
So I agree Veterans need help with homelessness just as anyone does and so we should help there, but you fail to look at the most pressing need which will be those least able, either children or disabled who are homeless which includes Syrian Refugees, Geography should not come into the equation, yet you are claiming it should do based off no sound reasoning.
If your reason is to help those most in need, then Geography should never be a factor when you can do something to help.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:See I'm not even thinking about Syrians as terrorists?

Vic does that worry you?

Western governments have long feared the possibility of Islamic State militants quietly slipping across their countries' borders.

Now, amid the worst refugee crisis in decades, it seems this might have actually happened. How? ISIS loyalists have reportedly infiltrated the human tide of refugees flowing into Europe.

http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-crisis-isis-fighters-europe-islamic-state-extremists-exploit-refugee-flow-2085787?ft=61pb1

Yes there is the fear so lets weigh up the risks shall we smelly?
How you factor this in above the needs of people fleeing persecution?
Is the risk worth it to save hundreds of thousands?
The obvious answer is yes the risks are worth it.
I am happy to rely on our security services who have been very successful in thwarting terrrorist attacks in this country.

Is this true?

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

Well all you have to do is look at this plan and if it has any bearing to what has happened?
Iran has now come to an agreement with the US, so I am not sure his claims seem viable or they have certainly changed. Do not forget he has had political ambitions also.

Cuchulain wrote:Well all you have to do is look at this plan and if it has any bearing to what has happened?
Iran has now come to an agreement with the US, so I am not sure his claims seem viable or they have certainly changed. Do not forget he has had political ambitions also.

I'll need to read up on it more when I have time. First time I've came across it and thought wow, America has set out deliberately with no provocation to plan attacks on countries willy nilly for no reason. Or maybe I have that wrong? Work beckons, shall be back later today.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Vic, if such an atrocity happened I'd be outraged, as with any previous terror attack. But I don't think that is cause to not allow any refugees in. Same as any time we have taken people in in the past.

So in essence youre saying that a few terrorists attacks is price you're willing to make others  pay in order for you to soothe your white liberal guilt??

And i say others  because you  live abroad now, but you still have family here don't you?? You willing to sacrifice them for your guilt??

Are they as willing to sacrifice themselves for your guilt?

Good to know that your outrage isnt sufficient to outweigh your guilt

remember these attacks won't even be where les is living, he is happy people in Britain are importing potential terrorists but he will be because he isn't living here...well so he says...

Christie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Well all you have to do is look at this plan and if it has any bearing to what has happened?
Iran has now come to an agreement with the US, so I am not sure his claims seem viable or they have certainly changed. Do not forget he has had political ambitions also.

I'll need to read up on it more when I have time. First time I've came across it and thought wow, America has set out deliberately with no provocation to plan attacks on countries willy nilly for no reason. Or maybe I have that wrong? Work beckons, shall be back later today.

It is interesting and I am sure there is some partial truth here, but where there is political motivation then I become very skeptical.

Eilzel wrote:On tribalism. I use that word because you seem bemused that we care about the world population seemingly at the expense of our country. The implication there is you put country first and all others second, which is tribal. Who I help is not based on nationhood, but on who needs help the most.

so by that absurd thinking you would strip out our hospitals and ship them abroad, take our NHS and benefits budget and send it to your "tribesmen abroad" and leave "us" with nothing..?? since clearly "they" need the help the most??

well at least that is consistant with left wing thinking...the race to the bottom, the politics of mediocrity, the equal sharing of misery....yup......

victorismyhero wrote:

Eilzel wrote:On tribalism. I use that word because you seem bemused that we care about the world population seemingly at the expense of our country. The implication there is you put country first and all others second, which is tribal. Who I help is not based on nationhood, but on who needs help the most.

so by that absurd thinking you would strip out our hospitals and ship them abroad, take our NHS and benefits budget and send it to your "tribesmen abroad" and leave "us" with nothing..??  since clearly "they" need the help the most??

well at least that is consistant with left wing thinking...the race to the bottom, the politics of mediocrity, the equal sharing of misery....yup......

great post....

again he is "living in thailand" so it not as if anything that destroys Britain bothers him..

victorismyhero wrote:

Eilzel wrote:On tribalism. I use that word because you seem bemused that we care about the world population seemingly at the expense of our country. The implication there is you put country first and all others second, which is tribal. Who I help is not based on nationhood, but on who needs help the most.

so by that absurd thinking you would strip out our hospitals and ship them abroad, take our NHS and benefits budget and send it to your "tribesmen abroad" and leave "us" with nothing..??  since clearly "they" need the help the most??

well at least that is consistant with left wing thinking...the race to the bottom, the politics of mediocrity, the equal sharing of misery....yup......

You make the same unfounded claim
Germany has now decided to use 6 billion to accomadate the influx of refugees.
Why do you think beds will be stripped.,
Its poor scaremonger tactics that lack validity

Christie wrote:Is this true?

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

From the transcript Christie:

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”


That was Bush's intention.   He was and probably still is, a meglamaniac with a low IQ.  Unfortunately he was given the  army with probably the biggest (was going to say greatest, but there is nothing great about it) set of army toys in the world to play with.   He and his little puppet Blair (although I'm quite sure Cameron would have done the same as he supported it) are the reason we are in this state now.  Saddam was a tyrant, but he was a tyrant that kept Assad under control.  As soon as Saddam was taken out, Assad became a tyrant, so his people rose up against him.

At the time of the Vietnam War they used to talk about the 'domino effect'.  It was rubbish when applied to Vietnam, because one country did not underpin another.  However, they should have realised it absolutely applied with Iraq and we are reaping the consequences.

The plight on the Syrian refugees is directly linked to what we and America did in Iraq.

What do you mean sassy

Drones are the best thing since the nuke

Indescriminate random slaughter from above???

That's just pure sex on wings, what on earth could be greater

Perhaps you prefer mustard gas as used by ISIS?

6 billion this year

Since they have said there is no upper limit to the number they will take, 6 billion will run dry soon

I'm sure the Germans won't mind sacrificing their economy though

Cuchulain wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

That's precisely why aylan died elizel

He and others died because of liberal guilt sending out the medssge thst europe is open for business

It wasn't the messages  of the neo nazis in europe that attracts them is it??

No its the lies of the liberals

He died because thw est did not send the means to help the people fleeing that is the failing or sending ground forces to deal with the problem in Syria, What you propose is flawed and looks to turn around why people will reach out to places of safety
So there it was not lies at all, as how was it lies?

And why was that Walter??

Oh yes I remember the leftwing liberals wouldn't support military intervention

So you can why they would feel guilty

smelly-bandit wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

He died because thw est did not send the means to help the people fleeing that is the failing or sending ground forces to deal with the problem in Syria, What you propose is flawed and looks to turn around why people will reach out to places of safety
So there it was not lies at all, as how was it lies?

And why was that Walter??

Oh yes I remember the leftwing liberals wouldn't support military intervention

So you can why they would feel guilty

Rubbish, they would have felt a lot more guilty is we had have intervened at the time, (we did anyway, we sent arms that ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Queda) because there is no way of settling this by bombing, there are no good guys carrying arms.  The only people who come up with the best idea are those advocating a no fly zone over Syria.  The majority of the civilians being killed and maimed are those that are barrel bombed.

Dutchman its very simple and I do not doubt some are only acting now because of guilt but the clear question is people are helping through the rational right reason to help people.
Even more so people here are clearly wanting to help because it is the rational right thing to do.
So you tell me, when in combat and somebody is injured, do you go to help them out of guilt or out of the rational right thing to do?

How many British soldiers have done this even though they are placing their own life at risk?

sassy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

And why was that Walter??

Oh yes I remember the leftwing liberals wouldn't support military intervention

So you can why they would feel guilty

Rubbish, they would have felt a lot more guilty is we had have intervened at the time, (we did anyway, we sent arms that ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Queda) because there is no way of settling this by bombing, there are no good guys carrying arms.  The only people who come up with the best idea are those advocating a no fly zone over Syria.  The majority of the civilians being killed and maimed are those that are barrel bombed.

It wss the liberals who armed the FSA,what planet do you live on??

The US and UK are governed by LIBERALS not RW hawks like bush and trump my dear

The lack of military intervention is just as bad if not worse than bush's war mongering

Worse in fact since iraq and Afghanistan wrecked 1 country (afghan was already a shit hole), the liberals lack of moral courage and refusal to go against ISIS targets has wrecked 2 countries and destabilised the european continent and triggered a diaspora of biblical proportion

But you are right in one thing, we did intervene although it was more like interfere than intervene and our interventions came in the form of arming the rebels in the hope that they would somehow not commit atrocities and do our bidding by toppling assad and be our mates when the dust settled

Gotta love liberal idealism eh??

You liberals and your lunatic pursuit of equality and human right caused the West to back the wrong horse, we should have allowed assad to crack down on the uprising - like we did with bharain and Saudi Arabia and iran and Egypt (the arab springs greatest hope and its biggest failure) and everywhere else it was convenient

But no somehow assad measured higher on the leftwing liberal sliding scales of outrage and had to be toppled - all in the best interests of the people of Syria mind

Cuchulain wrote:Dutchman its very simple and I do not doubt some are only acting now because of guilt but the clear question is people are helping through the rational right reason to help people.
Even more so people here are clearly wanting to help because it is the rational right thing to do.
So you tell me, when in combat and somebody is injured, do you go to help them out of guilt or out of the rational right thing to do?

How many British soldiers have done this even though they are placing their own life at risk?

How many??

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:

Rubbish, they would have felt a lot more guilty is we had have intervened at the time, (we did anyway, we sent arms that ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Queda) because there is no way of settling this by bombing, there are no good guys carrying arms.  The only people who come up with the best idea are those advocating a no fly zone over Syria.  The majority of the civilians being killed and maimed are those that are barrel bombed.

It wss the liberals who armed the FSA,what planet do you live on??

The US and UK are governed by LIBERALS not RW hawks like bush and  trump my dear

The lack of military intervention is just as bad if not worse than bush's war mongering

Worse in fact since iraq and Afghanistan wrecked 1 country (afghan was already  a shit hole), the liberals lack of moral courage and refusal to go against ISIS targets has wrecked 2 countries and destabilised the european continent and triggered a diaspora of  biblical proportion

But you are right in one thing, we did intervene although it was more like interfere than intervene and our interventions came in the form of arming the rebels in the hope that they would somehow not commit atrocities and do our bidding by toppling assad and be our mates when the dust settled

Gotta love liberal idealism eh??

You liberals and your lunatic pursuit of equality and human right caused  the West to back the wrong horse, we should have allowed assad to crack down on the uprising - like we did with bharain and Saudi Arabia and iran and Egypt (the arab springs greatest hope and its biggest failure)  and everywhere else it was convenient

But no somehow assad measured higher on the leftwing liberal sliding scales of outrage and had to be toppled - all in the best interests of the people of Syria mind

Sadly your reasoning does not go back far enough, so you have some points but you fail to understand where some fo that fear comes from.
Afghanistan was right to interven with but Iraq was a complete an utter poor decision and it was from this poor decision that allow some to fear stepping in doing the right thing with Syria and also not having the balls to tell Putin to get stuffed. The reality is what Bush and co failed to consider was the far longer problems that existed in iraq with the Sunni, Shia, Kurds etc. They should have intervened when the Kurds, Shia's rose up in 1991. This more than anything spilled over into the inserrection after the fall of Saddam with many intent on revenge. So you need to factor in why there was clearly a fear to do so after the disater of Iraq. If the Allies had concentrated on Afghanistan and then actually to took the battle into the mountains on the border with Pakistan, things would have been very different. So I do not dispute some of your points but they fall badly at understand much of the situation today.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Dutchman its very simple and I do not doubt some are only acting now because of guilt but the clear question is people are helping through the rational right reason to help people.
Even more so people here are clearly wanting to help because it is the rational right thing to do.
So you tell me, when in combat and somebody is injured, do you go to help them out of guilt or out of the rational right thing to do?

How many British soldiers have done this even though they are placing their own life at risk?

How many??

I think the clue was "somebody", meaning lets say one allied soldier for this example.

Tell putin to get stuffed? You really are clueless aren't you

Putin and china's veto and support for assad is the inly thing that has kept the body count down

smelly-bandit wrote:Tell putin to get stuffed?  You really are clueless aren't you

Putin and china's veto and support for assad is the inly thing that has kept  the body count down



 

Yes there is such a thing as standing up to Putin which has been happenning over the last few months

Look I know this way above your pay grade for understanding Dutchman where being a grunt your capapcity to understand strategy is very limited.

So I am happy to educate you on the matter but the failing for the intervention in Syria stems from also the disaster of Iraq. So its very obvious why you fail to understand many things here.

Wow smelly you replied to three of my posts in a row amd still didn't give me anything worth responding too. Nice to know you care so much though

Yeah sure.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to deal with your guilt Walter, although id keep your ideas and strategic brilliance to yourself, i doubt the syrian people could stomach another dose of liberal "compassion"

Eilzel wrote:Wow smelly you replied to three of my posts in a row amd still didn't give me anything worth responding too. Nice to know you care so much though

All i do is hold the mirror up elizel, the reflection belongs to you

smelly-bandit wrote:Tell putin to get stuffed?  You really are clueless aren't you

Putin and china's veto and support for assad is the inly thing that has kept  the body count down



 

As Assad is responsible for 81% of the civilian body count, how the fuck do you work that out.

smelly-bandit wrote:Yeah sure.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to deal with your guilt Walter, although id keep your ideas and strategic brilliance to yourself, i doubt the syrian people could stomach another dose of liberal "compassion"

Look Dutchman I am just trying to help you. I am sure at a tactical level you are sound, but strategic wise your limitations are being shown up quite clearly. As seen we should have entered the conflict properly a long time ago. What with Ukrane and discontent within Russia itself would have Putin over reaching himself. He even has troops on the ground at the momenty fighting for Assad. He has no capability to match either the EU or the US military wise let alone them together. He is still rebuilding Russian military strengh.
Anyway I am still waiting for you to amswer my other point on compassion which you have poorly ducked out of doing.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Wow smelly you replied to three of my posts in a row amd still didn't give me anything worth responding too. Nice to know you care so much though

All i do is hold the mirror up elizel, the reflection belongs to you

If you want Lez's reflection you need to turn the mirror round, because the only one it is showing at the moment is yours.

sassy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Tell putin to get stuffed?  You really are clueless aren't you

Putin and china's veto and support for assad is the inly thing that has kept  the body count down



 

As Assad is responsible for 81% of the civilian body count, how the fuck do you work that out.

81%?? Such an arbitrary number, you pull that out your hat or your ass???

Assad is fighting a multi fronted civil.

Against  rebels

Against the  kurdish

Against ISIS

Against Al-Qaeda

Against anyone else who fancies a piece

And all those bastards are fighting each other, I doubt there is a reliable means fairly apportioning blame for the body count.

But fairness has never been high on the list if liberal virtues

You do know that there plenty of Syrian people still in Syria who are desperately praying that assad does not  fall.

Syria is one of the few middle eastern states where Christian minorities enjoyed an existence that wasn't entirely characterised by pogroms and msss persecution and that was under assad

And many those Christians and indeed their  Muslim neighbours are banding together to form civilian  militias ti fight  for and  support assad

Not because they are mass murdering psychopaths looking to inflict 81% of the casualties of the civilian population - they ARE the civilian population and they fight for assad because he is  their last best hope, their only hope in fact

Who is going to protect them when he is going??

Corbyn?? Didge??

ISIS??  

The rebels??  

Al-Qaeda??

Obama??

Cameron??

Maybe you and elizel the great humanitarians can unleash  your liberal compassion on the bad guys??

Liberal compassion seems rather lethal to the recipient, perhaps you can use it to some actual  good for once and blitz ISIS

Maybe then you liberals wouldn't  feel so guilty all the time

Many are forming to fight against him also being as he has used chemical wepons against civillians and has done very little to protect Christians also. Seriously have you been on holiday for over a year Dutchman? Assad needs removing because he is part of the problem also, but it is no surpirse you support one of Putins puppets being as you are one yourself.Many groups here are fighting againt each other but it is Assad who has by far butchered the most. So I was wrong to say you were tactically sound, even there you get that wrong also mainly because you suck up to Putin,

International Business Times compiled the documented death tolls for December 2014 from several Syrian human rights monitoring groups, and in every instance, regime-inflicted civilian deaths dwarfed the number of civilians killed by ISIS. Statistics from Syria are to be taken with caution, since access to the media is limited and reporting on the numbers of casualties is often biased. And in the brutal calculus of a civil war where every faction is guilty of crimes against civilians, those numbers do not indicate that some are more guilty than others, experts say.  
“Any generalization you make about Syria will be wrong in the past, wrong now and wrong in the future,” Jeff White, a defense fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said.
The Syrian government long ago stopped keeping a body count, the various jihadist groups do not report casualty numbers, and even the United Nations briefly stopped tracking the death toll last year. Documenting the Syrian death totals is only possible at the most local level, from the many voices of independent human rights advocates, field hospital workers and media activists sprinkled around the country, often operating in secret. The story of Syria’s civil war is being told by civilians though these grassroots monitoring organizations.
The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) documented at least 1,232 civilian deaths in December, with 1,049 killed by regime forces, or more than 85 percent. ISIS is responsible, by this count, for just over 5 percent of the civilian deaths.

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-civilian-death-toll-islamic-state-group-or-isis-far-smaller-threat-bashar-1775238

The Syrian Regime's Barrel Bombs Kill More Civilians Than ISIS And Al Qaeda Combined

The sound of terror in many areas of Syria is the distant whirring of a regime helicopter, followed by what Khaled al-Homsi, a Syrian opposition activist, describes as a “horrifying strong wind” as the helicopter releases an explosives-filled barrel. Civilians in surrounding areas have 40 seconds to hide while the barrel free-falls from the sky -- but with no idea of where the explosive will land, all they can do is wait.
“Everybody can see it, but they don't know where it is going to be dropped [or if] it’s going to hit them, or their neighbors,” al-Homsi, the 32-year-old from the ancient city of Palmyra, a central Syrian city now controlled by the Islamic State group, told International Business Times. “They simply wait to see whether they will die.”
In June, the group also known ISIS arrested al-Homsi for aiding the Syrian opposition, but even this encounter could not compare to the frequent sound of a helicopter chopping through the air above his hometown. He has survived 15 barrel-bomb attacks carried out by President Bashar Assad’s regime. In a country teeming with lethal actors like ISIS and al Qaeda, the regime’s barrel bombs kill more civilians than the two groups combined.
“There is great danger for civilians from the Syrian army, the militias who are fighting with them, and ISIS,” said Khaled Khatib, a photographer with the Aleppo branch of the Syrian Civil Defence, a volunteer rescue organization. “But the weapon that kills the most Syrians -- by 90 percent -- is the barrel.”

2015 Syria Death Toll

July
ISIS (civilian + armed)
Barrel bomb death toll is included in the total number of civilians killed by pro-regime forces.
Barrel bombs are homemade explosive devices that are dropped from helicopters flying around four miles from the ground -- there are two types of barrels frequently used in Syria, and each one can weigh between 440 and 1,100 pounds.
The first is a cylindrical container, usually an oil barrel or gas tank made of either cement or metal that can reach 5 feet long. The second is a large, square container that has been described among activists as an “explosive dumpster.” This usually consists of a garbage container or water tank that can be almost 10 feet long and 6.5 feet high.
The barrel’s fuse detonates when it comes into contact with another object, propelling any number of scorching-hot items, including fuel, TNT, metal fragments, nails, ball bearings and shards of old machinery, into its surroundings.
“Sometimes a 10-story building will be destroyed and shrapnel will reach almost 300 meters,” al-Homsi said. “The barrel makes a sound like an earthquake when it hits the ground and the people become terrified.”
The types of injuries received depend on where the bomb lands. Many people die from a direct hit, but as medical facilities are increasingly understaffed and under-resourced, a large number of victims succumb to infection from shrapnel wounds, according to a spokesman for the Aleppo branch of the Syrian Civil Defence.
Syrian activists and human-rights monitoring groups accused pro-regime forces of using the weapon for the first time three years ago in Daraa, a southern Syrian province, but only on Aug. 13, 2015, did the U.S. urge the international community to “end the deplorable use of barrel bombs.”
"The Assad regime has apparently grown reliant on the repugnant use of barrel bombs as an instrument of terror against innocent Syrian civilians," U.S. envoy Samantha Power said in a statement released Thursday.  
A video of the first recorded barrel bomb attack in Syria from July 18, 2012. 
Within hours of the U.S. envoy’s statement, the Syrian regime dropped 12 barrel bombs on the southern city of Darayya and a separate barrel-bomb attack hit a neighboring town in the province of Daraa, in which the regime helicopters dropped at least 10 barrels on al-Yahudeh, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).
Barrel bombs and other air attacks have killed, injured and displaced tens of thousands of civilians across Syria, according to an Amnesty International report that concluded the use of barrel bombs amounts to “war crimes” and, in some cases, “crimes against humanity.”
In February 2014, more than a year after the homemade explosives claimed their first victims, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2139, demanding all fighting factions in Syria stop attacking civilians and cease the use of “indiscriminate employment of weapons in populated areas…. such as the use of barrel bombs.”
The UN resolution has made little difference to the frequency of attacks or the number of areas targeted by the weapons -- except to increase them. Almost 9,000 people have been killed in barrel bomb attacks since February 2014 and roughly 95 percent of victims were civilians, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights.

Total Victims Of Barrel Bomb Attacks
Breakdown of barrel bomb victims in Syria before and after U.N. resolution 2139 passed in February 2014.

Source: Violation Documentation Center in Syria Get the data;


Aleppo has seen the most attacks and the greatest number of victims since the bombs were first used in 2012. More than 1300 people in Aleppo have been killed in barrel bomb attacks since January 2015, but activists say this number is slightly lower than the fatalities Aleppo suffered in previous years.
One particularly lethal day for Syria’s largest city was Sept. 3, 2014. Khatib rushed to the site of a barrel bomb attack in the city, hoping to rescue injured civilians, when another barrel was released. Some 50 barrels rained down on Aleppo city that day, killing dozens of civilians and three of Khatib’s colleagues. The team has lost 28 volunteers to barrel attacks. Khatib has been indirectly hit several times but brushed them off as “light injuries,” compared to what others in the area have suffered.
“They have destroyed the city of Aleppo because of the barrels and killed thousands of women and children,” Khatib said.
Khaled Khatib, a volunteer with the Aleppo branch of the Syrian Civil Defense, photographs the destruction after a fierce Syrian regime barrel bomb attack on Aleppo city, September 9, 2014.  Syria Civil Defense
Residents in other Syrian provinces have suffered a similar fate as the number of explosive barrel attacks has increased. Hasakah, a northern province where ISIS and Kurdish militants are fighting, has seen 57 attacks since February 2014, but none before. Deir el-Zour -- under ISIS siege since June -- saw its first barrel bomb attacks little more than a year ago.  Syria’s southern provinces like Daraa and Hama saw attacks triple in number.
Last month, the Syrian regime dropped 2041 explosive barrels, killing at least 368 civilians in six of the country’s 14 governorates.  During that month, Al-Homsi was in the central Syrian province of Homs and said there was an average of five barrels dropped on them every day.
Despite mounting evidence, Syrian President Bashar Assad has repeatedly denied accusations that his forces use barrel bombs on civilians. In an rare in-person interview with the BBC earlier this year, Assad denied the army’s use of explosive barrels, calling it a “childish story that keeps repeating itself in the West.”
But it’s a story with witnesses who are willing to speak out -- barrels,  compared to missiles and regular Syrian regime bombs, are according to Khatib “less expensive and more lethal,” making them a brutal -- and useful -- component of Assad’s weapons arsenal.
“People started to wish that they would be shelled with rockets instead of barrel bombs,” al-Homsi said. “ISIS and the barrels both impose a threat, but the barrel's danger is greater.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-regimes-barrel-bombs-kill-more-civilians-isis-al-qaeda-combined-2057392

More liberal stupidity

Lets get rid of Assad and the government .

Good idea,let's use the hugely successful Libya regime toppling blueprint

Because obviously Libya is so stable and peaceful these days

smelly-bandit wrote:More liberal stupidity

Lets get rid of Assad and the government .

Good idea,let's use the hugely successful Libya regime toppling blueprint

Because obviously Libya is so stable and peaceful these days

But you said we were stupid not to do was Cameron wanted to do when it was debated in parliament, and he wanted to bomb Assad.  Make up your mind.

What you need is a no-fly zone so that Assad cannot barrel bomb his own people, then the flow of refugees will stop.

smelly-bandit wrote:More liberal stupidity

Lets get rid of Assad and the government .

Good idea,let's use the hugely successful Libya regime toppling blueprint

Because obviously Libya is so stable and peaceful these days

What an absurd argument.
So where there was failings before you think they would do the same?
Doh
Not the brightest spark are you and you want to keep a dictatorship going where countless innocent people are being butchered by this idiot.
Yes he needs to be removed as well as Russian influence also which is not helping the matter either.
Coalition Arab nation peace keeping force alongside the UN to help a transitition period so democracy can form.
This should have happened in Libya also.

So the Dutchmans policy is to continue with bad policies that does not see an end to the conflict..

Give that wally a two finger ripple lol

sassy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:More liberal stupidity

Lets get rid of Assad and the government .

Good idea,let's use the hugely successful Libya regime toppling blueprint

Because obviously Libya is so stable and peaceful these days

But you said we were stupid not to do was Cameron wanted to do when it was debated in parliament, and he wanted to bomb Assad.  Make up your mind.

Never said any such thing

But I see the leftie liberal vermin have lost the argument and now resort to phantom discussion they have made up

Think my point is made and proved a dozen times over

Cheers lefties

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:

But you said we were stupid not to do was Cameron wanted to do when it was debated in parliament, and he wanted to bomb Assad.  Make up your mind.

Never said any such thing

But I see the leftie liberal vermin have lost the argument and now resort to phantom discussion they have made up

Think my point is made and proved a dozen times over

Cheers lefties

So no point to make then.

And your words:

And why was that Walter??

Oh yes I remember the leftwing liberals wouldn't support military intervention

So you can why they would feel guilty


The military intervention was to stop Assad after he had used chemical weapons.

You mean the coalition of Arab states who are taking in all the refugees??

Or are you talking about the coalition of Arab states who are busy fighting Isis so effectively

Which coalition of Arab states are you taking about??

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:

But you said we were stupid not to do was Cameron wanted to do when it was debated in parliament, and he wanted to bomb Assad.  Make up your mind.

Never said any such thing

But I see the leftie liberal vermin have lost the argument and now resort to phantom discussion they have made up

Think my point is made and proved a dozen times over

Cheers lefties

Look we know you are a far right fantical defender of dictatorships, but they never work.

You have not proved any point but how you back a failed system.

Seriously Dutchman, i think you really need to go back to school and Primary School at that.