Chilcot Report6 July 2016

by Irn Bru Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:04 am

First topic message reminder :

There is no doubt that this will be the lead story on all the news bulletins here in the UK.

The big question is will Tony hang or will it be a whitewash like they usually are?

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:We liberated a nation.

Only to replace it with rape, torture, kidnapping and murder. And a legacy of constant confusion and civil war.

We should be proud??

You mean by the islamists?

You are looking at the wrong guilty parties

To go off some far removed isolated incidents just shows how ridiculous the left look at anything.
Thousands are butchered through the insurgency and you bring up the fact some Iraqis were raped and tortured in comparrison, which there were many convictions made of US soldiers.
Is that the best drivel you can come up with?
I mean over one million german women and girls were raped in 1945 by the Russians and Polish and none of them were brought to trial

by Original Quill Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:43 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It isn't our problem, and it never was. It is only by the convoluted reasons that got us involved, that we are left with the inheritance.

We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.

–Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, 1986

In 1986, yes. But I think Elie Wiesel would have different thoughts if he were speaking in a post-Iraq era. Remember, there were no sides until we invaded Iraq.

Perhaps he would pick the side of staying out of it, and not inventing reasons for killing babies.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.

–Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, 1986

In 1986, yes. But I think Elie Wiesel would have different thoughts if he were speaking in a post-Iraq era. Remember, there were no sides until we invaded Iraq.

Perhaps he would pick the side of staying out of not inventing reasons for killing babies.

Well considering you can provide none and he only died recently, would showed your view is false

Again the left view would rather allow people to suffer than help them and all because of money.

You sure sound like a Capitalist to me Quill

by Original Quill Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:45 pm

didge wrote:You mean by the islamists?

No that's what our soldiers did.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:You mean by the islamists?

No that's what our soldiers did.

But ignore the mass crimes by the islamists as being of a lesser evil than those convicted of isolated torture and rape cases?

Dear ne, your moral compass is well and truly broke

That is bad but nothing compared to what Saddam did whilst in power and for you to even compare this to him let alone ignore what the insurgents did, is shocking

by Original Quill Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:48 pm

didge wrote:Well considering you can provide none and he only died recently, would showed your view is false

I don't think so. He would have said: Don't cause trouble where there is no reason. Least of all, don't replace it with worse conditions.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Well considering you can provide none and he only died recently, would showed your view is false

I don't think so. He would have said: Don't cause trouble where there is no reason. Least of all, don't replace it with worse conditions.

But he never did though did he, so your claims is just a load of waffle

Again it was not replaced by worse conditions, they came not from the US but islamists trying to gain Islamic supremacy from two islamic sides, who are still to this day doing the same.
Its incredible how you constantly ignore the root cause.
What has the inaction of the Allies cost in Syria leaving a tyrant in charge
500,000 dead
1.9 million injured
9 million displaced

That is the cost of your negligence to do nothing

by Original Quill Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:52 pm

didge wrote:But ignore the mass crimes by the islamists as being of a lesser evil than those convicted of isolated torture and rape cases?

He said-she said-they said-we said... If what Saddam did was worse, why did we have to lie to invent a justification for war?

Just by the order of magnitude, the baby-killing, rape, kidnapping, torture of our own forces was worse.

by Syl Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:52 pm

Is Blair a broken man living with the guilt?
or just a good actor??

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:But ignore the mass crimes by the islamists as being of a lesser evil than those convicted of isolated torture and rape cases?

He said-she said-they said-we said... If what Saddam did was worse, why did we have to lie to invent a justification for war?

Just by the order of magnitude, the baby-killing, rape, kidnapping, torture of our own forces was worse.

They should have never lied but they did also go off his human rights record and that should have been the only reason and just reason to liberate Iraq.
Oh here we go again with the baby killing bullshit, that was mainly the insurgents and again you ignore this or the fact Saddam butchered many babies
Or does your ability to use guilt on the death of babies only count toi some that are killed through collateral damage by the allies? Thus not intentional.
Do you know how many German babies died in WW2? That was through intentional bombing as well, where as US incidents were off mistakes, which again the number killed in air strikes was minimal to say the least

by Original Quill Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:03 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so. He would have said: Don't cause trouble where there is no reason. Least of all, don't replace it with worse conditions.

But he never did though did he, so your claims is just a load of waffle

Now you're impeaching your own witness. You are saying that what Elie Wiesel felt is irrelevant.

didge wrote:Again it was not replaced by worse conditions, they came not from the US but islamists trying to gain Islamic supremacy from two islamic sides, who are still to this day doing the same.

Caused by our own intervention. You are blaming the victim. We caused the whole insurgency.

didge wrote:Its incredible how you constantly ignore the root cause.

Root cause? Root cause? It's seems to me that we created ISIS. Take a look at, America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group, By Garikai Chengu, Global Research, September 19, 2014

didge wrote:What has the inaction of the Allies cost in Syria leaving a tyrant in charge
500,000 dead
1.9 million injured
9 million displaced

That is the cost of your negligence to do nothing

We need more than your judgments and arm-chair opinions, didge. Our restraint has probably saved thousands of babies lives. After all, we wouldn't be going in there with Chicklets and warm puppies.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Now you're impeaching your own witness. You are saying that what Elie Wiesel felt is irrelevant.

didge wrote:Rubbish not even claiming he is a witness to Iraq but showing someone who has though been an actual witness to genocide.Thus far exceeds your ability to understand someone who commits geneocide

Caused by our own intervention. You are blaming the victim. We caused the whole insurgency.

didge wrote:Again gibberish, so now liberating a nation, who celebrated the fall of Saddam caused them to then have insurgents flood their country and arms by Saudi and iran to fight a proxy war? That shows how far you fail to understand a root cause to a problem.

Root cause? Root cause? It's seems to me that we created ISIS. Take a look at, America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group, By Garikai Chengu, Global Research, June 13, 2016

didge wrote:Again ISIS is the product of Wahhabism, as again if you are claiming that liberating a country from a despot creates a group like ISIS, then it shows you fail to show countless examples of the same in history. Hate and islamism is what creates such groups born on a hate which is a narative that has been going around the islamic world since for well over a hundred years. Why did we not see when Nazi Germany and Japan were liberated the same?
In other worse you are talking gibberish

We need more than your judgments and arm-chair opinions, didge. Our restraint has probably saved thousands of babies lives. After all, we wouldn't be going in there with warm puppies.

No we need action, as we have seen inaction and that it costs hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria and has by the influxe of refugees also seen a rise in the Far Right in Europe, mainly because of hearing the same nonsense and lies you just posted

by Original Quill Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:21 pm

didge wrote:No we need action, as we have seen inaction and that it costs hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria and has by the influxe of refugees also seen a rise in the Far Right in Europe, mainly because of hearing the same nonsense and lies you just posted

You've made that point before; you are beginning to repeat yourself, didge.

I'll repeat the answer, before dropping out: If we went into Syria we would go in with more knives, grenades, F-18's and tanks. With what purpose? To kill, of course.

Every time we take out a couple of ISIS leaders in an airstrike, it is at the cost of 152-civilian lives. Those are babies, didge. It's not for nothing I use the term baby-killers.

What you want is revenge, not humanitarianism. You don't go in there with warm puppies, you go in with destructive weapons. Revenge is always costly. You're not solving any problems; you are adding to them.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:No we need action, as we have seen inaction and that it costs hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria and has by the influxe of refugees also seen a rise in the Far Right in Europe, mainly because of hearing the same nonsense and lies you just posted

You've made that point before; you are beginning to repeat yourself, didge.

I'll repeat the answer, before dropping out: If we went into Syria we would go in with more knives, grenades, F-18's and tanks. With what purpose? To kill, of course.

Every time we take out a couple of ISIS leaders in an airstrike, it is at the cost of 152-civilian lives. Those are babies, didge. It's not for nothing I use the term baby-killers.

What you want is revenge, not humanitarianism. You don't go in there with warm puppies, you go in with destructive weapons. Revenge is always costly. You're not solving any problems; you are adding to them.

No its you repeating and avoiding every single point i am making and now you best answer them as its getting tedious

Yes to remove a regeme it means killing some people but its the cost you weigh up.

By allowing Assad to stay in power as has seen not only caused countless unecessary deaths and injured but so many people displaced it has caused so much friction within Europe, where its unlikely that Britain would have voted to leave. Its fundemenatlly a factor in Britain voting to leave.
Now Saddam was the cause of the deaths of millions, and countless suffering torture and persecution.
If he had of stayed in power a civil war would have come eventually to Iraq anyway, because of the Arab springs, which again both Saudi and Iran would have exploited as they have done with Syria, as they have done so with Iraq already, hence the absurdity of going on about western intervention

Your problem solving is not solving anything, iut just adds countless to the body count daily and fails to understand that people are suffering daily and all because we have seenm what your policy does in Syria

Just further death and suffering and what is needed is action to smash islamism once and for all

by Irn Bru Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:46 am

Didge wrote:
sassy wrote:Germany and Japan after liberation did not descend into an insurgency

And that, without you even realising, shows the utter depths of your ignorance.

Bullshit aleart, show me the evidence that they descended into a decade long conflict of constant terrorism?

Seriously lets see the evidence and how and why they actually went onto rebuild their economies and no the Cold war is not terrorism, or an insurgency

In your own time dummy?

Here's your evidence

Didge wrote: The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism, where again to a Muslim a drone attack that kills civilians would also be seen as terrorism, as I am sure if you had drone attacks here to oust terrorists, that killed civilians you would be saying the same thing and as seen many people do not have a problem with civilians being killed to get terrorists. It has been concluded that the whole Iraq war has driven extremism in this country but you are not even concerned over that, you wish to promote an absurd view over Islam, when in every Terrorist action the causes behind them have been over events, like troops in Ira for example, deaths to civilians etc showing you have not the first clue understanding what creates terrorism in the first place, you only see through your eyes of hatred.

Will that do?

by Irn Bru Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:47 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:
sassy wrote:Germany and Japan after liberation did not descend into an insurgency

And that, without you even realising, shows the utter depths of your ignorance.

Bullshit aleart, show me the evidence that they descended into a decade long conflict of constant terrorism?

Seriously lets see the evidence and how and why they actually went onto rebuild their economies and no the Cold war is not terrorism, or an insurgency

In your own time dummy?

Here's your evidence on terrorism as it is now.

Didge wrote: The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism, where again to a Muslim a drone attack that kills civilians would also be seen as terrorism, as I am sure if you had drone attacks here to oust terrorists, that killed civilians you would be saying the same thing and as seen many people do not have a problem with civilians being killed to get terrorists. It has been concluded that the whole Iraq war has driven extremism in this country but you are not even concerned over that, you wish to promote an absurd view over Islam, when in every Terrorist action the causes behind them have been over events, like troops in Ira for example, deaths to civilians etc showing you have not the first clue understanding what creates terrorism in the first place, you only see through your eyes of hatred.

Will that do?

by Guest Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:00 am

That is not evidence, that is me once mistaken

Again the l,eft apply the desperate card lol

Poor Irn, he is once again broken and thinks people cannot be once mistaken when they further research somethung

It seems his ability to debate has since long departed lol

by 'Wolfie Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:15 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so. He would have said: Don't cause trouble where there is no reason. Least of all, don't replace it with worse conditions.

But he never did though did he, so your claims is just a load of waffle

Again it was not replaced by worse conditions, they came not from the US but islamists trying to gain Islamic supremacy from two islamic sides, who are still to this day doing the same.
Its incredible how you constantly ignore the root cause.
What has the inaction of the Allies cost in Syria leaving a tyrant in charge
500,000 dead
1.9 million injured
9 million displaced

That is the cost of your negligence to do nothing

THE ASSAD totalitarian military dictatorship -- not a genuinely legitimate democratically-elected gov't -- should have been removed years ago, before ISIS had been allowed to get a foothold...

AS FOR Russia's involvement, would they even be there if Assad wasn't a big customer of theirs ?

by Guest Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:39 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:

But he never did though did he, so your claims is just a load of waffle

Again it was not replaced by worse conditions, they came not from the US but islamists trying to gain Islamic supremacy from two islamic sides, who are still to this day doing the same.
Its incredible how you constantly ignore the root cause.
What has the inaction of the Allies cost in Syria leaving a tyrant in charge
500,000 dead
1.9 million injured
9 million displaced

That is the cost of your negligence to do nothing

THE ASSAD totalitarian military dictatorship -- not a genuinely legitimate democratically-elected gov't -- should have been removed years ago, before ISIS had been allowed to get a foothold...

AS FOR Russia's involvement, would they even be there if Assad wasn't a big customer of theirs ?

Some valid points, but in the bigger picture, people are continually ignoring what has caused, continues to do so. Is the opposing Islamic doctrines, in a perpetual battle. Where their end game, is the total domination of their form of Islam. They have continued to continue instability within he region and in the case of Saudi. Their wealth has helped spread wahhabism far and wide into the world. Like I say, the reality is that Saddam had committed mass genocide and thus as we could do something. It should have been done far earlier. This is going to continue for years until there is a winner and why no matter what we do to help in the region, it should be for matters like the defeat of ISIS. Even without the Iraq war, the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq.It was Saudi and iran that ensured Iraq would never be able to be a strong independent nation. Where it is very much being propped up by Iran.

by Sponsored content

Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016

Re: Chilcot Report6 July 2016