Labour or BNP

by Andy Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:30 pm

It's a binary choice, in a straight contest, who would you vote for?
Labour or the BNP?

by eddie Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:53 pm

Labour. Who wouldn't?

by 'Wolfie Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:43 pm

eddie wrote:
Labour. Who wouldn't?

Oh, there's a number of people here who would more than likely put the BNP first ahead of those nasty communistic marxist freeloaders :

Tommy, DYKnose, Ragg's, NITwit if he could vote over there, Nems, Fred -- surely that's a bit of a 'no-brainer' ? scratch

Let's see any of them prove me wrong.. Wink

by Andy Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:18 pm

In fairness, it was a testing question. Labour are in disarray at present, and need to sort themselves out within 18 months or they WILL be the opposition in 2020. But most rational people would/should prefer them, faults, warts and all, over a truly abhorrent party like the BNP.

by eddie Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:20 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:
Labour. Who wouldn't?

Oh, there's a number of people here who would more than likely put the BNP first ahead of those nasty communistic marxist freeloaders :

Tommy, DYKnose, Ragg's, NITwit if he could vote over there, Nems, Fred -- surely that's a bit of a 'no-brainer' ?

Let's see any of them prove me wrong..

I'm quite sure none of those posters would vote BNP.

by Syl Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:30 pm

I have always voted Labour when I have voted...never have never would vote BNP.

Given the choice of present Labour....I would have to feign madness and abstain.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:12 pm

[quote="WhoseYourWolfie"]

eddie wrote:
Labour. Who wouldn't?

Oh, there's a number of people here who would more than likely put the BNP first ahead of those nasty communistic marxist freeloaders :

Tommy, DYKnose, Ragg's, NITwit if he could vote over there, Nems, Fred -- surely that's a bit of a 'no-brainer' ? scratch

Let's see any of them prove me wrong.. Wink

[/quote

My past voting record has included the Liberal (pre Lib-Dems) Party once, Labour twice, Tories three times and the Monster Raving Loony Party once - that was when all the candidates in my constituency were, in my opinion, utter dickheads and I deliberately wasted my vote.

The reason? I have always voted for the candidate that I believed would best represent my local area regardless of what colour rosette he or she was wearing.

In the meantime, you thick Aussie asshole, present just one post of mine which has ever indicated any support whatsoever for the BNP, or any other far right party for that matter.

Idiot.

by nicko Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:20 am

"Thick Aussie asshole" Good description !

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:35 am

nicko wrote:"Thick Aussie asshole" Good description !

I take great exception to Left Wing liars and smearmongers deliberately and falsely linking me with extremist organisations so that they can continue to repeat the smear repeatedly in the hope that it will become accepted by the forum as a whole.

Wolfie has clearly been taking lessons from that mini-Goebbels Scrat.

I see that the liar has at least one arselicking supporter prepared to leap to his defence by awarding me one of those childish "reds." Another idiot.

by eddie Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:08 am

eddie wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:
Labour. Who wouldn't?

Oh, there's a number of people here who would more than likely put the BNP first ahead of those nasty communistic marxist freeloaders :

Tommy, DYKnose, Ragg's, NITwit if he could vote over there, Nems, Fred -- surely that's a bit of a 'no-brainer' ?

Let's see any of them prove me wrong..

I'm quite sure none of those posters would vote BNP.

As I've already said.

by Andy Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:09 am

Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts. Neutral

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

by 'Wolfie Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:12 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
nicko wrote:"Thick Aussie asshole" Good description !

I take great exception to Left Wing liars and smearmongers deliberately and falsely linking me with extremist organisations so that they can continue to repeat the smear repeatedly in the hope that it will become accepted by the forum as a whole.

Wolfie has clearly been taking lessons from that mini-Goebbels Scrat.

I see that the liar has at least one arselicking supporter prepared to leap to his defence by awarding me one of those childish "reds." Another idiot.

Go fuck yourself, you lying nationalist scumbag piece of shit...

Go and shove your anti-worker, anti-union, foreigner-hating, Aussie-bashing crap where the sun don't shine..

You overblown, supercilious, mealy-mouthed little toad.

by Andy Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:24 pm

Do I take a hint that you don't 100% agree with Fred, Wolfie?

by Syl Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:00 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Go fuck yourself, you lying nationalist scumbag piece of shit...

Go and shove your anti-worker, anti-union, foreigner-hating, Aussie-bashing crap where the sun don't shine..

You overblown, supercilious, mealy-mouthed little toad.

The red stripe came from me btw...I would hate anyone else to get the credit. Wink

by nicko Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:14 pm

Bet you wouldn't say that to me face to face, you'd be eating hospital food for a year !!
I BET your about 5ft 6, a little

weedy bloke that lives with his mom, and is bullied like hell by his mates, correction, you have no mates !
Your all mouth mate, and we all know it.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:08 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:
Labour. Who wouldn't?

Oh, there's a number of people here who would more than likely put the BNP first ahead of those nasty communistic marxist freeloaders :

Tommy, DYKnose, Ragg's, NITwit if he could vote over there, Nems, Fred -- surely that's a bit of a 'no-brainer' ?

Let's see any of them prove me wrong..

I don't need to prove anything to you, TAA. Wink

by eddie Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:46 pm

Syl wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Go fuck yourself, you lying nationalist scumbag piece of shit...

Go and shove your anti-worker, anti-union, foreigner-hating, Aussie-bashing crap where the sun don't shine..

You overblown, supercilious, mealy-mouthed little toad.

The red stripe came from me btw...I would hate anyone else to get the credit.

One from me too. The post was just vile.

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:34 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:
nicko wrote:"Thick Aussie asshole" Good description !

I take great exception to Left Wing liars and smearmongers deliberately and falsely linking me with extremist organisations so that they can continue to repeat the smear repeatedly in the hope that it will become accepted by the forum as a whole.

Wolfie has clearly been taking lessons from that mini-Goebbels Scrat.

I see that the liar has at least one arselicking supporter prepared to leap to his defence by awarding me one of those childish "reds." Another idiot.

Go fuck yourself, you lying nationalist scumbag piece of shit...

Go and shove your anti-worker, anti-union, foreigner-hating, Aussie-bashing crap where the sun don't shine..

You overblown, supercilious, mealy-mouthed little toad.

sigh...just back from a nice break in my woodlands and see this...

wolfie...one more like that and you can talk to yourself in the basement for a week or so...got it?

oh and BTW...dont bother crying about the abuse YOU get...that always comes as a consequence of YOUR post

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:38 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts.

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:40 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts.

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

That's pretty much how I see it too. All the time that some countries are supporting the rebels, including the US, the war will drag on. Assad can be dealt with later if he's committed war crimes.

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:44 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts.

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

Our allies fighting ISIS on the ground are the Free Syria army Rolling Eyes

they want to have democracy like us

I'm sorry but you are too ignorant to debate on this topic since you think the Arab spring revolution are Islamist

Why are they not on the side of he guy that uses Saran on them? Suspect

are you fucking stupid? Assad is a Russian/Iranian backed dictator (not our friend) he is backed by Iran because he is Shiite the free Syria army and ISIS are mainly Sunni, But one what theocratic rule the other want Democratic elections.

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:47 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts.

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

That's pretty much how I see it too. All the time that some countries are supporting the rebels, including the US, the war will drag on. Assad can be dealt with later if he's committed war crimes.

That's right, although Assad will not be dealt with due to being backed by Russia.

Unfortunately for the Syrians their nation is just a pawn in a much larger Power struggle between Russia and the USA.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:07 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

Our allies fighting ISIS on the ground are the Free Syria army
they want to have democracy like us

I'm sorry but you are too ignorant to debate on this topic since you think the Arab spring revolution are Islamist

Why are they not on the side of he guy that uses Saran on them? are you fucking stupid? Assad is a Russian/Iranian backed dictator (not our friend) he is backed by Iran because he is Shiite the free Syria army and ISIS are mainly Sunni, But one what theocratic rule the other want Democratic elections.

I think it is you who are ignorant if you think that...

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:33 am

Nope Tommy it is you that think that the Free Syria Army that is the most lethal force fighting ISIS is the same as ISIS

You are really proving to just be an Ignorant racist

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:18 pm

nicko wrote:Bet you wouldn't say that to me face to face, you'd be eating hospital food for a year !!
I BET your about 5ft 6, a little

weedy bloke that lives with his mom, and is bullied like hell by his mates, correction, you have no mates !
Your all mouth mate, and we all know it.

Oh, I thought he was saying it to me. How very disappointing.

Ain't it strange how Left Wing liars and smearmongers always develop a sudden attack of acute myopia whenever they are asked to provide an actual post to back up their third form drivel?

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:18 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

Our allies fighting ISIS on the ground are the Free Syria army
they want to have democracy like us

I'm sorry but you are too ignorant to debate on this topic since you think the Arab spring revolution are Islamist

Why are they not on the side of he guy that uses Saran on them? are you fucking stupid? Assad is a Russian/Iranian backed dictator (not our friend) he is backed by Iran because he is Shiite the free Syria army and ISIS are mainly Sunni, But one what theocratic rule the other want Democratic elections.

There are other rebel groups which are not as moderate as the FSA and are Islamists. Don't assume that all groups which are fighting Assad are necessarily full of good guys.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:26 pm

But veya thinks there are a group of 'moderate rebrls' who are opposed to assad/govt forces but who are fighting isis...!?

Quantum thinking anyone...!!!???

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But veya thinks there are a group of 'moderate rebrls' who are opposed to assad/govt forces but who are fighting isis...!?

Quantum thinking anyone...!!!???

There are loads and loads of rebel groups. One of them crushed the FSA not long ago.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-group-idUSKBN1591AF

The FSA are moderate in comparison to some of them, but they're not that moderate. I think they're quite keen on Sharia law.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:08 pm

It has often been said that there are no moderate rebels in Syria...

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:15 pm

I was rather hoping that someone would answer my questions below...

veya_victaous wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts.

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:40 am

Assad is a Dictator,
You had a functional society under the EU with all those things....So why did you have such a big issue with not voting on it? why weren't you happy to just accept EU dictatorship? (it's not like the regularly murdered EU citizens) Or Do you not think other people deserve democracy too?

Who Said Moderate? They are rebels seeking a more western style society. No rebel group could be considered moderate, and neither can Assad.

Assad is monster, See the children killed by chemical weapons, SO they are definitely the lesser of the evils, Assad is better than ISIS but he is still far from good.

AND what the good rebel Groups (Primarily the Free Syria Army that are supported by the USA and allies, including the UK) are Fighting for is DEMOCRACY, the right to vote for their own president and political leaders.

the Free Syria Army has done more fighting against ISIS than Assad You idiot!! As I said no point talking to you since you are TOO IGNORANT

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:47 am

Tommy Monk wrote:But veya thinks there are a group of 'moderate rebrls' who are opposed to assad/govt forces but who are fighting isis...!?

Quantum thinking anyone...!!!???

You are a Moron
There are MULTIPULE SIDES not just 2
But I guess you cant understand anything that is not just Black and white Rolling Eyes

And YES the Free Syria Army is Fighting ISIS more than Assad is fighting ISIS
Currently Fighting Along side the US Special forces with US weapons
https://news.vice.com/article/us-special-forces-are-helping-turkey-clear-out-isis-strongholds-in-syria

American special forces in the region have, thus far, mostly been embedded with the Syrian Democratic Forces, made up predominantly of Kurdish fighters but with a mix of others.

Those units have, at different times, faced a three-front fight against IS, forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad, and the Turkish military. The US commandos embedded in those units are so close to the fighting that airstrikes on the Kurdish forces have come dangerously close to hitting American forces, the Pentagon confirmed in August.

by 'Wolfie Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:32 am

Tommy the fuckwit...

His total lack of comprehension shows up just what a total farce his self-proclaimed "genius"_ness really is..

He's simply too braindead to understand the simple concept of multu-faceted/multi-sided conflicts.

In his fucked-up little corner of the world, everything is simple == "us vs. them", black vs. white, he and his alt.right/far right cronies against everyone to the left of Attlla the Hun..

by Andy Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:33 pm

His understanding of the world.
White = good.
Black = bad.
Muslims = Baddies.
Non Muslim = Goodies.
It takes superior genius intellect to reduce the complex human race to such binary categories.

by eddie Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:21 pm

What is the actual purpose of making a post saying "he is this" and "he is that"?

Anyone know? Fucked if I do.

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:45 pm

I was rather hoping that someone would answer my questions below... rather than just posting abuse at me...

veya_victaous wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Whether to go for an unpopular Labour or an equally unpopular BNP is thf sort of difficult binary choice governments are faving in the middle east.
Do you hope to oust Assad or do you keep him as he is fighting and keeping in check ISIL?
There is no clear and conclusive answer to that question , unlike my original one - which is that most rational people , given such a limited choice, ought to go for Labour.

As much as I would like to see one of the free Syria rebel groups gain control I think we have to accept that is not going to happen.
Assad controls over 90% of the means of production and almost all major cities and all major cities not devastated by the ongoing civil wars.
The shortest path to ending this series of Civil wars that have seen 100,000's dead or displaced is an Assad victory. It would take years and cost 100,000's more lives for any of the rebel groups to gain control of the nation.

I also think it is odd that we are so offended by a few dozen killed by Chemical weapons but haven't cared about the approx. 40,000 children killed by conventional weapons in these conflicts.

And this doesn't even take into account that if the USA (and the western allies) did try and remove Assad through violent 'regime change' we would start world war 3 as Russia has heavily invested it's military in this conflict on the side of Assad.

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

by nicko Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:48 am

by veya_victaous Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:44 pm

@ Tommy
I DID !!!! Your question are STUPID because they pretend that there is only 2 sides!!!

NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MODERATE REBELS !!! where does anyone say FSA is moderate and are you saying ASSAD is moderate?? a moderate that uses Saran?

They are not they are opposed to NO VOTE, murder of political opponents, Oppression of Political ideal like Democracy

IT WAS Pretty SHIT for the Majority Under Assad

SO ANSWER WHY WERE YOU NOT HAPPY UNDER A EU DICTATORSHIP????? they never even killed EDL members which Assad would have done
the Brexit party is the same as FSA !!!! except Brexit didn't actually having anything to complain about

by veya_victaous Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:46 pm

eddie wrote:What is the actual purpose of making a post saying "he is this" and "he is that"?

Anyone know? Fucked if I do.

Because TOMMY IS COMPLETE BRAIN DEAD TWAT THAT DESERVE ALL THE ABUSE HE GETS.

IF he lived under Assad in which he'd be choking on Saran Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:13 pm

So still no answers... just more abuse from Vera who is obviously too stupid to answer properly...

by Andy Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:19 pm

Veya isnt the only poster on here who thinks you are a fucking wanker and a blithering idiot. With one or 2 rw exceptions, most do.
Every timeTommy sees a picture he disagrees with, he claims, with his genius intellect, that it is photoshopped.
Itslike a broken record.

Why do you think that is?

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:28 pm

I care little about the opinions if idiots like you hand shandy...

by Syl Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:30 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Veya isnt the only poster on here who thinks you are a fucking wanker and a blithering idiot. With one or 2 rw exceptions, most do.

Why do you think that is?

Don't include me in the "most do" category.
I don't always agree with Tommy, but others have much higher blithering idiot qualifications than he does.

by eddie Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:01 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Veya isnt the only poster on here who thinks you are a fucking wanker and a blithering idiot. With one or 2 rw exceptions, most do.
Every timeTommy sees a picture he disagrees with, he claims, with his genius intellect, that it is photoshopped.
Itslike a broken record.

Why do you think that is?

I don't know why that is and I dont think you should speak for most people. I don't go round calling people idiots because we hold different views.

A lot of us sound like broken records too, especially those who only ever arrive to say the same things, over and over and over for years and years and years.

Don't you think?

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:23 pm

I'm not 'disagreeing with a picture'... I'm questioning the authenticity of the 'picture'...

by Guest Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:41 pm

Sorry but did Tommy argue that the citizens of Syria have enjoyed peace and stability under Assad?

Its embarrassing when someone argues that an oppressive authoritarian regime, some how brings peace and stability to everyone.

The people rose up in Syria, as they had been oppressed and had not been at peace within Syria. They wanted change, democratic change. Until, those who called for democratic change. Were vastly killed, fled into exile and more so over powered by the influx of Islamist groups into the region.

So most of the moderate rebels are now few in number. That though is not a reason to not Free Syria, from Assad, ISIS and any other extremist group.

Also has to be the worst revisionist history again from Tommy

How many conflicts has Syria fought against Israel?

How about its major part, in the Lebanese conflict?

To them make me PMSL laughing, claiming a dictatorship run by the most employed security service per capital in the world. Which are backed by Militias, the Police and Army. All using force to maintain order. Where Tommy claims somehow that this is was a secular society?

Some real history for everyone and not the made up and invented history that Tommy has presented on Syria.

Oppression and fear with repression are methods of governance of the authoritarian tyrannical regimes in the Arab world, while the Syrian regime is one of the most authoritarian in the world. This regime is a blend of the well-known regimes in North Korea and Iran. The ruling party called Baath is, similarly as in North Korea, implanted in every segment of the society. The Shia Alawite minority, from which stems the Al-Assad dynasty has occupied the most important positions in the party and in the country for 40 years, the country where the extraordinary circumstances have been going on since 1963.

The security services are "the backbone" of the regime, while the partisan militia, the police and the army perform executive tasks. According to some data the percentage of the employees in the Syrian security services is one among the highest in the world, namely one member of the security services per 158 citizens. This number doesn't include various party colleagues, who have to regularly monitor and spy after their colleagues and neighbours on the behest of their superiors, regardless of their employment (health, universities, industry, etc.). They have to record all events in their weekly reports, which have to be regularly submitted to their superiors.

In the eighties, the regime confronted its opponents with tanks and rockets. The attack on Hama, the centre of Sunni Muslim fraternities, in 1982 is well known. 38.000 inhabitants of Hama lost their lives in this attack (Robert Fisk - The Independent). In the attack on the desert prison Tadmur (Palmyra) in 1980, 2000 prisoners were killed, whereas the same number of people lost their lives during the attack on the largest city in Syria, Aleppo. In the book called Human Rights Watch (HRW), entitled "Syria exposed", this period is called the period of great oppression, because in the world of modern contemporary communications, no such massacres can be hidden.

The regime was contented with the policy of sticks and carrots. The police arrested all the symbols and leaders of the political movements and non-governmental organizations, they shut down the internet forums, prohibited the activists to travel abroad and used other methods of harassment and intimidation.

- See more at: http://www.ifimes.org/en/8384-syria-between-oppression-and-freedom#sthash.TmX3kH9w.dpuf

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:53 pm

Oh dear...!

Didge is going for the 'double waffle'...!!!

by Guest Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh dear...!

Didge is going for the 'double waffle'...!!!

So yet another reply where Tommy offers up misdirection and excuses again. In order to avoid the actual debate and points raised.

lol

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:16 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Before the Islamists started kicking off in Syria, the people there enjoyed peace and stability, law and order, safety and security, functioning govt and civil service structure providing public services, relatively secular society with people having freedom of religion and where religious minorities were protected, bustling shops and markets and trade with people having ease of access to widespread selection of the regular sort of food/goods/services that you would expect consumers to have!

Who are these so called 'real/moderate rebels'...!?

Why are they opposed to the things that they had that I listed above...!?

What do they want that is different/better than what they already had... that they want to fight against it...!?

If what they want is much the same as what they had before the Islamists started kicking off and ruining it all... then why are they on the side of the Islamists and not working against them and on the govt side in trying to restore things to how they were...!?

If they did get a chance of power... how would they then deal with the isis/Islamists...!?

Wouldn't it be the case that they would then have to carry on the fight against them...!?

So really just becoming part of the govt side and carrying on the same against isis and with the aim of stomping them out, and restoring what they had before, and that which the govt forces are trying to do already...!?

Which again begs the question at to why they are not already on the govt side... but instead aligned with the isis/Islamists...!?

Our allies fighting ISIS on the ground are the Free Syria army
they want to have democracy like us

I'm sorry but you are too ignorant to debate on this topic since you think the Arab spring revolution are Islamist

Why are they not on the side of he guy that uses Saran on them? are you fucking stupid? Assad is a Russian/Iranian backed dictator (not our friend) he is backed by Iran because he is Shiite the free Syria army and ISIS are mainly Sunni, But one what theocratic rule the other want Democratic elections.

"...Despite the war in Syria being simpliefied to a "Sunni uprising against the Alawite government", that's far from the truth. In the Aleppo governate, shabiha was entirely composed of and led by pro-Assad Sunni tribes.[44] The Syrian Arab Army at the start of the conflict till now is composed mainly of Sunni Syrians (for example, the 4th Mechanized Division is entirely composed and led by Sunnis[45]), with mixed religious leadership at higher military positions.[46] Sunnis also hold high governmental positions; the Prime Minister of Syria (previously Minister of Health) Wael Nader al-Halqi, the Minister of Defense and also Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Armed Forces (previously Special Forces) General Major Fahd Jassem al-Freij, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Major General Mohammad al-Shaar, an Interior Minister, are some of the Sunni Muslims in the positions of power. There also operate pro-Assad Sunni militias composed of a Baathist loyalists, such as the Ba'ath Brigades. Brigades are made up of Sunni Syrians and other Arab Sunnis from the Middle Eastern region that adhere to pan-Arab ideals.[47] Liwa al-Quds is a pro-government, Sunni Palestinian militia that operates in Aleppo.

The Times of Israel reported in June 2014 that individuals interviewed in a "Sunni-dominated, middle-class neighborhood of central Damascus" claimed wide support for Assad among the Sunnis in Syria.[48]..."

Wikipedia

by Sponsored content