Labour or BNP

by Andy Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:30 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by veya_victaous Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:27 am

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

I did answer THERE IS MORE THAN 2 SIDES so your questions are nonsense
NOW you answer!!!

Why Weren't you happy with the EU? Why weren't you fighting AGAINST those opposing it?

Cause that answers the rest of your nonsense questions

LIKE I SAID originally you are too ignorant to debate this with since you just putting forward nonsense!!!

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:07 am

Veya... you say there are more than two sides... I'm not necessarily disputing that...

So maybe you could just answer the questions...?

by veya_victaous Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:32 am

what question?
That answers the questions because SOME are and Some are not Rolling Eyes

Combined with YOUR answer for; WHY didn't you just happily accept the EU?
All you points answered with those to considerations.

Considering you referred to the EU as a dictatorship, YOU are the last person that can tell people they should just accept a REAL dictator like Assad. That would have gassed you for What YOU considered YOUR rights. He would not have afforded you half the rights the EU did.

by Tommy Monk Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:44 pm

Avoiding the questions again I see...

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:37 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Avoiding the questions again I see...

YES, you are avoiding he question Rolling Eyes

I have given you MY answer 3 fucking times ALREADY!!!! you are just too dumb to understand

Like I said from the very beginning
No point having this discussion with you since you are too willfully ignorant and racist for it to be of any purpose.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:15 pm

You just repeating that 'there are more than 2 sides', is not answering the questions...

I'm not disputing that...

Now, with that in mind... can you answer the questions!?

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:15 am

That answers the False statements you are pretending are questions.. If you don't see how it does IT JUST PROVES MY ORIGNAL STATEMENT THAT YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT FOR THIS DISCCUSSION

SO ANSWER why didn't you fight against those that opposed the EU? you seem to think Syrian should all back Assad, So Why Didn't you by the same logic back the EU.

If you don't answer the conversation is over

by Syl Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:18 pm

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

This seems quite a prophetic thread given what's happened over the last couple of days.

Labour or BNP - Page 2 CrystalBallFortuneTellerSmiley

by The Devil, You Know Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:08 pm

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

why would I vote for either, they are both as irrelevant and racist as each other

by The Devil, You Know Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:26 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.

russia is heavily invested in keeping its access to the med open. had obama made a deal with russia to ensure that they would keep that access after assad was removed a million people more people might be alive and several million would not be traipsing all over the world.

The Assad family have made a business out of killing their own people and exporting terrorism for the last 40 years or more.
They are not some plucky hero's fighting for the decent way of life.
It is of course long past the point where something could have been done that would not leave chaos in the country, but at some point Assad will go.
The problem now is what will replace him.
Russia spends less time attacking Daesh and most of their effort goes on attacking assads enemies closer to home.
As to the gas attack, russia bear some responsibility as they were the ones obama trusted to remove syrias chemical stockpile. what ever way you look at it they were either incompetent or complicit in not doing so.
Trumps missile attack showed that that behaviour will not be tolerated and was probably intended for a wider audience than just assad.

A red line should be that. Under obama it wasn't and weakness encourages those willing to flout it.

by The Devil, You Know Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:26 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

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.

Triggered
doggy need a safe space rofl

by The Devil, You Know Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

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...!?

no they didn't. those that agreed with the assads were left alone, those that didn't were locked up at best, or murdered at worst.
His family have committed several massacres over the years.

you would be right in saying that syria was not a hotbed of jihadi groups before 2011. that came when the syrian people were left to rot by the west as assad stopped killing them in secret and started killing them on the streets.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive

by The Devil, You Know Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:41 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.

most of the groups left fighting assad who are not daesh are no longer nice guys. the kurds are probably the best of the bunch. Most of the groups being supported by the west have long since been taken over by radical islamists.

The free syrian army stood a chance if it had received assistance in 2011 instead of being thrown to wolves by obama and the rest of the west. Now we are more or less arming and training the same types that we armed and trained in afghanistan in the 80's.

the jihadi's did not arrive until well after the start of the uprising. the vacuum left by the west not offering support allowed them and Daesh to prosper. The rush to leave iraq enabled Daesh to become the richest terrorist organisation in history and has cost a million lives.

by The Devil, You Know Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:45 pm

veya_victaous wrote: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

the kurds are the most effective fighters against Daesh. the new iraqi army is also much better these days. the caliphates time is limited although liberating mosul will be a very costly and time consuming fight, they will be defeated there.the problem of course is they will pop up somewhere else when they are kicked out of syria and iraq, and the west must be willing to take the fight to them.

by veya_victaous Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:18 am

I actually agree with Devil Labour or BNP - Page 2 1363015401

Kurds are the best fighting force there at the moment
But they want an independent Kurdistan and are less interested in the fate of Syria as a whole (I support them having and Independent Kurdistan)

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:32 pm

The kueds are not fighting against assad.

by Sponsored content

Labour or BNP

Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP

Re: Labour or BNP