Iraq war III...???

First topic message reminder :




Iraq is breaking up. The Kurds have taken the northern oil city of Kirkuk that they have long claimed as their capital. Sunni fundamentalist fighters vow to capture Baghdad and the Shia holy cities further south.
Government rule over the Sunni Arab heartlands of north and central Iraq is evaporating as its 900,000-strong army disintegrates. Government aircraft have fired missiles at insurgent targets in Mosul, captured by Isis on Monday, but the Iraqi army has otherwise shown no sign of launching a counter-attack.
The nine-year Shia dominance over Iraq, established after the US, Britain and other allies overthrew Saddam Hussein, may be coming to an end. The Shia may continue to hold the capital and the Shia-majority provinces further south, but they will have great difficulty in re-establishing their authority over Sunni provinces from which their army has fled.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html



There have been reports that the army have just stripped off uniform dropped weapons and just run away!!!



In Mosul there were supposed to be about 14,000 soldiers and they have run from a couple of thousand militants.




Another thing that gets me, is that when these rebels were in Syria we kept hearing how we should be supporting them, but now they are in Iraq we should be helping fight against them.....!?

Sassy wrote:Anti tank weapons are NOT small arms, it said anti tank weapons AND light weapons.

Anti-tank weapons were formerly called bazookas back in WWII. They are hand-held rocket tubes, and rest on the shoulder of a single man. There's no firearm that is harmless. But, it's about as close to "beads and trinkets" you can get.

It is no real secret that we, Britain and USA and turkey have been aiding the Syrian rebels who have been killing and beheading their way through Syria.
But now they are doing the same in Iraq, they are all of a sudden being called terrorists and The enemy.
I think anyone who has helped arm these barbarians should be up for war crimes.

Some are held on the shoulder, some aren't

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=modern+anti+tank+weapons&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ozyfU8KaGpKqyATJ6YKoDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1011&bih=601#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=TyddaeMQV0KnHM%253A%3Bo1q91pC24qltkM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgdb.voanews.com%252F447D5712-EA66-4B83-BC24-06617268CAEE_w640_r1_s.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.voanews.com%252Fcontent%252Fsyria-rebels-weapons%252F1628351.html%3B640%3B360

and none can be classed as beads and trinkets.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is no real secret that we, Britain and USA and turkey have been aiding the Syrian rebels who have been killing and beheading their way through Syria.
But now they are doing the same in Iraq, they are all of a sudden being called terrorists and The enemy.
I think anyone who has helped arm these barbarians should be up for war crimes.

And their sisters and mothers stoned just so they remember the lesson. Be practical, Tommy. If you want to escalate things, be my guest.

But before we hold anyone up for war crimes, I insist that we start with GWB, Blair and Cheney.

I am already living in hope of that....



Our Iraq war enquiry should be released soon.

Tommy Monk wrote:I am already living in hope of that....

Our Iraq war enquiry should be released soon.

Enquiry?? I'll give you a heads-up. The bad guys lied.

I think we already know that....



Blair is a war criminal.

Tommy Monk wrote:I think we already know that....

Blair is a war criminal.

Yeah.  They all are.  Unfortunately, during the time the sentiments of our mutual nations were with them.  That's a lesson in itself.

We think of ourselves as so big and so bad, that we get caught up in proving that rather than having a serious 'think-it-through' and figure out what is our policy.  Funny, didn't Thucydides try to teach us that lesson during the debates on the Syracusan campaign in 431 BCE?  Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War.  It was called Nicias's ploy...

Wiki wrote:He [argued] that a larger expedition than previously approved would be required, expecting that the prospect of approving such a massive expenditure would prove unappealing to the citizenry. Contrary to Nicias's plan, the assembly enthusiastically embraced his proposal, and passed a motion allowing the generals to arrange for a force of over 100 ships and 5,000 hoplites. Nicias's ploy had failed badly.

To get involved in a long, protracted dispute means committing resources and carrying on forever.  At least Nicias foresaw the consequences. We missed it entirely. We did the same thing in Iraq, and as a result, we ended up stuck to br'er rabbit's tar baby.

Our UK people were largely against it.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Our UK people were largely against it.....

I know there was more caution on the UK side, but I would like to see some demonstration that the UK public was against the war. Do you have a poll taken at the time?

Well, I was on the demo against it.

Britons reject Blair support for war with Iraq

by JONATHAN OLIVER, Mail on Sunday

Tony Blair risks a backlash from the British people if he joins America in a war against Saddam Hussein.

The blunt message that the Prime Minister is placing his political future on the line over Iraq emerges today in an exclusive poll by The Mail on Sunday.

It shows that British voters are adamant that the country should not join President George W Bush in a 'go it alone' attack on Baghdad.

The stakes have been raised by Saddam, who is considering allowing UN weapons inspectors back, in a calculated bid to divide the Western allies.

The growing hostility to war represents a serious crisis for Mr Blair, caught between the demands of British public opinion and his friendship with the President.

Embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, 57 per cent said he was behaving like a 'poodle' towards the US leader.

Asked which course should be pursued, just 15 per cent said London and Washington should have total freedom to take military action against Iraq.

Opinion against the war has hardened in the past six months, according to the poll by YouGov.

Even with the support of the United Nations and European allies, 52 per cent said they would oppose British troops being used in an American-led action, with only 37 per cent in favour. When the same question was asked in March opinion was equally divided.

Among women, opposition to the war is even higher, with two-thirds opposed to British troops going into Iraq.

There was general acceptance of Allied claims that Iraq is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and wants to make a nuclear bomb.

However a majority of people - 54 per cent - said they would feel 'less safe' if Britain took part in a new Gulf war.

In the US, there have been calls for a plan to assassinate Saddam, but here only 41 per cent of people supported the idea, with 47 per cent against.

Opposition to the war has yet to dent Mr Blair's poll lead. Labour was six points ahead on 40 per cent. The Tories were on 34 with the Liberal Democrats trailing on 20.

The US came in for criticism over the way it has handled the escalating conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Two-fifths said America needed to do more to promote peace, while 30 per cent thought President Bush should stay out of the conflict altogether.

However, with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre approaching, there was general sympathy for the United States. Almost half - 46 per cent - said Britain had more in common with the US than with continental Europe. Just one in ten described themselves as 'anti-American'.

The results will make uncomfortable reading for the Prime Minister, who has promised his full support for the President's plan to topple Saddam. Mr Blair is ready to pledge up to 30,000 British troops as part of a 250,000-strong invasion army, which could be sent to the Gulf in defiance of the United Nations.

But the poll will encourage Labour MPs and trade unionists who oppose any widening of the war against terrorism. There are now growing fears among Ministers that the Labour Party conference this autumn will be overshadowed by the row over Iraq. Campaigners plan to force a series of embarrassing conference floor votes on the issue.

Labour MP Bruce George, chairman of the influential Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Blair needed to do more to prove that Saddam was a real threat to the UK.

'The Government has a lot of selling to do,' he said. 'It would be difficult to participate in any war, without public support.

'It would be preferable if we had the support of the UN Security Council, but that would mean persuading countries like Russia and China to back the action, which would not be easy.'

Alan Simpson, chair of Labour Against the War, said: 'It would be a personal and political tragedy for the Prime Minister to sign up to a war that the British public does not want.

'It would also be a disaster for the Middle East and catastrophe for the Iraqi people who would be flattened by the saturation bombing that would accompany such a war.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-131558/Britons-reject-Blair-support-war-Iraq.html#ixzz34pucWsLf

Well over a million marched against it in London....
And I spoke to many people before and since.
There are the odd few who were saying "but saddam is a brutal dictator..." and going on about weapons of mass destruction etc...
But these so called brutal dictators are the only thing keeping the rest of them from killing each other, and there were no weapons of mass destruction as I was saying back then too.

For once I absolutely agree with you Tommy.

The sentiments in America might have been with them, here they most definitely were not.

Sassy wrote:Well, I was on the demo against it.

Britons reject Blair support for war with Iraq

by JONATHAN OLIVER, Mail on Sunday

Tony Blair risks a backlash from the British people if he joins America in a war against Saddam Hussein.

The blunt message that the Prime Minister is placing his political future on the line over Iraq emerges today in an exclusive poll by The Mail on Sunday.

It shows that British voters are adamant that the country should not join President George W Bush in a 'go it alone' attack on Baghdad.

The stakes have been raised by Saddam, who is considering allowing UN weapons inspectors back, in a calculated bid to divide the Western allies.

The growing hostility to war represents a serious crisis for Mr Blair, caught between the demands of British public opinion and his friendship with the President.

Embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, 57 per cent said he was behaving like a 'poodle' towards the US leader.

Asked which course should be pursued, just 15 per cent said London and Washington should have total freedom to take military action against Iraq.

Opinion against the war has hardened in the past six months, according to the poll by YouGov.

Even with the support of the United Nations and European allies, 52 per cent said they would oppose British troops being used in an American-led action, with only 37 per cent in favour. When the same question was asked in March opinion was equally divided.

Among women, opposition to the war is even higher, with two-thirds opposed to British troops going into Iraq.

There was general acceptance of Allied claims that Iraq is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and wants to make a nuclear bomb.

However a majority of people - 54 per cent - said they would feel 'less safe' if Britain took part in a new Gulf war.

In the US, there have been calls for a plan to assassinate Saddam, but here only 41 per cent of people supported the idea, with 47 per cent against.

Opposition to the war has yet to dent Mr Blair's poll lead. Labour was six points ahead on 40 per cent. The Tories were on 34 with the Liberal Democrats trailing on 20.

The US came in for criticism over the way it has handled the escalating conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Two-fifths said America needed to do more to promote peace, while 30 per cent thought President Bush should stay out of the conflict altogether.

However, with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre approaching, there was general sympathy for the United States. Almost half - 46 per cent - said Britain had more in common with the US than with continental Europe. Just one in ten described themselves as 'anti-American'.

The results will make uncomfortable reading for the Prime Minister, who has promised his full support for the President's plan to topple Saddam. Mr Blair is ready to pledge up to 30,000 British troops as part of a 250,000-strong invasion army, which could be sent to the Gulf in defiance of the United Nations.

But the poll will encourage Labour MPs and trade unionists who oppose any widening of the war against terrorism. There are now growing fears among Ministers that the Labour Party conference this autumn will be overshadowed by the row over Iraq. Campaigners plan to force a series of embarrassing conference floor votes on the issue.

Labour MP Bruce George, chairman of the influential Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Blair needed to do more to prove that Saddam was a real threat to the UK.

'The Government has a lot of selling to do,' he said. 'It would be difficult to participate in any war, without public support.

'It would be preferable if we had the support of the UN Security Council, but that would mean persuading countries like Russia and China to back the action, which would not be easy.'

Alan Simpson, chair of Labour Against the War, said: 'It would be a personal and political tragedy for the Prime Minister to sign up to a war that the British public does not want.

'It would also be a disaster for the Middle East and catastrophe for the Iraqi people who would be flattened by the saturation bombing that would accompany such a war.'

Read more:

Yes, I was afraid I would get some article like that in response to my question. It isn’t very helpful to give some journalist’s retrospective opinion on June 14, 2014. Give us a line graph of opinion over time. That time.

And doesn’t anybody ask a direct question? A “'go it alone' attack on Baghdad”; what does that mean? “Behaving like a 'poodle'?” “Total freedom to take military action against Iraq?” “Women?” “Feel less safe?” These are at best indirect indications of the public sentiment. As I said, one article at one time doesn’t offer very much…what was the general, on-going sentiment?

Were the voters not in control of your own political course? Were you all puppets? I remember being so disappointed there was no opposition to the war in Britain. We knew we had a fascist usurper in office in the US. But, my friends and I thought that surely the British would give Bush and the Neo-Cons a good tongue lashing.

Instead we got Blair.

look at the lefties jumping on the band wagon

suddenly they have changed their tune and are now singing Saddams praises

before they were wanting his head, the same is true with assad

the lefties whine about what a brutal dictator he was but in time they will change their tune

That wasn't very intelligent of you Quill.   You obviously didn't read it, or a few clues would have made you realise it was written BEFORE the war.

Among women, opposition to the war is even higher, with two-thirds opposed to British troops going into Iraq.

There was general acceptance of Allied claims that Iraq is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and wants to make a nuclear bomb. (which was obviously found not to be fact later)

However a majority of people - 54 per cent - said they would feel 'less safe' if Britain took part in a new Gulf war.

Two-fifths said America needed to do more to promote peace, while 30 per cent thought President Bush should stay out of the conflict altogether.


Oh, and don't forget the biggest clue in the very first sentence:

Tony Blair risks a backlash from the British people if he joins America in a war against Saddam Hussein.

And it told you the on-going sentiment:

Even with the support of the United Nations and European allies, 52 per cent said they would oppose British troops being used in an American-led action, with only 37 per cent in favour.

smelly_bandit wrote:look at the lefties jumping on the band wagon

suddenly they have changed their tune and are now singing Saddams praises

before they were wanting his head, the same is true with assad

the lefties whine about what a brutal dictator he was but in time they will change their tune

You are so fooked up, smelly, we wonder what melon drug you are on...all the fruit flies around you and such. GWB was not a leftie. The Neo-Cons were more right than Attila the Hun. Moreover, GWB was not even elected...a Democrat was elected and the conservative US Supreme Court gave the election to GWB rather than prolong the counting.

You don't even understand the discussion. Saddam's praises (?); it was about a geopolitical chess game, not personalities. You are proof of what John Stuart Mill said: I didn't say all Conservatives are stupid...I said all stupid people are Conservative.

What about your fuck up re the article?

Never mind Quill, at your age you are bound to have some, it's only to be expected after all.  ::D:: 

Sassy wrote:That wasn't very intelligent of you Quill.   You obviously didn't read it, or a few clues would have made you realise it was written BEFORE the war.

Among women, opposition to the war is even higher, with two-thirds opposed to British troops going into Iraq.

There was general acceptance of Allied claims that Iraq is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and wants to make a nuclear bomb. (which was obviously found not to be fact later)

However a majority of people - 54 per cent - said they would feel 'less safe' if Britain took part in a new Gulf war.

Two-fifths said America needed to do more to promote peace, while 30 per cent thought President Bush should stay out of the conflict altogether.


Oh, and don't forget the biggest clue in the very first sentence:

Tony Blair risks a backlash from the British people if he joins America in a war against Saddam Hussein.

Sassy...that's opinion. My problem with the whole thing is that it is retrospective opinion, of what someone today thinks was the opinion of the time. It's like opinion within opinion.

And even then the author can't even find a direct question on which to base his opinion. He flits around giving what women think about poodle dogs and Blair...all nonsense.

But what is more, the author is cherry-picking singular poll questions, asked at one date, and representing it as the on-going opinion for over five years time.

It's what you get when you put pose your thesis before your have your evidence.

Sassy wrote:What about your fuck up re the article?

Sassy, it's too far into the cocktail hour over there. Wait until tomorrow to figure it out.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

My, between you and Tommy I have laughed so much tonight my sides ache.

Even with the support of the United Nations and European allies, 52 per cent said they would oppose British troops being used in an American-led action, with only 37 per cent in favour.

52% of the country were against it, 1 million people marched on Parliament and ever since we have been trying to bring Blair to justice. The Chilcot Inquiry is supposed to be publishing it's report in a short while, but already people are very angry that Blair's correspondence to Bush will not be published.

The British people were against the war then and now.


And it WAS NOT RETROSPECTIVE OPINION IT WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE THE WAR STARTED.

Are you getting dementia or what?

Quill, honestly, most people here were against the Iraq war and Afghanistan.


Even international lawyers here were making the argument against it.



Our parliament was fed a load of lies about Why we should be going in.



There were some who thought it was a good idea, but only because of the lies put out to try to justify it.

Tommy is correct.  I was one of the suckers that watched the whole proceedings in the House and was take in in by the mix of facts from the US presentation to the UN and Bliars address to the Members.

Had I been able to vote I would have been a yes.

We were hoodwinked then and again re Libya.  

Another despot deposed, another country in total turmoil.

gerber wrote:Tommy is correct.  I was one of the suckers that watched the whole proceedings in the House and was take in in by the mix of facts from the US presentation to the UN and Bliars address to the Members.

Had I been able to vote I would have been a yes.

We were hoodwinked then and again re Libya.  

Another despot deposed, another country in total turmoil.

I was totally against it Gerbs, and marched against it. Also, although I was not supposed to touch on the subject, asked Blair how he could sleep at night when I and some others, spent the day with him and Gordon Brown in HOC and 10 Downing Street. He wiggled and squiggled and tried to justify himself (this was in 2007). Oily creep.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:look at the lefties jumping on the band wagon

suddenly they have changed their tune and are now singing Saddams praises

before they were wanting his head, the same is true with assad

the lefties whine about what a brutal dictator he was but in time they will change their tune

You are so fooked up, smelly, we wonder what melon drug you are on...all the fruit flies around you and such.  GWB was not a leftie.  The Neo-Cons were more right than Attila the Hun.  Moreover, GWB was not even elected...a Democrat was elected and the conservative US Supreme Court gave the election to GWB rather than prolong the counting.

You don't even understand the discussion.  Saddam's praises (?); it was about a geopolitical chess game, not personalities.  You are proof of what John Stuart Mill said: I didn't say all Conservatives are stupid...I said all stupid people are Conservative.

not talking about bush you simpleton

im talking about idiots like sassy,who were fundamentally opposed to Saddam and cried little tears of rage against what he was doing, and now they have changed their tune to saying that he was the best thing for Iraq

its true of course,Iraq was held together by Saddam and his security machine, and as bad as he may have been he was still better than what is happening now

that's what i was talking about, perhaps its you who didn't understand the discussion

i know you like to parade yourself as some kind of intellect, but you're not really, you're just another self obsessed egotistical asshole with an opinion

Hindsight is a wonderful gift, and so rare.

Sadman insane was simply one of a collection of baddies that have operated out of the Middle East for the best part of two millennia, of course we've had them here in Europe, and it's simply a matter of personal preference to some, perhaps a smidgen of apathy in others, as to whether it's better to allow the status quo or to go for out and out democracy, regardless of the costs.

Muslims are being confronted by western profiteers and religious fanatics whose visions of faith must be adhered to without fail.

Smelly and co might as well have "born to lose" tattooed on their forehead because shaking a stick at Muslims and bleating inanely does nothing but up the tempo of anger and stifle any real debate.

"Tony" did what any British pm is forced to do, stand by the yanks, it's what we're good at, any alternative to this position does not exist.

smelly_bandit wrote:
look at us righteous looney toonies jumping on the band wagon

suddenly we have changed our tune and are now singing Saddams praises

before we were wanting his head, the same was true with Assad

the lefties whine about what a brutal dictator he is but in my lunchtime we will try to change their tune

  

  

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
You are so fooked up, smelly, we wonder what melon drug you are on...all the fruit flies around you and such.  GWB was not a leftie.  The Neo-Cons were more right than Attila the Hun.  Moreover, GWB was not even elected...a Democrat was elected and the conservative US Supreme Court gave the election to GWB rather than prolong the counting.

You don't even understand the discussion.  Saddam's praises (?); it was about a geopolitical chess game, not personalities.  You are proof of what John Stuart Mill said: I didn't say all Conservatives are stupid...I said all stupid people are Conservative.

I'm not talking about bush as I'm too much of a simpleton

I'm talking about idiots like sassy, who were fundamentally opposed to Saddam and cried little tears of rage against what he was doing, and now they have changed their tune to saying that he was the best thing for Iraq

its true of course, Iraq was held together by Saddam and his security machine, and as bad as he may have been he was still better than what is happening now

that's what i was talking about, perhaps its us morons who didn't understand the discussion

i know you all parade yourselves as some kind of intellect, but we right whingers are not sadlly, and I'm just another self obsessed egotistical asshole with an opinion
   

  

scrat wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful gift, and so rare.

Sadman insane was simply one of a collection of baddies that have operated out of the Middle East for the best part of two millennia, of course we've had them here in Europe, and it's simply a matter of personal preference to some, perhaps a smidgen of apathy in others, as to whether it's better to allow the status quo or to go for out and out democracy, regardless of the costs.

Muslims are being confronted by western profiteers and religious fanatics whose visions of faith must be adhered to without fail.

Smelly and co might as well have "born to lose" tattooed on their forehead because shaking a stick at Muslims and bleating inanely does nothing but up the tempo of anger and stifle any real debate.

"Tony" did what any British pm is forced to do, stand by the yanks, it's what we're good at, any alternative to this position does not exist.

Handsome on your last point you are so right.  Strange it has not been an equal partnership with recipricole backing.

I am now more confused than ever as to whether we should offer assistance to Iraq.

The Sunni leaders don't appear to be backing the ISAS as first reports seemed to suggest.

I see so many similarity's with the old Yugoslavia when Tito died  and the aftermath  left in  Iraq when Saddam  was overthrown.
Whilst  Yugoslavia was split into this........
















Could Iraq not be carved up into 3 with the Kurds (a homeland they don't have)  and lands for the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.
Otherwise I don't see an end to the bloodshed.  

scrat wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful gift, and so rare.

Sadman insane was simply one of a collection of baddies that have operated out of the Middle East for the best part of two millennia, of course we've had them here in Europe, and it's simply a matter of personal preference to some, perhaps a smidgen of apathy in others, as to whether it's better to allow the status quo or to go for out and out democracy, regardless of the costs.

Muslims are being confronted by western profiteers and religious fanatics whose visions of faith must be adhered to without fail.

Smelly and co might as well have "born to lose" tattooed on their forehead because shaking a stick at Muslims and bleating inanely does nothing but up the tempo of anger and stifle any real debate.

"Tony" did what any British pm is forced to do, stand by the yanks, it's what we're good at, any alternative to this position does not exist.

um these religious fanatics are just good old Muslim boys scat

following the footsteps of their prophet

it seems to be a very sore point for you lefties who have been defending Muslims and Islam for so long

"its only a few" you shriek, and now that lie is exposed as we look across the middle east and Africa and all we can see is the march of the jihadist and the rise of Islam

do not come here now that you are seeing Islam for what it is and change your tune scat, your position has been well and truly established as one that openly and repeatedly sided with Islam and Muslims, so i suggest you get you ISIS cheer leading outfit on get to it because the likes of ISIS have enjoyed the protection people like you have given them for so long

smelly_bandit wrote:

scrat wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful gift, and so rare.

Sadman insane was simply one of a collection of baddies that have operated out of the Middle East for the best part of two millennia, of course we've had them here in Europe, and it's simply a matter of personal preference to some, perhaps a smidgen of apathy in others, as to whether it's better to allow the status quo or to go for out and out democracy, regardless of the costs.

Muslims are being confronted by western profiteers and religious fanatics whose visions of faith must be adhered to without fail.

Smelly and co might as well have "born to lose" tattooed on their forehead because shaking a stick at Muslims and bleating inanely does nothing but up the tempo of anger and stifle any real debate.

"Tony" did what any British pm is forced to do, stand by the yanks, it's what we're good at, any alternative to this position does not exist.

um these religious fanatics are just good old Muslim boys scat

following the footsteps of their prophet

it seems to be a very sore point for you lefties who have been defending Muslims and Islam for so long

"its only a few" you shriek, and now that lie is exposed as we look across the middle east and Africa and all we can see is the march of the jihadist and the rise of Islam

do not come here now that you are seeing Islam for what it is and change your tune scat, your position has been well and truly established as one that openly and repeatedly sided with Islam and Muslims, so i suggest you get you ISIS cheer leading outfit on get to it because the likes of ISIS have enjoyed the protection people like you have given them for so long

 So the logic of smelly, if they do something that person must be like others based upon a religious theme., fuck me, where does this boy wonder get his intelligence from the beano?  

So there are just good old Muslim boys doing what Muslims do, when millions do not. 


It is so poor and ignorant, it just is now more to the point easier to laugh at such stupidity.

Now it is the rise of Islam? 


The position he has, like many others is to not club together the view many Muslims are like this or follow a view of Islam like this and that just like any faith it has nutballs like you who are extremists, your argument is again a complete fallacy association, based on the fact you are also an extremist who has the same philosophy of hate they do.

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill, honestly, most people here were against the Iraq war and Afghanistan.

Even international lawyers here were making the argument against it.

Our parliament was fed a load of lies about Why we should be going in.

There were some who thought it was a good idea, but only because of the lies put out to try to justify it.

Tommy...fair point.  But I would like to see more substantiation.  Most of what you give is your opinion about what you think other people thought..."most people" and "international lawyers," but I would rather see a time line, or line graph, documenting for us, oh say, five polls a year from late 2001 to late 2008, when the Republican war mongers were ousted.  And not indirect indicators...just a simple: "Do you favour the war?  ___yes ___no"  No chatty articles about what someone thinks happened.

Because, the impression over here was that y'all folded like a dollar bill on the war question.

And WTF happened, anyway?  If y'all didn't support the war, how come you got into it?  Your country was such a disappointment to the American left.

gerber wrote:Tommy is correct.  I was one of the suckers that watched the whole proceedings in the House and was take in in by the mix of facts from the US presentation to the UN and Bliars address to the Members.

Had I been able to vote I would have been a yes.

We were hoodwinked then and again re Libya.  

Another despot deposed, another country in total turmoil.

I see this a lot, even in this country. 'We wus tricked!'

See, that's not good enough. If you are going to be a democracy, then take responsibility...take charge. That kind of apathy was what allowed GWB and the Neo-Cons in to begin with--with a little help from the Supreme Court. Britain should have been a 'check and balance' and not a puppy dog.

Anyone who would listen to a conservative or Republican today, after that experience, has to have his head examined. Republicans are probably roadkill in this country. What's holding up you guys.

Original Quill wrote:

gerber wrote:Tommy is correct.  I was one of the suckers that watched the whole proceedings in the House and was take in in by the mix of facts from the US presentation to the UN and Bliars address to the Members.

Had I been able to vote I would have been a yes.

We were hoodwinked then and again re Libya.  

Another despot deposed, another country in total turmoil.

I see this a lot, even in this country.  'We wus tricked!'  

See, that's not good enough.  If you are going to be a democracy, then take responsibility...take charge.  That kind of apathy was what allowed GWB and the Neo-Cons in to begin with--with a little help from the Supreme Court.  Britain should have been a 'check and balance' and not a puppy dog.

Anyone who would listen to a conservative or Republican today, after that experience, has to have his head examined.  Republicans are probably roadkill in this country.  What's holding up you guys.

had we given the truth we would have been exactly your check and balance.

Even now the truth evades us all.

The report still has to be published.  The hold up...... Bush and Bliar not wanting publication of any conversations..............  WHY ?  rhetorical question.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

um these religious fanatics are just good old Muslim boys scat

following the footsteps of their prophet

it seems to be a very sore point for you lefties who have been defending Muslims and Islam for so long

"its only a few" you shriek, and now that lie is exposed as we look across the middle east and Africa and all we can see is the march of the jihadist and the rise of Islam

do not come here now that you are seeing Islam for what it is and change your tune scat, your position has been well and truly established as one that openly and repeatedly sided with Islam and Muslims, so i suggest you get you ISIS cheer leading outfit on get to it because the likes of ISIS have enjoyed the protection people like you have given them for so long

 So the logic of smelly, if they do something that person must be like others based upon a religious theme., fuck me, where does this boy wonder get his intelligence from the beano?  

So there are just good old Muslim boys doing what Muslims do, when millions do not. 


It is so poor and ignorant, it just is now more to the point easier to laugh at such stupidity.

Now it is the rise of Islam? 


The position he has, like many others is to not club together the view many Muslims are like this or follow a view of Islam like this and that just like any faith it has nutballs like you who are extremists, your argument is again a complete fallacy association, based on the fact you are also an extremist who has the same philosophy of hate they do.

My name is didge  :-:bravo:-: 

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are so fooked up, smelly, we wonder what melon drug you are on...all the fruit flies around you and such.  GWB was not a leftie.  The Neo-Cons were more right than Attila the Hun.  Moreover, GWB was not even elected...a Democrat was elected and the conservative US Supreme Court gave the election to GWB rather than prolong the counting.

You don't even understand the discussion.  Saddam's praises (?); it was about a geopolitical chess game, not personalities.  You are proof of what John Stuart Mill said: I didn't say all Conservatives are stupid...I said all stupid people are Conservative.

not talking about bush you simpleton

im talking about idiots like sassy,who were fundamentally opposed to Saddam and cried little tears of rage against what he was doing, and now they have changed their tune to saying that he was the best thing for Iraq

its true of course,Iraq was held together by Saddam and his security machine, and as bad as he may have been he was still better than what is happening now

that's what i was talking about, perhaps its you who didn't understand the discussion

i know you like to parade yourself as some kind of intellect, but you're not really, you're just another self obsessed egotistical asshole with an opinion    

Smelly, you make yourself look small by changing the subject to personal matters. This isn't about me.

As far as sassy is concerned...how do you find fault in her position? Saddam was bad. But a war against him was bad, as well. It is entirely consistent to be against both. My point in raising a "geopolitical chess game" is that the greater problem was the arrangement of factions: Kurds, Sunnis, Shiite, oil, Iran, Israel, and on and on. For you to fault anyone for having an opinion about any of them--to suggest she doesn't have an opinion about the others, or all of them--shows you simply have no grasp of the matter whatsoever. Aren't you ashamed!?

You only contribute to our discussion when you are willing to take in the total picture. But you are so busy waging petty war with this person or that, you don't even comprehend what is going on.

smelly_bandit wrote:

scrat wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful gift, and so rare.

Sadman insane was simply one of a collection of baddies that have operated out of the Middle East for the best part of two millennia, of course we've had them here in Europe, and it's simply a matter of personal preference to some, perhaps a smidgen of apathy in others, as to whether it's better to allow the status quo or to go for out and out democracy, regardless of the costs.

Muslims are being confronted by western profiteers and religious fanatics whose visions of faith must be adhered to without fail.

Smelly and co might as well have "born to lose" tattooed on their forehead because shaking a stick at Muslims and bleating inanely does nothing but up the tempo of anger and stifle any real debate.

"Tony" did what any British pm is forced to do, stand by the yanks, it's what we're good at, any alternative to this position does not exist.

um these religious fanatics are just good old Muslim boys scat

following the footsteps of their prophet

it seems to be a very sore point for you lefties who have been defending Muslims and Islam for so long

"its only a few" you shriek, and now that lie is exposed as we look across the middle east and Africa and all we can see is the march of the jihadist and the rise of Islam

do not come here now that you are seeing Islam for what it is and change your tune scat, your position has been well and truly established as one that openly and repeatedly sided with Islam and Muslims, so i suggest you get you ISIS cheer leading outfit on get to it because the likes of ISIS have enjoyed the protection people like you have given them for so long

Smelly chap, please calm down, try for once in your life to remove the blinkers and look at the whole picture in its entirety and as it really is, because the evidence of the here and now suggests that Islam is not the singularity you've taught yourself to believe in.

Indeed, various factors are at play here, one factor is that the majority of Muslims want to live their lives in peace and tolerance, whilst extremists of this religion are trying to hijack it for their own means, the same as mental Zionists and Christians, the world over.

The fact that you don't want to see this, is unfortunate,,,,but then you're just as blinkered about life as they mad mullahs that hold you, fixated, and in their grip.

That is patently untrue scat

Isis represent the pure jihadist movement,their declared aims are to establish an Islamic caliphate in the ME.

Can you explain What part of this is unislamic??

It is a sad fact that first and foremost victims of Islamic fanaticism are if course the less fanatical Muslims themselves

This doesn't translate into Isis being wrong just more devout

Because scat though I'm sure you will do your level best to distort reality and disassociate Isis from Islam , you cannot deny that Isis are Muslims and their aims and objectives are Islamic, because they are the ones saying they are


They are not extremist, they are simply devout Muslims who are killing other less devout Muslims

smelly_bandit wrote:That is patently untrue scat

Isis represent the pure jihadist movement,their declared aims are to establish an Islamic caliphate in the ME.

Can you explain What part of this is unislamic??

It is a sad fact that first and foremost victims of Islamic fanaticism are if course the less fanatical Muslims themselves

This doesn't translate into Isis being wrong just more devout

Because scat though I'm sure you will do your level best to distort reality and disassociate Isis from Islam , you cannot deny that Isis are Muslims and their aims and objectives are Islamic, because they are the ones saying they are


They are not extremist, they are simply devout Muslims who are killing other less devout Muslims

Just like devout Christians killing less devout Christians (Breivik style),,?,, I think that you've finally answered your own question there, Smelly me lad!

smelly_bandit wrote:That is patently untrue scat

Isis represent the pure jihadist movement,their declared aims are to establish an Islamic caliphate in the ME.

Can you explain What part of this is unislamic??

It is a sad fact that first and foremost victims of Islamic fanaticism are if course the less fanatical Muslims themselves

This doesn't translate into Isis being wrong just more devout

Because scat though I'm sure you will do your level best to distort reality and disassociate Isis from Islam , you cannot deny that Isis are Muslims and their aims and objectives are Islamic, because they are the ones saying they are


They are not extremist, they are simply devout Muslims who are killing other less devout Muslims

Let's catch up, shall we smelly?

Saddam was a Sunni, who discriminated against Shiite and killed many of them.  The Shiite are of course the same religious faction as Iranians.  When the US led coalition ousted Saddam, they instated Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, as something of a counter-balance to the former Sunni leadership.  Since taking office, Maliki has been less concerned about running Iraq, as wreaking revenge on the Sunni community.  Now, in response, there is a civil war (which I predicted back in 2006).  Maliki is the one who is calling for the US to support him militarily.

But if the US supports Maliki, not only will it be supporting the revenge faction, it will be allied with Iran.  On the other hand, if the US goes the other way and sides with ISIS, it will be allied with, among others, the former Al Qaeda in Iraq group.  Add to that, the Kurds have their own interests.

So even tho they may all look alike, smelly...they ain't. Right now...you're like saying, all British Conservatives, Labour and Liberal are the same...all a bunch of smelly Celts who fight amongst themselves.

scrat wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:That is patently untrue scat

Isis represent the pure jihadist movement,their declared aims are to establish an Islamic caliphate in the ME.

Can you explain What part of this is unislamic??

It is a sad fact that first and foremost victims of Islamic fanaticism are if course the less fanatical Muslims themselves

This doesn't translate into Isis being wrong just more devout

Because scat though I'm sure you will do your level best to distort reality and disassociate Isis from Islam , you cannot deny that Isis are Muslims and their aims and objectives are Islamic, because they are the ones saying they are


They are not extremist, they are simply devout Muslims who are killing other less devout Muslims

Just like devout Christians killing less devout Christians (Breivik style),,?,, I think that you've finally answered your own question there, Smelly me lad!

Breivik hated Muslims not Christians and he targeted a leftwing political youth camp

Not Sunday school you moron

Try again??

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:That is patently untrue scat

Isis represent the pure jihadist movement,their declared aims are to establish an Islamic caliphate in the ME.

Can you explain What part of this is unislamic??

It is a sad fact that first and foremost victims of Islamic fanaticism are if course the less fanatical Muslims themselves

This doesn't translate into Isis being wrong just more devout

Because scat though I'm sure you will do your level best to distort reality and disassociate Isis from Islam , you cannot deny that Isis are Muslims and their aims and objectives are Islamic, because they are the ones saying they are


They are not extremist, they are simply devout Muslims who are killing other less devout Muslims

Let's catch up, shall we smelly?

Saddam was a Sunni, who discriminated against Shiite and killed many of them.  The Shiite are of course the same religious faction as Iranians.  When the US led coalition ousted Saddam, they instated Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, as something of a counter-balance to the former Sunni leadership.  Since taking office, Maliki has been less concerned about running Iraq, as wreaking revenge on the Sunni community.  Now, in response, there is a civil war (which I predicted back in 2006)  Maliki is the one who is calling for the US to support him militarily.

But if the US supports Maliki, not only will it be supporting the revenge faction, it will be allied with Iran.  On the other hand, if the US goes the other way and sides with ISIS, it will be allied with, among others, the former Al Qaeda in Iraq group.  Add to that, the Kurds have their own interests.

So even tho they may all look alike, smelly...they ain't.

I see CNN keeps you well informed quill

I am well aware of the sectarian nature of the conflict, but it doesn't change the fact that Isis is seeking to establish and ISLAMIC caliphate

Do yourself and me a fucking favour and do some research before boring me with regurgitated shit you've gleaned from more intelligent people

smelly_bandit wrote:

scrat wrote:
Just like devout Christians killing less devout Christians (Breivik style),,?,, I think that you've finally answered your own question there, Smelly me lad!

Breivik hated Muslims not Christians  and he targeted a leftwing political youth camp

Not Sunday school you moron

Try again??

"Well, I am a militant Christian; to prevent the de-Christianisation of Europe is very important," he said.

Who said that?

Face the facts Smelly my dear, Islam is as diverse as Christianity, it can also be as fanatical.

Same shit different religion, which is why most humans just want peace and tolerance.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let's catch up, shall we smelly?

Saddam was a Sunni, who discriminated against Shiite and killed many of them.  The Shiite are of course the same religious faction as Iranians.  When the US led coalition ousted Saddam, they instated Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, as something of a counter-balance to the former Sunni leadership.  Since taking office, Maliki has been less concerned about running Iraq, as wreaking revenge on the Sunni community.  Now, in response, there is a civil war (which I predicted back in 2006)  Maliki is the one who is calling for the US to support him militarily.

But if the US supports Maliki, not only will it be supporting the revenge faction, it will be allied with Iran.  On the other hand, if the US goes the other way and sides with ISIS, it will be allied with, among others, the former Al Qaeda in Iraq group.  Add to that, the Kurds have their own interests.

So even tho they may all look alike, smelly...they ain't.

I see CNN keeps you well informed quill

I am well aware of the sectarian nature of the conflict, but it doesn't change the fact that Isis is seeking to establish and ISLAMIC caliphate

Do yourself and me a fucking favour and do some research before boring me with regurgitated shit you've gleaned from more intelligent people

What did you have in mind, smelly? It's not CNN, as you allege, but it is an amalgam of news stories over the past week or two...plus an on-going situation I have been watching for about ten years.

You want me to perform research beyond that? First, what kind of research of that sort have you performed? Perhaps I could just augment your research. Have you been out in the field interviewing Muslim leaders? Have you been reading up on the history of the Muslim religion? Second, what kind of questions would you ask and what sort of different policy positions would you suggest?

Third, you are still so pissed off that you can't think straight...well, that assumes you ever could think straight. I've just brought your whole perception of the situation tumbling down, and all you can say is it's "boring you?" You must not be very interested in the first place, and that would explain your complete ignorance regarding Muslims...regarding the situation...regarding your own country's politic strategies.

A little message, smelly...thought before action.

smelly_bandit wrote:

scrat wrote:
Just like devout Christians killing less devout Christians (Breivik style),,?,, I think that you've finally answered your own question there, Smelly me lad!

Breivik hated Muslims not Christians  and he targeted a leftwing political youth camp

Not Sunday school you moron

Try again??

He targeting Norwegian Christians, he choose to over look the fact they were Christians in many cases and attacked them because of their political views, so clearly you are the dummy, because he had no problem killing Christians and Norwegians if they held different political views to his.

Guys/ gals...................

Smelly is right.

It may not be PC to state the bleedin obvious but sometimes a spade is a spade and not a shovel.

They are executing their so called fellow Muslims because they do not agree with the fundamental idealistic views of reverting back to before the middle ages.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

I see CNN keeps you well informed quill

I am well aware of the sectarian nature of the conflict, but it doesn't change the fact that Isis is seeking to establish and ISLAMIC caliphate

Do yourself and me a fucking favour and do some research before boring me with regurgitated shit you've gleaned from more intelligent people

What did you have in mind, smelly?  It's not CNN, as you allege, but it is an amalgam of news stories over the past week or two...plus an on-going situation I have been watching for about ten years.

You want me to perform research beyond that?  First, what kind of research of that sort have you performed?  Perhaps I could just augment your research.  Have you been out in the field interviewing Muslim leaders?  Have you been reading up on the history of the Muslim religion?  Second, what kind of questions would you ask and what sort of different policy positions would you suggest?

Third, you are still so pissed off that you can't think straight...well, that assumes you ever could think straight.  I've just brought your whole perception of the situation tumbling down, and all you can say is it's "boring you?"  You must not be very interested in the first place, and that would explain your complete ignorance regarding Muslims...regarding the situation...regarding your own country's politic strategies.

A little message, smelly...thought before action.

Spare me your bullshit quill

How have you deconstructed my perception of the situation ??

How could you??

You don't even know what my understating of the situation is because i haven't given it to you yet

No quill

You are typical of the lefty

You cannot deal with opposition to your positions so you create a straw man argument,assign it to your opposition and then proceed to attack your own creation, whilst fooling yourself into believing you've "beaten" the others

As for Islam??

I've forgotten more about it than you will ever learn, and I don't need CNN to tell me what to think either

Go ahead quill test yourself