The enemy within

by The Puzzler Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

Hundreds of British Muslims have travelled to Iraq to fight for the extreme jihadist group ISIS, terror experts have said. The Government believes more than 500 British citizens have left the UK and gone to join rebel fighters in Syria, with many of them feared to have crossed the border to join the uprising in Iraq. The ruthless ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) extremists control large areas of land in Syria and are now turning their attention to Iraq and particularly Baghdad, having already taken the cities of Mosul and Tikrit. Meanwhile, British security experts are also looking at the possibility that home-grown extremists trained by the ultra-violent group may bring terror back to the UK.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656977/Britons-heading-Iraq-join-ISIS-militants-HUNDREDS-amid-fears-bring-terror-UK.html#ixzz34Y3tRAkn

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657330/British-Muslim-reported-killed-Syria-appears-court-accused-training-terrorist-extremist-group-linked-ISIS.html
This is where years of tolerating militant islamist groups under the guise of 'free speech' has got us. Allowing freaks like Hamza, Qatada, Abu Izzadeen, Sayful Islam, Anjem Choudary and countless nameless imams and islamic 'teachers' to spread their hate has resulted in a massive increase in radicalisation in the muslim community, and the blame lies squarely with Labour and the Condems. So terrified of being seen as racist or islamophobic that they have turned a blind eye to militant islam and this is the result. Hundreds, if not thousands, of so called 'British' citizens who want to do significant harm to us all.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:45 am

Sassy wrote:You liar, the UN said nothing of the sort:
Sarin gas in attack on Syrian civilians probably government's, says UN
The chemical used in Ghouta district near Damascus in August matches government stockpile and gas used in Khan al-Assal in April last year
The claim was made in a report about human rights abuses released by the global body on Tuesday, which condemned a wide array of atrocities committed throughout the three-year war.
Describing the attack on the Ghouta district near Damascus, the report said: "The perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents."
The Syrian military has not reported having lost control of any of its 1,200 tonnes of chemicals, which it is in the process of surrrendering as part of a Russian-brokered deal to avoid US-led air strikes.
Ever since, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been leading a process of verifying then securing and transporting Syria's chemical weapons stocks, a mixture of sarin, mustard gas and precursor chemicals.
The transfer is less than 40% complete and is running several months behind schedule. However, efforts to move the chemicals to the port of Tartous and onward to sites in Europe have been stepped up over the past fortnight.
It is understood that samples from the surrendered sarin have been matched to samples taken in the days after the strike. Investigators also said that another chemical attack in Khan al-Assal, near Aleppo last April "bore the same unique hallmarks" as the Ghouta attack.
The report also condemned the regime's use of barrel bombs – large rudimentary explosives dropped from helicopters, which have caused death and destruction in several cities, especially Aleppo. It said torture and "starvation to submission" were also commonly used tactics in the war, which has killed more than 130,000 people and led to around nine million being displaced.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/sarin-gas-attack-civilians-syria-government-un

Sassy.... you now call me a liar..... you obviously didn't read any of THe links I provided earlier..... or maybe you did but your mental problem being your denial complex stopped you from actually acknowledging it.......

So here it is again....... The UN bits......

You are obviously not reading properly.....

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use

Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said.

"According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas," del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, said in an interview with Swiss radio late on Sunday.

"We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas," she added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

The Mainstream Now Admits that the Syrian Rebels Have Chemical Weapons

"...the UN report contains some damning information related to the rebels and chem weapons: “The United Nations Mission remains deeply concerned that chemical weapons were used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arabic Republic, which has added yet another dimension to the continued suffering of the Syrian people,” the report says [emphasis LR's].

The report states that chemical weapons were “probably used” at five sites in Syria during the two-and-a-half year long conflict. Most significant is that at two sites, the victims were Syrian government soldiers, and at another, the victims were regime soldiers and civilians (for initial BBC reporting go here). While the purpose of the investigation was not to establish the culprit in each attack, the report identifies the victims in three out of the five incidents as regime soldiers. This is a tacit UN admission that the rebels possess and have used chemical weapons..."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mainstream-now-admits-that-the-syrian-rebels-have-chemical-weapons/5363039

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:59 am

Sassy wrote:And the whole thing caused by Assad being a dictator and not letting his people have any political rights and torturing and killing those that have the temerity to demand some.

Sassy, do you not understand that the people of Syria were already having quite a secular run country and non Muslims were protected and allowed their religious freedoms ????

The uprising was by people who wanted Syria to be more Islamic and wanted less of this secularism, and more Islam...????

Just like Egypt where they fought for 'democracy' then voted in Muslim hard liners and extremism....!!!

The nice rebels in Syria who you want to support are the same barbaric jihadis who are now in Iraq and we are being told we need to fight against!!!!

What fuckin planet are you lefties on ....!!!????

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:41 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Just like Egypt where they fought for 'democracy' then voted in Muslim hard liners and extremism....!!!

The Egyptian military fucked them out of it though.
The Egyptian military seems pretty cool, seems Egypt is most stable when the military is running shit.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:42 am

Fuck why am I up this late.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:13 am

Democracy is about representing the views of everyone, when Islamism is then the choice of THe majority, this stops being anything that represents the views of everyone, as Islam becomes the only way for everyone and imposed on everyone without any thought or care for anyone or any views outside of it.

There is only one answer for all and that is Islam and more Islam, so it immediately ceases to be a democracy and instantly becomes a dictatorship.

Who in their right minds would be fighting against a fairly soft dictatorship with plenty of rights and freedoms, just to then impose a far stricter regime with less rights and freedoms than before??

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:21 am

Summers wrote:I spend a large amount of time on a tiny VERY SERIOUS Internet forum to argue about politics

Doesn't seem to be a really great time-investment strategy, does it?

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:25 am

Sassy wrote:And the whole thing caused by Assad being a dictator and not letting his people have any political rights and torturing and killing those that have the temerity to demand some.

Sassy, we heard exactly the same argument from the Iraqis ten years ago - "oh please great western people save us from the evil dictator Saddan..." - so the gung ho West goes in and removes Saddam - then, having lost western lives, they eventually leave the nice Iraqis to live peacably in their new democracy...

So what happens? They do what they've been doing for centuries, killing each other for some new dictator/caliphate to get power. And who are they blaming? You guessed it - the West for interfering. So, I think we've been there done that and worn the T-shirt Sassy, not falling for it again with Syria. Seems the only way these Sunni/Shias are ever kept at peace is with the foot of a dictator on their necks.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:44 am

Tesstacious wrote:
Sassy wrote:And the whole thing caused by Assad being a dictator and not letting his people have any political rights and torturing and killing those that have the temerity to demand some.
Sassy, we heard exactly the same argument from the Iraqis ten years ago - "oh please great western people save us from the evil dictator Saddan..." - so the gung ho West goes in and removes Saddam - then, having lost western lives, they eventually leave the nice Iraqis to live peacably in their new democracy...

So what happens? They do what they've been doing for centuries, killing each other for some new dictator/caliphate to get power. And who are they blaming? You guessed it - the West for interfering. So, I think we've been there done that and worn the T-shirt Sassy, not falling for it again with Syria. Seems the only way these Sunni/Shias are ever kept at peace is with the foot of a dictator on their necks.

Hi Tess, hooray, someone who talks sensibly. No, I do not think that we should send troops etc, I was very much against us going to war as Cameron wanted because it is such a complex situation. There are rebels who are fighting because they want democracy, there are rebels that are fighting for religious reasons, and there are rebels who are fighting because Assad has killed so many of their relatives etc they want rid. So that is not an option and never has been. What I object to is saying that of the British Muslims who go out there, are all terrorists. Many are doing exactly as British men did during the Spanish Civil War, and going to fight a dictator because of the atrocities he is committing, and the whole of the Western World admits he is committing those atrocities and recognises the extent of them and the impact they are having on the rest of the world with the millions of refugees.

As for killing each other, think we managed that quite well during WWII, since when we have gone to war and invaded many.

BTW, Iraq never asked us to invade. We and America did that all by ourselves.

@ Tommy

If you think Assad is a 'soft dictator' you are out of your tiny tree.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:21 pm

Sassy wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:
Sassy, we heard exactly the same argument from the Iraqis ten years ago - "oh please great western people save us from the evil dictator Saddan..." - so the gung ho West goes in and removes Saddam - then, having lost western lives, they eventually leave the nice Iraqis to live peacably in their new democracy...

So what happens? They do what they've been doing for centuries, killing each other for some new dictator/caliphate to get power. And who are they blaming? You guessed it - the West for interfering. So, I think we've been there done that and worn the T-shirt Sassy, not falling for it again with Syria. Seems the only way these Sunni/Shias are ever kept at peace is with the foot of a dictator on their necks.

Hi Tess, hooray, someone who talks sensibly. No, I do not think that we should send troops etc, I was very much against us going to war as Cameron wanted because it is such a complex situation. There are rebels who are fighting because they want democracy, there are rebels that are fighting for religious reasons, and there are rebels who are fighting because Assad has killed so many of their relatives etc they want rid. So that is not an option and never has been. What I object to is saying that of the British Muslims who go out there, are all terrorists. Many are doing exactly as British men did during the Spanish Civil War, and going to fight a dictator because of the atrocities he is committing, and the whole of the Western World admits he is committing those atrocities and recognises the extent of them and the impact they are having on the rest of the world with the millions of refugees.

As for killing each other, think we managed that quite well during WWII, since when we have gone to war and invaded many.

BTW, Iraq never asked us to invade. We and America did that all by ourselves.

@ Tommy

If you think Assad is a 'soft dictator' you are out of your tiny tree.

I've just heard a politician speak total common sense on the Middle East issue, just now on Sky. Being asked about Blair's latest rubbish speech, John Prescott said that he might as well wear a robe with a cross on, because what he was advocating was a return to the crusades, trying to impose some form of western democracy in these countries. Prescott said that would never work, because it was ALL about religion with these people... can't remember the rest, should have recorded it, but it was certainly refreshing to hear it spoke plain - and from a politician!

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:35 pm

Assad was that much of a dictator that he protected religious minorities.

Who do you think these religmtpp minorities were being protected from....???

Nice friendly peaceful happy clappy Muslims I suppose...???

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:31 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Summers wrote:I spend a large amount of time on a tiny VERY SERIOUS Internet forum to argue about politics

Doesn't seem to be a really great time-investment strategy, does it?

But my life revolves around petty disputes with strangers online!

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:13 pm

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:38 pm

Summers wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Doesn't seem to be a really great time-investment strategy, does it?

But my life revolves around petty disputes with strangers online!

Nah, your life revolves around sitting in your bedroom lol. When are you back in college or have you got a job yet?

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:16 pm

Sassy wrote:
Summers wrote:

But my life revolves around petty disputes with strangers online!

Nah, your life revolves around sitting in your bedroom lol. When are you back in college or have you got a job yet?

I think it's funny how shoddy the rumours and lies you make are.
Although I suppose it's to be expected.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:19 pm

Summers wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Nah, your life revolves around sitting in your bedroom lol. When are you back in college or have you got a job yet?

I think it's funny how shoddy the rumours and lies you make are.
Although I suppose it's to be expected.

What rumours and lies. You told us.

Anyway, it was just a take on the previous post you made.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:45 pm

Sassy wrote:
Summers wrote:

I think it's funny how shoddy the rumours and lies you make are.
Although I suppose it's to be expected.

What rumours and lies. You told us.

Anyway, it was just a take on the previous post you made.

When did I say anything like that?

by Sponsored content

The enemy within

The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within

Re: The enemy within