Exhausted from days of fighting, Kurdish women are leading a pincer movement against Isis on the road that leads to the jihadists’ Syrian capital

The Kurdish soldiers relax half a mile behind the front line where they have been battling Isis forces west of the Syrian town of Ras al-Ayn. The women are in no doubt about why they are fighting. Nujaan, who is 27 and has been a soldier for four years, says that Isis’s “target is women”. She says: “Look at Shingal [in Iraq] where they raped the women and massacred the men. It is a matter of honour to defend ourselves first, and then our families and lands.” Sitting beside her is Zenya, 22, who adds that she also “is fighting for myself and my family”.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-meet-the-kurdish-womens-militia-fighting-for-their-families-west-of-the-syrian-town-of-ras-alayn-10274956.html

Does the West have a hidden reason for not taking on these scum?

nicko wrote:Does the West have a hidden reason for not taking on these scum?

I guess they do not want to get caught up in another conflict Nicko.
Apart from the Kurds, who are gaining the upper hand, the one thing I wish hope happens is that ISIS are stupid enough to attack Israel, then it will be game over for them as Israel will not fuck about.
Imagine that, where it would be Jews as the saviours of Arabs

nicko wrote:Does the West have a hidden reason for not taking on these scum?

I don't know nicko...


Are these barbarians being allowed to demonstrate enough 'pure Islam' to the world so as to show everyone the real evil that it is...?


And then resulting in a mass awakening of the hundreds of millions of other moderate followers to the reality of what it really is... and to then turn away from it... to recoil in horror at the realisation of what it really is... and reject it en masse...?


I mean... who in their right mind can really carry on following such an obviously evil doctrine after seeing the evidence of the reality of it being carried out by these nut cases...!!!???

In the beginning:




And now:

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad

From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world's stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world's terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the "straight to beheading YouTube clip" purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria's president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe's dominant - and belligerent - source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.

The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama's new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that "such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa."

But it's one thing to speculate; it's something entirely different to have hard proof.

Continues at

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad


Long article with links in it to the original Pentagon documents.

When Assad was bombing his people we were told that the West was arming the people fighting against him, and at the time, with the horrors he was inflicting, that was understood. But it was also understood that they were arming the small number of fighters that did not belong to Al Qaeda. Now it appears not only were they arming Al Qaeda, but it was not by accident and it was decided better them than Assad.

The whole point of staying out of Syria, when it was obvious there was a terrible human situation there with civilians casualities, was that it was impossible to tell who 'the good guys' were. But the Pentagon, in it's infinite non-wisdom, decided to stir the pot anyway and yet again have made everything worse.

You'll be telling us that Mohammed was an American agent next... and all the examples of his war, murder, rape, death and destruction in the Koran that ISIS are following to the letter, were really just found in the fake Korans that were secretly swapped by the Jews a few weeks ago...



Stop being a twat risingscum... ISIS = pure Islam!!!

I knew it was far too complicated for your little brain Tommy Spunk.

That is garbage that link sassy, I mean if documents were leaked where is this now not over the world media.
Sorry that is nothing more than a crock of shit.

Where does the evidence come from ?

Claims from Russians for fuck sake, its the worst bullshit conspiracy you will find as bad as those professed against Obama:

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama's new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that "such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa."

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”



And there are links to the actual Pentagon papers.

Is that your evidence?
One former counter terrorism office, who no doubt has been taken out of context. This is nothing more than a poor excuse to shift blame from the root cause of the rise of ISIS.
That is wahhabism.
Explain how if this is now in the open why has it not been seized upon but just about every media, including every enemy media of the west?

The Pentagon paper shows that the US knew exactly how the opposition to Assad was made up, but they carried on arming them.  Now, I understand the predicament, because Assad is ghastly, but as I said before, there were no good guys in Syria, and this document proves that the US knew the make up of the opposition, but they went ahead and armed them anyway (eg US says it will give military aid to Syria rebels - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289).

PS, in case you can't find it, the link to the Pentagon paper is in the wording.

And if you read it, the documents weren't leaked.

Anyway, that's me for the night, goodnight.

So now its not about creating ISIS but whether the US armed some of the groups, which is completely different. ISIS was formed from years of conflict formed between Shia's and Sunni's all funded and fueld by both Saudi and Iran. This goes way back and you can even see problems back in the 1991 rising which was crushed by Saddam in the form of the Shia's. It goes all the way back to the beginnings of the 19th century with Wahhabism and the violence that happened to Shia's. Wahhabism is an extreme form of Islam which does not recognize any other form of Islam. So the article is nothing more than trying to excuse where the blame lies in such groups .
If groups have been wrongly armed of which is questionable if this is the case is an entire different matter.

Articles like this one are clueless and seek to entice yet further hate inventing crap to further divide Muslims and Non_Muslims and hate directed at the West. So to say the US created ISIS is the worst form of apologist dogma for Wahabbism

Read the pentagon paper. Goodnight

risingsun wrote:Read the pentagon paper. Goodnight

Yes I read them, which shows you fail to see it has no relevance to the creation of ISIS, is trying to poorly make one based off again even misreading the documents of choice picking parts and making them fit, when they do not fit. It is the worst form of deceit you can get in journalism. I suggest you read them again

Goodnight

Tommy Monk wrote:You'll be telling us that Mohammed was an American agent next... and all the examples of his war, murder, rape, death and destruction in the Koran that ISIS are following to the letter, were really just found in the fake Korans that were secretly swapped by the Jews a few weeks ago...

Stop being a twat risingscum... ISIS = pure Islam!!!

On whose side do you and nicko want to go in there, tommy?  The present Iran-backed Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi?  Do you really see yourself with Iran as your ally?  Or do you favor backing ISIL itself?

Might as well face it.  No one in the region fancies us.  Like the man without a country, you are the warrior without a side.  It gives rise to a new slogan: Supposed they held a war, and didn't send you an invitation?  Lol.

Grab a lawn chair, pour yourself a beer and kick back and watch like you did with Burma.  No sense in gettin' all het-up.

Pull up a fucking chair...???



You bastard!


This whole cluster fuck is A direct result of American idiocy in the region... and your hero Obomba is especially to blame!!!



Your flippant attitude towards all this is beneath contempt...

Tommy Monk wrote:


Pull up a fucking chair...??? You bastard!
This whole cluster fuck is A direct result of American idiocy in the region... and your hero Obomba is especially to blame!!! Your flippant attitude towards all this is beneath contempt...

You really are clueless on a great many things.
How on earth is Obama to blame, for a conflict started in Iraq by both Bush and Blair?
To attempt to blame Obama for the very fact Saudi and Iran have funding and fueling the conflicts in both Syria and Iraq shows how short sighted you are, which is as bad as Sassy's view on the the creation of Isis ignoring the ideology and how they easily have obtained arms through Arab states like Qatar and Saudi etc.
The State of the Iraq army was well trained and equipped, but because of civil divides and anger it was easily taken to task by ISIS who used far better tactics and able to recruit from within the armed forces. Obama did the right thing to pull out as we would be and were caught in the middle of an ongoing conflict of supremacy between Saudi and Iran.

Oversaw the Shia dominated govt in Iraq, plus the arming of much of the region and Saudi Arabia, cut and run leaving massive power vacuum, armed the Syrian rebels...

Tommy Monk wrote:Oversaw the Shia dominated govt in Iraq, plus the arming of much of the region and Saudi Arabia, cut and run leaving massive power vacuum, armed the Syrian rebels...

Comical, this was overseen by first Bush, which Bush armed Saudi Arabia.
There was already a civil war going on, your arguments and yet again clueless trying to deflect from the real person of blame Bush. Nothing Obama could have done would have prevented what was to come to pass.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Pull up a fucking chair...???

You bastard!

This whole cluster fuck is A direct result of American idiocy in the region... and your hero Obomba is especially to blame!!!

Your flippant attitude towards all this is beneath contempt...

Um..so, I take it you don't know which side to join either, eh tommy? You should probably follow the lead of Dr. Obama, who is turning out to be more and more brilliant every day.

It's a fiasco over there, tommy. Only a fool would want to step into that pile of horseshit. You are slow, but you are catching on.

The problem is that today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy. If the US and allies help the people fighting ISIS, those people could turn on the US in the blink of an eye as soon as they get what they want.

If they arm anyone against ISIS, those weapons could be seized by ISIS anyway.

The only way to do it would be to bomb ISIS out of existence, but airstrikes have limited effectiveness, plus they tend to create collateral damage whereby civilians get killed.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Pull up a fucking chair...???



You bastard!


This whole cluster fuck is A direct result of American idiocy in the region... and your hero Obomba is especially to blame!!!



Your flippant attitude towards all this is beneath contempt...

He does sound rather flippant when you think of what's going on out there.

However, think back to the Iraq invasion. When Bush and Blair rather belatedly realised (or admitted) that there were no weapons of mass destruction, they changed their tune and it all became about liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. ISIS is making Saddam look like a pussycat, so the obvious question is - why are the US and UK not liberating the people from ISIS?

Any leader now is going to be a bit wary of going in there because of the mess which was left after the Iraq invasion. All that guff about the US and allies winning the Iraq war was ridiculous because it was completely obvious that the downfall of Saddam would just be the start of the real problems. ISIS could probably be defeated, but what then? Which other group would try to take over, and how many other factions would start fighting them?

Then there's the issue of US troops being sent over there, and the usual demands for them to be pulled out. There would be the usual complaints about civilians being killed, and the usual fear of terrorist attacks in the US and UK.

ISIS must and should be defeated - that much is clear, but it has to be done very carefully in order to avoid the usual problems.

I must say it's interesting to see all these women fighting ISIS, and I'm absolutely rooting for them. Obviously, they are putting their lives in danger, but they're in danger anyway from these awful men who think that they can treat women like shit whenever they feel like it.

I wonder what the burka-clad women in the Middle East think of them. Are they shocked, or do they admire them? It would be nice to hear that women are casting off their ideas about women being subservient and see them actually stand up for themselves.

I think there are a few fundamental truths that we have to plant firmly in our thoughts before we go about realizing what is going on.  All of the politics in this Middle East is overshadowed by these facts:

The fundamental division in the Middle East: Sunni vs. Shi’ite.  http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

Alliance No. 1: The Sunnis, for the most part, are the Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia.

Alliance No. 2:  The Shi’ites are the Persians…you’ve heard of Persians?  They are the ones the Greeks fought 2,500 years ago.  The Persians are the people of Iran and Southern Iraq.  Hamas is a terrorist organization set up by Iran.

The Muslim Civil War: When Mohammed died in AD 632, a fundamental split took shape as to who would succeed him.  Mohammad’s close associates selected Abu Bakr, the first caliph, and these became the Sunnis.  However, another claimant, Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), Mohammed’s son-in-law (none of his sons survived) claimed that he had been specifically designated (by Mohammad).  These became the Shi’ites.

The Bush/Blair Intervention: When Blair and the Bush/Cheney cabal started the 2nd Iraq war, they thought it would be a simple 6-month affair, where troops would march in and hand out chewing gum to the kids.

Saddam and the Baath Party:  These were Sunnis, who held the lid on things before the Bush/Blair intervention.  They ran Iraq.

The Ayatollahs: Iran was and is ruled by a body of Islamic teachers, called Ayatollahs.

The Bush/Blair Intervention freed the above religious divisions to go to war against one another.  Once Bush and Blair got in there, it was like WTF!!  Imbeciles that they were, they had no idea what to do.  They were voted out of their respective offices, with good reason.

Bush and Blair made some simplistic, highly ignorant decisions while they were in there.  The major one: Because they had removed a Sunni government, they thought going to the other side would suffice.  They installed a Shi’ite (pro-Iran) government in Iraq.  This changed Iraq into a pro-Iran entity right off the bat.

The former Baath Party Sunnis went underground and formed al Qaeda in Iraq.

ISIS (or ISIL): Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into ISIS (or ISIL).  ISIS stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; sometimes it is called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (The Levant is a geographical term referring to a large area in the eastern Mediterranean.).  It is basically the former rulers of Iraq, Saddam and company.  They are still Sunni.  Mixed in there is a far-far-right radical group known as Wahhabism, which is trying to influence the Baath Party boys ideologically.  It advocates all these cruel measures, such as chopping off heads on western TV.

The Status Today:  A Civil War is going on between Shi’ites and Sunnis, or if you like, between Iran/Iraq, on the one hand, and the former Saddam cronies, on the other hand, who want to take Iraq back, along with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

Tommy and nicko want us to be right in the middle of it, blowing everything up, because—well, maybe one of them is Iranian, or maybe ISIL—or, they just like blowing shit up.

You be the judge.

Original Quill wrote:I think there are a few fundamental truths that we have to plant firmly in our thoughts before we go about realizing what is going on.  All of the politics in this Middle East is overshadowed by these facts:

The fundamental division in the Middle East: Sunni vs. Shi’ite.  http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

Alliance No. 1: The Sunnis, for the most part, are the Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia.

Alliance No. 2:  The Shi’ites are the Persians…you’ve heard of Persians?  They are the ones the Greeks fought 2,500 years ago.  The Persians are the people of Iran and Southern Iraq.  Hamas is a terrorist organization set up by Iran.

The Muslim Civil War: When Mohammed died in AD 632, a fundamental split took shape as to who would succeed him.  Mohammad’s close associates selected Abu Bakr, the first caliph, and these became the Sunnis.  However, another claimant, Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), Monomer’s son-in-law (none of his sons survived) claimed that he had been specifically designated (by Mohammad).  These became the Shi’ites.

The Bush/Blair Intervention: When Blair and the Bush/Cheney cabal started the 2nd Iraq war, they thought it would be a simple 6-month affair, where troops would march in and hand out chewing gum to the kids.

Saddam and the Baath Party:  These were Sunnis, who held the lid on things before the Bush/Blair intervention.  They ran Iraq.

The Ayatollahs: Iran was and is ruled by a body of Islamic teachers, called Ayatollahs.

The Bush/Blair Intervention freed the above religious divisions to go to war against one another.  Once Bush and Blair got in there, it was like WTF!!  Imbeciles that they were, they had no idea what to do.  They were voted out, with good reason.

Bush and Blair made some simplistic, highly ignorant decisions while they were in there.  The major one: Because they had removed a Sunni government, they thought going to the other side would suffice.  They installed a Shi’ite (pro-Iran) government in Iraq.

The former Baath Party Sunnis went underground and formed al Qaeda in Iraq.

ISIS (or ISIL): Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into ISIS (or ISIL).  ISIS stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; sometimes it is called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (The Levant is a geographical term referring to a large area in the eastern Mediterranean.).  It is basically the former rulers of Iraq, Saddam and company.  They are still Sunni.  Mixed in there is a far-far-right radical group known as Wahhabism, which is trying to influence the Baath Party boys ideologically.  It advocates all these cruel measures, such as chopping off heads on western TV.

The Status Today:  A Civil War is going on between Shi’ites and Sunnis, or if you like, between Iran/Iraq, on the one hand, and the former Saddam cronies, on the other hand, who want to take Iraq back, along with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

Tommy and nicko want us to be right in the middle of it, blowing everything up, because—well, maybe one of them is Iranian, or maybe ISIL—or, they just like blowing shit up.

You be the judge.

I think that Nicko and Tommy just think that ISIS should be stopped, and they're right. I don't think there's any sinister reason for their posts.

Raggamuccin wrote:I think that Nicko and Tommy just think that ISIS should be stopped, and they're right. I don't think there's any sinister reason for their posts.

I'm being facetious. If you want the truth, tommy and nicko are Bush and Blair all over again....stupid westerners who have no idea what they are getting into.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuccin wrote:I think that Nicko and Tommy just think that ISIS should be stopped, and they're right. I don't think there's any sinister reason for their posts.

I'm being facetious.  If you want the truth, tommy and nicko are Bush and Blair all over again....stupid westerners who have no idea what they are getting into.

They're not stupid, they see people suffering and they want something done. It could work in the short term of course, but in the long term it would probably just cause another power vacuum.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm being facetious.  If you want the truth, tommy and nicko are Bush and Blair all over again....stupid westerners who have no idea what they are getting into.

They're not stupid, they see people suffering and they want something done. It could work in the short term of course, but in the long term it would probably just cause another power vacuum.

Bullshite!!  It's just an excuse to go in and blow shit up.

Look, the original idea of going into Iraq was to acquire its oil.  It pumps out of the same pool as Saudi Arabia.  We wanted stable oil prices.

Now comes the bullshite: we have invented lies for why we are there.  Lie no. (1)--Saddam has nuclear weapons.  Lie no. (2)--we are liberators.  Lie no. (3)--we feel sorry for the suffering women and children.

If we felt sorry for the women and children, we wouldn't have started shooting them and blowing shit up in the first place.  Pleeeeze...don't give me your crocodile tears.

When you say that Bush and Blair were voted out, do you mean in elections in their own countries?

They were not voted out.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not stupid, they see people suffering and they want something done. It could work in the short term of course, but in the long term it would probably just cause another power vacuum.

Bullshite!!  It's just an excuse to go in and blow shit up.

Look, the original idea of going into Iraq was to acquire its oil.  It pumps out of the same pool as Saudi Arabia.  We wanted stable oil prices.

Now comes the bullshite: we have invented lies for why we are there.  Lie no. (1)--Saddam has nuclear weapons.  Lie no. (2)--we are liberators.  Lie no. (3)--we feel sorry for the suffering women and children.

If we felt sorry for the women and children, we wouldn't have started shooting them and blowing shit up in the first place.  Pleeeeze...don't give me your crocodile tears.

I was referring to Nicko and Tommy.

Don't start on me - I was not in favour of the Iraq invasion of 2003.

Raggamuffin wrote:When you say that Bush and Blair were voted out, do you mean in elections in their own countries?

They were not voted out.

Yes, I am thinking in terms of movements. Republicans were voted out in the US. Labour in the UK. Of the many crimes these cronies cooked up, going into Iraq and committing international war crimes were high on the lest.

In the grand scheme of politics, they were voted out. I remember writing articles calling for their prosecution.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Bullshite!!  It's just an excuse to go in and blow shit up.

Look, the original idea of going into Iraq was to acquire its oil.  It pumps out of the same pool as Saudi Arabia.  We wanted stable oil prices.

Now comes the bullshite: we have invented lies for why we are there.  Lie no. (1)--Saddam has nuclear weapons.  Lie no. (2)--we are liberators.  Lie no. (3)--we feel sorry for the suffering women and children.

If we felt sorry for the women and children, we wouldn't have started shooting them and blowing shit up in the first place.  Pleeeeze...don't give me your crocodile tears.

I was referring to Nicko and Tommy.

Don't start on me - I was not in favour of the Iraq invasion of 2003.  

This thread is not about you. I pick on tommy and nicko only because they have made themselves available as symbols of the lack of awareness that got us into this mess.

I am trying to lift their heads above-water. I am trying to bring a little sense to the subject.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:When you say that Bush and Blair were voted out, do you mean in elections in their own countries?

They were not voted out.

Yes, I am thinking in terms of movements.  Republicans were voted out in the US.  Labour in the UK.  Of the many crimes these cronies cooked up, going into Iraq and committing international war crimes were high on the lest.

In the grand scheme of politics, they were voted out.  I remember writing articles calling for their prosecution.

Labour won the 2005 election, with Tony Blair as leader. They had a slightly reduced majority, but they still had quite a large absolute majority. Tony Blair did not stand again as leader of the party after that. I don't think the reason that they lost the 2010 election was anything to do with Iraq.

George Bush was voted back in after the Iraq invasion, was he not? Can't you only do two terms as President in the US?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was referring to Nicko and Tommy.

Don't start on me - I was not in favour of the Iraq invasion of 2003.  

This thread is not about you.  I pick on tommy and nicko only because they have made themselves available as symbols of the lack of awareness that got us into this mess.

I am trying to lift their heads above-water.  I am trying to bring a little sense to the subject.

You were replying to me and banging on about my crocodile tears.

I don't think that Tommy and Nicko want to blow up civilians, just ISIS. You are perfectly free to explain to them why you think that won't work, as did I, but you're being a bit mean to them really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, I am thinking in terms of movements.  Republicans were voted out in the US.  Labour in the UK.  Of the many crimes these cronies cooked up, going into Iraq and committing international war crimes were high on the lest.

In the grand scheme of politics, they were voted out.  I remember writing articles calling for their prosecution.

Labour won the 2005 election, with Tony Blair as leader. They had a slightly reduced majority, but they still had quite a large absolute majority. Tony Blair did not stand again as leader of the party after that. I don't think the reason that they lost the 2010 election was anything to do with Iraq.

George Bush was voted back in after the Iraq invasion, was he not? Can't you only do two terms as President in the US?

Taking the second first, Bush was voted back in (2006) before the people realized the lies the Republicans had told.   The lies were realized not only by revelations, but by the grinding tenacity of the war misery.  People were asking: What ever happened to 6 months and handing out chewing gum to the children??--which was another of the Republican lies.

Now the first part: Blair was not a guilty party.  He was a stupid party.  Blair's sin, if you will, was being the puppy-dog for the lying Republicans in the US.  Prior to this mendacity, the people of the US had always looked to the UK as moral leaders, even if it is a has-been nation.  Blair destroyed all of the respect the US had for the wisdom of the UK in about two-weeks time.

Frankly, I don't give a shit about Blair.  He knew it was all lies, and he fed lies to you guys.  But the real bad-guys were the Neo-Cons in the US, who concocted the plan to build a US empire and dominate the world as hadn't been done since Rome (yes, that's the way their were talking back then).  This led to a purposeless war, costing lives and currency, and instituting kidnapping, rape, torture, and killing--the greatest moral degradation ever experienced by the US and the UK...well, you guys also had Henry V and Elizabeth I, but you understand my anger.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Labour won the 2005 election, with Tony Blair as leader. They had a slightly reduced majority, but they still had quite a large absolute majority. Tony Blair did not stand again as leader of the party after that. I don't think the reason that they lost the 2010 election was anything to do with Iraq.

George Bush was voted back in after the Iraq invasion, was he not? Can't you only do two terms as President in the US?

Taking the second first, Bush was voted back in (2006) before the people realized the lies the Republicans had told.   The lies were realized not only by revelations, but by the grinding tenacity of the war misery.  People were asking: What ever happened to 6 months and handing out chewing gum to the children??--which was another of the Republican lies.

Now the first part: Blair was not a guilty party.  He was a stupid party.  Blair's sin, if you will, was being the puppy-dog for the lying Republicans in the US.  Prior to this mendacity, the people of the US had always looked to the UK as moral leaders, even if it is a has-been nation.  Blair destroyed all of the respect the US had for the wisdom of the UK in about two-weeks time.

Frankly, I don't give a shit about Blair.  He knew it was all lies, and he fed lies to you guys.  But the real bad-guys were the Neo-Cons in the US, who concocted the plan to build a US empire and dominate the world as hadn't been done since Rome (yes, that's the way their were talking back then).  This led to a purposeless war, costing lives and currency, and instituting kidnapping, rape, torture, and killing--the greatest more degradation ever experienced by the US and the UK...well, you guys also had Henry V, but you understand my anger.

It's a bit rich for the US to lose respect and trust in the wisdom of the UK when it was completely obvious that there was no evidence for WMD, and yet they supported their own country re the invasion. It took until 2006 for them to realise? They only had to have watched Colin Powell delivering the "evidence" before the invasion to know that there was none. I managed to watch that - why didn't your citizens?

Also, didn't they notice the gleam in Rumsfeld eye when he talked about "shock and awe"?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Taking the second first, Bush was voted back in (2006) before the people realized the lies the Republicans had told.   The lies were realized not only by revelations, but by the grinding tenacity of the war misery.  People were asking: What ever happened to 6 months and handing out chewing gum to the children??--which was another of the Republican lies.

Now the first part: Blair was not a guilty party.  He was a stupid party.  Blair's sin, if you will, was being the puppy-dog for the lying Republicans in the US.  Prior to this mendacity, the people of the US had always looked to the UK as moral leaders, even if it is a has-been nation.  Blair destroyed all of the respect the US had for the wisdom of the UK in about two-weeks time.

Frankly, I don't give a shit about Blair.  He knew it was all lies, and he fed lies to you guys.  But the real bad-guys were the Neo-Cons in the US, who concocted the plan to build a US empire and dominate the world as hadn't been done since Rome (yes, that's the way their were talking back then).  This led to a purposeless war, costing lives and currency, and instituting kidnapping, rape, torture, and killing--the greatest more degradation ever experienced by the US and the UK...well, you guys also had Henry V, but you understand my anger.

It's a bit rich for the US to lose respect and trust in the wisdom of the UK when it was completely obvious that there was no evidence for WMD, and yet they supported their own country re the invasion. It took until 2006 for them to realise? They only had to have watched Colin Powell delivering the "evidence" before the invasion to know that there was none. I managed to watch that - why didn't your citizens?

Colin Powell was a part of the conspiracy, which is unfortunate as he has turned out to be a good guy.

Yes it's as rich as hell that the American public and the British public went for that shit.  Who do you think those people are you are now ridiculing?  They are the bikers taken down in Waco, TX.  They are the southern racists who spawn cocps who kill blacks.  They are the Tea-Party.  They are the Republicans in Congress who were responsible for the McConnell/Boehner doctrine.

We are in the midst of a struggle with the stupid and morally depraved.  The Brits could have helped out...like you did with Viet Nam.  Instead, y'all went straight down the toilet with Bush and Cheney.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a bit rich for the US to lose respect and trust in the wisdom of the UK when it was completely obvious that there was no evidence for WMD, and yet they supported their own country re the invasion. It took until 2006 for them to realise? They only had to have watched Colin Powell delivering the "evidence" before the invasion to know that there was none. I managed to watch that - why didn't your citizens?

Colin Powell was a part of the conspiracy, which is unfortunate as he has turned out to be a good guy.

Yes it's as rich as hell that the American public and the British public went for that shit.  Who do you think those people are you are now ridiculing?  They are the bikers taken down in Waco, TX.  They are the southern racists who spawn cocps who kill blacks.  They are the Tea-Party.  They are the Republicans in Congress who were responsible for the McConnell/Boehner doctrine.

We are in the midst of a struggle with the stupid and morally depraved.  The Brits could have helped out...like you did with Viet Nam.  Instead, y'all went straight down the toilet with Bush and Cheney.

I mean it's a bit rich that US citizens judged the UK for the invasion when they clearly didn't bother to look at the evidence for themselves. Are you saying that bikers respected the UK for its wisdom, and then changed their mind? I find it hard to believe that they gave the UK a second thought.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Colin Powell was a part of the conspiracy, which is unfortunate as he has turned out to be a good guy.

Yes it's as rich as hell that the American public and the British public went for that shit.  Who do you think those people are you are now ridiculing?  They are the bikers taken down in Waco, TX.  They are the southern racists who spawn cocps who kill blacks.  They are the Tea-Party.  They are the Republicans in Congress who were responsible for the McConnell/Boehner doctrine.

We are in the midst of a struggle with the stupid and morally depraved.  The Brits could have helped out...like you did with Viet Nam.  Instead, y'all went straight down the toilet with Bush and Cheney.

I mean it's a bit rich that US citizens judged the UK for the invasion when they clearly didn't bother to look at the evidence for themselves. Are you saying that bikers respected the UK for its wisdom, and then changed their mind? I find it hard to believe that they gave the UK a second thought.

You are totally missing the point. We know Britain is not us...Britain couldn't begin to muster the brawn that we have. We don't really care about that aspect.

But pre-Blair, the Brits had a reputation, at least, for wisdom and temperance. It was a voice, off-stage. A second view, well-respected and heard. Now...sheeeet, you guys blew it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean it's a bit rich that US citizens judged the UK for the invasion when they clearly didn't bother to look at the evidence for themselves. Are you saying that bikers respected the UK for its wisdom, and then changed their mind? I find it hard to believe that they gave the UK a second thought.

You are totally missing the point.  We know Britain is not us...Britain couldn't begin to muster the brawn that we have.  We don't really care about that aspect.

But pre-Blair, the Brits had a reputation, at least, for wisdom and temperance.  It was a voice, off-stage.  A second view, well-respected and heard.  Now...sheeeet, you guys blew it.  

I'm addressing this point which you made. You have repeated it, so I'm not missing the point at all.

Prior to this mendacity, the people of the US had always looked to the UK as moral leaders, even if it is a has-been nation. Blair destroyed all of the respect the US had for the wisdom of the UK in about two-weeks time.

I replied that the people of the US should have been able to see the lack of evidence for themselves rather than rely on the UK to do that for them. It was all there in front of them, so they have no call to judge the UK.

When you say "you guys", you mean the people who supported Blair and co. I did not support him re Iraq. I supported him before that re other issues, and I was very sad that the Iraq invasion went ahead. Millions of other people in the UK felt the same.

I totally wish that Blair had stood up to Bush, I really do, but I also wish that the people in the US had stood up to him too, and they did not.

The French stood up to him, and they were called all sorts by people in the US!

Raggamuffin wrote:I totally wish that Blair had stood up to Bush, I really do, but I also wish that the people in the US had stood up to him too, and they did not.

On that we agree.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm being facetious.  If you want the truth, tommy and nicko are Bush and Blair all over again....stupid westerners who have no idea what they are getting into.

They're not stupid, they see people suffering and they want something done. It could work in the short term of course, but in the long term it would probably just cause another power vacuum.

Thank you rags!


And You are quite right!


I was against the bush/Blair Iraq war, I didn't believe the bullshit reasons for it.


We had Iraq under lock down since early 90's and knew full well there were no WDM!!!



Keeping that lock down situation was the best scenario and we should have kept hold of it until such a time as change was peacefully achieved.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not stupid, they see people suffering and they want something done. It could work in the short term of course, but in the long term it would probably just cause another power vacuum.

Keeping that lock down situation was the best scenario and we should have kept hold of it until such a time as change was peacefully achieved.

Gobbledygook again.
At no point did the allies have it locked down, as there was continued insurgency throughout in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Only after the Taliban was first defeated, was there a chance there, as they had scattered to the mountains or been killed and captured. The biggest blunder was then the Iraq war which took vital resources away from Afghanistan, at a time when they could have brought the nation under control. This poor strategic decision, allowed the Taliban to regroup from licking its wounds, when a concerted effort should have been made to fully defeat them and by strangling them out of Afghanistan.
So only at the beginning there was a chance, the moment they started another conflict, they were fighting continually on not just two fronts, but many fronts. So it was never really at any point in lock down

You are conflating issues again dodge...