# How do native western Europeans feel?



## Mortimer

Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


----------



## theHawk

Muslims have been force converting for over s thousand years.  They have every "right" by the word of their pedophile prophet to do so.  If Europe wants to roll over and let the Muslims slit their throats, that's on them.  But sooner or later the majority will wake up and see the reality: that Muslims are not their 'friends' and they have no intention of living peacefully with Christians, atheists, and Jews.


----------



## montelatici

The monument to Ferdinand I of Tuscany after capturing Muslim pirates is at the entrance to the port of Livorno.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


That isnt the reality. Calm down.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt the reality. Calm down.
Click to expand...


You're denying that attacks have happened in Brussels and Paris ? Really .. ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt the reality. Calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're denying that attacks have happened in Brussels and Paris ? Really .. ?
Click to expand...

Why do you put that interpretation on my words ? You know that isnt what I said.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt the reality. Calm down.
Click to expand...






 Problem is that it is very close to being so, as was shown not that long ago in the UK when an imam conned schoolchildren into reciting the oath to allah and mo'mad that means they are muslim from then on. He had to relinquish the oath and give a promise that he would not enforce it. Many children are forced into conversion to islam in Europe and the authorities are trying to stamp it out


----------



## GLASNOST

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


If you want to rephrase your question I will be VERY happy to answer it. But saying you *'realize' *your dream *'is the reality in many bigger European Cities' *makes me _'realize' _you haven't woke up yet.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt the reality. Calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're denying that attacks have happened in Brussels and Paris ? Really .. ?
Click to expand...

The OP mentions *forced conversion* - in words of his own. Is that what you think happened in Brussels and Paris? Really?


----------



## GLASNOST

Phoenall said:


> .... Many children are forced into conversion to islam in Europe and the authorities are trying to stamp it out


If this is true (and I reserve my judgement until further notice) then I am willing to bet this would be in the circumstances of a marriage between Muslim and a non-Muslim. Islam, as I understand it, does not allow a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. This is because (contrary to Judaism) it is the religion of the *father *that determines the religion of the children, and so the man must convert if he is to be allowed to marry her.  If a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, it makes no difference to any children they may beget. Those children will be considered Muslim automatically. 

Converting children is an interesting subject. I've heard nothing about it. However, I can certainly imagine that a Muslim man who marries a non-Muslim woman (with non-Muslim children of her own) would insist that her children be converted. But that's just a good guess. I most definitely do not believe that Muslims are scavenging European cities for the purpose of herding children into mosques and force converting them .... if that is what you are suggesting.


----------



## Phoenall

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Many children are forced into conversion to islam in Europe and the authorities are trying to stamp it out
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true (and I reserve my judgement until further notice) then I am willing to bet this would be in the circumstances of a marriage between Muslim and a non-Muslim. Islam, as I understand it, does not allow a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. This is because (contrary to Judaism) it is the religion of the *father *that determines the religion of the children, and so the man must convert if he is to be allowed to marry her.  If a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, it makes no difference to any children they may beget. Those children will be considered Muslim automatically.
> 
> Converting children is an interesting subject. I've heard nothing about it. However, I can certainly imagine that a Muslim man who marries a non-Muslim woman (with non-Muslim children of her own) would insist that her children be converted. But that's just a good guess. I most definitely do not believe that Muslims are scavenging European cities for the purpose of herding children into mosques and force converting them .... if that is what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...






 They dont have to do it in a mosque, in fact they can do it anywhere they want. Made headline news in the UK when it happened. But they are forcing conversions in prisons and schools using threats of violence and guilt to force girls to convert.


----------



## GLASNOST

Phoenall said:


> They dont have to do it in a mosque, in fact they can do it anywhere they want.


Irrelevelent.




Phoenall said:


> Made headline news in the UK when it happened. But they are forcing conversions in prisons and schools using threats of violence and guilt to force girls to convert.


This smells like a spin. You are telling me that children in prisons and in schools are being force converted to Islam? By what authority? And who will uphold such a conversion?

This reminds me of a story: A Jew decided to convert to Catholicism. The priest asked him why he wanted to convert and the Jew said,* "It seems like a good religion"*. The priest asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God. The Jew replies,* "Yeah, why not!"* So the priest put his hand on the Jew's head and says,_* "You're a Catholic, you're a Catholic, you're a Catholic." "That's it?"*_ asked the Jew.* "Yes", *answered the priest, *" ...... well and you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays."* The following Friday the priest was walking passed a restaurant on the High Street and through the window he saw his convert sitting at a table eating a thick, juicy, Salisbury steak. The priest stormed  into the restaurant and demanded to know what the guy thought he was doing.* "It's OK", *said the convert, *"I went into the kitchen and told the steak, you are a fish, you are a fish, you are a fish!"*

So, I wonder how seriously these contrived school conversions are.

BTW: If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, in the Catholic Church, they are compelled to sign a statement swearing to baptize all of their children Catholic, and that they (the bride and groom) can NEVER divorce. If they do ... and marry someone else, they are condemned to Hell with no reprieve.


----------



## PredFan

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.



The people of Europe will eventually have to deal with them. The way things are going they will have to before we do. That is lucky for us because maybe we will wake up before it's too late.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They dont have to do it in a mosque, in fact they can do it anywhere they want.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevelent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made headline news in the UK when it happened. But they are forcing conversions in prisons and schools using threats of violence and guilt to force girls to convert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This smells like a spin. You are telling me that children in prisons and in schools are being force converted to Islam? By what authority? And who will uphold such a conversion?
> 
> This reminds me of a story: A Jew decided to convert to Catholicism. The priest asked him why he wanted to convert and the Jew said,* "It seems like a good religion"*. The priest asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God. The Jew replies,* "Yeah, why not!"* So the priest put his hand on the Jew's head and says,_* "You're a Catholic, you're a Catholic, you're a Catholic." "That's it?"*_ asked the Jew.* "Yes", *answered the priest, *" ...... well and you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays."* The following Friday the priest was walking passed a restaurant on the High Street and through the window he saw his convert sitting at a table eating a thick, juicy, Salisbury steak. The priest stormed  into the restaurant and demanded to know what the guy thought he was doing.* "It's OK", *said the convert, *"I went into the kitchen and told the steak, you are a fish, you are a fish, you are a fish!"*
> 
> So, I wonder how seriously these contrived school conversions are.
> 
> BTW: If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, in the Catholic Church, they are compelled to sign a statement swearing to baptize all of their children Catholic, and that they (the bride and groom) can NEVER divorce. If they do ... and marry someone else, they are condemned to Hell with no reprieve.
Click to expand...

He is a nutter, keep some distance.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> He is a nutter, keep some distance.


'Ere, Tommy! I thought we was mates! Unless you mean 'im? Tell me now, you're from there abouts, Wrexham and all that, have you heard of these prison and school conversions what he's talking about? It's first I've heard of it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

GLASNOST said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a nutter, keep some distance.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Ere, Tommy! I thought we was mates! Unless you mean 'im? Tell me now, you're from there abouts, Wrexham and all that, have you heard of these prison and school conversions what he's talking about? It's first I've heard of it.
Click to expand...

Its true. The voices in his head have told him so.

He doesnt do links and his figures tend to be ones that he feels are right and support his rancid world view.

My forbears fought his sort in the War and would be appalled if they could see that fascism still survives in this form.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Many children are forced into conversion to islam in Europe and the authorities are trying to stamp it out
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true (and I reserve my judgement until further notice) then I am willing to bet this would be in the circumstances of a marriage between Muslim and a non-Muslim. Islam, as I understand it, does not allow a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. This is because (contrary to Judaism) it is the religion of the *father *that determines the religion of the children, and so the man must convert if he is to be allowed to marry her.  If a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, it makes no difference to any children they may beget. Those children will be considered Muslim automatically.
> 
> Converting children is an interesting subject. I've heard nothing about it. However, I can certainly imagine that a Muslim man who marries a non-Muslim woman (with non-Muslim children of her own) would insist that her children be converted. But that's just a good guess. I most definitely do not believe that Muslims are scavenging European cities for the purpose of herding children into mosques and force converting them .... if that is what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...


If Muslims are unscrupulous, arrogant, domineering enough to expect more than a small fraction of what you've explained to be the way of things, then I must congratulate you on exposing just how retrograde, backward, mediaeval in the extreme, Muslim expectations are.

Such a cultist and cruel 'religion' has no place in the modern world, it seems to me. Western values in particular show way more respect to people and their individual rights than, by your own reckoning, Islam does.

Little wonder that they resort to terrorism to force their will on others. With so little basic decency in them, isn't it inevitable ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Yes,because Western powers have brought nothing but good things to third world countries.


----------



## Maggdy

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Many children are forced into conversion to islam in Europe and the authorities are trying to stamp it out
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true (and I reserve my judgement until further notice) then I am willing to bet this would be in the circumstances of a marriage between Muslim and a non-Muslim. Islam, as I understand it, does not allow a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. This is because (contrary to Judaism) it is the religion of the *father *that determines the religion of the children, and so the man must convert if he is to be allowed to marry her.  If a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, it makes no difference to any children they may beget. Those children will be considered Muslim automatically.
> 
> Converting children is an interesting subject. I've heard nothing about it. However, I can certainly imagine that a Muslim man who marries a non-Muslim woman (with non-Muslim children of her own) would insist that her children be converted. But that's just a good guess. I most definitely do not believe that Muslims are scavenging European cities for the purpose of herding children into mosques and force converting them .... if that is what you are suggesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Muslims are unscrupulous, arrogant, domineering enough to expect more than a small fraction of what you've explained to be the way of things, then I must congratulate you on exposing just how retrograde, backward, mediaeval in the extreme, Muslim expectations are.
> 
> Such a cultist and cruel 'religion' has no place in the modern world, it seems to me. Western values in particular show way more respect to people and their individual rights than, by your own reckoning, Islam does.
> 
> Little wonder that they resort to terrorism to force their will on others. With so little basic decency in them, isn't it inevitable ?
Click to expand...



What it is the Muslims? There is ( or was?) the older Christian tradition.

"A Chaldean Catholic bishop in Syria has warned that two-thirds of all Christians in the war-torn country have left since the conflict began in March 2011, which means close to a million believers have fled the country.

Antoine Audo told reporters that there were close to 1.5 million Christians in Syria in 2011, but five years later there are now only around 500,000 left.

Christians and millions of other Syrian civilians have left the country to escape the ongoing civil war, .."
Source: 66 Percent of Syrian Christians Gone, Chaldean Catholic Bishop Says Amid Civil War


----------



## HenryBHough

Not for nothing have the British road signs changed to show kilometers to Londonistan.

But in Tainted Tommy's Wales they spell those words sans vowels.

Thnk hs pt Mslms cn rd ths?


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> If Muslims are unscrupulous, arrogant, domineering enough to expect more than a small fraction of what you've explained to be the way of things, then I must congratulate you on exposing just how retrograde, backward, mediaeval in the extreme, Muslim expectations are.
> 
> Such a cultist and cruel 'religion' has no place in the modern world, it seems to me. Western values in particular show way more respect to people and their individual rights than, by your own reckoning, Islam does.
> 
> Little wonder that they resort to terrorism to force their will on others. With so little basic decency in them, isn't it inevitable ?



I agree with what you've just said. However, I also agree with *this below* as to explaining _'some'_ of it.



Tommy Tainant said:


> Yes,because Western powers have brought nothing but good things to third world countries.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its true. The voices in his head have told him so. He doesnt do links and his figures tend to be ones that he feels are right and support his rancid world view.


I am beginning to realize this, yes. I see he hasn't replied to my last response.



Tommy Tainant said:


> My forbears fought his sort in the War and would be appalled if they could see that fascism still survives in this form.


I no longer know which way is 'up'.


----------



## Phoenall

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They dont have to do it in a mosque, in fact they can do it anywhere they want.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevelent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made headline news in the UK when it happened. But they are forcing conversions in prisons and schools using threats of violence and guilt to force girls to convert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This smells like a spin. You are telling me that children in prisons and in schools are being force converted to Islam? By what authority? And who will uphold such a conversion?
> 
> This reminds me of a story: A Jew decided to convert to Catholicism. The priest asked him why he wanted to convert and the Jew said,* "It seems like a good religion"*. The priest asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God. The Jew replies,* "Yeah, why not!"* So the priest put his hand on the Jew's head and says,_* "You're a Catholic, you're a Catholic, you're a Catholic." "That's it?"*_ asked the Jew.* "Yes", *answered the priest, *" ...... well and you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays."* The following Friday the priest was walking passed a restaurant on the High Street and through the window he saw his convert sitting at a table eating a thick, juicy, Salisbury steak. The priest stormed  into the restaurant and demanded to know what the guy thought he was doing.* "It's OK", *said the convert, *"I went into the kitchen and told the steak, you are a fish, you are a fish, you are a fish!"*
> 
> So, I wonder how seriously these contrived school conversions are.
> 
> BTW: If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, in the Catholic Church, they are compelled to sign a statement swearing to baptize all of their children Catholic, and that they (the bride and groom) can NEVER divorce. If they do ... and marry someone else, they are condemned to Hell with no reprieve.
Click to expand...





Not just children in your offenders institutions but adults in mainstream prisons. In schools by the muslim gangs that hold power. By the authority of islamic law that will uphold such conversions

 You need to read up on islam my friend and understand how it works


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They dont have to do it in a mosque, in fact they can do it anywhere they want.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevelent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made headline news in the UK when it happened. But they are forcing conversions in prisons and schools using threats of violence and guilt to force girls to convert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This smells like a spin. You are telling me that children in prisons and in schools are being force converted to Islam? By what authority? And who will uphold such a conversion?
> 
> This reminds me of a story: A Jew decided to convert to Catholicism. The priest asked him why he wanted to convert and the Jew said,* "It seems like a good religion"*. The priest asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God. The Jew replies,* "Yeah, why not!"* So the priest put his hand on the Jew's head and says,_* "You're a Catholic, you're a Catholic, you're a Catholic." "That's it?"*_ asked the Jew.* "Yes", *answered the priest, *" ...... well and you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays."* The following Friday the priest was walking passed a restaurant on the High Street and through the window he saw his convert sitting at a table eating a thick, juicy, Salisbury steak. The priest stormed  into the restaurant and demanded to know what the guy thought he was doing.* "It's OK", *said the convert, *"I went into the kitchen and told the steak, you are a fish, you are a fish, you are a fish!"*
> 
> So, I wonder how seriously these contrived school conversions are.
> 
> BTW: If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, in the Catholic Church, they are compelled to sign a statement swearing to baptize all of their children Catholic, and that they (the bride and groom) can NEVER divorce. If they do ... and marry someone else, they are condemned to Hell with no reprieve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a nutter, keep some distance.
Click to expand...







 Not me getting my jollies from pictures of men scantily clad


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a nutter, keep some distance.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Ere, Tommy! I thought we was mates! Unless you mean 'im? Tell me now, you're from there abouts, Wrexham and all that, have you heard of these prison and school conversions what he's talking about? It's first I've heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its true. The voices in his head have told him so.
> 
> He doesnt do links and his figures tend to be ones that he feels are right and support his rancid world view.
> 
> My forbears fought his sort in the War and would be appalled if they could see that fascism still survives in this form.
Click to expand...








 So you dont get any papers in wales

'Muslim extremists turn prison block into "no-go zone" for other inmates'

Prisoners under pressure to convert to Muslim 'gang'



British pupils ordered to ‘CONVERT TO ISLAM’ for bizarre homework assignment

UK: Cornwall school makes field trip to mosque MANDATORY for Christian and other non-Muslim students


----------



## Phoenall

GLASNOST said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its true. The voices in his head have told him so. He doesnt do links and his figures tend to be ones that he feels are right and support his rancid world view.
> 
> 
> 
> I am beginning to realize this, yes. I see he hasn't replied to my last response.
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> My forbears fought his sort in the War and would be appalled if they could see that fascism still survives in this form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I no longer know which way is 'up'.
Click to expand...








 Because I am not on 24/7 and need time on medical machines to assist my breathing. 

 As for tainted he is just a neo marxist stooge who has been wrong 100% of the time


----------



## frigidweirdo

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.



Well I was in London, Brussels and Cologne recently and didn't feel the slightest bit of danger, it's not like being in a US large city where you constantly feel alert.There were Muslims, but they didn't make me feel much at all.


----------



## GLASNOST

frigidweirdo said:


> Well I was in London, Brussels and Cologne recently and didn't feel the slightest bit of danger, it's not like being in a US large city where you constantly feel alert.There were Muslims, but they didn't make me feel much at all.


EXACTLY. Americans think that we are still shuffling along with the signs of the Nazis still fresh in our minds, as though everything we do is _*"because of the Second World War"*_. And now (as has been witnessed by the OP) Americans think Muslims are running amok 24/7, raping, pillaging, and force-converting us to Islam. None of that is the Americans' fault, however. It's the media mostly to blame and American politicians who keep telling you that we'd* "be speaking German if weren't for the US." *Not to say that don't have a serious problem with this batch of migrants (I refuse to call them refugees) because *hey* .... we've got a serious problem! It's  just not the over-sensationalist situation that the American news makes it out to be.






On the other hand, we've got it that we'll be shot dead within an hour of arriving in the US ..... if we're not packing a Kalashnikov, plus an assortment of hand guns.





I stopped reading newspapers and watching the 9 o'clock news about 10 years ago.


----------



## GLASNOST

Phoenall said:


> By the authority of islamic law that will uphold such conversions


Which means nothing.



Phoenall said:


> You need to read up on islam my friend and understand how it works


I have been to about 20 Islamic states in the world and I live in a city that has been affected one of the worst by these hoards of Muslim degenerates. Chances are that I know far more about Islam than you.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

GLASNOST said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I was in London, Brussels and Cologne recently and didn't feel the slightest bit of danger, it's not like being in a US large city where you constantly feel alert.There were Muslims, but they didn't make me feel much at all.
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY. Americans think that we are still shuffling along with the signs of the Nazis still fresh in our minds, as though everything we do is _*"because of the Second World War"*_. And now (as has been witnessed by the OP) Americans think Muslims are running amok 24/7, raping, pillaging, and force-converting us to Islam. None of that is the Americans' fault, however. It's the media mostly to blame and American politicians who keep telling you that we'd* "be speaking German if weren't for the US." *Not to say that don't have a serious problem with this batch of migrants (I refuse to call them refugees) because *hey* .... we've got a serious problem! It's  just not the over-sensationalist situation that the American news makes it out to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, we've got it that we'll be shot dead within an hour of arriving in the US ..... if we're not packing a Kalashnikov, plus an assortment of hand guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading newspapers and watching the 9 o'clock news about 10 years ago.
Click to expand...


Both views would be inaccurate.The media do not seem to report on anything that isnt sensational and there is definitely a neo nazi element that are drip feeding crap to the gullible. 

We can even see it on this forum.  

I worked in Birmingham for several years. Americans think its a no go sharia area. It isnt. By and large people get on very well. I worked with a group of people from different backgrounds and it was a joy. There was mutual support over religious holidays and in fact religion, and politics, was never discussed in work. 

Many years ago ,on a trip to the states, I got lost at night. There were no sat navs in those days.

I stopped at a petrol station and went in to ask for help. I was the only white guy in there and I thought that all sorts of bad things were going to happen to me.

I had seen all the movies and Hill St Blues and all that stuff.

What actually happened was that a few people worked out the best route to my hotel and one guy told me to follow him because he was going that way. 

10 minutes later I was in the hotel lobby. Welcome to America.


----------



## Phoenall

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority of islamic law that will uphold such conversions
> 
> 
> 
> Which means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up on islam my friend and understand how it works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to about 20 Islamic states in the world and I live in a city that has been affected one of the worst by these hoards of Muslim degenerates. Chances are that I know far more about Islam than you.
Click to expand...






 Dont bank on it


----------



## GLASNOST

Phoenall said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority of islamic law that will uphold such conversions
> 
> 
> 
> Which means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up on islam my friend and understand how it works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to about 20 Islamic states in the world and I live in a city that has been affected one of the worst by these hoards of Muslim degenerates. Chances are that I know far more about Islam than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont bank on it
Click to expand...

I am trying to tell you that you don't know very much about Islam. In fact, most of what you think you know is false.


----------



## Kristian

> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


*
Nothing is wrong with Western Europe and raises there even I am Communiste how like USA and hard rock and alcoholic and more things. Entertainment is funny with me humor and music is very funny and in spotify I like manny musics but no Rap style how is normalthinker species. Yes, U.K. have great football teams and players from world. 

Easy best league with Spanish league then Champions League.*


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Yes,because Western powers have brought nothing but good things to third world countries.



You think so, Tommy ?

Well ... I'd say that we don't exactly have a spotless record ... though the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..* to try is so ludicrous and offensive, as to bring into question WHY an effort would be made to revisit a past nobody can either help, OR hold responsibility for.

As for today ... Cameron, when PM, did a lot to ensure that a percentage of our total wealth was earmarked for foreign aid initiatives (even to a point where he was criticised for such generosity). I don't know what plans his successor might have in that regard, quite yet. Suffice it to say that our present-day record, though, is a pretty good one !


----------



## Drummond

Kristian said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Nothing is wrong with Western Europe and raises there even I am Communiste how like USA and hard rock and alcoholic and more things. Entertainment is funny with me humor and music is very funny and in spotify I like manny musics but no Rap style how is normalthinker species. Yes, U.K. have great football teams and players from world.
> 
> Easy best league with Spanish league then Champions League.*
Click to expand...


If nothing was wrong with Western Europe, then our Brexit vote would never have happened. We'd all be united in our 'delight' to be in the EU ... 

Something that's been wrong with Western Europe, comparatively recently, is its policy (led by Merkel's Germany) to let millions of refugees swarm across to Europe in the 'hope' that they're all bona fide, and in dire humanitarian need. BUT ... proper, comprehensive checks couldn't possibly have been carried out on more than a fraction of them (or is it possible to easily process background checks from millions of people fleeing a war zone, and ask OF that war zone that those checks are speedily and efficiently undertaken ??).

We see the result. Very noticeable increases in terrorist attacks in mainland Europe !! Now, who'd have ever guessed that outcome ?


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*


I say! You must be dreadfully young! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
Click to expand...

Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
> View attachment 86392
Click to expand...


Yes, it is, isn't it?


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
Click to expand...


I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.

George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?

As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?

If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?

Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??

As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.

Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??

Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
Click to expand...

Breathtakingly dishonest.
Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
Click to expand...


If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !

Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.

Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?

But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.

OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.


----------



## Phoenall

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority of islamic law that will uphold such conversions
> 
> 
> 
> Which means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up on islam my friend and understand how it works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to about 20 Islamic states in the world and I live in a city that has been affected one of the worst by these hoards of Muslim degenerates. Chances are that I know far more about Islam than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont bank on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to tell you that you don't know very much about Islam. In fact, most of what you think you know is false.
Click to expand...






 So you are now calling muslims and the koran liars are you ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.
Click to expand...


Some certainly does, to this day. These are terrorists who fight THERE, rather than HERE.

But some takes place elsewhere. Such as, in places like Brussels, or Paris. There are those who'd argue that ISIS is a Middle East problem, with ISIS interested in grabbing territory over there. But, also, ISIS proves the point that if any complacency is shown to Middle Eastern terrorism, or its sources, it'll overspill into our own back yard.

But perhaps you don't mind that, and you'd still much rather we were soft on belligerents overseas. Because otherwise, if we do something, those leading such a fight might also somehow become 'war criminals' in the eyes of the jaundiced, delusional Left ....


----------



## Vagabond63

Drummond said:


> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !



Some people do think Churchill was a war criminal.

Germans call Churchill a war criminal


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some certainly does, to this day. These are terrorists who fight THERE, rather than HERE.
> 
> But some takes place elsewhere. Such as, in places like Brussels, or Paris. There are those who'd argue that ISIS is a Middle East problem, with ISIS interested in grabbing territory over there. But, also, ISIS proves the point that if any complacency is shown to Middle Eastern terrorism, or its sources, it'll overspill into our own back yard.
> 
> But perhaps you don't mind that, and you'd still much rather we were soft on belligerents overseas. Because otherwise, if we do something, those leading such a fight might also somehow become 'war criminals' in the eyes of the jaundiced, delusional Left ....
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. I cant believe that you feel invading Iraq improved things. Are you just trying to wind me up ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
> View attachment 86392
Click to expand...






And why do you use a picture of a child from Syria, injured by Syrians and Russians to show the west is not as squeaky clean as some make out. What next a picture of the dead bodies in Belsen-Bergen to show how evil Brexit voters are. (remember that this was a marxist action )


----------



## Vagabond63

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some certainly does, to this day. These are terrorists who fight THERE, rather than HERE.
> 
> But some takes place elsewhere. Such as, in places like Brussels, or Paris. There are those who'd argue that ISIS is a Middle East problem, with ISIS interested in grabbing territory over there. But, also, ISIS proves the point that if any complacency is shown to Middle Eastern terrorism, or its sources, it'll overspill into our own back yard.
> 
> But perhaps you don't mind that, and you'd still much rather we were soft on belligerents overseas. Because otherwise, if we do something, those leading such a fight might also somehow become 'war criminals' in the eyes of the jaundiced, delusional Left ....
Click to expand...


Since we created these "terrorists" we can't really complain when they leave their playing field and come into ours.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
> View attachment 86392
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you use a picture of a child from Syria, injured by Syrians and Russians to show the west is not as squeaky clean as some make out. What next a picture of the dead bodies in Belsen-Bergen to show how evil Brexit voters are. (remember that this was a marxist action )
Click to expand...

I have other pictures you old fool.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some certainly does, to this day. These are terrorists who fight THERE, rather than HERE.
> 
> But some takes place elsewhere. Such as, in places like Brussels, or Paris. There are those who'd argue that ISIS is a Middle East problem, with ISIS interested in grabbing territory over there. But, also, ISIS proves the point that if any complacency is shown to Middle Eastern terrorism, or its sources, it'll overspill into our own back yard.
> 
> But perhaps you don't mind that, and you'd still much rather we were soft on belligerents overseas. Because otherwise, if we do something, those leading such a fight might also somehow become 'war criminals' in the eyes of the jaundiced, delusional Left ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we created these "terrorists" we can't really complain when they leave their playing field and come into ours.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. They are "born terrorists" because their "culture" tells them to kill westerners. So whatever we do to them makes no difference. Apparently.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
Click to expand...







 And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.

 Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.

How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
Click to expand...


Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.

You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.

I look forward to reading that.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
> View attachment 86392
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you use a picture of a child from Syria, injured by Syrians and Russians to show the west is not as squeaky clean as some make out. What next a picture of the dead bodies in Belsen-Bergen to show how evil Brexit voters are. (remember that this was a marxist action )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have other pictures you old fool.
Click to expand...







 But none that support your actual claim, so you do the usual neo marxist trick and pretend it does.


----------



## Vagabond63

Tommy Tainant said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some certainly does, to this day. These are terrorists who fight THERE, rather than HERE.
> 
> But some takes place elsewhere. Such as, in places like Brussels, or Paris. There are those who'd argue that ISIS is a Middle East problem, with ISIS interested in grabbing territory over there. But, also, ISIS proves the point that if any complacency is shown to Middle Eastern terrorism, or its sources, it'll overspill into our own back yard.
> 
> But perhaps you don't mind that, and you'd still much rather we were soft on belligerents overseas. Because otherwise, if we do something, those leading such a fight might also somehow become 'war criminals' in the eyes of the jaundiced, delusional Left ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we created these "terrorists" we can't really complain when they leave their playing field and come into ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point. They are "born terrorists" because their "culture" tells them to kill westerners. So whatever we do to them makes no difference. Apparently.
Click to expand...


Maybe we sould buy them schools and teachers so they'll be able to read the Quran for themselves? At the moment these are paid for by Saudi Arabia, the most extremist Islamist fanatics on the planet....and an ally of ours


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the level of 'blame game' you'd want to foist on us for our past really depends on just how far into the past you insist upon digging ... doesn't it ? What I truly DO say is that *the present generations of people alive cannot be held responsible for things done before any of them were ever born ..*
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
Click to expand...





Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.

Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
Click to expand...

Oh dear. What does David Icke say about all of this ?


----------



## Vagabond63

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say! You must be dreadfully young!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really ....... 'before *ANY OF US* were born'? I am on the edge of 70 and, well, Tony Blair and Geo. the Bush didn't leave number 10 Washington Street all that long ago. In fact, the same policies are in effect to this day with ... uh ... what are their names now? I wonder ... have you ever heard of a nation called* 'Iraq'*? How about *'Afghanistan'*? No? Neither of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
Click to expand...


Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
Operation Ore exposed


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Vagabond63 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
> Operation Ore exposed
Click to expand...

Seriously mate.Keep your distance from this guy.He is a nutter.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> Breathtakingly dishonest.


Not to put too fine a point on it, yes.



Tommy Tainant said:


> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.


Tell him please, Tommy. I'm all out of breath.


----------



## GLASNOST

Phoenall said:


> How about ..... Brown .... a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.


Forced because Brown is a pedophile ..... or because the Americans stuffed slivers of bamboo under his phoenails? I think *'forced'* is too strong a word. I would say bribed, blackmailed, coerced. But then again I've heard him speak, Blair. He had the same opaque curtain over his eyes as Bush did. A liar - right down to the centre of his soul.




Perhaps we give him too much credit by assuming he was dupped.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. *A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.*


You're in good form, Tommy.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Vagabond63 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> Fact is, Tommy, that just for the sake of sheer decency, there are times when rogue monsters have to be taken on and defeated. Sheer humanity demands it.
> 
> Saddam was indeed a monster. But you PC Lefties, back in 2003, went out on the streets in your millions to DEFEND his regime from harm, didn't you ? Where was your 'enlightened humanity' when you lot did that ? Did it take a highly convenient hike ?
> 
> But if you want to be selfish about it ... consider that Saddam was a friend to terrorists. He did dodgy deals with them. He even bankrolled Hamas, and their own murderous activities. Such a monster, with WMD's (we had no way of establishing what his stocks were, pre-invasion) could've done a deal to release some to terrorists. No responsible nation on earth, empowered to act, could possibly tolerate that state of affairs and do NOTHING about it.
> 
> OK - Iraq turned out to be a lot messier than first thought. But at least it became a focus for terrorist groups, meaning that we could tie them up THERE, rather than have them wage their terrorist wars HERE. Think on that, Tommy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree. It is a huge comfort to know that all terrorist activity takes place in Iraq rather than across the world. A massive benefit that I somehow overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some certainly does, to this day. These are terrorists who fight THERE, rather than HERE.
> 
> But some takes place elsewhere. Such as, in places like Brussels, or Paris. There are those who'd argue that ISIS is a Middle East problem, with ISIS interested in grabbing territory over there. But, also, ISIS proves the point that if any complacency is shown to Middle Eastern terrorism, or its sources, it'll overspill into our own back yard.
> 
> But perhaps you don't mind that, and you'd still much rather we were soft on belligerents overseas. Because otherwise, if we do something, those leading such a fight might also somehow become 'war criminals' in the eyes of the jaundiced, delusional Left ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we created these "terrorists" we can't really complain when they leave their playing field and come into ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point. They are "born terrorists" because their "culture" tells them to kill westerners. So whatever we do to them makes no difference. Apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe we sould buy them schools and teachers so they'll be able to read the Quran for themselves? At the moment these are paid for by Saudi Arabia, the most extremist Islamist fanatics on the planet....and an ally of ours
Click to expand...

Yes, what a radical idea.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. What does David Icke say about all of this ?
Click to expand...







 About what, it is one of the neo marxists favorite sites as it supports islamic terrorism


----------



## Phoenall

Vagabond63 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to, and thinking of, the old days of the British Empire ... not the things you're talking about.
> 
> George Bush isn't British, and we Brits have had no control over what choices and decisions he came up with. '10 Washington Street' .. ? Where's that ?
> 
> As for Tony Blair ... Blair, since you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq, reacted to events on the world stage. Let me ask you in turn .. have you heard of 9/11 ? The attack on America, on 11th September, 2001 ?
> 
> If you have -- tell me. Do you think there should've been no countering reaction to that terrorist attack ?
> 
> Do you think that the terrorists responsible (Al Qaeda) should never have been attacked, in Afghanistan ? Should they have got away with it ? Should all the terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan have been left alone ??
> 
> As for Iraq - Saddam, contrary to some PC Leftie escapism, was actually NOT a nice man. He definitely did have a stock of WMD's .. he used one of them to gas the Kurds. He refused to be accountable for WMD stocks, so, ultimately, action had to be taken against his regime. Bush and Blair did the responsible thing and acted, rather than let that 'do they have them or don't they ?' farce continue on indefinitely.
> 
> Better to overturn rogue regimes, ones friendly with terrorists and brutal with it .. than bury one's head in the sand and hope the problem will just go away ... yes .. ??
> 
> Think Neville Chamberlain. And consider Hitler's behaviour. Tell me that history advises us to be soft on brutal dictators !
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
> Operation Ore exposed
Click to expand...







 Still has a "D" notice on it which means it cant be disclosed by the British media.

 They all have something to hide which is why they cant get a Judge to chair the inquiry, it could bring the whole house of commons down like a card house.


----------



## Phoenall

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about ..... Brown .... a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced because Brown is a pedophile ..... or because the Americans stuffed slivers of bamboo under his phoenails? I think *'forced'* is too strong a word. I would say bribed, blackmailed, coerced. But then again I've heard him speak, Blair. He had the same opaque curtain over his eyes as Bush did. A liar - right down to the centre of his soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we give him too much credit by assuming he was dupped.
Click to expand...







 Forced by threatening to expose the labour party cabinet members as being involved in child porn. Some of the details are coming out now like the labour M.P's who signed a letter supporting the scrapping of the age of consent sent to PIE.


----------



## GLASNOST

Phoenall said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about ..... Brown .... a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced because Brown is a pedophile ..... or because the Americans stuffed slivers of bamboo under his phoenails? I think *'forced'* is too strong a word. I would say bribed, blackmailed, coerced. But then again I've heard him speak, Blair. He had the same opaque curtain over his eyes as Bush did. A liar - right down to the centre of his soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we give him too much credit by assuming he was dupped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced by threatening to expose the labour party cabinet members as being involved in child porn. Some of the details are coming out now like the labour M.P's who signed a letter supporting the scrapping of the age of consent sent to PIE.
Click to expand...

I am not prepared to believe that UK government would commit it's nation to an illegal war and murder a million innocent men, women, and children ….. just to avoid whispers in the corridor over what most of the world already knows to be public school standard practices.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
> Operation Ore exposed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still has a "D" notice on it which means it cant be disclosed by the British media.
> 
> They all have something to hide which is why they cant get a Judge to chair the inquiry, it could bring the whole house of commons down like a card house.
Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks for that. That must be the reason that no news agency has covered this important story. Explains everything.


----------



## The Great Goose




----------



## GLASNOST

*Scheiße!*


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about ..... Brown .... a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced because Brown is a pedophile ..... or because the Americans stuffed slivers of bamboo under his phoenails? I think *'forced'* is too strong a word. I would say bribed, blackmailed, coerced. But then again I've heard him speak, Blair. He had the same opaque curtain over his eyes as Bush did. A liar - right down to the centre of his soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we give him too much credit by assuming he was dupped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced by threatening to expose the labour party cabinet members as being involved in child porn. Some of the details are coming out now like the labour M.P's who signed a letter supporting the scrapping of the age of consent sent to PIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that UK government would commit it's nation to an illegal war and murder a million innocent men, women, and children ….. just to avoid whispers in the corridor over what most of the world already knows to be public school standard practices.
Click to expand...


I am not prepared to believe that the UK Government committed its nation to an illegal war ... at all.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that UK government would commit it's nation to an illegal war and murder a million innocent men, women, and children ….. just to avoid whispers in the corridor over what most of the world already knows to be public school standard practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that the UK Government committed its nation to an illegal war ... at all.
Click to expand...

You're having problems with ..... *'commitment'* .... or *'illegal'*?


----------



## Abishai100

*DANDELION: Hubris*

Muslim expansion offends those focused on the presentation comforts of Western Christianity-based power monarchies.


----------



## GLASNOST

Abishai100 said:


> *DANDELION: Hubris*
> 
> Muslim expansion offends those focused on the presentation comforts of Western Christianity-based power monarchies.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 86551
> 
> View attachment 86552


And yet no one notices the irony.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that UK government would commit it's nation to an illegal war and murder a million innocent men, women, and children ….. just to avoid whispers in the corridor over what most of the world already knows to be public school standard practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that the UK Government committed its nation to an illegal war ... at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're having problems with ..... *'commitment'* .... or *'illegal'*?
Click to expand...


I thought I'd made myself clear. My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war.

Seems to me that those suggesting it was illegal only do so because it serves the argument they want to advance, and not because it was actually true. The Government of the day took legal advice and were assured that they were on safe legal ground in doing what they did.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> ....  My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..


You most certainly have a problem all right.


----------



## Mindful

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Bush and Blair are 'war criminals', then you must judge Churchill similarly. After all, he had the temerity to tackle Hitler's Reich ... why, how belligerent of him !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people do think Churchill was a war criminal.
> 
> Germans call Churchill a war criminal
Click to expand...


Germans would.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have a problem all right.
Click to expand...


Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.


----------



## Esmeralda

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


Your dream is not a reality in any European city.  Get a grip.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have a problem all right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.
Click to expand...


 The problem, as I see it, is Leftyism has morphed into a kind of exclusive ultra liberalism. Based on unrealistic idealism, and angry intellectualism.

I can't remember when it all started. Or did it just creep up on us unawares?


----------



## Mindful

Esmeralda said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dream is not a reality in any European city.  Get a grip.
Click to expand...


Europe bends over backwards for Muslims


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda.


You certainly do swallow Rightist propaganda by the lorry loads.









Drummond said:


> At the time, it was accepted as legal.


It was NEVER accepted as legal:
*** The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004: *"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war was illegal."*

*** Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441 do not permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Those conditions were not met.

*** In addition to all of that the US lied about WMD's in Irak and the US falsified evidence of WMD's in Irak.

*** The US also forced the UN inspection team to leave, which itself found that there were no Wmd's in Irak.

Your logic is fucked ................. 4 ways from Sunday.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do swallow Rightist propaganda by the lorry loads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time, it was accepted as legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was NEVER accepted as legal:
> *** The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004: *"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war was illegal."*
> 
> *** Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441 do not permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Those conditions were not met.
> 
> *** In addition to all of that the US lied about WMD's in Irak and the US falsified evidence of WMD's in Irak.
> 
> *** The US also forced the UN inspection team to leave, which itself found that there were no Wmd's in Irak.
> 
> Your logic is fucked ................. 4 ways from Sunday.
Click to expand...


Tiresome.

The Attorney General advised the Government that it was a legal war. Was the Attorney General incapable of judging the issue ?

UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequences' if Saddam didn't meet that Resolution's requirements. Do you deny that an armed invasion qualifies as 'serious consequences' .. ??

Iraq definitely DID have WMD's ... or was it only stink bombs that the Kurds were gassed with (cue a hasty history rewrite) ?

Then again ... see this, for further evidence of them being found ...

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq | Fox News

News such as this didn't reach Europe (a remarkable example of news management !). But some news agencies in the US did cover it. The New York Daily News .. Fox News .. outlets such as those.

Oh, and have you noticed that that 'the war was illegal' pronouncements only became stridently expressed AFTER it was over ? After, in fact, memories about it had dimmed somewhat ?

... funny, that ......


----------



## Drummond

Check this out ....

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

... and then tell me that the 2003 Iraq War wasn't justified .......


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do swallow Rightist propaganda by the lorry loads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time, it was accepted as legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was NEVER accepted as legal:
> *** The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004: *"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war was illegal."*
> 
> *** Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441 do not permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Those conditions were not met.
> 
> *** In addition to all of that the US lied about WMD's in Irak and the US falsified evidence of WMD's in Irak.
> 
> *** The US also forced the UN inspection team to leave, which itself found that there were no Wmd's in Irak.
> 
> Your logic is fucked ................. 4 ways from Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tiresome.
> 
> The Attorney General advised the Government that it was a legal war. Was the Attorney General incapable of judging the issue ?
> 
> UN Resolution 1441 had provision for *'serious consequences'* if Saddam didn't meet that Resolution's requirements. Do you deny that an armed invasion qualifies as 'serious consequences' .. ??
> 
> Iraq definitely DID have *WMD's* ... or was it only stink bombs that the *Kurds were gassed with* (cue a hasty history rewrite) ?
> 
> Then again ... see this, for further evidence of them being found ...
> 
> Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq | Fox News
> 
> News such as this didn't reach Europe (a remarkable example of news management !). But some news agencies in the US did cover it. The New York Daily News .. Fox News .. outlets such as those.
> 
> Oh, and have you noticed that that 'the war was illegal' pronouncements only became stridently expressed AFTER it was over ? After, in fact, memories about it had dimmed somewhat ?
> 
> ... funny, that ......
Click to expand...

Would you like my personal opinion? I think you are only pretending to be stupid.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> Tiresome.



Tiresome, is it?

* Saddam agreed to destroy his weapons (chemical, WMD) and he did.

* The UN wanted proof and sent an inspection team.

* Saddam did not accept the team because he said it was rife with CIA agents.

* The UN discovered that Saddam was right and sent a new team led by Hans Blix whose job it was to inspect the 12 sites that the Americans said they had proof of the presence of WMD's.

* The team inspected the first 11 sites and found proof that those weapons had indeed been destroyed. They now set out to inspect the 12th. and final site.

* But just as they were to about to complete their mission, the Americans declared they were going to invade despite the UN inspection team's work.

* It is a matter of historical fact that there were no WMD's in Irak, that the Americans lied about WMD's, that  the Americans lied about proof of the presence of WMD's, that the Americans faked a so-called telephone dialogue confirming their 'proof',   that the Americans infiltrated the first UN inspection team with CIA spies in order to sabotage the UN mission and plant false evidence, that the Americans did not follow the UN Resolutions pertaining to cooperation between Saddam and the UN, that the Americans did not fulfill the requirements to make an invasion legal, that the invasion was, therefore absolutely illegal. 

Not so tiresome after all, eh?


----------



## montelatici

Frigging hell, that nutcase is quoting Fox News during Roger Aiele's leadership as a source for fact?  What an idiot.


----------



## GLASNOST

Unbelievable, isn't it.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tiresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tiresome, is it?
> 
> * Saddam agreed to destroy his weapons (chemical, WMD) and he did.
> 
> * The UN wanted proof and sent an inspection team.
> 
> * Saddam did not accept the team because he said it was rife with CIA agents.
> 
> * The UN discovered that Saddam was right and sent a new team led by Hans Blix whose job it was to inspect the 12 sites that the Americans said they had proof of the presence of WMD's.
> 
> * The team inspected the first 11 sites and found proof that those weapons had indeed been destroyed. They now set out to inspect the 12th. and final site.
> 
> * But just as they were to about to complete their mission, the Americans declared they were going to invade despite the UN inspection team's work.
> 
> * It is a matter of historical fact that there were no WMD's in Irak, that the Americans lied about WMD's, that  the Americans lied about proof of the presence of WMD's, that the Americans faked a so-called telephone dialogue confirming their 'proof',   that the Americans infiltrated the first UN inspection team with CIA spies in order to sabotage the UN mission and plant false evidence, that the Americans did not follow the UN Resolutions pertaining to cooperation between Saddam and the UN, that the Americans did not fulfill the requirements to make an invasion legal, that the invasion was, therefore absolutely illegal.
> 
> Not so tiresome after all, eh?
Click to expand...


Good God. You say it's ME who's swallowed propaganda ??

For starters - if I accept your contention that the CIA infiltrated the UN inspection team(s), then that surely compromised their impartiality. Therefore, of what actual use were they ?

But anyway ... I see you completely ignore the evidence I posted of their existence. OF COURSE you do. Anything countering your propaganda, will be ignored - won't it ?

The whole problem about Saddam was that he did NOT prove to anyone that the WMD's he had were destroyed. He always refused to give numbers of original stocks and extent of destructions. The best his regime managed was to arrange for the UN teams to go to sites where WMD's had been destroyed, yes, but those teams had no way of assessing quantities destroyed, or, the number that needed to be destroyed to confirm that Saddam had no more stocks available to him. Hans Blix himself confirmed that to assess quantities destroyed at any one site with any degree of accuracy was impossible.

Besides, the manpower sent by the UN was farcical. How could they ever hope to search an entire country (.. not that they even had permission to). They were led where Saddam wanted them to be led.

(It's a bit like me saying that the UK has no nuclear weapons or capability to launch any .. so I'll arrange for inspection teams to check out Southend-on-Sea, and the Tower of London, to prove it. If they find no such weapons on either 'site' ... hey presto .. we can't have any !!!)

The whole UN operation was pathetic. It could achieve nothing. Nothing less than an invasion of Iraq, and the ending of hindrance from Saddam, could ever settle the issue. This is what happened, and it's this that you're so stridently in opposition to.

*WHY ?*


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> *WHY ?*



_'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know *WHY *the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'_







Well? What have you to say for yourself, boy? Why do you not pay attention? Speak up! We're going to find out, you know. We are going to find out if it takes the whole day.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHY ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know *WHY *the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'_
Click to expand...


This again? (Groan) 

It's already been done to death.


----------



## GLASNOST

Awfully nice of you to keep it alive.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Awfully nice of you to keep it alive.




You must be an arsehole.


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awfully nice of you to keep it alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be an arsehole.
Click to expand...

And you must be the whole arse: Hole, cheeks, and sphincter.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHY ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know *WHY *the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well? What have you to say for yourself, boy? Why do you not pay attention? Speak up! We're going to find out, you know. We are going to find out if it takes the whole day.
Click to expand...


I love it.

I provide evidence to disprove your assertions. I offer you an argument to do likewise. What I get in return is no attempt at reasonable argument, but THIS, instead.

I fully understand your difficulty. I even sympathise. Fact is that anyone who'd truly thought logically about any of this wouldn't have swallowed the bog-standard media line about it (one only concocted in detail YEARS after the event !!). You can't counter the contents of the Intelligence document my link led you to. You can't counter the absurdity of supposing that Blix's team ever had a chance of usefully establishing quantities of WMD's destroyed, or of finding out with any hope of certainty how many he started out with,_ or,_ of ever covering enough of Iraqi territory to be sure that none were still being hidden by Saddam's regime.

The WMD's Saddam's regime had could've been moved, after all. They weren't irremediably rooted to the ground (and what use could they have been to anyone, ever, if they were ??). Saddam could've arranged for 20 percent of stocks at each of his known sites to be destroyed, then kept the remaining 80 percent aside at alternative locations neither known to Blix, nor accessible by his teams. Blix had no way of knowing, *none at all*, that something of this kind hadn't been arranged.

If all you can truly offer is efforts at ridicule, and nothing else of useful substance, I must regard my argument as won outright. Try proving me wrong in what I say. TRY.

But you can't -- *can you ?*


----------



## Drummond

Mindful said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHY ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know *WHY *the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again? (Groan)
> 
> It's already been done to death.
Click to expand...


I agree and sympathise. 'Tiresome' hardly seems to cover it.

But there are people who need to be deprogrammed from believing barely logical - if 'media-preferred' - nonsense ... _still. _

I can only do my best. Old though this is, done to death as it's been ... still, the old nonsense survives ....


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> I provide evidence to disprove your assertions.


All of your 'evidence' that the facts have disproved. You are just wasting time now and talking just to hear the echo of your own voice.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provide evidence to disprove your assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> All of your 'evidence' that the facts have disproved. You are just wasting time now and talking just to hear the echo of your own voice.
Click to expand...


Zero substance to your reply .. again. You achieve nothing by this approach. But I'll agree on one point ... yes, I'm wasting my time. You'll cling to your version of reality, come-what-may, and let nothing intrude upon it. You cannot usefully defend it .. as I've proven .. but that makes no difference to you.

Blix and his people were led around by Saddam. They did establish that SOME destructions of WMD's had taken place. As to quantities destroyed ... they had no clue. As to the original number needing to be destroyed ... Saddam never gave them figures to help them out on that, only a bland 'we have no WMD's' assurance. The whole thing was a farce, from beginning to end. Anyone applying logic to an examination to events of that time, instead of just believing what the media parroted, would know this.

You choose not to. And I'll forever be wasting my time in trying to get you to see reality.

Sad. Really sad.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> Zero substance.


More talk but still ....






... nothing but the same rhetoric.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero substance.
> 
> 
> 
> More talk but still ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... nothing but the same rhetoric.
Click to expand...


-- See ? AGAIN, zero substance. No evidence offered backing your argument over mine. No facts or figures. No actual proof that my statements are incorrect. As for 'the same rhetoric' ... well, it _would_ be the same. The truth doesn't change just because you'd prefer it did !

And ... derision just doesn't cut it .. don't you get that ? 

What a total waste of time talking to you is.


----------



## GLASNOST

Have you lost your mind ...... or have you never had it?


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Have you lost your mind ...... or have you never had it?



Because I don't buy into the braindead propaganda that you do ?

Instead of just chucking out abuse, try DISPROVING what I say.

Or ... not.  *BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.*


----------



## GLASNOST

You are *SO* boring.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> You are *SO* boring.



The truth often is. But it doesn't stop being the truth because of it.

Since you can't counter my arguments, so you're trying other tricks to divert away from that. 

But here's the thing. Western media, especially in Europe, didn't cover - AT ALL - the news of degraded WMD's being found in Iraq.They WERE ... but we in Europe had a news blackout about it. Why ? Because, had the truth been disseminated, people might've questioned the so-called prevailing 'wisdom' of arguments such as yours.

My link in a previous post proves me right. It's one of those you've ignored. And tried to indirectly ridicule. Naturally.

Some of us prefer to face truths instead of run away from them, believing Leftie fantasies instead. I'm one person who seeks truth. Does it make me boring ? Well ... it makes me something of a pain to Lefties who hate to see unwelcome truths see the light of day.

My advice ... live with it.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> The truth often is.


You have contributed nothing but propaganda, _sans_ fact, which I've already proved. But in your defense I was expecting too much from you because out-dated and disproved propaganda is all you have.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth often is.
> 
> 
> 
> You have contributed nothing but propaganda, _sans_ fact, which I've already proved. But in your defense I was expecting too much from you because out-dated and disproved propaganda is all you have.
Click to expand...


Indeed ? OK ... let's examine that.

In 2003, the UN and the world was faced with a Saddam who told them he had no WMD's. Now, according to UN Resolution 1441, he was either required to give a full account of the numbers he DID have, or, prove that they all no longer existed.

What Saddam did was to agree (after much prevarication) to let UN teams into Iraq. They were allowed to go to designated sites and inspect those sites. They were also allowed to interview his scientists (.. but only under armed supervision. 'Of course').

The reality was that those UN teams had no baseline figures to work from .. NO account of the number of WMD's Saddam had originally, in order to verify that all had been destroyed -- just a bland 'we have no WMD's' statement. So, they went to the sites, discovered evidence that destructions had taken place, BUT, they had no way of knowing quantities destroyed. That information was neither available, nor even verifiable if it had been.

The UN teams had no ability to scour the entirety of Iraq, looking for them .. they lacked the manpower, for one thing. They could only go to set areas with Saddam's permission. To do WHAT, usefully ... ??

.. so. No knowledge available of exact numbers of original stocks needing to be accounted for as destroyed. No way of verifying those numbers destroyed, even IF they'd been given.

And on the back of THAT ... we're just all supposed to 'know' that Iraq was WMD-free ????

So who's dealing in fact, and who's swallowed propaganda ? *YOU* tell* ME* !!

I posted previously a declassified portion of an Intelligence document, one which asserted that in excess of 500 old, degraded WMD weapons had been found (Res 1441 said nothing about the condition WMD's needed to be in, to qualify as them !). That same document, drafted years after the invasion, said that more WMD's were still assessed to exist in Iraq. Just on the basis that this was drafted a decade ago, and for no other reason ... do you reject it, just because it's inconvenient to your argument ?

[Care to take a look ? Here's the link again ...]
*
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf*

If you've a better reason for doing so, let's hear it ... and something better than 'I trust what Saddam told us' will have to do, I'm afraid.

Come on -* let's see if you can usefully counter any of my post.* Or will you just lapse into ridicule once more ?


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> Come on -* let's see if you can usefully counter any of my post.* Or will you just lapse into ridicule once more ?



Let me tell you something that might give you some insight into this dialogue, and any other in future. Back in post #82 you said,* "UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequence' *as though that in itself makes any invasion legal. Have you the intelligence of a child? Having read that I realized without any doubt that you are a simple troll, and I haven't taken anything you've said since then seriously. Flab on as much as you like but it all boils down to nonsense.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on -* let's see if you can usefully counter any of my post.* Or will you just lapse into ridicule once more ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something that might give you some insight into this dialogue, and any other in future. Back in post #82 you said,* "UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequence' *as though that in itself makes any invasion legal. Have you the intelligence of a child? Having read that I realized without any doubt that you are a simple troll, and I haven't taken anything you've said since then seriously. Flab on as much as you like but it all boils down to nonsense.
Click to expand...


Your reply isn't exactly impressive, considering that you've ignored all I said in my last post !! Understandable, of course, since you can't counter the accuracy of what I've said with any degree of truth. What I've described, is what happened ... and the only logical outcome of the puerile UN actions in Iraq (which never had any hope of settling a thing) was that something effective had to replace it all.

This is what happened -* the military intervention*. Saddam was going to forever muck the UN around, and the UN was going to continue with fruitless, pointless, 'investigations' that'd get nowhere. Even Blix came to essentially that very conclusion.

But it seems that trying to undermine an action that couldn't help but make the world a safer place, is what you really care about (... which surely begs the question: _are you loyal to a Left wing brand of political thought ?_) . If you can't question the history, so, you'll try and question the legality of responsible, decisive action.

Forgive this following 'flabby' response, then, considering its great detail. However, I'll introduce you to this online document. The link to it is ...   The Legal War: A Justification for Military Action in Iraq | Gonzaga Journal of International Law

Here's an excerpt from it (lengthy though it is ...) ...



> * Article 51 of the UN Charter provides the rights of nations to defend themselves from threats to national security.  Indeed, this right is considered independent of any treaty or convention under international law:  “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measure necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This language makes clear that there is a right to defend one’s nation, or other nations, independent of Security Council approval.*
> 
> The inherent right to self-defense was first enunciated in the Caroline incident. In 1837, a secret British military unit entered the United States and destroyed the American vessel Caroline, which had been aiding Canadian insurgents fighting against British rule.  The incident resulted in the loss of the vessel as well as two American lives.  Confronted by American officials, the British maintained that the attack on the Caroline was an act of self-defense.  Daniel Webster, the US Secretary of State, wrote a letter in return, demanding that the British justify this claim by showing that the need for self-defense was:instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation…even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. The British accepted this test by justifying its actions accordingly.
> 
> As has been explained by international scholars, the Caroline test requires that nations show that use of force is necessary due to an imminent threat, and that the response is proportionate to the threat. Accordingly, the decision to invade Iraq, if not justified by existing Security Council resolutions, would have to have been justified by an imminent threat coming from Iraq, one proportionate to a response such as regime change.  While there most certainly was debate as to whether the threat emanating from Iraq was “imminent,”* the United States has made clear that nations can no longer wait for threats to materialize in a post-Sept.11 world: For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat…
> 
> Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means…Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.*



The issue of whether or not Iraq had WMD's remained unresolved, and since Saddam was known to have friendly ties with terrorist groups (e.g Hamas, which he bankrolled !!) ... it followed that the sooner the whole issue was resolved, the better. The UN action was given a chance, but it proved it had no hope of resolving the Iraq issue: therefore, in accordance with the right to a defence against a belligerent power, accompanied by the 'serious consequences' clause of Resolution 1441, military action WAS LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE.

Here's another excerpt from that link ... perhaps you'll find it helpful. Or, perhaps you'll just ignore it ? Either way ....



> *In conclusion, the US-led coalition was justified in its invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power.  Existing Security Council resolutions and authorization, coupled with Iraq’s continued breach of its obligations under those resolutions, show that there was license to enforce those duties by “all necessary means.”  The Security Council never expressly extinguished authorization to use force under these resolutions, nor did it put a time limit on that authority.  Resolutions 678 and 687 were still effective in 2002-2003, as evidenced by the language of Resolution 1441.* Second, because the threat posed by Iraq’s non-compliance with weapons programs was grave, growing, and possibly imminent, *the action to remove him from power was justifiable as an act of preemptive self-defense.  *The US has expressed the view that, in a post-Sept. 11 arena, nations cannot wait for an express declaration of war or other clear signs to designate a threat as “imminent.”  Following the practice of numerous states over the past half-century, the US led a coalition to preemptively defend itself and other nations from the possibility of an Iraqi regime armed with WMD.  *Considering the costs of a WMD attack, regime change was an appropriate response to the Iraqi threat*.


----------



## RoshanNair

The fighting spirit of the European peoples is gone. Leftism and political correctness are the pervasive forces which have rendered them weak and effeminate in the face of hostile alien creeds (Islam).

The likes of Charles Martel and John Sobieski I will be rolling in their grave at the current pathetic situation. Muslims are on the verge of conquering Europe.


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> Your reply isn't exactly impressive, considering that *you've ignored all I said in my last post* !!


In your *last post*? You still don't get it. I don't entertain trolls very much. I stopped reading everything you've posted since that absurdly construed post #82 of yours. What part of that statement do you not understand?


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply isn't exactly impressive, considering that *you've ignored all I said in my last post* !!
> 
> 
> 
> In your *last post*? You still don't get it. I don't entertain trolls very much. I stopped reading everything you've posted since that absurdly construed post #82 of yours. What part of that statement do you not understand?
Click to expand...


I'll ignore the absurdity of your replying to something you claim not to have even read .... but, anyway ...

.... there it is, then. You just won't take any notice of anything that interferes with your cosy little belief-system; you're picking and choosing how to edit your personal perception of what's real and true. To be blunt ... sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la-la-la' is not something that responsible politicians across the world can do, when faced with difficult issues. It's not even a particularly sane or responsible thing to do in response to normal, everyday happenings in real life. Yet ... you think you should do it ...

Have fun with that. Me, and others ... we choose something much better. REAL life in the REAL world, and the tackling of REAL problems.

You should try it sometime. For one thing, it'll make fair and even-handed discussions a real possibility for you to enjoy. Though ... you will find you have to be open to new ideas, new perceptions, new truths ... could be fun, though maybe any Leftie chums you have won't approve (what a shame ..) .....


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> I'll ignore the absurdity ...


Copying and pasting the lyrics to Yankee Doodle didn't increase your credibility one bit. But it's nice to know that you're thinking about it.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore the absurdity ...
> 
> 
> 
> Copying and pasting the lyrics to Yankee Doodle didn't increase your credibility one bit. But it's nice to know that you're thinking about it.
Click to expand...


Oh, 'good' .. you're back to the abuse.

Look - you know, as do I, as do others reading this thread, that I've posted a good case for what I'm asserting to be true. You've not countered with anything disproving me, though you've had a great deal of opportunity to ... _this is because you cannot. _

*I* know it. *You* know it. Anyone impartially reading this thread will know it. Why not just admit you're wrong, that you're wedded to an agenda which insists on defying the reality involved, and be done with it ?

Then again - Lefties can never do that. Start, and it's like tugging on a loose thread of a tapestry ... the whole thing just unravels. NOT a good thing if you want to keep unsupportable propaganda intact, eh ?


----------



## GLASNOST

Drummond said:


> Look


Where?


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
Click to expand...


In the direction of the truth, of course. 

It's better than running away from it .....


----------



## LuckyDuck

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


There's an old saying, "either sh*t or get off the pot."  Do research on Islam's founder, its violent history, the Koran and Sharia Law.  Once you've done that, think about the freedoms you and women have.  Once you've done that, you will stop "sitting on the fence" and pick a side; hopefully, not the barbaric side.


----------



## GLASNOST

LuckyDuck said:


> ....... stop "sitting on the fence" and *pick a side *.....


Black or White, huh? You start a number of wars with those people then you tell the world,* “You are either with us or you are with them.”*




… and you are the reason there is war. Instigate a fight then demand for everyone else to* 'pick a side'.*


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....... stop "sitting on the fence" and *pick a side *.....
> 
> 
> 
> Black or White, huh? You start a number of wars with those people then you tell the world,* “You are either with us or you are with them.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> … and you are the reason there is war. Instigate a fight then demand for everyone else to* 'pick a side'.*
Click to expand...


Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it ? ISIS, ditto ?

In your world, are all acts that counter Islamic terrorists, and rogue regimes that'd support them, 'illegal' ... ?

The disgusting act of terrorism perpetrated on 11th September 2001 sparked off the War on Terror. It's a war that should never have been relaxed. It's a war we need to win.

- Or, in your world ... DON'T we ... ?


----------



## LuckyDuck

GLASNOST said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....... stop "sitting on the fence" and *pick a side *.....
> 
> 
> 
> Black or White, huh? You start a number of wars with those people then you tell the world,* “You are either with us or you are with them.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> … and you are the reason there is war. Instigate a fight then demand for everyone else to* 'pick a side'.*
Click to expand...

"Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples.  There is an old saying that rings true:
"Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
They are the enemy and always have been.


----------



## GLASNOST

LuckyDuck said:


> ..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples.  There is an old saying that rings true:
> "Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
> They are the enemy and always have been.


You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to *pick a side* - telling everyone, *"You are either with us or you are against us." * So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples.  There is an old saying that rings true:
> "Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
> They are the enemy and always have been.
> 
> 
> 
> You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to *pick a side* - telling everyone, *"You are either with us or you are against us." * So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.
Click to expand...


Trace for me the point of origin of the September 11th attack against America, in 2001, then. If you seriously claim that the savagery meted out that day, with approximately 3,000 dead, did NOT originate with Al Qaeda ... then tell me, with evidence to back you, what its real point of origin was .. how the attack ever came about.

Come on. You may not be open to the truth, you may not be interested in any evidence of it I bring your way .. but unlike you, I *will* note countering arguments and evidence to back them. 

I'm offering you the fairness and even-handedness you've refused to offer me. Let's see if you can deliver ....


----------



## Unkotare

GLASNOST said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples.  There is an old saying that rings true:
> "Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
> They are the enemy and always have been.
> 
> 
> 
> You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to *pick a side* - telling everyone, *"You are either with us or you are against us." * So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.
Click to expand...



What is your nationality?


----------



## Drummond

Unkotare said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples.  There is an old saying that rings true:
> "Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
> They are the enemy and always have been.
> 
> 
> 
> You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to *pick a side* - telling everyone, *"You are either with us or you are against us." * So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is your nationality?
Click to expand...


Good question. I'd also like to see this answered .....


----------



## LuckyDuck

Family out of Schull, Ireland.
And, its importance is?...................


----------



## Vagabond63

Tommy Tainant said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
> Operation Ore exposed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously mate.Keep your distance from this guy.He is a nutter.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh, but he does seem a little "focused" on far-right views.


----------



## Vagabond63

Phoenall said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathtakingly dishonest.
> Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
> He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
> If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
> But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
> Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.
> 
> Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.
> 
> How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.
> 
> You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.
> 
> I look forward to reading that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.
> 
> Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this  Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
> Operation Ore exposed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still has a "D" notice on it which means it cant be disclosed by the British media.
> 
> They all have something to hide which is why they cant get a Judge to chair the inquiry, it could bring the whole house of commons down like a card house.
Click to expand...


Someone's been reading too many conspiracy theories. Ever watched House of Cards? (the Uk version) or A very British Coup?


----------



## Vagabond63

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about ..... Brown .... a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced because Brown is a pedophile ..... or because the Americans stuffed slivers of bamboo under his phoenails? I think *'forced'* is too strong a word. I would say bribed, blackmailed, coerced. But then again I've heard him speak, Blair. He had the same opaque curtain over his eyes as Bush did. A liar - right down to the centre of his soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we give him too much credit by assuming he was dupped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced by threatening to expose the labour party cabinet members as being involved in child porn. Some of the details are coming out now like the labour M.P's who signed a letter supporting the scrapping of the age of consent sent to PIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that UK government would commit it's nation to an illegal war and murder a million innocent men, women, and children ….. just to avoid whispers in the corridor over what most of the world already knows to be public school standard practices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not prepared to believe that the UK Government committed its nation to an illegal war ... at all.
Click to expand...


I bet you believe in unicorns and fairies.


----------



## Vagabond63

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have a problem all right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.
Click to expand...

 Instead you swallow neocon propaganda. At the time it was NOT accepted as legal, that's why Blair wanted a second Security Council resolution. Saddam was never a threat to the UK, he even asked US permission to invade Kuwait! Saddam was set up. He may have been a "monster" to his political opponents, but Iraq remained prosperous and secular under his rule. Looking at Iraq today with it's rampant factionalism, sectarian murders and of course, the rise of ISIS, my, didn't we do well.


----------



## Mindful

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have a problem all right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead you swallow neocon propaganda. At the time it was NOT accepted as legal, that's why Blair wanted a second Security Council resolution. Saddam was never a threat to the UK, he even asked US permission to invade Kuwait! Saddam was set up. He may have been a "monster" to his political opponents, but Iraq remained prosperous and secular under his rule. Looking at Iraq today with it's rampant factionalism, sectarian murders and of course, the rise of ISIS, my, didn't we do well.
Click to expand...


What was it like under the King?

I'm beginning to think Monarchy might be the lesser of all the evils.


----------



## GLASNOST

Vagabond63 said:


> ..... Saddam was set up. ......


Much proof of it is still hidden away, but it'll come to light in good time. He apparently was led to believe that confiscating the oil fields of Kuwait would be OK. I'm not all that clued up on the regional, geo-historical politics but it does seem odd to me that those tiny (and rather tiny) 'states' are being nurtured by the west. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, ....... someone's been fiddling with the drawing board. When I was still rather young I remember seeing a lot of diamond-shaped frontier bits marked 'neutral'. Where have they gone?


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Saddam was set up. ......
> 
> 
> 
> Much proof of it is still hidden away, but it'll come to light in good time. He apparently was led to believe that confiscating the oil fields of Kuwait would be OK. I'm not all that clued up on the regional, geo-historical politics but it does seem odd to me that those tiny (and rather tiny) 'states' are being nurtured by the west. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, ....... someone's been fiddling with the drawing board. When I was still rather young I remember seeing a lot of diamond-shaped frontier bits marked 'neutral'. Where have they gone?
Click to expand...


Why didn't the Americans take out Saddam during Gulf War 1?


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> Why didn't the Americans take out Saddam during Gulf War 1?


A very good question. We'll find out eventually. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that white Rook to A-4 (check mate) was being thwarted by a well-placed black pawn on B-5, probably left there by the UN. Until that pawn could be dealt with ....... the game had to play on.

Ps. When the Americans realized they couldn't outmaneuver that pawn they simply knocked the board over ... and onto the floor.


----------



## Mindful

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?


----------



## Mindful

Interesting piece about the monarchy in Iraq.

Iraq’s obsession with Faisal II reflects its hunger for a lost era | The National


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> But back to an original premise; and supposition.
> 
> How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?



The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Unkotare said:


> What is your nationality?




Above Top Secret by the looks of it.


----------



## Unkotare

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have a problem all right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead you swallow neocon propaganda. At the time it was NOT accepted as legal, that's why Blair wanted a second Security Council resolution. Saddam was never a threat to the UK, he even asked US permission to invade Kuwait! Saddam was set up. He may have been a "monster" to his political opponents, but Iraq remained prosperous and secular under his rule. Looking at Iraq today with it's rampant factionalism, sectarian murders and of course, the rise of ISIS, my, didn't we do well.
Click to expand...






Conspiracy forum crap


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> But back to an original premise; and supposition.
> 
> How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.
Click to expand...


I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.


No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> But back to an original premise; and supposition.
> 
> How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.
Click to expand...


How many times must I make this point ?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.

Is this clear yet ????

Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.

Action was duly taken. It had to be.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.
> 
> 
> 
> No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......
Click to expand...


I've been replying on here to stuff from another thread. lol

Don't know how that happened.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> But back to an original premise; and supposition.
> 
> How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must I make this point ?
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.
> 
> Is this clear yet ????
> 
> Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.
> 
> Action was duly taken. It had to be.
Click to expand...


I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.


----------



## GLASNOST

Not to worry, love.


----------



## montelatici

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> But back to an original premise; and supposition.
> 
> How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must I make this point ?
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.
> 
> Is this clear yet ????
> 
> Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.
> 
> Action was duly taken. It had to be.
Click to expand...


The U.S. was well aware that Iraq had no WMDs.  The Iraqi government stated clearly they had no WMDs.  The UN was convinced that Iraq had no WMDs.  You are full of crap.


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.
> 
> 
> 
> No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been replying on here to stuff from another thread. lol
> 
> Don't know how that happened.
Click to expand...


Take your brain for tune up and oil change


----------



## Mindful

Vikrant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.
> 
> 
> 
> No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been replying on here to stuff from another thread. lol
> 
> Don't know how that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your brain for tune up and oil change
Click to expand...


I'vecome to the right place, haven't I?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Mortimer said:


> Not that im against muslims, im totally not



Then you're naive.


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.


Can you put that statement into perspective, please.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that statement into perspective, please.
Click to expand...



But even today Hans Blix believes the Iraqis could have done more to verify the unilateral destruction. He believes limited paperwork did survive. More importantly, they could have provided scientists for interview. There was also the issue of the Iraqis’ bizarre behaviour during inspections, particularly at presidential sites where they would frequently bar access. ‘When we finally got in, we would find nothing,’ says Dr. Blix. ‘We even looked in the refrigerator. We found marmalade.’ Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?

What Did Happen To Saddam’s WMD? | History Today


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> But even today Hans Blix believes the Iraqis could have done more to verify the unilateral destruction.


No doubt.



Mindful said:


> Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?


You've quoted a paragraph of Hans Blix (sorry that I've omitted it), but these words (quoted here) are yours, correct? Blix never would have asked that question ... he was there ... he understood. Not everyone is happy when forced to do something they don't really want to do. Particularly when forced by someone whose authority one doesn't even want to acknowledge. Remember also that Saddam wanted to look tough in the region and the inspection team must have been a great embarrassment to him. *"Give them what they want, but make it as difficult for them as possible". *Not the first time we've heard that. I've spent quite some time in the Arab world and in Africa and I don't think Saddam dragging his feet was out of the ordinary in the least.

Ps. I only looked at the headline of that link. In relationship to chemical weapons, it says,_* '.....  by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone'.*_ That really put me off. I'm sure the article is not unbiased. The thing is poison.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even today Hans Blix believes the Iraqis could have done more to verify the unilateral destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've quoted a paragraph of Hans Blix (sorry that I've omitted it), but these words (quoted here) are yours, correct? Blix never would have asked that question ... he was there ... he understood. Not everyone is happy when forced to do something they don't really want to do. Particularly when forced by someone whose authority one doesn't even want to acknowledge. Remember also that Saddam wanted to look tough in the region and the inspection team must have been a great embarrassment to him. *"Give them what they want, but make it as difficult for them as possible". *Not the first time we've heard that. I've spent quite some time in the Arab world and in Africa and I don't think Saddam dragging his feet was out of the ordinary in the least.
> 
> Ps. I only looked at the headline of that link. In relationship to chemical weapons, it says,_* '.....  by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone'.*_ That really put me off. I'm sure the article is not unbiased. The thing is poison.
Click to expand...


I provided a link with his quote.

And I seem to vaguely remember his  saying as much, during an interview, when he and his weapons inspectors were all over the News channels.


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> I provided a link with his quote. And I seem to vaguely remember his  saying as much, during an interview, when he and his weapons inspectors were all over the News channels.


Yes, I realize that but these words (following) are yours  ... not his.

*'Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?' 
*
Am I right? What he said is not connected with what you said. It's a very big difference.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link with his quote. And I seem to vaguely remember his  saying as much, during an interview, when he and his weapons inspectors were all over the News channels.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I realize that but these words (following) are yours  ... not his.
> 
> *'Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?'
> *
> Am I right? What he said is not connected with what you said. It's a very big difference.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that. The article did.


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> I didn't say that. The article did.


From you ... from the reporter ... from the columnist ...... from your brother-in-law ..... let's not misunderstand, alright? It is *NOT *included within quotation points as coming from Hans Blix's mouth or pen. *THIS IS THE POINT.*


----------



## Unkotare

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. The article did.
> 
> 
> 
> From you ... from the reporter ... from the columnist ...... from your brother-in-law ..... let's not misunderstand, alright? It is *NOT *included within quotation points as coming from Hans Blix's mouth or pen. *THIS IS THE POINT.*
Click to expand...





What is your nationality?


----------



## Drummond

montelatici said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> But back to an original premise; and supposition.
> 
> How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must I make this point ?
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.
> 
> Is this clear yet ????
> 
> Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.
> 
> Action was duly taken. It had to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. was well aware that Iraq had no WMDs.  The Iraqi government stated clearly they had no WMDs.  The UN was convinced that Iraq had no WMDs.  You are full of crap.
Click to expand...


Nope. *YOU are*.

The US had absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. No verification of the total destruction of Saddam's stocks was ever made ... partly because the exact numbers of that stock itself hadn't been established, partly also because no proof was ever offered of quantities destroyed. All the UN, and the US, had .. was a bland statement from Saddam's regime to say that none were held.

Perhaps you think that just taking Saddam's word for it, was all that anyone ever needed. But that makes no actual sense in the real world. Verification was wanted. Verification was never achieved.


----------



## Vagabond63

Drummond said:


> Verification was never achieved.



It wasn't allowed to be. Bush wanted war despit Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work. Even after the war the US led teams found nothing of substance.


----------



## GLASNOST

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verification was never achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> ......  Blix stating publicly that *only a few more months *were needed for his team to complete their work ......
Click to expand...

My *assumption* is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a *LEGAL* war.


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verification was never achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> ......  Blix stating publicly that *only a few more months *were needed for his team to complete their work ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My *assumption* is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a *LEGAL* war.
Click to expand...


.. eh ? 

This is all fantasy stuff.

An inspection team, 'riddled with CIA spies'. An intention 'to plant false evidence' .. etc. 

_Glasnost, I invite you to provide your evidence for any of this._

[It's always the same with conspiracy propaganda. First, you have to wait a very appreciable amount of time before ever offering it (credibility demands it). During that time, you have to build on it, so as to lend the smallest credibility. It helps if memories dim in the interim, of course ! ]

Funny how none of this ever came to light, from my recollection, at any time during 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005. Etc ...


----------



## xband

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verification was never achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't allowed to be. Bush wanted war despit Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work. Even after the war the US led teams found nothing of substance.
Click to expand...


Just a far flung guess and you may be right about Bush 2. After Gulf 1 Saddam had a mosaic tile on the floor to the entrance of the only hotel in Bagdad that foreigners could stay in. The mosaic tile depicted a giant picture of Bush 1 that had to be walked over. That would piss off me too.


----------



## Vagabond63

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verification was never achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> ......  Blix stating publicly that *only a few more months *were needed for his team to complete their work ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My *assumption* is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a *LEGAL* war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. eh ?
> 
> This is all fantasy stuff.
> 
> An inspection team, 'riddled with CIA spies'. An intention 'to plant false evidence' .. etc.
> 
> _Glasnost, I invite you to provide your evidence for any of this._
> 
> [It's always the same with conspiracy propaganda. First, you have to wait a very appreciable amount of time before ever offering it (credibility demands it). During that time, you have to build on it, so as to lend the smallest credibility. It helps if memories dim in the interim, of course ! ]
> 
> Funny how none of this ever came to light, from my recollection, at any time during 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005. Etc ...
Click to expand...


Did you look or were you carried away with jingoism and war fever?


----------



## GLASNOST

Vagabond63 said:


> Did you look or were you carried away with jingoism and war fever?



I had to push the _'click to expand'_ button to find out what you meant. My eyes are spared any input from that particular ….. uh ….. source so I didn't know if your comment was perhaps meant for me. 

As I said, it is m_y *assumption *that it was a matter of a few days._ I don't really know how long it takes to inspect a single sight, the 12th. and last one. It could take months, I suppose,  but when you said _'several months'_ I thought he was referring to inspecting all 12 of them. I'll see if I can find some info on it.


----------



## GLASNOST

I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:

*CIA investigation*

'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'


----------



## Drummond

Vagabond63 said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verification was never achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> ......  Blix stating publicly that *only a few more months *were needed for his team to complete their work ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My *assumption* is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a *LEGAL* war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. eh ?
> 
> This is all fantasy stuff.
> 
> An inspection team, 'riddled with CIA spies'. An intention 'to plant false evidence' .. etc.
> 
> _Glasnost, I invite you to provide your evidence for any of this._
> 
> [It's always the same with conspiracy propaganda. First, you have to wait a very appreciable amount of time before ever offering it (credibility demands it). During that time, you have to build on it, so as to lend the smallest credibility. It helps if memories dim in the interim, of course ! ]
> 
> Funny how none of this ever came to light, from my recollection, at any time during 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005. Etc ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you look or were you carried away with jingoism and war fever?
Click to expand...


If you, or Glasnost, or anyone at all, can prove me wrong .. then let's see that proof. 

As for your suggestion of 'jingoism and war fever' ... the 2003 invasion HAD to happen. Blix and his teams were always involved in 'inspections' which were farcical in the extreme. Saddam never proved his claim that he had no more WMD's. He didn't even try to. He just arranged for inspectors to go to areas they knew about and see what they could deduce from them. For proof to emerge of zero stocks ... nothing less than a search of Iraq in its entirety would've done the trick.

The 2003 invasion was necessary. What ELSE could have served to settle the issue ?


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'



Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.


----------



## Unkotare

Drummond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
Click to expand...





Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Unkotare said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
Click to expand...

Why is his nationality relevant ?


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
Click to expand...



Let him answer. Then you might find out.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let him answer. Then you might find out.
Click to expand...

I dont think its anyones business. Deal with what he is saying not who he is.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let him answer. Then you might find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont think its anyones business. Deal with what he is saying not who he is.
Click to expand...



I'm quite sure he can deal with it himself, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> Why is his nationality relevant ?


 I'm not with you Tommy, old son. Whose nationality are you speaking of?


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not with you Tommy, old son. Whose nationality are you speaking of?
Click to expand...


I think he meant you.


----------



## GLASNOST

Mindful said:


> I think he meant you.


Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.


----------



## Mindful

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not with you Tommy, old son. Whose nationality are you speaking of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he meant you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was it who meant me?
Click to expand...


I'm off. Enough of this nonsense.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
Click to expand...


His nationality may determine both his biases and his agenda, if any.

A representative of a hostile power will, naturally, present a case that has hostile intent ! Someone motivated in that way will very happily disseminate propaganda designed to undermine the basis for faith in an authority he opposes.


----------



## Unkotare

GLASNOST said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.
Click to expand...




What is your nationality?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His nationality may determine both his biases and his agenda, if any.
> 
> A representative of a hostile power will, naturally, present a case that has hostile intent ! Someone motivated in that way will very happily disseminate propaganda designed to undermine the basis for faith in an authority he opposes.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. He/she could say anything he/she wanted to and you would not know any different.
What is said is important and not who says it.

Anyway what he/she is saying isnt really controversial, just basic common sense.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your nationality?
Click to expand...







And....silence...


----------



## Mindful

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And....silence...
Click to expand...


You got it.

You're too personal.


----------



## Unkotare

Mindful said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And....silence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got it.
> 
> You're too personal.
Click to expand...








Nationality is too personal?


----------



## Mindful

Unkotare said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And....silence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got it.
> 
> You're too personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nationality is too personal?
Click to expand...


Not particularly.

You are.


----------



## Unkotare

Mindful said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'him' answer. I'm quite sure he can do that, without you setting yourself up as spokesman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And....silence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got it.
> 
> You're too personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nationality is too personal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly.
> 
> You are.
Click to expand...











??????????


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that the first UN inspection team was made up of CIA spy agents (and that's the reason the UN had to call it back and put together a new team with Hans Blix at the helm) but just now, whilst looking for more information on how long it took to inspect a single alleged WMD sight in Irak I discovered something that I didn't know:
> 
> *CIA investigation*
> 
> 'Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His nationality may determine both his biases and his agenda, if any.
> 
> A representative of a hostile power will, naturally, present a case that has hostile intent ! Someone motivated in that way will very happily disseminate propaganda designed to undermine the basis for faith in an authority he opposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. *He/she could say anything he/she wanted to and you would not know any different.*
> What is said is important and not who says it.
> 
> Anyway what he/she is saying isnt really controversial, just basic common sense.
Click to expand...


I think you've made my case for me. Propaganda which has the reader totally unaware of precisely why the disseminator of it is spreading it, is propaganda that has a chance to succeed by being something other than what it is.

If you know that someone's posting 'material' that is designed to make the reader question the reputability, competence (.. whatever ..) of the authorities he or she will be against, it helps to be sure that it isn't being done by someone loyal to a traditionally, known, hostile power !!!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But you don't provide a link. Let's see one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His nationality may determine both his biases and his agenda, if any.
> 
> A representative of a hostile power will, naturally, present a case that has hostile intent ! Someone motivated in that way will very happily disseminate propaganda designed to undermine the basis for faith in an authority he opposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. *He/she could say anything he/she wanted to and you would not know any different.*
> What is said is important and not who says it.
> 
> Anyway what he/she is saying isnt really controversial, just basic common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you've made my case for me. Propaganda which has the reader totally unaware of precisely why the disseminator of it is spreading it, is propaganda that has a chance to succeed by being something other than what it is.
> 
> If you know that someone's posting 'material' that is designed to make the reader question the reputability, competence (.. whatever ..) of the authorities he or she will be against, it helps to be sure that it isn't being done by someone loyal to a traditionally, known, hostile power !!!
Click to expand...

Or you could read what they are saying and decide on the merits of that.


----------



## GLASNOST

Tommy Tainant said:


> ..... you could read what they are saying and decide on the merits of that.


Agreed. That's the whole idea of language in the first place. To convey from one person to the next.

 It's a strange expression, *"Simple-minded people." *You'd think they'd be able to understand *simple concepts.* Alas!


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him what his nationality is if you want him to fall silent.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is his nationality relevant ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His nationality may determine both his biases and his agenda, if any.
> 
> A representative of a hostile power will, naturally, present a case that has hostile intent ! Someone motivated in that way will very happily disseminate propaganda designed to undermine the basis for faith in an authority he opposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. *He/she could say anything he/she wanted to and you would not know any different.*
> What is said is important and not who says it.
> 
> Anyway what he/she is saying isnt really controversial, just basic common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you've made my case for me. Propaganda which has the reader totally unaware of precisely why the disseminator of it is spreading it, is propaganda that has a chance to succeed by being something other than what it is.
> 
> If you know that someone's posting 'material' that is designed to make the reader question the reputability, competence (.. whatever ..) of the authorities he or she will be against, it helps to be sure that it isn't being done by someone loyal to a traditionally, known, hostile power !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you could read what they are saying and decide on the merits of that.
Click to expand...


... and what 'merits' would those be .. ??


----------



## Drummond

GLASNOST said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... you could read what they are saying and decide on the merits of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. That's the whole idea of language in the first place. To convey from one person to the next.
> 
> It's a strange expression, *"Simple-minded people." *You'd think they'd be able to understand *simple concepts.* Alas!
Click to expand...


I do understand concepts you post about.

But I also like to deal in FACT. This is where you, seemingly, have your problems. When facts are there for you to see, hey presto, suddenly you're 'not reading them' ... 

... because you have an agenda to advance ?


----------



## LuckyDuck

Mortimer said:


> Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.


Get off the fence.


----------

