How do native western Europeans feel?

[Drummond]

..... 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?

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.

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]

..... 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?

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.

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.

 

[Phoenall]

By the authority of islamic law that will uphold such conversions

Which means nothing.

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.

Dont bank on it

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.

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

 

[Drummond]

..... 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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 !

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.

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.

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 ....

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

 

[Phoenall]

..... 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?

Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
View attachment 86392

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]

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 !

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.

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.

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 ....

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

 

[Tommy Tainant]

..... 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?

Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
View attachment 86392

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 )

I have other pictures you old fool.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

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.

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 ....

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

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]

..... 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?

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.

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]

..... 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?

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.

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.

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]

..... 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?

Yes,its a good job those days are behind us.
View attachment 86392

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 )

I have other pictures you old fool.

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

 

[Vagabond63]

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.

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.

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 ....

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

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.

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]

..... 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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 !

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Vagabond63]

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 !

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

 

[GLASNOST]

Breathtakingly dishonest.

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

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

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

 

[GLASNOST]

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.