ISIS Beheads Another Brit

[frigidweirdo]

If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site. If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so. Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and don't make up stuff claiming I said things I didn't say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

yes----you have made it clear that the USA did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of OIL

Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing?

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".

It was for a VARIETY of reasons. Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?

I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you realize how people in Afghanistan and a lot of other ME countries live? They don't really have it good. Lol! MOST of them would probably do MUCH better if the United States was to take over their countries.

Anyway, that will NEVER happen because of many different reasons, only one being the wimps in our own country.

Oh, I've been there, and I've seen how things work there.

Would they be better off in the US? Maybe.

Would they better of if the US left their country alone? Probably that too.

There are plenty of better possibilities than the shit that goes on in that region, all I can say is the US doesn't help in the region. Nor does Israel. Nor does Hamas. Nor does ISIS, nor do a lot of people.

The wimps? Well it won't get better with the bullies either.

 

[irosie91]

yes----you have made it clear that the USA did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of OIL

Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing?

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".

It was for a VARIETY of reasons. Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?

I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.

Yes-----Olive oil is such a BIGGIE now----- in accordance with Islamic custom -----it must be
*****VIRGIN****** I am covering my olive
oil cans with burkahs, I remember when
VEGETABLE OIL----some kind of mixed and
mingled brew-----was OK

 

[frigidweirdo]

yes----you have made it clear that the USA did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of OIL

Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing?

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".

It was for a VARIETY of reasons. Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?

I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.

Yes-----Olive oil is such a BIGGIE now----- in accordance with Islamic custom -----it must be
*****VIRGIN****** I am covering my olive
oil cans with burkahs, I remember when
VEGETABLE OIL----some kind of mixed and
mingled brew-----was OK

Would it be possible to start your reply with either "complete nonsense" or "i actually have a point to make" so I can avoid wasting time?

 

[ChrisL]

yes----you have made it clear that the USA did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of OIL

Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing?

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".

It was for a VARIETY of reasons. Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?

I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.

Yeah, and? It's a perfectly GOOD reason.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you realize how people in Afghanistan and a lot of other ME countries live? They don't really have it good. Lol! MOST of them would probably do MUCH better if the United States was to take over their countries.

Anyway, that will NEVER happen because of many different reasons, only one being the wimps in our own country.

Oh, I've been there, and I've seen how things work there.

Would they be better off in the US? Maybe.

Would they better of if the US left their country alone? Probably that too.

There are plenty of better possibilities than the shit that goes on in that region, all I can say is the US doesn't help in the region. Nor does Israel. Nor does Hamas. Nor does ISIS, nor do a lot of people.

The wimps? Well it won't get better with the bullies either.

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

yes----you have made it clear that the USA did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of OIL

Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing?

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".

It was for a VARIETY of reasons. Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?

I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.

Yeah, and? It's a perfectly GOOD reason.

And then we suffer the consequences for this.

You want to be all arrogant about this, then get annoyed that ISIS appears and BLAME OBAMA for the whole thing.

The point being that the US's quest for oil has led to ISIS. It's led to a destabilization of the Middle East, which not Americans are complaining it's backwards, hardly difficult to understand when the US destabilizes it on a constant basis.

It's all about joined up thinking.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

 

[ChrisL]

yes----you have made it clear that the USA did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of OIL

Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing?

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".

It was for a VARIETY of reasons. Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?

I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.

Yeah, and? It's a perfectly GOOD reason.

And then we suffer the consequences for this.

You want to be all arrogant about this, then get annoyed that ISIS appears and BLAME OBAMA for the whole thing.

The point being that the US's quest for oil has led to ISIS. It's led to a destabilization of the Middle East, which not Americans are complaining it's backwards, hardly difficult to understand when the US destabilizes it on a constant basis.

It's all about joined up thinking.

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama.

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not.

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.

 

[ChrisL]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Some CANNOT do it, obviously, and they control a large portion of our oil supply, so unless you are willing to let everyone ELSE in the world suffer for the sake of these savages . . .

 

[ChrisL]

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama.

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not.

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.

Are you kidding? All of those countries are terrorist breeding grounds, have been for a LONG time. They were fighting one another LONG before we ever went over there. They are just ANGRY people period. Stop making excuses for their behavior!!!

 

[TooTall]

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama.

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not.

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.

Carter was responsible for the Shah of Iran being ousted and Obama was responsible for Libya. You left out Egypt and can thank Obama for that as well. Iraq was Bush, and as I recall, there were a lot of purple fingers when the people of Iraq actually elected their government. Maliki left a lot to be desired, but he was not a dictator.

 

[irosie91]

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama.

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not.

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.

Carter was responsible for the Shah of Iran being ousted and Obama was responsible for Libya. You left out Egypt and can thank Obama for that as well. Iraq was Bush, and as I recall, there were a lot of purple fingers when the people of Iraq actually elected their government. Maliki left a lot to be desired, but he was not a dictator.

Even I do not blame the fact of the AYATOILET grab for power on Carter----he simply mishandled things---badly.
As for ISIS-----sorry TOO TALL----that was inevitable---
its been cooking in the depraved minds of muslims for
centuries. Obama did not do it-----he is doing the best he can------he may not be entirely up to the job-----
SHEEEEESH!!!!!!!

a big problem brewing right now-----is going on in south east asia------the fact of a "CALIPHATE" in Iraq----is
INEVITABLY going to excite the islamo Nazi scum over there to -------LETS GET ONE TOO-------the delusionary
MOGHUL EMPIRE is on the minds ----right now of islamo scum in Kashmir

 

[TooTall]

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama.

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not.

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.

Carter was responsible for the Shah of Iran being ousted and Obama was responsible for Libya. You left out Egypt and can thank Obama for that as well. Iraq was Bush, and as I recall, there were a lot of purple fingers when the people of Iraq actually elected their government. Maliki left a lot to be desired, but he was not a dictator.

Even I do not blame the fact of the AYATOILET grab for power on Carter----he simply mishandled things---badly.
As for ISIS-----sorry TOO TALL----that was inevitable---
its been cooking in the depraved minds of muslims for
centuries. Obama did not do it-----he is doing the best he can------he may not be entirely up to the job-----
SHEEEEESH!!!!!!!

a big problem brewing right now-----is going on in south east asia------the fact of a "CALIPHATE" in Iraq----is
INEVITABLY going to excite the islamo Nazi scum over there to -------LETS GET ONE TOO-------the delusionary
MOGHUL EMPIRE is on the minds ----right now of islamo scum in Kashmir

"the AYATOILET" Good one, thanks for the chuckle, or was it a typo? It happened on Carter's watch while he refused to support the Shah.

IF Obama had used his power wisely and left some Special Ops people in Iraq, ISIS would have been confined to Syria. Our guys could have called in air strikes and kept the Iraq army from running away. Now it is out of control, and I do blame Obama. We need a leader in the White House, not a fund raising politician.

 

[irosie91]

Where did I mention Obama? I don't make any policies. I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you. Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING. Get a grip. The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.

I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama.

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not.

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.

Carter was responsible for the Shah of Iran being ousted and Obama was responsible for Libya. You left out Egypt and can thank Obama for that as well. Iraq was Bush, and as I recall, there were a lot of purple fingers when the people of Iraq actually elected their government. Maliki left a lot to be desired, but he was not a dictator.

Even I do not blame the fact of the AYATOILET grab for power on Carter----he simply mishandled things---badly.
As for ISIS-----sorry TOO TALL----that was inevitable---
its been cooking in the depraved minds of muslims for
centuries. Obama did not do it-----he is doing the best he can------he may not be entirely up to the job-----
SHEEEEESH!!!!!!!

a big problem brewing right now-----is going on in south east asia------the fact of a "CALIPHATE" in Iraq----is
INEVITABLY going to excite the islamo Nazi scum over there to -------LETS GET ONE TOO-------the delusionary
MOGHUL EMPIRE is on the minds ----right now of islamo scum in Kashmir

"the AYATOILET" Good one, thanks for the chuckle, or was it a typo? It happened on Carter's watch while he refused to support the Shah.

IF Obama had used his power wisely and left some Special Ops people in Iraq, ISIS would have been confined to Syria. Our guys could have called in air strikes and kept the Iraq army from running away. Now it is out of control, and I do blame Obama. We need a leader in the White House, not a fund raising politician.

no doubt----Obana and Carter are and were-----overwhelmed.

 

[Hossfly]

You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.

Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse?

How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?

Only the ones that were trying to kill them.

And why were they trying to kill invaders in their country I wonder?

What would you do if Muslims turned up armed to the teeth in the US, putting in place a puppet govt and making sure your resources were being sold abroad for a low enough price?

Is that what you would like to see, Abdul?

great response. I think only about 99% of the population has the brains to come up with such a response.

Thanks! I'm in good company then?

 

[Hossfly]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

 

[georgephillip]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?