Wankerists
- Thread starter Grasshopper
- Start date
I don't want to go over this over and over but I was not agreeing with he speaker at all. He's claiming the attacks are purely down to afganistan. For a start he doesn't know that and secondly the Islamists agenda is violence against the west regardless.
If you believe his viewpoint then that's your call but history of Islamist violence clearly suggests that just about any reason can be found
Such as a cartoon or a film perhaps?
If you believe his viewpoint then that's your call but history of Islamist violence clearly suggests that just about any reason can be found
Such as a cartoon or a film perhaps?
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Not in the video you linked to he's not.
Oh, and "I could counter argue myself better than the stuff here". I've read you say that type of stuff before. "It's a doddle." To me, your posts are littered with childish digs and left vs. right stuff. But when challenged on it, it is "just to wind up". Even though you come across as somebody who is pretty wound up themselves.
But you clearly feel you're on some type of Chelsea Chomsky.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
The main issues I had were with you whinging to dvds, Ireland being brought into it and the comments about Australia.
But now that you mention it, I would rather do what I did rather than post some of the stuff you have posted.
So linking an action (the terrorism) to another action (UK foreign policy) legitimises it?
Are you telling me that linking Woirld War II to the Versailles Treaty legitimises Hitler's actions?
But now that you mention it, I would rather do what I did rather than post some of the stuff you have posted.
So linking an action (the terrorism) to another action (UK foreign policy) legitimises it?
Are you telling me that linking Woirld War II to the Versailles Treaty legitimises Hitler's actions?
Wringing to DVDS ? I will believe what I will believe on hat one but cannot prove otherwise. But no one expects consistency here of course
This is getting repetitive. The reasons I do not agree with the Muslim spokesman are the same as those in freedlands article
This is getting repetitive. The reasons I do not agree with the Muslim spokesman are the same as those in freedlands article
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Could I ask of posters on this thread, and of members .....................
Has the Woolwich murder of soldier Rigby changed your view/opinion towards the religion of Islam in any way?
Has your attitude hardened from one of mild indifference, or does your stance remain the same as before?
Thanks.
Has the Woolwich murder of soldier Rigby changed your view/opinion towards the religion of Islam in any way?
Has your attitude hardened from one of mild indifference, or does your stance remain the same as before?
Thanks.
How many times do we have to go ver this?
What was the alternative to the war in afganistan? Why do the opponents refuse to think that through?
It is pretty obvious that 9 11 was just the start.
Nothing will ever stamp out terrorism. You still have it in ulster don't you? But if we (or some states anyway) had sat on their hands then aq would have become more and more organised confident and powerful.
The idea that they are simply a reactive movement is rubbish. They don't for one minute pretend that themselves. By would have attacked and attacked and attacked. And under any or simply no pretext
They would have continued to brainwash thousands into believing that non believers must be killed regardless
And it is a given that under the cover of a supportive state they would have had the sort of weapons that would have created mass destruction
It would have been a very stupid western leader who would have sat still and allowed that to develop
What was the alternative to the war in afganistan? Why do the opponents refuse to think that through?
It is pretty obvious that 9 11 was just the start.
Nothing will ever stamp out terrorism. You still have it in ulster don't you? But if we (or some states anyway) had sat on their hands then aq would have become more and more organised confident and powerful.
The idea that they are simply a reactive movement is rubbish. They don't for one minute pretend that themselves. By would have attacked and attacked and attacked. And under any or simply no pretext
They would have continued to brainwash thousands into believing that non believers must be killed regardless
And it is a given that under the cover of a supportive state they would have had the sort of weapons that would have created mass destruction
It would have been a very stupid western leader who would have sat still and allowed that to develop
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Same as before but not indifferent.
Terrorism is difficult to define and difficult to fight, it will never be stopped.
Terrorism is difficult to define and difficult to fight, it will never be stopped.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Like the western governments currently supporting Al Qaeda in their attempt to take over Syria?
The key argument in favour of invading Afghanistan and Iraq was that it would stamp out terrorism. That was at best a naive argument but I think it's likely that its protagonists already knew that and were in fact being dishonest. But never mind, we can agree to differ on that for the time being.
The point being discussed here is that you said Bukhari had legitimised and given credibility to the outrage in Woolwich by mentioning that British foreign policy might have something to do with it, and you cited the Freedland article in support of your case.
I think you and Freedland are wrong to deny opponents of the invasions the right to even mention what has for most people been a fairly obvious consequence.
By the way, regarding your remark about Ulster ("You still have it in ulster don't you?"), I thought it was an interesting choice of pronoun. Should you not have said 'we'?
The point being discussed here is that you said Bukhari had legitimised and given credibility to the outrage in Woolwich by mentioning that British foreign policy might have something to do with it, and you cited the Freedland article in support of your case.
I think you and Freedland are wrong to deny opponents of the invasions the right to even mention what has for most people been a fairly obvious consequence.
By the way, regarding your remark about Ulster ("You still have it in ulster don't you?"), I thought it was an interesting choice of pronoun. Should you not have said 'we'?
Been over this. He wasnt just "mentioning" he was directly linking with an implied threatmm.
Sorry. Thats no reponse in your first para. No answer at all. No action would have led to a greater threat. Yes or no ? You really think that 9 11 was enough for them ?
No one has suggested any alternaticve to afganistan. Simple as that and until they do there is nothing more to discuss
Sorry. Thats no reponse in your first para. No answer at all. No action would have led to a greater threat. Yes or no ? You really think that 9 11 was enough for them ?
No one has suggested any alternaticve to afganistan. Simple as that and until they do there is nothing more to discuss
I'm not going to get into another 'debate' about Afghanistan and Iraq here, it's not why I intervened in this thread.
Regarding Bukhari, you still haven't demonstrated where in the clip you linked to that he legitimised and gave credibility to the Woolwich outrage. Elsewhere you say that the response from the Muslim community has been heartening, I don't know why you make an exception for this one.
Regarding Bukhari, you still haven't demonstrated where in the clip you linked to that he legitimised and gave credibility to the Woolwich outrage. Elsewhere you say that the response from the Muslim community has been heartening, I don't know why you make an exception for this one.
Tony Blair and George Bush invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden was thought to be there. Yes, he was a terrorist, but 'stamp out terrorism' seems a bit off the mark. I doubt either Bush or Blair really thought that would ever be likely.
As for Iraq, well the fact is Blair apparently believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, based on a document he ordered himself to be cooked up by the foreign intelligence agency.
I was vehemently against the Iraq war, so have no issue with anyone on here arguing their cases against it.
Always remember though, it was a Labour Party leader in Tony Blair who took us to war. And I think despite what he says, he has no problem with ideology, as long as it relates to foreign policy. Ask the bloke who he stands for domestically, rich or poor, and he probably wouldn't give you an answer.
He bent the rules to suit himself and his agenda, like no prime minister before him.
If he only came into politics to launch wars quite clearly he should have been a tory right winger. His legacy is more of a farce than a serious topic now. I think many can see this. I won't be bothering myself to hear his latest twisted version of events on that BBC2 programme showing soon.
Last edited:
If you included in your quote the next sentence of what I said it would be obvious that I agree that Bush and Blair never really thought that invasion would stamp out terrorism. That didn't stop them using it as an argument, though, and people are entitled to point out how false it was.
I do not recall any quote from either stating that they would end terrorism. Maybe there was but i would like to see the suggested unequivocal promise
They promised to limit and beat off further attacks on the west and no one could argue that there has not been considerable success (to the disappointment of some i suspect)
High rate. Wrong about bin laden. If we had sat on our hands or appeased, he would have remained in kabul buildimg an ever stronger infrastructure.
They promised to limit and beat off further attacks on the west and no one could argue that there has not been considerable success (to the disappointment of some i suspect)
High rate. Wrong about bin laden. If we had sat on our hands or appeased, he would have remained in kabul buildimg an ever stronger infrastructure.
Last edited:
Either way, the reason for the war in Iraq was that Saddam was a threat to the U.K via 'weapons of mass destruction'. That is not up for debate. It is a statment of fact.
If only we'd listened to the genuine and reasoned lefties in British poliitics at the time. Robin Cook to name but one. Sadly many Conservatives actually backed Blair, forgot that the evidence didn't support his case, and years later are now wondering what happened to our armed forces....
If only we'd listened to the genuine and reasoned lefties in British poliitics at the time. Robin Cook to name but one. Sadly many Conservatives actually backed Blair, forgot that the evidence didn't support his case, and years later are now wondering what happened to our armed forces....
Last edited:
I reckon an argument/theory could even be made, that if it wasn't for faulty and crooked wars abroad such as in Iraq, that the Russians might have been willing to listen to Western pleas for an outcome in Syria.
Syria is sweet revenge for the Russians, for the war in Iraq.
Without the war in Iraq I reckon we might have been able to actually save Syria.
Funny how it works isn't it...Or frigging infuriating in this case.
Syria is sweet revenge for the Russians, for the war in Iraq.
Without the war in Iraq I reckon we might have been able to actually save Syria.
Funny how it works isn't it...Or frigging infuriating in this case.
Last edited:
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628