Car crash outside Parliament



JonMc said:
Obviously I disagree. Daesh might be a tributary of Islam but Islam is not Daesh. Someone who was part of the problem was Hitchens and the other Bush and Blair apologists who started this whole ball rolling.

When I was a bairn the only Mohammed anyone ever heard of was a boxer and somewhere between then and now the world changed. The Iranian Ayatollah helped to radicalize Islam and he was given very able assistance in his radicalization programme by those who would later become apologists for war mongers willing to invade lands both for the God of the Christians as well as the God of corporate control.

Being an religious apologist didn't set the ball rolling that created the climate in which innocent people in Paris and London would be slaughtered. Being an apologist for those who would use chemical weapons on brown people in far off lands did. Lord only knows what state the world would be in now if the main culprits had taken the advice of alcoholic journalists and invaded Iran as well.

Are we so arrogant that we think that we can roll our tanks into any other country and there will never be a reaction against it?

I was against the invasion of Iraq. If Iraq had never been invaded we would have seen those attacks on Paris and London. I am certainly not part of the problem.

* Never have seen....obviously
Click to expand...
That's just not true. ISIS are attacking the West because they're infadels. They tell us as much. Over and over again.
 
RossTheNinja said:
That's just not true. ISIS are attacking the West because they're infadels. They tell us as much. Over and over again.
Click to expand...
Whey we know that. They're like cybermen - hate everything that's not them. 'I want to see a black flag over Buck House or else I'm going to blowed myself up'. Wankers.

But it just wouldn't have happened. There would be no ISIS.
 
Dagzd1973 said:
Explain?
Click to expand...
That psycho wanted to go further than Blair and Bush. He wanted to roll tanks into Iran as well. What a cherry that would have been to put at the top of the shit heap. He did roadshows in support of the war. Appeared live and on radio. If anyone considers Bliar and Bush to be war criminals then Saint Christopher was their pet dog. Their main online apologist.
 
Last edited:
JonMc said:
That psycho wanted to go further than Blair and Bush. He wanted to roll tanks into Iran as well. What a cherry that would have been to put at the top of the shit heap. He did roadshows in support of the war. Appeared live and on radio. If anyone considers Bliar and Bush to be war criminals then Saint Christopher was their pet dog. Their main online apologist.
Click to expand...
So you think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq?
 
Dagzd1973 said:
So you think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq?
Click to expand...
Of course not. There was no reason to. Saddam was one of these tin pot dictators who were constantly putting their toe over the line and drawing it back. The big man standing up to the west. Did you see his bedroom ffs. Murals of him stripped with tigers and shit. Was he dangerous? Yes. But any more so than some of the other fruit cakes in charge at the time?

America was the playground bully who got a big bloody nose at 9/11 and they didn't just go after Bin Lid - they had a convenient excuse to get rid of Saddam even though he had nothing whatsoever to do with that day. And that's all that war came down to, a convenient excuse. They lashed out.
The only thing Saddam had going for him that he was relatively secular. And of course the USofA would clean up afterwards with the big money contracts going to their way.

Invading Iraq was a disaster in it's consequences from the moment we went in. The TV pictures we proudly sent around the world of tons and tons of missiles being fired from warships radicalized a lot of the muslim world in a way that 9/11 never did. They just saw muslims being killed and then the whisperers could go to work and out of that shit storm came Daesh who had their own ideas about shock and awe.
 
JonMc said:
Of course not. There was no reason to. Saddam was one of these tin pot dictators who were constantly putting their toe over the line and drawing it back. The big man standing up to the west. Did you see his bedroom ffs. Murals of him stripped with tigers and shit. Was he dangerous? Yes. But any more so than some of the other fruit cakes in charge at the time?

America was the playground bully who got a big bloody nose at 9/11 and they didn't just go after Bin Lid - they had a convenient excuse to get rid of Saddam even though he had nothing whatsoever to do with that day. And that's all that war came down to, a convenient excuse. They lashed out.
The only thing Saddam had going for him that he was relatively secular. And of course the USofA would clean up afterwards with the big money contracts going to their way.

Invading Iraq was a disaster in it's consequences from the moment we went in. The TV pictures we proudly sent around the world of tons and tons of missiles being fired from warships radicalized a lot of the muslim world in a way that 9/11 never did. They just saw muslims being killed and then the whisperers could go to work and out of that shit storm came Daesh who had their own ideas about shock and awe.
Click to expand...
Going into Iraq wasn’t just about getting rid of Sadaam. He was talking of switching to trading oil in currencies other than the $US which wasn’t on. Taking out Sadaam was a convenient sideshow.
 
 
JonMc said:
Check out China's trade in using state prisoners as organ 'doners' and then get back to me. The world is full of nasty people but we only invade the ones where we think we can make a prophet.
Click to expand...
Whataboutisms? Fuck me mate, I had you down as smarter than that.

"B-but what about China though!" :lol:
 
They invaded Iraq off the back of 9/11 because he was a pain in the arse and no other reason.

Dagzd1973 said:
Whataboutisms? Fuck me mate, I had you down as smarter than that.

"B-but what about China though!" :lol:
Click to expand...
They wanted a victory to boost morale back in the states and he was the obvious target.
 
Dagzd1973 said:
Keep telling yourself that mate. :lol:
Click to expand...
Well it's there. You can call me whatever you want but that's the reason we invaded. If 9/11 hadn't happened do you still think we would have gone into Iraq when we did? Really? No. It gave the locals a chance to pump their fists again...USA...USA...USA
duff_man said:
The invasion of Iraq was just to give Bush a massive ego boost in trying to finish what his dad started
Click to expand...
If they'd finished the job back then muslims might not have been so pissed off. There was no opposition against that conflict and generally Saddam was seen as an aggressor rather than standing up to the west. I'm not saying we should have but the odds might have been more in our favour.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top