not surprise at all
Pro2,549 posts
15 Sept 2015, 17:21
#41
15 Sept 2015, 17:21#41
Doctrine of invasion continued
Started by Beeno156 REPLIES1,138 VIEWS· 13 Sept 2015, 15:16
Captain49,914 posts
15 Sept 2015, 20:53
#42
15 Sept 2015, 20:53#42
Christians may get as mad as Muslims, but it's leaders dont call for the an nihilation of an entire nation. This is all balls, balls that the US sponsored Isis, balls that they invaded Iraq for the oil, balls that the extremist groups are a tiny fraction of Muslims. When the Twin Towers came down all your non extremist muslims were dancing in the streets of Cairo and Teheran.
Preserve your fantasy if you want, you are a naive deluded bloke, but dont expect any sensible person to agree with you.
Pro2,549 posts
15 Sept 2015, 21:10
#43
15 Sept 2015, 21:10#43
"This is all balls, balls that the US sponsored Isis, balls that they
invaded Iraq for the oil, balls that the extremist groups are a tiny
fraction of Muslims."
these are all your evidences and arguments?
"Preserve your fantasy if you want, you are a naive deluded bloke"
which fantasy? the US Congress' Comission that found that the White House and the State Department armed Al-Quaeda and ISIS is a fantasy? who is blind to the reality? The US vicepresident admitting that their allies are funding and arming the jihadists is a fantasy? who is the "deluded bloke" ?
Balls is all you can provide as evidences and arguments
these are all your evidences and arguments?
"Preserve your fantasy if you want, you are a naive deluded bloke"
which fantasy? the US Congress' Comission that found that the White House and the State Department armed Al-Quaeda and ISIS is a fantasy? who is blind to the reality? The US vicepresident admitting that their allies are funding and arming the jihadists is a fantasy? who is the "deluded bloke" ?
Balls is all you can provide as evidences and arguments
Captain49,914 posts
15 Sept 2015, 23:05
#44
15 Sept 2015, 23:05#44
Nobody funded Al-Quaeda or Isis.....the groups that were funded were the Afghan Freedom Fighters against Russia and the anti Assad factions in Syria. The funds were specifically earmarked for resistance to despotic regimes. It was intended, perhaps somewhat naively for the betterment of oppressed people. Part of that resistance morphed into Al-Quaeda and Isis and never recieved another penny directly .
I repeat there is no desire in the US to fund any terrorist activity. This is nonsense and would never be tolerated by the public. The Iraq war was the result of faulty intelligence and dishonest input from the Iraq emigrants in London....it was a mistake, fully accepted by the majority in the country. Having said that Hussein was a divisive man responsible for many atrocities against is own people.
Look I dont want to knock your religion or your sincerity. But there is a problem and it's pretty unique to Islam in scale if not in character.
Coach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 05:53
#45
16 Sept 2015, 05:53#45
Mozart
I am against any extremism - nut this is fundamentally wrong on your part. Lets put it bluntly. Over the past three decades where did the USA get involved in militarily:-
* Iraq iro the Kuwait invasion* Iraq * Afghanistan* Libya* Iraq/Syria
Now lets use simple deduction - not your strong point anyway. In four cases of countries where the main export is OIL. The other one was caused by 9/11.
Do not tell me the funding was for resistance against despotic regimes. There are many despotic regimes in the World - why are in the main funding provided in the case of countries with oil.
"I repeat there is no desire in the US to fund any terrorist activity. This is nonsense and would never be tolerated by the public. The Iraq war was the result of faulty intelligence and dishonest input from the Iraq emigrants in London."
Mozart - are you living in the 19th century? That kind of tommyrot was possible then. First of all - what about satellite usage for intelligence gathering? What about all the UN investigations that could not find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? It was not dishonest input from anybody - it was dishonesty of the US and UK for their own purpose.
By the way if the Hussein issue relates to fighting despotic regimes - how come the US provided assistance to the same Hussain when he was involved in a war against Iran in the 1980's?
There is a lot tolerated by the public in all democratic countries through a simple mechanism - the media often enough used to influence public opinion on issues. This was especially easy after 9/11 when it was used extensively by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq war for instance.
There is a simple rule - distrust politicians and see what they dish out by careful evaluation. 99% of them are in the game for personal benefit. There is no bigger profit than in war situations - so I read what they say and do - think about it and then identify the realities involved. The only honest politician I ever came across was Salazar of Portugal - regarded as a dictator. He lived in a one-bedroomed flat in Lisbon - had a washerwoman to wash his clothes and bedding (no other servants) - was paid a salary of $900 a year and died penniless. His countries foreign assets were more than the UK had at the time and it vanished because of rapacious subsequent politicos.
The only difference is - some politicians are worse than others,
I am against any extremism - nut this is fundamentally wrong on your part. Lets put it bluntly. Over the past three decades where did the USA get involved in militarily:-
* Iraq iro the Kuwait invasion* Iraq * Afghanistan* Libya* Iraq/Syria
Now lets use simple deduction - not your strong point anyway. In four cases of countries where the main export is OIL. The other one was caused by 9/11.
Do not tell me the funding was for resistance against despotic regimes. There are many despotic regimes in the World - why are in the main funding provided in the case of countries with oil.
"I repeat there is no desire in the US to fund any terrorist activity. This is nonsense and would never be tolerated by the public. The Iraq war was the result of faulty intelligence and dishonest input from the Iraq emigrants in London."
Mozart - are you living in the 19th century? That kind of tommyrot was possible then. First of all - what about satellite usage for intelligence gathering? What about all the UN investigations that could not find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? It was not dishonest input from anybody - it was dishonesty of the US and UK for their own purpose.
By the way if the Hussein issue relates to fighting despotic regimes - how come the US provided assistance to the same Hussain when he was involved in a war against Iran in the 1980's?
There is a lot tolerated by the public in all democratic countries through a simple mechanism - the media often enough used to influence public opinion on issues. This was especially easy after 9/11 when it was used extensively by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq war for instance.
There is a simple rule - distrust politicians and see what they dish out by careful evaluation. 99% of them are in the game for personal benefit. There is no bigger profit than in war situations - so I read what they say and do - think about it and then identify the realities involved. The only honest politician I ever came across was Salazar of Portugal - regarded as a dictator. He lived in a one-bedroomed flat in Lisbon - had a washerwoman to wash his clothes and bedding (no other servants) - was paid a salary of $900 a year and died penniless. His countries foreign assets were more than the UK had at the time and it vanished because of rapacious subsequent politicos.
The only difference is - some politicians are worse than others,
Captain26,388 posts
16 Sept 2015, 06:36
#46
16 Sept 2015, 06:36#46
Mike, just because they found nothing, doesn't mean Sadam had nothing.
Coach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 09:24
#47
16 Sept 2015, 09:24#47
Draad
I have learned one thing about politicians in my long association with them - don't trust them - most of them are hyenas.
However, I am afraid that the UN investigation found nothing at all - neither did the Americans found anything. They knew there was nothing from the word go. Unfortunately the Bush family was more interested in the oil trade than anything else in that case - they made their money out of oil in the first instance.
Now back to the US. The Vietkong threatened to take overrun Vietnam after the withdrawal of the French - but the situation only became critical in the early 1960's, when Communist North Vietnam started to attack South Vietnam. That co-incided with a serious slump in the US economy and the idea was brilliant - take the unemployed from the streets into the army and ammunition factories and send the lot to Vietnam. After all the "noble idea" was to fight the Communists. Provide the Vietnamese army with arms and bomb the hell out of the place - using all kinds of poison gas (orange) as well - after all it was only the Vietnamese people that would be wiped out. The armaments given to the Vietnamese army ended up with the Vietkong and so effectively the US factories was providing arms to both sides and the unemployment figures in the US plummeted. All worked wonders iro of the US economy - but in the end the US had to withdraw from Vietnam - they could not win a war arming both sides.
LB Johnson was probably the most corrupt of all the US Presidents in the 20th century and he was the one that collected bribes from all the bodies involved. If people had an interview with him the process was to leave a brown envelope when you leave. He could not last longer than 1 term. The Kennedy's made their money from the illegal liquor trade of the 1920's and 1930's as part of the Boston Irish Mafia. Just do yourself a favour and read a book called "Captains and the Kings" - a weird book based on facts insofar as American politics are concerned.
I have learned one thing about politicians in my long association with them - don't trust them - most of them are hyenas.
However, I am afraid that the UN investigation found nothing at all - neither did the Americans found anything. They knew there was nothing from the word go. Unfortunately the Bush family was more interested in the oil trade than anything else in that case - they made their money out of oil in the first instance.
Now back to the US. The Vietkong threatened to take overrun Vietnam after the withdrawal of the French - but the situation only became critical in the early 1960's, when Communist North Vietnam started to attack South Vietnam. That co-incided with a serious slump in the US economy and the idea was brilliant - take the unemployed from the streets into the army and ammunition factories and send the lot to Vietnam. After all the "noble idea" was to fight the Communists. Provide the Vietnamese army with arms and bomb the hell out of the place - using all kinds of poison gas (orange) as well - after all it was only the Vietnamese people that would be wiped out. The armaments given to the Vietnamese army ended up with the Vietkong and so effectively the US factories was providing arms to both sides and the unemployment figures in the US plummeted. All worked wonders iro of the US economy - but in the end the US had to withdraw from Vietnam - they could not win a war arming both sides.
LB Johnson was probably the most corrupt of all the US Presidents in the 20th century and he was the one that collected bribes from all the bodies involved. If people had an interview with him the process was to leave a brown envelope when you leave. He could not last longer than 1 term. The Kennedy's made their money from the illegal liquor trade of the 1920's and 1930's as part of the Boston Irish Mafia. Just do yourself a favour and read a book called "Captains and the Kings" - a weird book based on facts insofar as American politics are concerned.
Captain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 14:20
#48
16 Sept 2015, 14:20#48
Bush and Blair were so intent on getting Hussein, that they were willing to engage in a war which 6 weeks later was going to prove them wrong. Cheney, Colin Powell and Rumsfeld were equally willing to destroy their own reputations just to what....get Hussein?
Get real. There was faulty intelligence and far too much credence given to the testimony of the London exiles. What you are describing is a huge conspiracy which would have involved many in the intelligence community....and not a word since, even though under a democratic regime a whistle blower not only could have got immunity but also become a celebrity.
It always amazes me what utter rubbish people believe. Iraq was a bad mistake, made at a time when the country was reacting to an unprovoked attack on it's biggest city. The dismantling of the apparatus that attacked the US in Afghanistan was totally the right move....had to be done. Iraq was not. That's enough to digest without these illogical conspiracy fantasies.
Coach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 14:33
#49
16 Sept 2015, 14:33#49
Balls about the story about the Iraqi exiles? If that happened a hundred years ago - maybe it would wash. The UN had inspectors and they found nothing. the satellite spy system showed nothing - so that was a lie and nothing else. There is no conspiracy theories. Remember that guy in England who committed suicide - was he part of the conspiracy story?
Bush and Blair was so intent to get to Iraqi oil that was a fact. It was a massive mistake that cost the lives of more than a million people and created chaos in the ME - so what did they learn - nothing.
I was told by a French gentleman that Bush and Blair were fouling up badly while the Iraq war was taking place - he said they did not understand the ME - and they never will. That was true then and is still true in the case of the present US Government.
Bush and Blair was so intent to get to Iraqi oil that was a fact. It was a massive mistake that cost the lives of more than a million people and created chaos in the ME - so what did they learn - nothing.
I was told by a French gentleman that Bush and Blair were fouling up badly while the Iraq war was taking place - he said they did not understand the ME - and they never will. That was true then and is still true in the case of the present US Government.
Captain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 14:50
#50
16 Sept 2015, 14:50#50
So Bush, Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney said there were WMDs, knowing full well 6 weeks later they were going to be proven wrong and called liars. Blair a highly succesful PM to that point chose this kind of disgrace. Powell was willing to throw all his presedential aspirations away even though he was widely spoken of as a future president.
For what? To get the oil they then made no attempt to control? And which was readily available on the open market at the same price. To punish one bad actor in a world of bad actors.
I have met some of these people and they are incapable of such an act of self destruction. Get real.
Coach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 15:13
#51
16 Sept 2015, 15:13#51
You may know them as politicians - but can they really be trusted not to put self-interest ahead of the interest of the country? I do not trust politicians enough to expect that they are more interest in what they can get out of the job, since they are holding the job temporarily only.
Captain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 15:25
#52
16 Sept 2015, 15:25#52
That's the point Tokkie....self interest. It was totally against the their self interest to start a war on evidence which was going to be proven wrong 6 weeks later. Even as a mistake it destroyed them all....think of the consequences of a proven deliberate deception.
Colin Powell standing in front of the UN presenting satellite images he knew were not true....never in a million years.
Colin Powell standing in front of the UN presenting satellite images he knew were not true....never in a million years.
Coach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 17:57
#53
16 Sept 2015, 17:57#53
Mozart
Just tell me something - what is the main financial interests of the Bush family?
Just tell me something - what is the main financial interests of the Bush family?
Pro3,164 posts
16 Sept 2015, 19:35
#54
16 Sept 2015, 19:35#54
Illuminatti Festival in Atlanta in September.. New Age of Deception we are entering:
https://youtu.be/USYeFLQpmlI
https://youtu.be/USYeFLQpmlI
Captain40,032 posts
16 Sept 2015, 20:58
#55
16 Sept 2015, 20:58#55
The simple facts are these. The quoran applauds voilence against non muslims. There are rewards in "heaven " for this.
If you wish to argue the toss google Jihad against infidels. There you will find outrageous statements and plenty of quotes from the quoran.
Then having seen for yourself, examine the sublime teachings of Christ. Do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies etc etc etc. Its completely different simply because the moon god allah is not the same as the True God.
So there you have it the evidence is there for anybody to examine.
All this totally escapes the ranting ab ass.
I see Europe is starting to clamp down on the invasion. Gather them all up and send them back to muslim lands to enjoy sharia law and all that.
If you wish to argue the toss google Jihad against infidels. There you will find outrageous statements and plenty of quotes from the quoran.
Then having seen for yourself, examine the sublime teachings of Christ. Do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies etc etc etc. Its completely different simply because the moon god allah is not the same as the True God.
So there you have it the evidence is there for anybody to examine.
All this totally escapes the ranting ab ass.
I see Europe is starting to clamp down on the invasion. Gather them all up and send them back to muslim lands to enjoy sharia law and all that.
Captain40,032 posts
16 Sept 2015, 21:18
#56
16 Sept 2015, 21:18#56
If you want a crash course of the violence of Islam against non muslims as outlined in quoran look at this one article at:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
This is what the world at large is slowly waking up to.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
This is what the world at large is slowly waking up to.
— END OF THREAD —
