Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The peacful religion
Topic Started: Jan 5 2015, 10:42 AM (1,003 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
PARIS (AP) — France’s Interior Ministry says 940 cars were set alight by revelers ringing in the New Year — 12 percent fewer than the 1,067 set aflame last year.

The figures issued on Thursday show that, despite the dip, setting fire to parked cars remains a firmly entrenched way for some French to send out the old and ring in the new.

Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet said on BFM-TV that numerous cars were burned around the country, particularly in the east, as well as in suburban Paris, notably the Seine-Saint-Denis region — where fiery [Muslim] riots around France started in 2005.
Is it because the majority were fired by Muslims that we have heard so little about it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Jan 7 2015, 06:44 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 7 2015, 06:31 PM
Christianity is a peaceful religion and also very tolerant.
I know 10,000 Pagans who on just one day at a place called Verden will stand testament to this claim being false.

All The Best
Wrong call.
Edited by C-too, Jan 7 2015, 08:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMbfQ117Jts

Yeah sure, Christianity, peaceful and tollerant

The Lords Resistance Army (Uganda), the Klu Klux Klan, Christian extremists in India, Central African Republic, and even in our own country Catholics and Proestants killing and discriminating against each other for generations, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church riddled from top to bottom with covered up child abuse, whilst the same Church condemns gay people.

There are extremists in all faiths, and to say my religion is better than yours or less extreme, or that someone elses faith is bad, is simply childrens playground stuff, totaly childish.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Whirlpool
Jan 6 2015, 11:29 AM
When are we going to invade North Korea, China? what about the hutsis killing the tutsis in Africa?

Its none of our business, but War is good for the profiteers.

Pointing out that Sadam killed x amount of people and claiming that we have only killed y amount of people doesnt mean it is okay and that it will help bring peace. Quite the contrary!!!

Anyway didnt we go to war over WMD, shifting goal posts much?

IIRC the last time N/Korea invaded the South both the US and UK troops invaded to defend the South. Since then N/Korea has not invaded across the 48th parallel. So they are not in breach of a ceasefire agreement, Iraq was. They are not to my knowledge recognised by the UN as a "threat to international peace and security", (although they may well become so) but Iraq was. They are not a threat to a major area of world oil supply, Iraq was.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

krugerman
Jan 7 2015, 08:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMbfQ117Jts

Yeah sure, Christianity, peaceful and tollerant

The Lords Resistance Army (Uganda), the Klu Klux Klan, Christian extremists in India, Central African Republic, and even in our own country Catholics and Proestants killing and discriminating against each other for generations, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church riddled from top to bottom with covered up child abuse, whilst the same Church condemns gay people.

There are extremists in all faiths, and to say my religion is better than yours or less extreme, or that someone elses faith is bad, is simply childrens playground stuff, totaly childish.



Indeed...and who is to say that all most or many Muslims are fanatical zealots rather than people who go along with the religion and culture of the people around them for a peaceful life?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 7 2015, 08:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMbfQ117Jts

Yeah sure, Christianity, peaceful and tollerant

The Lords Resistance Army (Uganda), the Klu Klux Klan, Christian extremists in India, Central African Republic, and even in our own country Catholics and Proestants killing and discriminating against each other for generations, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church riddled from top to bottom with covered up child abuse, whilst the same Church condemns gay people.

There are extremists in all faiths, and to say my religion is better than yours or less extreme, or that someone elses faith is bad, is simply childrens playground stuff, totaly childish.


I suspect the Muslim dominated middle east along with Muslim communities around the world will still be producing Islamist terrorists long after the Irish problem has ceased to exist and long after the KKK is little more than distant a memory.

Is the so called Lords Resistance Army (a mixture of Christianity and local tribal beliefs) any different to the Muslim terrorists that are so active in Africa?

I am not a religious individual, and I have no intention of defending those in religion that commit criminal acts. But in attempting to evaluate the dangers from Christianity and those from Islam, the acts of terrorism carried out around the world IN THE NAME of Islam, IMO speaks for itself.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 08:35 PM
Whirlpool
Jan 6 2015, 11:29 AM
When are we going to invade North Korea, China? what about the hutsis killing the tutsis in Africa?

Its none of our business, but War is good for the profiteers.

Pointing out that Sadam killed x amount of people and claiming that we have only killed y amount of people doesnt mean it is okay and that it will help bring peace. Quite the contrary!!!

Anyway didnt we go to war over WMD, shifting goal posts much?

IIRC the last time N/Korea invaded the South both the US and UK troops invaded to defend the South. Since then N/Korea has not invaded across the 48th parallel. So they are not in breach of a ceasefire agreement, Iraq was. They are not to my knowledge recognised by the UN as a "threat to international peace and security", (although they may well become so) but Iraq was. They are not a threat to a major area of world oil supply, Iraq was.



So RJD was right it was about oil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 7 2015, 06:31 PM
krugerman
Jan 7 2015, 06:14 PM
Once again a poster ( Tytoalba ) attempts to link all Muslims to the actions of a handful of extremists.

If everyone went down this path, on both sides, it would end in catastrophe, untold violence and possibly even a breakdown in order; And if the kneejerk reaction to this attrocity was to be anger, violence, lynchings and the targeting of innocent people, then what would be the point of freedom of speech, or freedom of anything.

Tonight, Muslim leaders in France have condemned todays attack, the leader of France s main Muslim umbrella organisation described the attack as "barbaric attack" and that it was "against democracy".

Whilst I condemn totaly what these murderers have done in Paris, I have to be devils advocate here, what if....... a satirical magazine in a majority Muslim country had a history of poking fun at Christians and Christianity ?, I feel sure it would result in some form of retaliation, and whilst its good to know we can poke fun at Islam, my question would be WHY disrespect someone elses deeply held beliefs. ?

Christianity is a peaceful religion and also very tolerant. There are mosques everywhere in Britain to make the point
In some Muslim countries you cannot even take bible into the country. I do not think there would be any bombs planted, or people shot dead or beheaded if such publications or posters were printed do you?
Let them keep up such actions and there will be retaliations Currently in Germany there are peaceful demonstrations taking place in protest at the perceived Iislamafication of the country.

If there are protests and condemnation of the acts by the umbrella group it has been a long time coming and is very welcome. I do hope they will report to the authorities those committing the offences, or supporting such actions.

It does seem that you accept the actions as legitimate opposition to the free speech and expression of none believers.

Christianity is peaceful ,,when did that happen?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil

Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq.
Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil.
We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
Your poster boy was in charge at the time,so the lies that came out of his mouth were his and his alone
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

HIGHWAY
Jan 7 2015, 09:22 PM
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil

Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq.
Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil.
We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
Your poster boy was in charge at the time,so the lies that came out of his mouth were his and his alone

Indeed. Politicians especially prime ministers should take the responsibility of their own decisions even if their apologists try to tell us otherwise.
This garbage is as dishonest as telling us that Thatcher was a victim of the lies by Milton Friedman
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 7 2015, 06:31 PM


Christianity is a peaceful religion and also very tolerant. There are mosques everywhere in Britain to make the point.
^Unintentionally very funny, but tinged with a level of almost sad self deception.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 7 2015, 07:48 PM
Lets not kid ourselves that contemporary Christianity has the moral high ground over Islam. The tolerance that some attribute to Christianity is not due to Christianity at all. It is due to our societies becoming more secular and Christian churches responding to the tolerance that comes with it.
The rather more sober truth is that since the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science religion in the West has been in decline and it's conflicting messages largely ignored, it has been a case of adapt or die. On the other hand many of Islam's followers have become in effect religious Luddite's.
Edited by Tigger, Jan 7 2015, 10:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 7 2015, 10:20 PM
The rather more sober truth is that since the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science religion in the West has been in decline and it's conflicting messages largely ignored, it has been a case of adapt or die. On the other hand many of Islam's followers have become in effect religious Luddite's.

That is my take on this militant radical Islam.
Iran in particular is a theocratic State where the clerics feel threatened by modernism, the Western influence, democracy, and the culture of free expression. Their response is to demonise the West, and 9/11 was done to stir the West into retaliation - thus establishing a conflict of ideologies. One where Muslims are instructed to place their loyalties with the religion and not any country (where they reside or are citizens of).
To these religious leaders democracy is their greatest enemy. I further suggest that there has not been another act of terrorism on the September scale for the reason that there is no longer a reason to do so ..... just enough killing to keep the fires burning.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 7 2015, 09:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 7 2015, 09:22 PM
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil

Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq.
Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil.
We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
Your poster boy was in charge at the time,so the lies that came out of his mouth were his and his alone

Indeed. Politicians especially prime ministers should take the responsibility of their own decisions even if their apologists try to tell us otherwise.
This garbage is as dishonest as telling us that Thatcher was a victim of the lies by Milton Friedman
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
gansao
Jan 7 2015, 09:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 7 2015, 09:22 PM
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Your poster boy was in charge at the time,so the lies that came out of his mouth were his and his alone

Indeed. Politicians especially prime ministers should take the responsibility of their own decisions even if their apologists try to tell us otherwise.
This garbage is as dishonest as telling us that Thatcher was a victim of the lies by Milton Friedman
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.

A free vote lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 08:21 AM
A free vote lol
Why don't you look at the record in Hansard before posting a wild arsed guess and an incorrect guess as it happens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



All the while remembering that every other country (UN) also 'believed' that Iraq did have WMDs, and I include France who's government were determined to prevent the invasion, but on no occasion did they suggest there was nothing to find.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
gansao
Jan 7 2015, 09:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 7 2015, 09:22 PM
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Your poster boy was in charge at the time,so the lies that came out of his mouth were his and his alone

Indeed. Politicians especially prime ministers should take the responsibility of their own decisions even if their apologists try to tell us otherwise.
This garbage is as dishonest as telling us that Thatcher was a victim of the lies by Milton Friedman
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



Which means they publicly admitted that the assertion was wrong in 2005. So what?
You fill your slurpy cup with kool aid every time your political heroes serve it dont you ?

Latest news......George W Bush was unaware of CIA torture. Why? Because they said so.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

At yet..http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bush-knew-about-cia-torture-says-cheney/ar-BBgEbYn

The point is my little plum is that you post a claim by a an agency skilled in the black arts and tell us to be as simple and naive as you .

There was another one born a minute after you old chap so you are not alone. !poke!



A

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Jan 8 2015, 02:39 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



All the while remembering that every other country (UN) also 'believed' that Iraq did have WMDs, and I include France who's government were determined to prevent the invasion, but on no occasion did they suggest there was nothing to find.



Did their individual intelligence chiefs tell them that or did they simply believe the claims of the US and UK?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball 2014
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 7 2015, 08:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMbfQ117Jts

Yeah sure, Christianity, peaceful and tollerant

The Lords Resistance Army (Uganda), the Klu Klux Klan, Christian extremists in India, Central African Republic, and even in our own country Catholics and Proestants killing and discriminating against each other for generations, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church riddled from top to bottom with covered up child abuse, whilst the same Church condemns gay people.

There are extremists in all faiths, and to say my religion is better than yours or less extreme, or that someone elses faith is bad, is simply childrens playground stuff, totaly childish.


Kind of comes down to what JC and Big Mo are reported by their own followers as saying, doing and extolling. I think you will find that JCs message was/is a tad different to Big Mo's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 09:59 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
gansao
Jan 7 2015, 09:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 7 2015, 09:22 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Indeed. Politicians especially prime ministers should take the responsibility of their own decisions even if their apologists try to tell us otherwise.
This garbage is as dishonest as telling us that Thatcher was a victim of the lies by Milton Friedman
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



Which means they publicly admitted that the assertion was wrong in 2005. So what?
You fill your slurpy cup with kool aid every time your political heroes serve it dont you ?

Latest news......George W Bush was unaware of CIA torture and extraordinary rendition. Why? Because they said so.


"so what" ?? LOL.

Ignore the obvious if you wish, your comment doesn't alter the reality.

Your other comments only show how confused your thinking is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:01 PM
Affa
Jan 8 2015, 02:39 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



All the while remembering that every other country (UN) also 'believed' that Iraq did have WMDs, and I include France who's government were determined to prevent the invasion, but on no occasion did they suggest there was nothing to find.



Did their individual intelligence chiefs tell them that or did they simply believe the claims of the US and UK?
Reading UN Res.1441, passed unanimously by the UN, might give you a better understanding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Jan 8 2015, 12:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 08:21 AM
A free vote lol
Why don't you look at the record in Hansard before posting a wild arsed guess and an incorrect guess as it happens

I think Highway was expressing the cynical view that in a situation like this a free vote can be declared without being quite as free as it may seem.
Opinion maybe but grown ups can be quite cynical about other grown ups.
Thats what our wannabee psychologist cannot get his head around. If the right people say it then it must be fact is his motto !moon!

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:15 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:01 PM
Affa
Jan 8 2015, 02:39 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



All the while remembering that every other country (UN) also 'believed' that Iraq did have WMDs, and I include France who's government were determined to prevent the invasion, but on no occasion did they suggest there was nothing to find.



Did their individual intelligence chiefs tell them that or did they simply believe the claims of the US and UK?
Reading UN Res.1441, passed unanimously by the UN, might give you a better understanding.

It might but maybe you can and tell me what it says /8/

Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 09:59 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM
gansao
Jan 7 2015, 09:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 7 2015, 09:22 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Indeed. Politicians especially prime ministers should take the responsibility of their own decisions even if their apologists try to tell us otherwise.
This garbage is as dishonest as telling us that Thatcher was a victim of the lies by Milton Friedman
From the Guardian 2005;

"Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated".

The job of the intelligence agency is to collect information and to pass that information on to the government. It was not for the government or for any government to ignore such information. In any case, the decision to invade Iraq was taken by a free vote in Parliament.

In order for you and those like you to reach your OPINIONS you have to ignore the reality of the situation that existed at that time.



Which means they publicly admitted that the assertion was wrong in 2005. So what?
You fill your slurpy cup with kool aid every time your political heroes serve it dont you ?

Latest news......George W Bush was unaware of CIA torture. Why? Because they said so.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

At yet..http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bush-knew-about-cia-torture-says-cheney/ar-BBgEbYn

The point is my little plum is that you post a claim by a an agency skilled in the black arts and tell us to be as simple and naive as you .

There was another one born a minute after you old chap so you are not alone. !poke!



A

Try a little objective thinking, instead of your usual over opinionated approach. That could begin to allow you to get in touch with the real world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

post deleted
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:17 PM
Steve K
Jan 8 2015, 12:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 08:21 AM
A free vote lol
Why don't you look at the record in Hansard before posting a wild arsed guess and an incorrect guess as it happens

I think Highway was expressing the cynical view that in a situation like this a free vote can be declared without being quite as free as it may seem.
Opinion maybe but grown ups can be quite cynical about other grown ups.
Thats what our wannabee psychologist cannot get his head around. If the right people say it then it must be fact is his motto !moon!

Your silly opinions know no bounds. Like your mate you make the mistake of thinking your opinions are facts. LOL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:22 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:13 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 09:59 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


Which means they publicly admitted that the assertion was wrong in 2005. So what?
You fill your slurpy cup with kool aid every time your political heroes serve it dont you ?

Latest news......George W Bush was unaware of CIA torture and extraordinary rendition. Why? Because they said so.


"so what" ?? LOL.

Ignore the obvious if you wish, your comment doesn't alter the reality.

Your other comments only show how confused your thinking is.


No it shows how simplistic and naive your thinking is. If your superiors tell you something in a specific format you will believe them.
You make a great minion.
Your opinions are ruling any logic you might posses. No change there.
Edited by C-too, Jan 8 2015, 10:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

post deleted
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Post deleted
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:25 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:19 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 09:59 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 08:09 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


Which means they publicly admitted that the assertion was wrong in 2005. So what?
You fill your slurpy cup with kool aid every time your political heroes serve it dont you ?

Latest news......George W Bush was unaware of CIA torture. Why? Because they said so.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

At yet..http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bush-knew-about-cia-torture-says-cheney/ar-BBgEbYn

The point is my little plum is that you post a claim by a an agency skilled in the black arts and tell us to be as simple and naive as you .

There was another one born a minute after you old chap so you are not alone. !poke!



A

Try a little objective thinking, instead of your usual over opinionated approach. That could begin to allow you to get in touch with the real world.


Try not being so intellectually servile to the people you believe are your superiors.
Then you may rise above your usual juvenile worldview
Opinions are for thinking people part of a learning process, but not for you. Your opinion is absolute reality, how very sad, for you. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:26 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:24 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:22 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:13 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


No it shows how simplistic and naive your thinking is. If your superiors tell you something in a specific format you will believe them.
You make a great minion.
Your opinions are ruling any logic you might posses. No change there.


You have nothing more to contribute so I will stop feeding the troll.
You are the troll, you are the one making no sense in your over opinionated reply to my posts. Join the real world and stop trolling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:29 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:25 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:19 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 09:59 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deephttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

At yet..http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bush-knew-about-cia-torture-says-cheney/ar-BBgEbYn

The point is my little plum is that you post a claim by a an agency skilled in the black arts and tell us to be as simple and naive as you .

There was another one born a minute after you old chap so you are not alone. !poke!



A

Try a little objective thinking, instead of your usual over opinionated approach. That could begin to allow you to get in touch with the real world.


Try not being so intellectually servile to the people you believe are your superiors.
Then you may rise above your usual juvenile worldview
Opinions are for thinking people part of a learning process, but not for you. Your opinion is absolute reality, how very sad, for you. :)

No not at all. I think people like Blair and Bush had agendas and created an environment to make them reality.
Its not new. In fact it has happened through history and every time old papers and files are discovered or allowed to be published new political idols are found to have feet of clay.
Grown ups know this. So when I read a post from a joker that asserts a claim from an intelligence agency that exonerates a powerful politician is unequivocal fact and that any doubts about it can only come from a somehow poor mentality. I smile inside and want to point out that anyone who thinks that is a fool....and I have.
My work is done


Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 8 2015, 12:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 08:21 AM
A free vote lol
Why don't you look at the record in Hansard before posting a wild arsed guess and an incorrect guess as it happens
Does Hansard show what Blair promised some MPs if the voted for the illegal invasion
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 10:49 PM
Steve K
Jan 8 2015, 12:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 08:21 AM
A free vote lol
Why don't you look at the record in Hansard before posting a wild arsed guess and an incorrect guess as it happens
Does Hansard show what Blair promised some MPs if the voted for the illegal invasion
If he made these alleged promises in the Commons then yes, if made somewhere else no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 10:49 PM
Steve K
Jan 8 2015, 12:31 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 8 2015, 08:21 AM
A free vote lol
Why don't you look at the record in Hansard before posting a wild arsed guess and an incorrect guess as it happens
Does Hansard show what Blair promised some MPs if the voted for the illegal invasion
Did you get paid for those drugs you smuggled last week?

Now you see how dishonest it is to include a presumption in a question. Of course you didn't smuggle drugs and similarly the invasion wasn't illegal - as has been shown over and over again.

Immoral? yes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The idea that Bush & Blair (flattering as it is to Blair) that they were able to convince the UN that there were WMDs in Iraq is absolutely ludicrous!!!!!
Especially when these two were unable to get another resolution to acually go in a get these weapons through (veto applied).
Every nation has its own intelligence sources, to not accept that is childish - childish because recognising it doesn't fit well their preferred belief that it was Blair that did it. that lied, that convinced every one of a lie.
PATHETIC PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Edited by Affa, Jan 9 2015, 12:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
You do know Affa that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. Not many and arguably saddam didn't even know he'd got them but not so "ludicrous" then?

You do also know don't you that they already had a UN resolution that made it legal to go and take out Saddam Hussein's regime?

I guess not but do a little research and you'll find both statements are true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 9 2015, 12:23 AM
You do know Affa that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. Not many and arguably saddam didn't even know he'd got them but not so "ludicrous" then?

You do also know don't you that they already had a UN resolution that made it legal to go and take out Saddam Hussein's regime?

I guess not but do a little research and you'll find both statements are true.

My argument is that those who persist in singularly 'blaming' Blair, his lies deceiving all and sundry, and especially those of a Tory persuasion, do so for entirely political reasons that deny the facts that the UN itself presented much of the evidence for the resolution 1441.

Whether 1441 was authorisation to invade was not clear at the time - some argued it was not. Blair himself tried to get another resolution for authorisation - if 1441 was enough he too had his doubts.
i seem to have a better grasp of it than you, and have no need to research it.

Edited by Affa, Jan 9 2015, 11:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:41 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:29 PM
gansao
Jan 8 2015, 10:25 PM
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 10:19 PM


Try not being so intellectually servile to the people you believe are your superiors.
Then you may rise above your usual juvenile worldview
Opinions are for thinking people part of a learning process, but not for you. Your opinion is absolute reality, how very sad, for you. :)

No not at all. I think people like Blair and Bush had agendas and created an environment to make them reality.
Its not new. In fact it has happened through history and every time old papers and files are discovered or allowed to be published new political idols are found to have feet of clay.
Grown ups know this. So when I read a post from a joker that asserts a claim from an intelligence agency that exonerates a powerful politician is unequivocal fact and that any doubts about it can only come from a somehow poor mentality. I smile inside and want to point out that anyone who thinks that is a fool....and I have.
My work is done


I think your fixed opinions have some resonance with the Bush administration, but you are simply wrong over Blair/UK Intelligence agency. Blair has enough powerful and influential enemies that if there was any truth in your opinion, it would have been revealed by now. You have nothing more than your OPINION which is based upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Your position is untenable but like your weak minded mate you are a victim of your own opinionated approach to life.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 9 2015, 11:00 AM
Steve K
Jan 9 2015, 12:23 AM
You do know Affa that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. Not many and arguably saddam didn't even know he'd got them but not so "ludicrous" then?

You do also know don't you that they already had a UN resolution that made it legal to go and take out Saddam Hussein's regime?

I guess not but do a little research and you'll find both statements are true.

My argument is that those who persist in singularly 'blaming' Blair, his lies deceiving all and sundry, and especially those of a Tory persuasion, do so for entirely political reasons that deny the facts that the UN itself presented much of the evidence for the resolution 1441.

Whether 1441 was authorisation to invade was not clear at the time - some argued it was not. Blair himself tried to get another resolution for authorisation - if 1441 was enough he too had his doubts.
i seem to have a better grasp of it than you, and have no need to research it.

Res. 1441 stated that it was "A FINAL OPPORTUNITY" for Saddam to fully comply with the requirements of the UN, and if Saddam was in breach of this FINAL OPPORTUNITY then the situation should be referred back to the UN Security Council. It was stated at the time that the Security Council would then be expected to ratify the appropriate action. This process was blocked by the French threat to veto any such move.

IMO, with troops on the borders the options were very limited;
1. For Saddam to fully comply with the UN Res. 1441.
2. For Saddam to give up his aggressiveness and to join the international community.
3. For Saddam to introduce free elections.
4. For Saddam to take the advice of his neighbours and leave Iraq.
5. Or for an invasion to take place.

Any suggestion that the Troops should have left leaving Saddam to continue on his megalomaniacal way was out of the question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply