Ok. Two points outstanding. Respect for other cultures to include Nazis and the West protecting Muslims in Srebrenica. What was our ulterior motive there Mr Conspiracy Theorist? Or does yours fall down like the house of cards it is when undermined by logic, like all conspiracy theories.
you just ask your friendly politicians, your other embedded journalists, the industrialists who make money from wars, the self interested charity organisations , ,, ok, apparently you have already done that because they will give you the answers that will fit with your imperialist attitude.
before you come all sanctimonious about the wests position on the natzis you may want to consider who it was who funded them,, and why,,, you have a long way to go mr..
No. I want you to answer. You're the one I'm debating with (though your fundamentalist friends would rather kill me for my views regardless of the fact I supported the West's action to defend Muslims in Srebrenica).
why do you bother even asking me when you spend most of your time concocting statements for me,, i don't make most of the points that you contribute to me !!
so we sold them gas and then invaded because they used it,, there is some truth in that,, but does not involve any consideration for the kurds
i wonder if anything will change with the death of Abdullaha,, but i suppose the control of the purse strings will not change,, so same old same old same ISIS
I like to debate with reasonable, intelligent people but I draw the line at paranoid conspiracy theorists who resort to insults in retorts such as: "just ask your friendly politicians, your other embedded journalists, the industrialists who make money from wars, the self interested charity organisations , ,, ok, apparently you have already done that because they will give you the answers that will fit with your imperialist attitude", when I ask them a simple question. I might as well counter your views with "Resurrect Jesus Christ, he will tell you" for all the contribution that statement contributes to the debate. Srebrenica please ... oh sorry, that doesn't fit in with your consipiracy theories, does it? Come on, why was the West prepared to sacrifice peacekeepers' lives on a humanitarian mission to save Muslim lives? I know we could have done more in Srebrenica - but at least we tried. And though there are examples of individual Muslims protecting Christians, could you please tell me where Muslim lives have ever been sacrificed by their theocratic government to save those of 'infidels'? You're the history expert. You must have that information at your fingertips ... or else there is always Google!
I think that is called deliberate obfuscation ... and the statement is untrue anyway. I merely extrapolated after reading your previous statements.
Well, not that I would promote the return of capital punishment, I can respect the opinion of those Londoners, who after all are only supporting the idea of a death penalty for a particular form of murder. That's entirely different from the idea of executing people for blasphemy, apostasy or other offences which do not involve murder (as would have been done here in Britain hundreds of years ago - for "heresy" for instance). It does surprise me that so many of those people polled have not thought this through. After all, successful (in the sense that they succeed in murdering) modern terrorists are usually either killed by police/troops (or at least want to be - an example being the killers of Lee Rigby), or kill themselves in the process of their terrorism (suicide bombing). The idea that a faint possibility of being hanged if caught and convicted would be a deterrent to terrorists is laughable. The terrorists we have been discussing here want martyrdom.
TTtonup: Please respond calmly and logically by resorting facts rather than unsubstantiated rumours and insults if/when you can. Thank you.
All true but Lee Rigby's killers didn't kill themselves. They were both jailed "without the possibility of release." Lee Rigby killers lose court bid to challenge convictions and sentences | UK news | The Guardian Also they describe their actions in their appeal as a "war" so we at least know how some Muslims see their murderous actions.
Ah, I see you are having an enjoyable debate with our resident communist, I guess it might be entertaining but more annoying so will leave him on ignore for now if he hasn't grown up yet :Hilarious:
Thanks for the advice. I agree. It has become too annoying to devote any more time to ... especially as the sun has come out here!
To be thrown into the debate from my side: You can't blame the entire West for Bush's war. It had nothing to do with terrorism in any case. The Americans wanted a war, they planned it and they wanted an ally to give themselves credibility. The perfect ally was the UK. The NeoCons hoodwinked and lied to their own Congress to get it (cf the biography of Dick Cheney, Angler). They then lied to Blair. As the UK relies on the US for the nuclear umbrella, their superior ground forces, their data gathering and spying and god knows what else, it was probably difficult for Blair to tell them to piss off. That is real politik. Blair then parroted the lies to the electorate - cf the dodgy dossier The UK people turned out en masse to voice their disagreement with this decision - before it was taken. "Not in my name". Two wrongs don't make a right. In any case, over and above the illegal and ill-advised war, the Iraqis then fomented their own civil war amongst Sunnis and Shias leading to much of the mess that the entire area now finds itself and many of the deaths. The Chilcot Enquiry is probably not being delayed because of the elections. Only the LibDems say so, because they didn't support the war, so it is in their interest before an election to suggest that it is. It's probably due to inefficiency, lack of cooperation with those supplying the evidence (who have little to gain from the truth), the huge scope of the enquiry, and no doubt underfunding and short staffing. And whatever it comes up with, nothing will change and no one will be indicted. To put Charlie Hebdo in perspective: The French and Belgians have a tradition of the cartoon and the comic book which is almost entirely lacking in the UK. It is seen as an art form in French-speaking countries and notable cartoonists and artists are famous. People have entire libraries of "bandes dessinées" - cartoon books. One of the murdered cartoonists was Wolinski. He produced many comic books. One of his contemporaries was Reiser, sadly now dead for some years. Both their work was always hugely satirical, often quite cruel, with a strong amount of nudity and sex - but also extremely funny on occasion. Charlie Hebdo, previously known as Hara Kiri, is a magazine in this tradition. It's been going for decades and has satirised anything that could be. Muslims are not the focus of their amusement, but extremist Islam has provided a rich vein to mine for comic effect, as it would for a religion purporting to espouse peace. There has been no crusade against Islam, any more than there has been for whichever French president is in power. They all get indiscriminate stick along with the Catholic church. Making Mohammed their "special editor" for one edition and having him saying on the front cover "One hundred lashes if you don't die laughing" is scarcely so vile and offensive that you deserve to be shot for it. Some of my Xmas cards this year lampooned the Nativity Story. The producers of similar cards in Islamic countries with Islamic themes would be condemned to death. So we need to keep some sense of proportion here.
Well put Glid. Let's hope some here will read the above and inwardly digest it ... notably TTtonup - who I am, I hope reliably, informed by Exige is the forum's "resident communist".
