David Cameron - war criminal?

If we left these countries alone my theory would be that in time they would develop their own democratic systems anyway. I don't think because they're Islamic it means they won't have a concept of free speech ever.

All we do when we invade is to set them back another 100 years.

If you go back in history, at one point the Middle East was one of the most developed parts of the world!
 
Richdog said:
If we had not taken out Saddam and Gaddafi and de-stabilized the areas then there would be no ISIS and no humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, and no floods of migrants. Fact.
Click to expand...

No, not fact... Gaddafi would have flattened Benghazi and western leaders would have been criticised for standing by and doing nothing when the biggest genocide since Rwanda took place right under our noses.

The Arab spring didn't affect Iraq as Saddam had already fallen, if we'd not already invaded the place then a popular shia uprising there would have been quite likely regardless.

ISIS predates the invasion of Iraq, a destabalised Iraq as a result of a shia uprising would likely bring them into play too.
 
dowie said:
LOL - care to explain how that is a war crime?

here is the resolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973

note these two lines:





so when Gaddafi didn't stick to a ceasefire and instead marched on bengazi they were well within their rights to bomb the **** out of his forces... and no, attacking military targets isn't a 'war crime'.
Click to expand...
he never marched on the city all his tanks just sat there doing nothing and then they got bombed....
 
Tefal said:
whenever I see **** like this I assume the person's IQ is so far below normal they actually think its witty.
Click to expand...

Who tf gaf what you think about my intellect, I do it to annoy jerks and show my total disdain and lack of respect for murderous war criminal pos.

camwrongun shiny faced pig ******.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
No, not fact... Gaddafi would have flattened Benghazi and western leaders would have been criticised for standing by and doing nothing when the biggest genocide since Rwanda took place right under our noses.
Click to expand...

That's a complete exaggeration and as I said earlier not a view this report just released agrees with. In fact they say the opposite

But the foreign affairs committee said the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated", adding that it "selectively took elements of Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value".
Click to expand...

Dodgy intelligence again to say what we wanted it to say to justify our actual agenda of implementing regime change

The limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya
Click to expand...
 
Don't ever make the mistake of believing the words mealy mouthed lying politicians say to justify the actions lobbyists have paid them to take.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
No, not fact... Gaddafi would have flattened Benghazi and western leaders would have been criticised for standing by and doing nothing when the biggest genocide since Rwanda took place right under our noses.

The Arab spring didn't affect Iraq as Saddam had already fallen, if we'd not already invaded the place then a popular shia uprising there would have been quite likely regardless.

ISIS predates the invasion of Iraq, a destabalised Iraq as a result of a shia uprising would likely bring them into play too.
Click to expand...

Sure, keep telling yourself that.
 
dowie said:
No, not fact... Gaddafi would have flattened Benghazi and western leaders would have been criticised for standing by and doing nothing when the biggest genocide since Rwanda took place right under our noses.
Click to expand...

You're not serious, surely? You think the Libyan army would have done a Dresden on Libya's second largest city because a militia had carried out some attacks? Is your view of Gadhafi that he's some sort of cartoon villain? This is the guy who held together historically warring tribes of Libya in a mostly peaceful conclave for decades and you think he's going to react with mass butchery of civilian populations just because? Assuming the Libyan army would even go along with a Rwanda-style genocide or that the ruling council wouldn't stop him, anyway.

Also, suggesting that UK politicians acted out of fear of criticism when the British population was largely against military action (where they could pick out Libya on a map in the first place) is a poor joke.
 
Tefal said:
thep02 said:
If I was to see bliar or camwrongun on fire
Click to expand...
whenever I see **** like this I assume the person's IQ is so far below normal they actually think its witty.
Click to expand...

Point proven below :)

thep02 said:
Who tf gaf what you think about my intellect, I do it to annoy jerks and show my total disdain and lack of respect for murderous war criminal pos.

camwrongun shiny faced pig ******.
Click to expand...
 
thep02 said:
Who tf gaf what you think about my intellect, I do it to annoy jerks and show my total disdain and lack of respect for murderous war criminal pos.

camwrongun shiny faced pig ******.
Click to expand...

Really?


I thought it meant you'd seen s copy of private eye and thought you'd be cool ifyou copied it
 
tfgaf.jpg
 
Richdog said:
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...

I could say the same re: your impression that things would be fine had we not intervened. They wouldn't have been and the civilian population of Libya's second largest city was under immediate threat.

h4rm0ny said:
You're not serious, surely? You think the Libyan army would have done a Dresden on Libya's second largest city because a militia had carried out some attacks? Is your view of Gadhafi that he's some sort of cartoon villain? This is the guy who held together historically warring tribes of Libya in a mostly peaceful conclave for decades and you think he's going to react with mass butchery of civilian populations just because? Assuming the Libyan army would even go along with a Rwanda-style genocide or that the ruling council wouldn't stop him, anyway.
Click to expand...

He was actively targeting his civilian population, your painting this thing as a small bunch of rebels isn't realistic nor really would have been sufficient for a security council resolution to protect civilians in the first place!

h4rm0ny said:
Also, suggesting that UK politicians acted out of fear of criticism when the British population was largely against military action (where they could pick out Libya on a map in the first place) is a poor joke.
Click to expand...

Nope, read properly. I've not suggested that they acted out of fear of criticism, I've said they'd have been criticized if they'd let a genocide occur not that that fear of criticism was their motivation.
 
dowie said:
He was actively targeting his civilian population, your painting this thing as a small bunch of rebels isn't realistic nor really would have been sufficient for a security council resolution to protect civilians in the first place!
Click to expand...

1. You've shifted ground enormously from flattening Libya's second largest city (your words) and "the biggest genocide since Rwanda" (again your words) to "actively targetting his civilian population". Either defend your original point of concede it was wrong. Don't pretend it was something other than it was.
2. A militia that attacks and loots a military base is not "civilian population" as you paint it.
3. Who mentioned "security council resolution" protecting civilians? I said the ruling council. I.e. the body that governed Libya of which Gadhafi was the president. Even if Gadhafi were the city-destroying cartoon villain you presented him as, determined to "flatten" an entire city for the sake of some rebels, the country's ruling council and the army would not exactly be rushing to comply.

There was no justification for destroying the country of Libya because the Libyan army had tanks outside a city in response to airports and military bases being attacked. Any government including the UKs would do the same.

Meanwhile Western governments were seeding stories such as Gadhafi supplying the Libyan army with viagra so they could better rape people (false) and suppressing stories about the mass execution of Black people by the Rebels (true). People in this country were subjected to massive and coordinated propaganda about Libya from the outset.

Oh, and the rebels and Western backers repeatedly rejected Gadhafi's calls for negotiation and cease-fire. This was an attempt to seize the country, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
I've not shifted ground at all, you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. He was actively targeting his civilian population, that comment wasn't made purely in relation to his second city.
 
dowie said:
I've not shifted ground at all, you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. He was actively targeting his civilian population, that comment wasn't made purely in relation to his second city.
Click to expand...

Sadly you have. A lot. You said that he was going to "flatten" Libya's second largest city, a city of over half a million people and carry aout "the biggest genocide since Rwanda". I called that nonsense and you responded to my post by declaring that he had "actively targetted the civillian population". Never mind that this itself is in dispute, it's a massive shift from your original claims. Benghazi was never going to be destroyed, there was never going to be a genocide. Neither false claim was a justification for NATO forces attacking the Libyan army, for foreign troops from Qatar being imported and Western special forces being sent in as advisors to the rebels or for unilateral oil deals for the country's wealth being made with the rebels for when they had seized the country.
 
Those aren't mutually exclusive statements - how is pointing out that Gaddafi's forces did target civilians AND pointing out that they were advancing on Benghazi and likely to cause a genocide 'shifting ground'. You seem to be treating those statements as though both can't be true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom