alliance between Islamist type of politics and the left.

Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
As someone on the left I don’t much like religion and am an atheist but freedom of religion is important, but I wouldn’t let any religious beliefs influence policy and ideally religion shouldn’t be part of the Government.

It’s the right that love religion, thanks to them and their policies there is more religious programming on radio 4.

People don't know what they have till it's gone. People complain about the 'religous right' and I'm sure there are some nutters/false teachers however, get rid of them and will be replaced by some other group, always have a heirarchy, always have people in power, just depends who.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
This is why todays left and Islam are allied, both are authoritarians. The left want a big government that monitors and controls every aspect of peoples lives, they treat people as groups instead of individuals because they are collectivists and don't believe in individualism which is what the UK (Magna Carta) and particularly the US (Bill of Rights) was all about, in other words the actual freedom loving 'west' before a post WW2 liberated Europe got thrown in with us before they/we were gobbled up by the EU.

politics.png

Literally no, if you're going to use an americanised (DUMB) infographic about political positions at least attempt to be correct about economic/social axis. SAD
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Posts
4,694
Location
Wiltshire
War criminal Blair should butt out, after his last incorrect warning of weapons of mass destruction that left thousands of innocent people dead he has the nerve to start and run the 'Tony Blair institute for global change'

You can blame this man personally for his now infamous 'Britain is an open door' which invited all of Europe to come here which without a shadow of doubt contributed to the anti EU vote

Also his calling for another referendum is anti democratic which ever way you look at it.

What war crimes did he commit? Its a rhetorical question actually, none, the answer is zero. You might want to look up the definition of a war criminal, this is a bad meme spread by people who know nothing.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Dec 2004
Posts
3,421
Location
Worcestershire
What war crimes did he commit? Its a rhetorical question actually, none, the answer is zero. You might want to look up the definition of a war criminal, this is a bad meme spread by people who know nothing.

How about lying or grossly exaggerating so called intelligence in order to get his own way and launch an attack that resulted in hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians deaths? ?
There is enough info re him lying, misguiding and ignoring other members of parliament, of initiating a catastrophic war by dishonest means. He claimed that the intelligence showing that Iraq had deployed weapons of mass destruction was 'extensive' which was an outright lie. Estimates of up to one million soldiers and civilians met their death as a direct result of that war in Iraq
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
How about lying or grossly exaggerating so called intelligence in order to get his own way and launch an attack that resulted in hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians deaths? ?
There is enough info re him lying, misguiding and ignoring other members of parliament, of initiating a catastrophic war by dishonest means. He claimed that the intelligence showing that Iraq had deployed weapons of mass destruction was 'extensive' which was an outright lie. Estimates of up to one million soldiers and civilians met their death as a direct result of that war in Iraq

To be fair, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq were civilian deaths directly caused by Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters travelling from countries close by, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was over fairly quickly and successfully. You might argue that the post war planning was bad, I would say that keeping Saddam in power wasn't an option; he was *actually* a war criminal and needed removing regardless of any weapons of mass destruction, and I'm not sure what post war planning could've been done to prevent a load of foreign fighters coming over and mixing with local insurgents who were intent on killing a load of innocent people and soldiers who were there to keep the peace and try to rebuild the country.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Posts
12,371
Location
La France
To answer the OP’s original question, communism regimes of the past and Islam have a great deal in common:

- Political ideologues
- Powerful ruling elite
- Extremely authoritarian
- Strong secret/religious police presence
- Any dissenters “cleansed” rapidly
- Deep hatred for the Jews, often publicly expressed as “anti Zionist”, but we all know what they’re getting at
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
There are alliances across all spans on the political spectrum.

Alliance of perceived victim-hood (extreme social-left) with Islam - blue haired keyboard warriors. These are allies due to a shared 'victim status'
Alliance of power & wealth, weapons trades (economic-right) with Significant power bases of Islam - Saudi Arabia an authoritarian regime which beheads women.

Labour has a leader which supports the people of Palestine, which as we all know makes you automatically a Jew hating Nazi. The side effect of this is, that people who also support Palestine in the population (notably many people with an Islamic background) - some of which really do hate Jews. Are more likely to fit into a party who is sympathetic to the people of Palestine.

Ironically, on the right you get the extreme far right who vote for BNP/EDL when possible, or UKIP/Conservative when not (Due to being more likely to reduce immigration) who also tend to hate Jews also.

Deep hatred for the Jews, often publicly expressed as “anti Zionist”, but we all know what they’re getting at
Not really, many Jewish people are anti-Zionist so it's a bit of a stretch to imply that is akin to a deep hatred of Jews.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Posts
4,694
Location
Wiltshire
How about lying or grossly exaggerating so called intelligence in order to get his own way and launch an attack that resulted in hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians deaths? ?
There is enough info re him lying, misguiding and ignoring other members of parliament, of initiating a catastrophic war by dishonest means. He claimed that the intelligence showing that Iraq had deployed weapons of mass destruction was 'extensive' which was an outright lie. Estimates of up to one million soldiers and civilians met their death as a direct result of that war in Iraq

Whether you agree with the intervention or not, this still doesnt make him a war criminal.

Iraq not only had WMDs but had used them in the past, so what are you on about?

Because the BBC didnt report on warehouses full of sarin gas that means he had none? You might want to look beyond the headlines.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Posts
4,694
Location
Wiltshire
To be fair, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq were civilian deaths directly caused by Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters travelling from countries close by, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was over fairly quickly and successfully. You might argue that the post war planning was bad, I would say that keeping Saddam in power wasn't an option; he was *actually* a war criminal and needed removing regardless of any weapons of mass destruction, and I'm not sure what post war planning could've been done to prevent a load of foreign fighters coming over and mixing with local insurgents who were intent on killing a load of innocent people and soldiers who were there to keep the peace and try to rebuild the country.

Exactly, People have no idea what its like to live even a day under someone like Saddam Hussein, me included.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
Exactly, People have no idea what its like to live even a day under someone like Saddam Hussein, me included.

Only to replace it with living under the very nice and very cool ISIS after many wonderful years of being bombed and having things like Fallujah happen. Sure it's peachy that the regime is dead, but it should have been honest from the beginning, if you want to remove someone from power, just ******* admit it, at least then it's not attempting to be something it isn't.

The main problem with the Middle-East is always that there's atleast one major player funding **** we don't, whether it be Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Israel and we can't justify warring any of them, so we're left with pitiful diplomatic solutions that clearly do naff all because we don't use it objectively/consistently. The fact is that the Western establishment doesn't want a stable Middle East.

I wont be surprised if in the future Russia decides it to be imperative to plant strategic weapons in the likes of Syria.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Posts
4,694
Location
Wiltshire
Only to replace it with living under the very nice and very cool ISIS after many wonderful years of being bombed and having things like Fallujah happen. Sure it's peachy that the regime is dead, but it should have been honest from the beginning, if you want to remove someone from power, just ******* admit it, at least then it's not attempting to be something it isn't.

The fact is that the Western establishment doesn't want a stable Middle East..

huh uh, but also no, its the islamofascists (so thats the Taliban and their supporters in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and their chums in al qaeda) that don't want a stable middle east as they're the ones currently destroying it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
huh uh, but also no, its the islamofascists (so thats the Taliban and their supporters in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and their chums in al qaeda) that don't want a stable middle east as they're the ones currently destroying it.

But also yes, why would the West ever want a stable Islam? Literally every single time it happens it's been a disaster for Europe and Asia. At least that's probably the basic opinion of it when it comes to geopolitics, probably hasn't changed since the Ottomans collapsed.

There are probably some who even view the Byzantine holdings as European and probably have a desire to return it to the fold.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom