Vote against a SuperMosque at the Olympics site

[IamMed]

Borrowed from the random pictures thread:

 

[VIRII]

See, that's the problem with Nationalism. It stops you from seeing things objectivley and only from a biased view.

Yes they are Briitsh Citizens, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of Afghani's to resist occupation. Imagine of the tables are turned and the Afghan's invade us, would you resist the occupation?

I reiterate: I support the right of resistance against any occupation. The fact that it is my country doing the occupying doesn't change a thing.

Do you think the occupied have no right to resist occupation?

Hmm let's see. Imagine the UK was invaded by Taliban (just as afghanistan was) made up of lots of extreme muslims from pakistan (just as per afghanistan).
So these invaders force all the inhabitants to follow strict islamic nonsense, execute women in stadiums, drive tanks over old men for owning radios and so on.

Now a bunch of Afghans come and drive out the taliban from the UK. Are the afghans invaders or liberators? The pakistani resistance aginst the afghan liberators is not supportable.

Or do you think the average Afghan wanted the taliban to run their country for them and doesn't want liberation from them?

 

[VIRII]

LOL

LOL

 

[@if ®afiq]

It seems invaders do not need to be armed to be invaders.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invader

Are you sure you still want to support armed resistance to foreign invaders?

I'm sure we have been down this pedantic road before, all those entries in the link imply force of some sort. What you have an issue with is immigration and different races that have lived in this country for decades, which is different.

*edit* Once again this is going OT.

 

[Shackley]

If Saddam had no WMD how did he use hydrogen cyanide bombs against the marsh kurds? Filmed no less by Iranians. The murder of 2000 men women and children by WMD.
Whether he still had WMD at the time of the invasion is another question but he certainly had and used WMD against his own people.

Ah yes, that will be when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the USA in its dispute with Iran:

Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam during his visit to Iraq on December 19-20, 1983. Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war.

He visited again on March 24, 1984, the day the UN released a report that mustard gas and the nerve gas Tabun had been used by Iraq against Iranian troops. Link

 

[VIRII]

I'm sure we have been down this pedantic road before, all those entries in the link imply force of some sort. What you have an issue with is immigration and different races that have lived in this country for decades, which is different.

*edit* Once again this is going OT.

No they don't. City people invading the suburbs being one that springs to mind

 

[VIRII]

Ah yes, that will be when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the USA in its dispute with Iran:

So in other words what you are saying is that the USA knwe full well that Iraq did indeed have WMD...... bit of an own goal LOL.

 

[wordy]

Crime Refernce Number to be supplied tomorrow.

See, that's the problem with Nationalism. It stops you from seeing things objectivley and only from a biased view.

Yes they are Briitsh Citizens, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of Afghani's to resist occupation. Imagine of the tables are turned and the Afghan's invade us, would you resist the occupation?

They are there with the support of the Afghan government. If the Afghan government changed it's mind and said they wanted British forces out then I'd want them to come home.

I reiterate: I support the right of resistance against any occupation. The fact that it is my country doing the occupying doesn't change a thing.

Do you think the occupied have no right to resist occupation?

Not if they are there at the request of that countries democratically elected government.

 

[Shackley]

S in other words what you are saying is that the USA knwe full well that Iraq did indeed have WMD...... bit of an own goal LOL.

Not quite sure what the abbreviation "S" stands for


However, yes, I am saying that the USA knew in the 1980s that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons - the US probably supplied them.

Likewise, I am equally certain that in 2002/3, Bush's administration and Bliar knew perfectly well that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD.


All a bit similar to the canard pushed by the racists on this forum that Ken Livingstone is planning to use tax payer's money to build a SuperMosque at the Olympics site.

When the truth fails you, invent a lie and as Goebbels put it “Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it!”

 

[@if ®afiq]

Oops...

They are there with the support of the Afghan government. If the Afghan government changed it's mind and said they wanted British forces out then I'd want them to come home.

And the Afghan government are there with the support of NATO - Same with the current Iraqi government. The people do not support either government.

 

[cleanbluesky]

The people do not support either government.

Care to define that proposition, unless I am mistaken it is a sweeping statement.

 

[wordy]

And the Afghan government are there with the support of NATO - Same with the current Iraqi government. The people do not support either government.

I remember the news showing thousands of people queuing outside the voting stations in Iraq and the people maknig a big deal out of it. Despite threats to kill those who voted by the terrorists.

 

[@if ®afiq]

Care to define that proposition, unless I am mistaken it is a sweeping statement.

There is a wealth of information out there, but of course as it is not reported in our mainstream media you will not beleive it, so I think it is futile. I have posted many links previously pointing to the distrust of the general population with both governments etc - but they always seem to disappear down the memory hole.

 

[Majago]

Not quite sure what the abbreviation "S" stands for

Think it was supposed to be the word 'so' - just a typo by the looks of it

 

[@if ®afiq]

I remember the news showing thousands of people queuing outside the voting stations in Iraq and the people maknig a big deal out of it. Despite threats to kill those who voted by the terrorists.

My memory fails me. What percentage of the people turned up to the votes? More crucially how many still support the government?

 

[VIRII]

However, yes, I am saying that the USA knew in the 1980s that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons - the US probably supplied them.

Likewise, I am equally certain that in 2002/3, Bush's administration and Bliar knew perfectly well that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD.


All a bit similar to the canard pushed by the racists on this forum that Ken Livingstone is planning to use tax payer's money to build a SuperMosque at the Olympics site.

When the truth fails you, invent a lie and as Goebbels put it “Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it!”

Whilst you might and indeed probably do believe in the wisdom of Goebbels I am not a subscriber to his methods.

Iraq did not buy the weapons it bought the technology to make the weapons.

Iraq had the facility to make WMD. We knew it and they knew we knew it. A certain amount of that facility was destroyed in Gulf War 1.

So no matter how many times you repeat your lies over WMD they'll still be known to be lies.

 

[VIRII]

My memory fails me. What percentage of the people turned up to the votes? More crucially how many still support the government?

I guess when you have a civil war raging because of differences in religious belief and because some areas will do much better than others out of the oil it is easy to lay the blame at the door of Govt.

 

[VIRII]

Think it was supposed to be the word 'so' - just a typo by the looks of it

Correct Edited to fix it too.
I do wonder how Shackely manages to make these incredible deductions about WMD when he can't work out a simple typographical error.......

 

[VIRII]

There is a wealth of information out there, but of course as it is not reported in our mainstream media you will not beleive it, so I think it is futile. I have posted many links previously pointing to the distrust of the general population with both governments etc - but they always seem to disappear down the memory hole.

Could you pick one or two from reputable and reliable news sources rather than Jihadist blogs?

 

[wordy]

My memory fails me. What percentage of the people turned up to the votes? More crucially how many still support the government?

off the top of my head I'm not sure, but if they don't support the government anymore thats the beauty of deomcracy. Which is better than what they had.