# NO WMD



## Blue Blaa (7 Oct 2004)

If there were no WMD in IRAQ - the war was therefore illegal, regime change was wrong, so should the US set Sadam and his henchmen/women free?


----------



## daltonr (7 Oct 2004)

Technically the war was illegal regardless of whether there were weapons or not.   We knew it was illegal when it started.

-Rd


----------



## jm (7 Oct 2004)

*who*

Who cares , who really cares, it has as much impact on all your lives as a fart hitting a pillow.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: who*

*Who cares* 

Lots of people care.


----------



## cola (7 Oct 2004)

*look at me.*

jm, actually it does impact us all:

 - World oil prices have a huge effect on global economy.  Could easily effect interest rates etc.

 - Human rights ramifications.

 - They've set a precedent. It's now acceptable for America and UK to invade other countries, willy nilly, whenever they like. We're probably worse off than before WWII.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: look at me.*

Here's what some Sky News punters think about the situation.
www.sky.com/skynews/artic...93,00.html


----------



## purple (7 Oct 2004)

> If there were no WMD in IRAQ - the war was therefore illegal, regime change was wrong, so should the US set Sadam and his henchmen/women free?


 I don't think the world ever worked that way. The dye is cast/ eggs are broken/ milk is spilled now anyway so the issue is really one of how do the Americans sort out this mess of their own creation.
I'm sure people will argue that George W Bush should stand trial for war crimes etc but we all know that will never happen.


----------



## Blue Blaa (7 Oct 2004)

*Question*

No one answered the question. Should he or shouldn't he be set free?


----------



## purple (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: Question*

No


----------



## Guest (7 Oct 2004)

> The dye is cast

What colour is it? Or did you mean die?

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dye
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=die


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: Question*

*No one answered the question. Should he or shouldn't he be set free?* 

Like purple said. No.

I'm not sure what you believe yourself but if you follow that train of thought and believe that the war was illegal (as I do) then should troops just be pulled out right now? Everyone leave...right now!
As nice an idea as it is it would undoubtedly make matters only worse.

The Americans and British created this mess. Now they need to sort it out - no matter how long it takes.


----------



## rich (7 Oct 2004)

*money*

Yes, he should be released.

If they want to keep him locked up, then let's also lock up Blair and Bush, and probably most world leaders.


----------



## worse (7 Oct 2004)

*worse? - how exactly?*

*Everyone leave...right now!
As nice an idea as it is it would undoubtedly make matters only worse.*

Worse? - how can it get worse?

At the moment, loads of people are being killed and injured and we have an illegal occupation.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: money*

*Yes, he should be released.*

The fact that we now have him means he should be put on trial for his crimes.

Like a lot of people I also believe Blair and Bush should stand trial for their crimes, but this is never, ever going to happen so you take from a situation what you can.


----------



## neversaynever (7 Oct 2004)

*chalk*

How do you know it's never going to happen? - I'm sure paedo priests thought the same...

I'd have never thought a smoking ban would happen.

Never say never.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: worse? - how exactly?*

*Worse? - how can it get worse?*

I agree. It is an ilegal occupation, regardless of what the current puppet government might say.
However, pulling all troops out now would merely hand the country over to insurgents and god knows who else decided to have a go. The country would undoubtedly go the way of Afghanistan with various warlords having control over areas...or worse again, someone like Saddam stepping into the breach.

The likely future for Iraq, a puppet state, controlled very much by the US is not very appealing either - but unfortunately it's better than nothing.


----------



## PeaceLover (7 Oct 2004)

*lovebuns*

*insurgents *

You mean the Iraqi people? That's a fox/sky news term.

* The country would undoubtedly go the way of Afghanistan with various warlords having control over areas...*

Is this a bad thing? It's just a different way of running a country. Variety can be a good thing. Who's to say that the current Western model of government is so great?

*or worse again, someone like Saddam stepping into the breach.*

It's worse now than when Sadders was in control.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: lovebuns*

Hi peacelover,

*insurgents* 

*You mean the Iraqi people? That's a fox/sky news term.*

You're right of course. However, and I stand to be corrected here, but not all of those in armed conflict with US and British troops are Iraqi.

*Is this a bad thing? It's just a different way of running a country*

It's usually bad for the people in that country, yes.

*It's worse now than when Sadders was in control.*

In many ways, yes it is. One can only hope that it gets better. 
As much as I believe that the democracy the "allies" are attempting to bring to Iraq is merely a sham and nothing more than a puppet regime that will tow the line...it is, in my opinion, better than some of the present or possible alternatives.
Democracy is a great thing - just not when it's forced on people.


----------



## jm (7 Oct 2004)

*$$*

Piggy , the natives in Iraq will always agree to disagree.
They are people , who by their very nature are possessive and power seeking and value life little.If you have traveled like i have you will soon realise that we are very much a free thinking state , 
Saddam was a tough nut , you had to be to keep this country in any shape whatsoever. We are only now realising what Saddam had to do to control the , infidels, but a puppet state Iraq will never be.

USA swears by democracy , for the people and by the people etc, so open elections are a must. Another thing who ever is elected will probably have a life span similar to a parking ticket.

I was in Italy this summer and the general feeling there is hatred for Arabs , Muslim and Africans. Italians are by nature very racist , i feel some people on this site should realise that the world is made up of allot of opinions, cultures that stems from years of history and that we are not always right just because we are staying in the boundary of PC acceptability.

But as i say who cares , Saddam or a Saddamesque figure could come back in to power.

USA and UK might have invaded the country illegally but they are the new superpowers and Iraq is just a pawn in the new USA V Terrorism , Libya , Syria and Chinese cold war.

Oil prices have hiked up here for a while , interest rates rise , tell me something new this is the law of economics.
We are bound by OPEC's production of oil , but the real increase in oil comes from the fact that we are running out.
Sure it is only  100- 125 years away but that is not along time to prepare for  global change on fossil fuels.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: $$*

Hi jm,

*Saddam was a tough nut , you had to be to keep this country in any shape whatsoever. We are only now realising what Saddam had to do to control the , infidels*

I can't agree with that I'm afraid. No matter what side of the argument you're on, Saddam was a cruel and vicious dictator who murdered his own people willy nilly. If you're trying to tell me that that's what it takes to keep Iraq in line then I'd strongly disagree.

*I was in Italy this summer and the general feeling there is hatred for Arabs*

It's not just in Italy either.

* i feel some people on this site should realise that the world is made up of allot of opinions, cultures that stems from years of history and that we are not always right just because we are staying in the boundary of PC acceptability.*

Yes...we're all guilty of looking at the world merely from our point of view. 

*Iraq is just a pawn in the new USA V Terrorism , Libya , Syria and Chinese cold war.*

I agree. But then I also believe that the "terrorism" line that is constantly spun to us is largely a mask for other political ends. Iraq being the best case in point.


----------



## jm (7 Oct 2004)

*$$*

Ok , Piggy Saddam is out of the question, what do we do with Iraq? What is the alternative , you have stated that Saddam was "cruel and vicious dictator who murdered his own people willy nilly" USA and the UK knew this and took action , but what do we now do to solve the problem , i get tired of everyones slating statements , but none offer answer or solutions, that is why i say who cares, to what end.

"Yes...we're all guilty of looking at the world merely from our point of view."
Yes, obviously, but as above, lets try looking at it from another angles, then form an opinion, that might bring a solution , all i see on this site is illegal , human rights , Anti USA and Bush ranting.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: $$*

I somehow doubt that the US government are reading this thread waiting for someone to offer a solution to the Iraq problem.
I can't think of any realistic solution to it, to be honest. By realistic, I mean, something that could conceivably happen.

Can you see the US handing over the reins anytime soon? I can't. They'd lose what they went in there for for starters.

Only conjecture, but I'd imagine that what they're hoping for is that once the elections take place next January (no matter what state they happen in) people will start to forget about Iraq and it'll become another Afghanistan.


----------



## Disgusted (7 Oct 2004)

*.*

So.....

Hans Blick was right and the Yank & Brit Govts wrong

Consultants are hired to give the answers that their employers want to hear.

Result : Tens of thousands dead, Iraq infrastructure wrecked. 

How would we all like it if some country the far side of the globe decided for some false reason to do to Ireland what has been done to Iraq ?

What would you do ? Go join the IRA eh ?. Iraq is no different in this regards as GWB & Co are starting to learn


----------



## YD (7 Oct 2004)

*Short memories*

_Disgusted[/], SH was a pariah on the international stage for at least 15 years.  He was subject to sanctions and no fly zones and UN inspections etc. and yet he continued to flaunt international authority, periodically throwing out all UN inspectors.  

SH actually courted an image that he was a major threat.  This is what his hero worshippers, such as the Palestinains wanted to believe - they wanted to believe that they had a hero who was a World threat and might some day "free" them.  

SH encouraged this myth - his megalomania was such that he never believed that he would be invaded - after all he wasn't invaded in 1991 when the whole international community would have been behind such a move.  It was only in those final days before the invasion that SH got a reality check and made a very belated confession that he once had WMD but had kicked the habit.  Too late - he finally got what he asked _


----------



## davido (7 Oct 2004)

*.*

I am confident that it was well within the powers and expertise of the US military to have assassinated Hussein years before the 2003 invasion took place.  The Israelis seem to have no problem in this regard.  The danger with that was it would leave the governance of Iraq in total disarray and Iraq would be more unstable than ever.  The West needs a stable Iraq because it has come to depend on its oil "exports".  Why WMD are still at the core of the debate I'll never know because they never were anyway.  The debate seems to switch between WMD and links to Bin Laden at a furious rate when in both cases it has been proved that neither existed.  The last remaining excuse for illegally invading Iraq is now freedom and peace for the Iraqi people.  It becomes a farcical situation when the people who are closest to this (Rumsfeld) start to trip themselves up on their own lies.


----------



## piggy (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: .*

*Why WMD are still at the core of the debate I'll never know because they never were anyway*

Precisely davido.
WMD was merely a plausible reason given to us poor plebs. It sounded better than the real reasons.

Intelligence was sketchy at best about what Iraq did or did not have. One only has to look at the evidence of those dossiers to understand that war was inevitable for both governments come what may. They both purposefully ignored the weapons inspectors. I wonder why we haven't invaded North Korea yet? They have a small (and ever growing) nuclear arsenal...and we know that!


----------



## Aintitthetruth (7 Oct 2004)

*mouse*

It seems the Iraqis would rather be dead than 'free'.


----------



## Marie (8 Oct 2004)

*weapons of mass destruction*

The problem is this.  The reason two nation-states (UK and USA) gave for the invasion of Iraq - that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaieda were about to unleash untold horrors on the global community - were lies.

Those posters who dismiss what happens next in Iraq as unimportant are right........but for the wrong reasons.

What has happened with the invasion of Iraq is something that never occurred on such a scale before.  An attempt to flagrantly deceive electorates who had put the statesmen in question in power as their representatives and figureheads.

The world has been rendered much less safe by this betrayal of trust as much as by any Afghanistanian freedom-fighters (which is what incidentally those looking from the other side of the mountain, see themselves as!)


----------



## YD (8 Oct 2004)

*Memories*

Anybody remember the good old days in Iraq before the invasion?  Weren't we told then by the piggyists that millions of children were being killed by UN sanctions?  UN sanctions are now gone so we don't hear that one anymore.

Can the piggyists not admit that even by their own warped model of blame attribution that the current coalition "aggression"  is one heck of a lot less deadly than the United Nations aggression which preceded it?


----------



## ZEUS (8 Oct 2004)

*OH MY GOODNESS*

YD. You need to just go back to sleep. You're too stupid for an intelligent posting like this.


----------



## Brainiac (8 Oct 2004)

*Highbrow response.*

*An attempt to flagrantly deceive electorates who had put the statesmen in question in power as their representatives and figureheads.*

Watergate was pretty bad.

This kind of thing will continue to happen for as long as humans walk the face of the Earth. Where there's money and power, there's war.


----------



## Marie (8 Oct 2004)

*On-topic*

Brainiac - not a highbrow response at all but an attempt to focus on the question before it gets lost immediately in "whose side are you on?" exchanges.  I take your point about the Watergate deceptions but in that case the situation did not extend beyond the USA nor did it jeopardise world stability and trust.  We're in a new league now.


----------



## Corrie (8 Oct 2004)

*re:Memories*

Your ability to ignore the facts and turn a blind eye to what this war is really about yd is astounding. well done.


----------



## purple (8 Oct 2004)

*Re..*

The case against the legality of the invasion of Iraq and the situation on the ground in Iraq at the moment relative to what it was under Saddam are two separate issues.

The reality is that fewer Iraqis are being killed now than under Saddam. That’s according to the UN.
 It is also the reality that the people of Iraq have a chance, for the first time in about 60 years, of having some say in how they are ruled.
As for the world being a more dangerous place, the western world it a more dangerous place but I don’t think that the rest of the world is more dangerous. To say it is makes one sound a bit like the very people who are being accused of imposing a western agenda on the rest of the world.
UN sanctions killed Iraqi children only because their leader chose not to spend the funds available on food. It is plain that the US and others obstructed the Iraqi oil ministry when it attempted to maintain and upgrade it’s drilling and pumping facilities and this was a major contributing factor to the suffering of normal Iraqis but to blame the UN or the US is to ignore the facts.
Another charge levelled against the US and UK etc is that this is an attack on Islam. I can’t see how this stands up. Saddam was the head of a secular dictatorship that oppressed the majority of the Muslim population. Now he is gone and Islamic parties will field candidates in the coming elections.

As for the legality of the war, it was clearly illegal. 
The premise for the war was WMD’s and links to international fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Both of these charges have been shown to be false. 
The conduct of US troops in Iraq has been less than adequate (unlike the British troops who learned how to do that kind of work on the streets of northern Ireland) and the coming elections leave a lot to be desired, but are a dam sight better than what was there before.  

There are two separate issues here; it only muddies the waters to lump them together.


----------



## piggy (8 Oct 2004)

*Re: Re..*

*The conduct of US troops in Iraq has been less than adequate (unlike the British troops who learned how to do that kind of work on the streets of northern Ireland)*

There are numerous recent reports that the British soldiers are just as brutal in their dealings with civilian Iraqis (in the areas they look after) as their American counterparts.

I'll try to hunt down the articles.

news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=498152004


----------



## Marie (8 Oct 2004)

*more subtle definition....*

Purple - I agree they are separate issues and you define them with elegance and parsimony.  The question of whether the tyranny of "the coalition" (and there is visual documentation of treatment of Iraqis which contravenes the Geneva Convention) is worse than the tyranny of the resident dictator is a thorny one.  It sometimes seems as if West bloc too readily assumes "the lesser of two evils" is comprehensive civil restraint. Iraq, the Emirates and a good number of other countries might not find that restraint on personal and collective expression to be so congenial.


----------



## Lets be fair (9 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Iraq is better off now than under Saddams control.  Remember how he treated his own people?   How he gassed the Kurds.   How he invaded Kuwait.   How he slowly immersed his political opponents in to acid baths.
How he strung people up from lamp posts and in football stadiums.

Many of the people fighting the dozens of peace-keeping Armies in Iraq  ( US, UK, Australian, Polish, etc etc etc )
are blow ins from outside Iraq just looking for a fight.   Most Iraqis just want peace and a chance of a democratic future, and they know that they have a chance of that now thanks to the allies.


----------



## Iraq (10 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

I still remember how I laughed when Powell was showing the UN pics of Iraqi WMD factories and bla bla last year before war. How can a government of world's most powerful country be so stupid.

Iraq today is what Afghanistan was when it was invaded by Russians few decades ago. Not all fighting in Afghanistan were Afghanis (remember OBL?) . History is repeating itself and no one is learning anything. As long as US and its puppies stays in Iraq there will never be peace in the region. If they decide to leave we will have another post war Afghanistan that will breed more terrorists. Bush and co really got their head in $hit with no easy way out.


----------



## Marie (10 Oct 2004)

*.*

Iraq - I agree!  Do we EVER learn?  About 2,500 years ago the Chinese strategist Lao Tzu wrote down the terms of engagement for conflict in "The Art of War".  He said do anything you can to avoid war and conflict.  If you do engage with an enemy make sure you have a clear means of exit.  Don't start a war unless you are positive you can win.

Bushbaby and Bliar haven't been reading the right theorists nor are they keeping the history of their own nations in mind - in the former the debacle of Viet Nam, in the latter the 500 year long conflict in Northern Ireland!


----------



## Lets be fair (11 Oct 2004)

*...*

Blame Bushbaby and Blair all you want, but their countries are all there is between civilization and world tyranny.   This was the case in WW2, this was the case in the Cold War, and this is the case in the war on Islamic terror.         How many do-gooders / anti-West people ever done anything positive?  Ah , Hitler wasnt that bad.    Saddam never meant to gas the Kurds or invade Kuwait or pay the families of palestian suicide bombers or put his political opponents in torture chambers.


----------



## YD (11 Oct 2004)

*The transparency of the BBC*

Slightly off topic, but one of the many things that really p*sses me off about piggyists is how they "see through" WASP propaganda.

Well, i heard this BBC reporter on the presidential election in Afghanistan and she stated that whilst Kharzai (spell?) would probably win, his election would  be tainted by corruption and doubts about the validity of the poll - a bit like Sadders.  Hey, isn't K the WASP's Afghan Man?  If the BBC was a Bliar puppet it wouln't be spreading doubts in this manner.


----------



## Advisor (12 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

The BBC is not neutral, it is slightly anti-"WASP" as you put it.
This explains its leftist leanings.  Still, it is a hell of a lot better than the media freedom than existed under SADDAM.


----------



## YD (12 Oct 2004)

*Piggy Tom*

Anybody read Tom (rugby) McGurk in the Sunni Business Post?  

Tom opens by reminding us that the first casualty of war is the thruth (cringe!!).  He then proceeds to let us know the real truth.  I doubt whether Tom has ever been to Iraq but he seems to possess this singular talent of all piggyists of seeing through all the propaganda from the journos who are there to get at the REAL TRUTH.  

Wasn't piggy Tom an avid propagator of the "UN sanctions are killing millions of Iraqi children" theory?  Funny thing, the removal of the same sanctions didn't even register in his columns.  Either he didn't believe the UN infanticide theory in the first place or yet again he saw through the propaganda and UN sanctions hadn't really been lifted. Or maybe it's simply that good news about Iraq and the Coalition's efforts there are not quite what he wants to report on.


----------



## piggy (12 Oct 2004)

*What noise does a troll make?*

Y'know you really need to get over your fascination with me. You're becoming obsessive about me. It's flattering and everything but it can't be very healthy for you can it?


----------



## davido (12 Oct 2004)

*UN*



> Wasn't piggy Tom an avid propagator of the "UN sanctions are killing millions of Iraqi children" theory? Funny thing, the removal of the same sanctions didn't even register in his columns



It's a bit silly to argue the merits of swapping UN sanctions for bombs and bullets to justify a position on this.  The UN sanctions were causing the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi's (either directly or indirectly) and the present situation is no better.  As it always has been and forever will be, innocent people come off the worst in these things.  This so-called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" seems to have done nothing for the safety of the innocents caught up in all this.  That is the real crime.  Forget the reasons for going to war - stated or hidden - the current issue is the day to day security of the citizens of Iraq.  How can a "coalition" go to war and be so badly prepared to protect the innocents?


----------



## YD (12 Oct 2004)

*GAWpiness (see Kevin Myers today's IT)*

Nothing personal piggy, as I don't know who you are, but you have established yourself as the symbol of GAWPiness on AAM.  As an ideology GAWPiness appears to be well meaning but in its naivete it is a threat to our collective will to defend our civilised values against medieval barbarism.

Davido, I suppose my point is that piggy Tom never believed for one instant the grossly exaggerated accusations against the international community.  What else explains his total silence when that supposed genocide was finished - either he didn't believe the theory in the first place or he simply doesn't give  a damn for the children of Iraq,  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it is the former.


----------



## piggy (12 Oct 2004)

*Re: GAWpiness (see Kevin Myers today's IT)*

*Nothing personal piggy, as I don't know who you are, but you have established yourself as the symbol of GAWPiness on AAM*

You're just trolling YD. You might have another name for it...but that's all it is. You should really grow up.

*As an ideology GAWPiness appears to be well meaning but in its naivete it is a threat to our collective will to defend our civilised values against medieval barbarism.*

Funny that a short while ago you were calling yourself balanced in your opinions and then you come out with this nonsense. Iraq posed no threat to us. No WMD. If you want to cling to the belief that they did that's your business.


----------



## Piglet (12 Oct 2004)

*Trolls*

Piggy why do you react to YD?  Don't you realise that is how trolls get their jerk offs?


----------



## John (13 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Piggy says " Iraq posed no threat to us"  "No WMDs etc".

Do you really believe this Piggy?   Saddam was the most unstable influence in the middle east in the last 15 years at least.    Look at how he treated his own citizens ( eg the Kurds), look at how he treated his neighbours ( eg Kuwait ), look at how he paid  big money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, look at how he tortured people in his own country.  If the IRA can hide weapons in a small place like Ireland, look at how easy it must be to hide weapons in a huge country- and a different culture/language etc - like Iraq.

Thank God for Bush + Blair.


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq*



> If the IRA can hide weapons in a small place like Ireland, look at how easy it must be to hide weapons in a huge country- and a different culture/language etc - like Iraq.



Do you think it would have been OK for the UK to have invaded us in the 1980's without UN Sanction and killed thousands of innocent Irish people in order to find these weapons?

Do you think if they had done that it would have increased or decreased the possibility of terrorism in retaliation?

Even if you accept the story that this was about terrorism,
are there really people who still believe that preemptive war,
occupation, and the civilian casualties that go with it is a sensible strategy in dealing with terrorism.

I'd have thought in this country of all places people would have more sense.

-Rd


----------



## purple (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq*

The Americans should have got the Garda from Donegal to look for the WMD's, they would have found them!


----------



## Blue Blaa (13 Oct 2004)

*Re Iraq*

No Purple they wouldn’t have found WMD, what they probably would have found are mass  graves such as this one here: [broken link removed]


----------



## purple (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Re Iraq*

you have no sense of humor Blue Blaa


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Re Iraq*

Blue Blaa
      ^^^

Methinks Waterford's own True Blue has returned to haunt us.

-Rd


----------



## William Fields (14 Oct 2004)

*This war*

*Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As an ideology GAWPiness appears to be well meaning but in its naivete it is a threat to our collective will to defend our civilised values against medieval barbarism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------*

Fist off. Yd. After making this remark you can never pass yourself off as being anything even remotely resembling center. This is verging on veiled Islamophobia without actually saying it.

The most recent argument of mass graves falls short of being a realistic endorsement for the current war. What about the 10k+ innocent Iraqi's we've killed???? Even Blair is now clutching at straws, with talk of regime change. No anti-war individual has ever mentioned that Saddam deserved to rule his country. I've seen no mention on AAM that he didn't deserve to be deposed. So, in essence it's an argument that ignores the reality of the situation. The illegality of the war. The way we were lied to. The fact that none of what we were told or are still being told even comes close to the real reasons for the conflict. And not forgetting of course the increased instability in the Middle East, the rise in terrorism and the widening rift between Muslim and Christian nations. If ever there was a whole movement to bring about something you were trying to stop in the first place...this is it. The only difference between this war and Vietnam is that the AMericans can actually sell this war to the world under the flimsy guise of fighting  terrorism.


----------



## John (15 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

William Fields, did you learn to spell " AMerica " in your islam and world indoctrination classes ?  Why not get more study in now before ramadan, you may find it more difficult then.


----------



## purple (15 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq*

John, William Fields wrote a well constructed and concise post.
You may or may not agree with it, and I don't agree with all he said, but it was a positive contribution to this topic so why did you post a mindless personalised attack like that?
I have seen much better from you so why not spell out your position and deal with the counter arguments that follow?


----------



## piggy (15 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq*

I think it's obvious that John is just a troll and his post was merely a sad attempt to bring this post down into its usual mire. purple, can you really take this guy seriously when he says _"William Fields, did you learn to spell " AMerica " in your islam and world indoctrination classes..."_? I mean seriously.


----------



## surprised (16 Oct 2004)

*Iraq.*

William Fields says we have killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis.   No we have not.  Many of those killed in Iraq are not innocent ( you are not innocent if you are shooting an AK 47 at people ) and many of those killed were not Iraqui.   The chap that sawed off Ken Bigleys head is Jordinian. Many of the insurgents, militants, terrorists, call them what you like in the middle East  Iraq are from other parts of the middle east, but see themselves as part of the Muslim nation / brotherhood and answer their extremists call to arms.  For William Fields to infer that anyone who sees this is "islamophobic" is riduculous.    Long Live Bush, Blair and all the other countries who are in Iraq at the Request of the Iraq Administration and who wish to establish democracy in Iraq.


----------



## piggy (16 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq.*

* William Fields says we have killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis. No we have not*

Yes...we have. Probably a lot more.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...672298.stm

Incidentally, the chap (as you put it) who chopped off Ken Bigley's head is a sick individual. His act is the act of a sick and twisted mind. Those individuals who take their beliefs to such extremes do not represent the majority. Not all (so called) insurgents be-head or torture captives. And, from _their_ perspective many are seen in the Middle East as freedom fighters. You might not like that - but it's all merely about what side you're on. I am on neither side. I do not support terrorism of any kind. And that includes western terrorism. Men, women and children were slaughtered in their thousands by our bombs. Funnily enough, we never saw the pictures of those dismembered bodies on our screens.


----------



## purple (16 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq.*

Here I go off topic again but Saudi Arabia beheads people in more or less the same way. The main difference is that it's legal there. There was quite a bit of public outcry pre 9/11 about this but for some reason it seems to have faded away.

Why is there such outcry by the Bush government about the beheading of hostages and not a dickey bird about the continued practice of beheading criminals by the house of Saud? Is it because they are their biggest allies in the middle east who also happen to be long time business associates (since the early 70's) of the Bush family and are huge investors in Dick Chaney's former employer?

Just  thought...


----------



## John (17 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Piggy claims  "We (Sic ) have slaughtered THOUSANDS of innocent people in IRAQ by our bombs ".   You admit you have not seen them on TV Piggy.    What makes you so certain than THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people were killed by our ( not their bombs ! )  bombs there?   Perhaps you prefer to believe what you want to believe?  

I really think you should take a more balanced view Piggy, especially when it is obvious you were never there.      It reminds me of the propoganda about ten years ago that a few Noraid members used to put out in the United States about the "war" in Northern Ireland - you would think reading it that the catholics there were nearly treated as bad as the jews in Germany in WW2, and that the IRA was a regular army etc.


----------



## JimBobThornton (17 Oct 2004)

*//*

Piggy, you really need to learn to ignore silly trolls like John. After all...what would you know about the thousands of Iraqi's who the coalition have killed...you weren't there :rolleyes


----------



## filimina (17 Oct 2004)

*murdered iraqis*

"What makes you so certain than THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people were killed by our ( not their bombs ! ) bombs there?"

Are you a complete idiot John or are you just trying to come across as one? Or is it just that trolls do this sort of thing? Say things that are the opposite of the truth just to get a rise? If you're not a troll you might want to join the human race.


----------



## YD (17 Oct 2004)

*Surrender*

Just heard on the radio that the Italian FM has announced plans for the withdrawal of Italian troops from Iraq.  Remember a month ago the big celebrations in Rome when the two freed Italians returned home?  Anybody smell the same rat that I do?

Soon there will only be two, for ultimately there are only two major nations who really, really believe in democracy.  The Club Med and Eastern European countries are new to this democracy thing and don't really see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Zeus (18 Oct 2004)

*democracy*

" for ultimately there are only two major nations who really, really believe in democracy"

Your democracy pal. Not mine. They dont care a rats ass about the iraqis. All they care about is their oil. If they have to kill tens of thousands of iraqis to do so and stick a democracy sticker on it for the fools to swallow then they'll do it. Its murder when americans are killed, but its democracy when iraqis are murdered by the west. Makes sense eh ?


----------



## Yankee Doodle Dandee (18 Oct 2004)

*Yee hah - riding into the sunset*

Quote: "for ultimately there are only two major nations who really, really believe in democracy. The Club Med and Eastern European countries are new to this democracy thing and don't really see what all the fuss is about"


Only the truly naive believe the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language that comes out of Bushes mouth. Anyone who believes that the war in Iraq has anythig to do with democracy has been watching too many Hollywood feel good movies where the Americans win the day and the flag gets waved about a whole lot. Welcome to brainwash city. Population you.

Bush didn't even win a democratic election democratically. Those Eastern European countries know far more about democracy than those poor Americans do.


----------



## John (18 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Even the worst of American democracy is still better than Saddams torture and rule.     Remember Kuwait?   Remember the Kurds ?
  ( some imbeciles will call me a troll whatever that is , but democracy will reign supreme )


----------



## YD (18 Oct 2004)

*Zeus - king of the piggyists*



> Your democracy pal. Not mine.


That says it all.  Piggyists fall into two categories, those who naively do not appreciate how precious our US/UK style of democracy is and those who actually have contempt for it.  I put Piggy in the former naive camp and Zeus in the nihilistic latter camp.


----------



## LookAtMe (18 Oct 2004)

*.*

* Remember Kuwait? Remember the Kurds ?*

Remember camp x-ray, remember bombing Iraq, remember depleted DU weapons... hang on a minute... all that stuff is still going on!

YD falls into the category of those that like to pigeon-hole.


----------



## daltonr (18 Oct 2004)

*Re: .*



> Remember the Kurds



Of course we do!   
We still have the receipts for the weapons.

Isn't funny that we don't see Sudan being linked with Al Queda,  no mention of WMD's there.  No need to invade that country to spread freedom and democracy and stop the government killing it's people.

-Rd


----------



## piggy (19 Oct 2004)

*Re: Zeus - king of the piggyists*

*...two categories, those who naively do not appreciate how precious our US/UK style of democracy is...*

Not surprisingly, as per usual - the nail is about two miles over there and you're over here hitting air with all your might.

It's precisely because people *do* value democracy that they are opposed to this war and all it stands for.


I see you're also still insistent on carrying on with your childish jibes. It speaks volumes as to your level of ability to address the real issues in this debate. Perhaps it's just much easier to troll away to your hearts content.


----------



## John (19 Oct 2004)

*Iraq.*

Dear Piggy,

I agree that you do not appreciate how precious our UK / US style of democracy is.  It is not perfect, but it is the best there is.     Nobody can argue that Saddam was one of the worst, most evil dictators the world has ever seen.    He gassed the Kurds ( in his own country ), invaded neighbouring countries eg Kuwait and interfered in  Israel by paying large amounts to the families of suicide bombers etc.  He killed and tortured many of his own countrymen.    Blair + Bush are attempting to restore democracy there and remain there at the invitation of the present Iraqi leadership, until after the next Iraqi elections at least.   You have presumably been educated and brought up in the west, and enjoy a certain amount of freedom.   If you side with the islamic militants, you are really giving a kick in the teeth to the west.    Why dont you go to live in the middle east and see what it is like ?   I suggest it is obvious you have never been there.


----------



## DearJohn (19 Oct 2004)

*Johnie boy*

:lol 
Piggy...you can't argue with this level of stupidity.


----------



## daltonr (19 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq.*



> Nobody can argue that Saddam was one of the worst, most evil dictators the world has ever seen.



Do you want to rephrase that?



> He gassed the Kurds



With the help of the West.



> invaded neighbouring countries eg Kuwait



So who get's to decided when an invasion is Bad 
(Iraq Vs Kuwait), and Good (USA/UK Vs Iraq).
The UN????  International Law?????
Or do we just give the US and the UK free reign to invade wherever they choose, without putting forward a credible case to justify the invasion?

How long before they start toppling Democratically Elected Leaders and replacing them with Dictators????

Actually The US have already done that decades ago in Chile.

There are lots of dead Irish men and women who'd turn in their graves to hear you handing out that sort of latitude to any country, much less to Westminster.

(Sure they're not a threat to us any more, let them invade who they like).



> If you side with the islamic militants



Ah the old "you're either with is or you're with the terrorists" line.  Fair play to George, he know's how to hook his target market.

How about being with the people who believe that preemptive war, on flimsy evidence, without the backing of the international community is bad for everyone.  And plays into 
the hands of the very terrorists he claims to be fighting.

If the UK was fighting the IRA by invading the Republic, bombing Dublin etc.   Do you think we'd be closer to or further from a settlement in the North.   Do you think they IRA would be stronger or weaker?

There are a lot of people who detest terrorism and detest the IRA who would pick up a Bottle, or a Stone, or a Gun or a Bomb if Dublin was occupied in the morning.

War does two things very well.   It creates terrorists, and it destroys the infrasturcture to contain them.

Ask yourself why some countries get invaded and others don't even though the excuse applies equally or more so to the countries that we don't invade.

When you've pondered that and come up with an explaination,  let me know.

-Rd


----------



## purple (19 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq.*

What Bush has done is given every dictator and murderer a huge incentive to develop or buy WMD's so that they will have a big enough stick to keep America out.


----------



## davido (19 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq*

I remember seeing Denis Halliday on a Pilger documentary saying that the common answer among students of history in the US to the question of how many people were killed in the Vietnam War is 50,000.  This is the amount of US soldiers who were killed but it ignores the circa 2 million Vietnamese who were killed.  The same thing is happening today.  There is no accurate figure for how many innocent Iraqis have been killed since the US/UK invasion, but many believe it is in the neighbourhood of 10,000.  If this continues there will be nobody left to vote in the upcoming elections.  If you are an average Joe Iraqi, would you feel safer today or would you feel safer under the old regieme?  None of us have to live there so none of us are an authority on the situation.  It is not a war on terrorism in Iraq, it's an occupation.


----------



## YD (19 Oct 2004)

*Iraq is far better off*



> If you are an average Joe Iraqi, would you feel safer today or would you feel safer under the old regieme?


I know I am now sounding like a broken record - but we are told that pre the invasion millions of Iraqi children were dying because of wicked United Nations sanctions.  I think that the loss of 10,000 insurgents and collateral sympathisers in Fallujah and Nasiriah is in a completely different league to the infanticide that Iraq was suffering, so to answer your question the great majority of the 17 million Josama Iraqis feel far better today and have a great hope for their future.


----------



## piggy (19 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq is far better off*

*10,000 insurgents*

I beg your pardon? Insurgents? If you class women and children who were blown to pieces by allied bombing campaigns that is...

According to most reports there are only a small number of "insurgents" in Iraq. 

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...672298.stm

*"The UK-based Iraq Body Count - run on a shoestring by about 20 academics and peace activists - is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian toll.

It says 13-15,000 ordinary Iraqis have died since the invasion in March 2003, figures compiled from media reports of thousands of incidents.

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 
Civilian toll estimates at 09/04
Iraq Body Count: 13-15,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000

Where sources report differing figures, a minimum and a maximum are given."*


----------



## DeMan (21 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

These insurgents would not have been killed if they were not insurgents.   THe 7 civilians in Loughgall who were killed as they sat on top of a JCB would not have been killed  if (a) they were not holding AK47's and holding a bomb in the digger bucket or (b) they were just civilians.
Most Iraqis want peace, they want elections and they know they need the coalition forces there to keep the insurgents - many of whom are not Iraqi - at bay.


----------



## daltonr (21 Oct 2004)

*Re: Iraq*



> These insurgents would not have been killed if they were not insurgents.



That's patently untrue.   Many innocent civilians HAVE been killed.  Certainly Hundreds, probably thousands.   They weren't insurgents, and they were killed.

Let's all face up to the real truth of the situation.  The world stopped and was shocked and awed by the death of 3000 American Civilians on 9/11.   And rightly so.

The world shrugged and accepted the deaths of perhaps 3 times that many civilians in Iraq.  Why?

Certainly some of us knew people involved in 9/11.   But relatively few of us.  I didn't know anyone directly involved.  I don't know anyone who knew anyone directly involved.

So is it simply a case that the West sees the lives of westerneres as "worth more" than the lives of people in the middle east.

Certainly there is some economic validity to that, for a variety of reasons.  But please don't tell me our view of human life is now so reduced to economic measures that we can disregard the deaths of thousands of people, wherever it happens on this planet.

I'm not just talking about how we the people react.  The media was convulsed with stories of 9/11 from every possible angle, for months.  Stories about survivors, stories about relatives, stories about the emergency services, stories about the funerals, stories about commemorative services, stories about books of condolence, stories about the death count, stories about who was to blame, stories about who wasn't to blame, stories about how we can never let it happen again.

3 times as many civilians can be killed in Iraq and nobody seems to care.   A million in Rwana, 10's of thousands in Sudan.  And it keeps happening, and sometimes we cause it, when we don't cause it we sustain it by not intervening.  Instead we rush off to intervene somewhere else, as if there weren't enough war zones in the world.

Is it any wonder we live in a divided world?

-Rd


----------



## YD (21 Oct 2004)

*Relative value of Human Life*

Very trite point daltonr.

There has been more written and talked about the killing of President Kennedy than all the millions killed in war since.

Do we even remember those killed at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Ken Bigley got far  more coverage than the many British soldiers killed in Iraq.

In fact the 1,000 dead US soldiers certainly haven't got 33% of the air-time given to the WTC victims.

The fact is that each year about 100 million human beings die, perhaps 2 million of them violently one way or another.

But the assination of an American President, the drawn out killing of a hostage, the unbelievably spectacular  affront to our senses of 9/11 demand our attention beyond the actual numerical body count.

It is ridiculous to suggest that these should all get a level of attention in proportion to the loss of human life.


----------



## piggy (21 Oct 2004)

*Re: Relative value of Human Life*

Pure pants YD.

*Ken Bigley got far more coverage than the many British soldiers killed in Iraq.*

Yes. He got more coverage. But soldiers deaths get a hell of a lot of coverage in the media. Some posters here (including yourself) were unaware of the amount of innocent Iraqis killed in this war. You referred to them as insurgents. Remember?

*The fact is that each year about 100 million human beings die, perhaps 2 million of them violently one way or another.*

No, the fact is that many of those who support this war site 911 as a reason - due to all those killed and also that this is a humane war where only the bad men are killed. This is completely untrue.


----------



## daltonr (21 Oct 2004)

*Re: Relative value of Human Life*



> It is ridiculous to suggest that these should all get a level of attention in proportion to the loss of human life.



I didn't suggest that each human life lost should receive the same level of coverage that would be ridiculous,  and of course the death of a president will get more coverage than the death of a drunk driver or shooting victim.  

But the disproportionate concern we shown for one group of civilians over another poses a very serious question about ourselves that I'm not hearing being asked in the media or by the politicians.

We have not asked why the killing of Western Civilians is terrorism, while the killing of Iraqi civilians is liberation.

SHOCK AND AWE.  They've even found a PR way of spinning terrorism to sound good.

-Rd


----------



## Bongo (21 Oct 2004)

*Civilian deaths*

It might sound a terrible thing to say, but 1,000 US soldiers and maybe twice that many Iraqi police dead compared to say 10,000 insurgents and their collateral sympathisers is not a "bad" ratio in the impossible situation of trying to suppress urban terrorists who have no compunction in using their civilian sympathisers as shields.

We are where we are.  Any better ways of dealing with insurgents? or should we just partition Iraq into extremist Sunni Fallujah, extremist Shia Nasiriyah and the Rest which would form the great majority of Iraq who want this to work and whose interim government have chosen to face insurgency head on with US assistance.


----------



## piggy (22 Oct 2004)

*Re: Civilian deaths*

*10,000 insurgents*

Bongo...no offence, but I don't think you've read what's been said. There were no _10,000 insurgents_. There were 10,000 (which is a conservative estimate btw) innocent Iraqi's killed by the coalition during the war. That would obviously include women and small children too - blown to pieces by our bombs.


----------



## daltonr (22 Oct 2004)

*Re: Civilian deaths*



> There were no 10,000 insurgents. There were 10,000 (which is a conservative estimate btw) innocent Iraqi's killed by the coalition during the war.



There seems to be suggesting that being Iraqi in itself makes you an insurgent and you deserve no more than to be killed.

Now,  OK.  I'll accept we have a slightly Western biased frame of mind and media, and political outlook.   So I'll accept that for many people civilian casualties are not a big deal, unless they happen on the streets of Europe or the USA.

But have we really reached a point where we are starting to believe that an entire nation *deserves* to be killed.   That every citizen of a country is by definition an insurgent.  That everyone killed by a war deserved what they got.

If we really are starting to think that way then we have no business going into any country in the world and talking about freedom and democracy.

If that's the philosophy that we took into Iraq then the Iraqi people might well have been better off with Saddam.   At least he didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction.
We (The Crusading West) Do.  And we're not afraid to use them.

-Rd


----------



## ElCid (22 Oct 2004)

*Crusading West*

So you see this as a Crusade in Iraq? Can I join in then?


----------



## Bongo (22 Oct 2004)

*Insurgents and sympathisers*

My main point was that the ratio of security force deaths, including many US soldiers, to civilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths is about 3 to 10.  For an urban guerilla situation this suggests that the coalition are trying their very best to approach this in a conventional military way.  They clearly have the firepower for the ratio to be a half dozen to 100,000 if they were as indiscriminate and dismissive of Iraqi life as is being suggested.


----------



## comeback (22 Oct 2004)

*bongo's comments*

"civilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths"

Maybe you're unclear on that point Bongo. If I drop a bomb on your house and you and your five children are blown to smithereens, does that make you a sympathiser?


I really have to laugh at the blindfolded views that don't even question that America was right. I was born in the States in 72 and moved to Ireland in 81. My opinion is that it was wrong. The squirming going on is disgusting. People now saying that all those completely innocent iraq nationals who were slaughtered was okay to do.
Big business and oil generated this war.


----------



## comeback (22 Oct 2004)

*ElCid's comment*

I've read your views here before. Youre nothing but a small minded racist bigot. Ireland could do without your filth.


----------



## John (22 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Many of those Iraqis killed were not civilians, they were insurgents / terrorists.   What do you expect when the insurgents / terrorists do not wear military or distinctive uniform?   The coalition forces deserve our support, not constant sniping like you would expect from islamic radicals.    The US and UK are there to establish democracy in Iraq and to establish free elections, like in Afghanistan.   It is not in their interest to be sniped at or to retaliate.


----------



## filimina (22 Oct 2004)

******

You sound a 12 year old john. A racist one at that, thinking that being Islamic is somehow wrong. All you do is reitterate what you said at the start of this post. You ignore every post that points out your rubbish postings. It's like talking to a wall. A very thick one. There;s not much point you posting anything. You won't engage in any meaningful debate.

Ignoring the killings of tens of thousands of iraqis in the name of oil is frankly quite disgisting and shows us all how little you know and care about the world. Those people's blood was spilt by our bombs. Y'know, the smart ones that don't work. OUR WMD.


----------



## MrTom (22 Oct 2004)

*crayons*

* blown to pieces by our bombs.*

_our_ bombs? Is Ireland Neutral? Is that clown Bertie dragging us into this? I'm forced to pay taxes to the Irish government, so I regard their spending as something against my will.

It's disgusting the way McShannon Warport has been used for this evil.


----------



## purple (22 Oct 2004)

*3/10*

I disagree with the war , know we have been lied to, know we are making matters worse for ourselves in the long run etc but Bongo has a point and it's a valid one.


----------



## piggy (22 Oct 2004)

*Re: Insurgents and sympathisers*

*My main point was that the ratio of security force deaths, including many US soldiers, to civilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths is about 3 to 10. For an urban guerilla situation this suggests that the coalition are trying their very best to approach this in a conventional military way. They clearly have the firepower for the ratio to be a half dozen to 100,000 if they were as indiscriminate and dismissive of Iraqi life as is being suggested.*

Sorry, purple I don't see the valid point Bongo is making above. "civiilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths" - so if we blew apart 10,000 completely innocent Iraqis in our bombing campaigns that's okay? 10,000 is the conservative estimate btw. It could be as high as 37,000. The mind boggles.
Your argument can easily be switched on its head. Maybe the deaths of 3000 American _"sympathisers"_ was okay for Osama Bin Laden to achieve his goals? Sounds perfectly reasonable eh?
Oh no - it sounds terrible. They were westerners!!! 

Whether they tried to limit casualities (or collatoral damage as they like to say) is frankly irrelevant. This was largely due to the fact that they knew the world was looking on. I don't see the American or British governments taking death tolls of those innocents they slaughtered or holding rememberance days for them. Do you?


----------



## piggy (22 Oct 2004)

*The Iraqi dead*

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...72,00.html

"Thursday September 16, 2004

The most complete attempt yet to identify some of the estimated *15,000 Iraqi civilians killed* since the US-led invasion in March last year was unveiled in Chicago today....

Every one of some 15,000 Iraqi civilians killed was a loved human being, whose loss creates heartbreak and bitterness among the bereaved families and communities," said local IBC member Scott Lipscomb....


A 150-strong Iraqi team funded by the US-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Combat named two thirds of the identified fatalities. The team visited various parts of the country in summer 2003, knocking on doors and asking families if they had suffered any losses.

Neither the US nor the UK, the former occupying powers, attempted to count or identify the civilian dead and the IBC list represents the most comprehensive project of its kind....

If, however, a group of insurgents were mounting an attack on an American position and the Americans returned fire and killed them then they would not be included in our figures because they were the initiators of violence."


----------



## YD (23 Oct 2004)

*Irish hostages*

Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the latest poor unfortunate to be kidnapped by these maniacs *actually* is Irish.  It's almost as if we are being told "so you want hostages, we'll give you hostages".  Hard to escape the conclusion that the "Ken is a Paddy" stunt has backfired.


----------



## ElCid (23 Oct 2004)

*cum-back*

"I've read your views here before. Youre nothing but a small minded racist bigot. Ireland could do without your filth."

heehee, touched a nerve there. 
Actually (as I keep pointing out to the ignorant) racism has nothing to do with it. Muslims are found in all races...ergo, not racism.

Bigotry...now thats a good word, but since it all started for me when 4 aircraft were hijacked in the name of Islam and flown into buildings, killing thousands of people in the name of Islam, I wonder...who are the REAL bigots?

Incidentally, I've never sawed off anyones head with a penknife in the name of Christianity, and I've never actually heard of anyone in modern history doing so.

I consider my position one of self defense, and the preparedness to use/support force in defence of my filthy life.

Ta Ta.


----------



## John (23 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Well said EiCid.   Fhilimena accuses me of hating muslims - I do not, I just do not agree with hacking peoples heads off with knives, or their concept of jihad. 
I hve met many friendly and peaceful muslims, some in the middle east, but some are not so good.  Many are brainwashed with anti-Israeli propoganda - have you even listened or seen their media?    No wonder they have little problem sending their kids out as suicide bombers. 

In the 21st century the real problem will be the rise of militant islam.  They will not stop hacking off peoples heads because of people like piggy - in fact people like her actually encourage these insurgents / terrorists.  They will not rest until the west is ruled by islam.    Judging by the millions of muslims coming to europe each year it may not take that long.


----------



## ElCid (23 Oct 2004)

*Militants*

When I was studying in the UK during the 80's there was a large Arab contingent in the course. Most of 'em were OK...in a distant sort of way. They kept themselves to themselves. Fine by me.

But there were a handful who, if you engaged them in conversation, would tell you (loud and proud) that their great ambition was to kill a westerner, or a jew. 
YES! They would tell you so to your face! Proudly!

We used to laugh them off as nutcases. 
Nobodys laughing any more.

And by the way...the course was not a purely academic one. It had to do with certain skills that - shall I say - could be easily turned to violent effect. And have been.


----------



## Piglet (23 Oct 2004)

*They're not thick you know*

The Bigley is a Leprechaun stunt really was an insult to these fine chaps' intelligence.

We tend to believe that because fundamentalist Islam reveals itself in the most savage disregard for human life including their own that they must be intellectually challenged as well.  Not a bit of it.  9/11 was satanically ingenious.  What a spectacular success in their grizzly terms on very modest resources.  Imagine what they would do if they actually developed more sophisticated capabilities. We must prevent that at all costs.


----------



## John (23 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

I could not agree more.  Just because they are not the most industrious of races does not mean they are stupid.  They have the same intelligence as anyone else.   Many of them will not rest until the west is "Islamified".   Did you know more people in Manchester now go to the Mosques there than to the Christian churches there?    I do not mind people practising their religion, it is when they tell me how to run my life that I worry.   No christian church is allowed , by law, in Saudi Arabia, for example.

How can the west defend itself when we have people like Piggy?   I suppose in 1938 they had Chamberlain, but at least the Nazis did not make themselves in to suicide bombs or hack peoples heads off.


----------



## ImJohnToo (23 Oct 2004)

*Troll anyone?*

How does it feel to be a troll John?


----------



## John (23 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

Whats a troll?   Do you call everything that you do not agree with or like a "troll".   Do you think I should have my fingers cut off ?  As far as I am aware, I am in the west, and I am subject to western law, not islamic law.


----------



## ImJohnToo (23 Oct 2004)

*//*

No John, I just call you a troll. No one could be that stupid on purpose.


----------



## Elcid (23 Oct 2004)

*Trolls*

We can see pretty clearly who the TROLL is John, so ignore that This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language. I've put up with it for a long time on this Board.

Some people don't like my views. They are of course entitled to their opinion, we are free to differ. I regard that as one of the great adavantages of Western Democracy. One which I'll gladly fight to defend.

They, on the other hand, cannot abide anyone or anything which varies from their own viewpoint, and when they start to lose the debate they quickly revert to the fundamentalist response....off with his head!

Isn't it curious how closely they then begin to resemble the very people they defend so vehemently, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of barbarity! 

Such contributors would make wonderful fundamentalist muslims.


----------



## JaneEyre (24 Oct 2004)

*racism*

It appears to me that certain contributors have proved beyond any doubt that the war in Iraq is an unjust one, where tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed in the name of us in the west. John, I don't know who you think you're fooling with your nonsense. The 60 odd people who visit this site every day are regulars here. So are you. I have no qualm in saying I admire people like Piggy and Daltonr for standing up against ignorance. They and others have both pointed out that they oppose violence of any kind, no matter who's name it's in. You quite obviously don't give a damn about people. The only thing you care about is your own fear and scoring points in some pissing contest by blatantly telling lies and falsehoods about others. You might get off on that but it's very obvious to the rest of us that that's all you're doing. Now elcid wants to turn a good debate into his usual racist rantings. I pity your fear boys. It will undoubtedly ruin your lives.


----------



## John (24 Oct 2004)

*Iraq*

JaneEyre is attempting to drag a perfectly reasonable debate down, by making a personal attack against the like of EiCid and me.  JaneEyre states that in her opinion the war in Iraq is unjust, and goes on and on.  Not once does she mention the injustices on the other side.  We can see how balanced her opinions are. I feel priviliged not to be on the list of contributers she praises.
She accuses Eicid and me of spreading "lies and falsehoods".   I feel a bit like poor old Salman Rusdie, accused of spreading lies and falsehoods.   Please elaborate JaneEyre : what did I say that is not true.  As someone else said, we live in a democracy, and I am very glad to do so.  I would not like to live under the kind of democracy we see in most of the middle eastern countries.  Actually, Israel is the only real democracy in the middle east, with free elections etc.
To clear up another point, I do oppose violence from all quarters.  However, there is such thing as a just war.  eg, in 1939, would the western world have been right to lie down under Hitler?    I think not. 
While the US and UK and in the process in setting up free elections in Iraq - the first in decades there - and are there at the request of the current Iraq administration, I think it is morally wrong for insurgents - many of whom are not Iraquis - to be sniping and bombing from civilian bases. 
Finally, as should be obvious, I speak as someone who is not a racist , who has friends from many nationalities, and unlike many on this board I have been to arab countries.


----------



## rake (24 Oct 2004)

*John's falsehoods, trollings and racist remarks*

*Quote:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
"William Fields, did you learn to spell " AMerica " in your islam and world indoctrination classes ? Why not get more study in now before ramadan, you may find it more difficult then."
------------------------------------------------------------------

*Quote:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Piggy claims "We (Sic ) have slaughtered THOUSANDS of innocent people in IRAQ by our bombs ". You admit you have not seen them on TV Piggy. What makes you so certain than THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people were killed by our ( not their bombs ! ) bombs there?"
------------------------------------------------------------------


*Quote:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
"You have presumably been educated and brought up in the west, and enjoy a certain amount of freedom. If you side with the islamic militants, you are really giving a kick in the teeth to the west."
------------------------------------------------------------------


*Quote:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
n the 21st century the real problem will be the rise of militant islam. They will not stop hacking off peoples heads because of people like piggy - in fact people like her actually encourage these insurgents / terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------


*Quote:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
How can the west defend itself when we have people like Piggy?
------------------------------------------------------------------


*Quote:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I am aware, I am in the west, and I am subject to western law, not islamic law.
------------------------------------------------------------------


All of the above fits into those three categories John. You're either a troll or a very irrational human being.

P.S...we know you're Tizona.


----------



## ElCid (24 Oct 2004)

*Jane Eyre*

Here's how their logic works John:

War in Iraq is unjust - therefore indiscriminate worldwide muslim violence is justified. 
End of argument.

Here's my position;

War in Iraq is unjust. But not my idea.
Indiscriminate worldwide Muslim extremism against non muslims is unjustified.
End of argument.

Wheres the racism or bigotry in that?
Where are the anti-beheading muslim protests in the streets? 
Why don't 'moderate' muslims step up and object en masse?
Westerners (including the Irish) have marched by their millions in protest at the war in Iraq. Muslims are often at the front of those marches. But where are the muslims now that an *Irish woman aid worker* is under threat of beheading?

I really wish it was Jane Eyre over there in Margaret Hassans place. I'd like her to feel the fear, and witness her begging on TV for her life, while the vast muslim majority simply stands by watching - in SILENCE.


----------



## Tizona (24 Oct 2004)

*Hi*

Hello, someone mention my name?

I just watched the latest movie release starring Janes pal Mr.Zarkawi.

It features some poor Iraqi guy called Yassar Musil.

After the usual rambling verses from the Koran being read out over the kneeling victim Yassar, we see him placed on the ground and a 4 inch knife is then used to slowly slice and saw his head off. The usual shouts of Allah Akhbar are used to try and cover up the grisly noises of moaning, coughing and crying from the victim. 

They pause about half way through the job and adjust the camera position so we can properly see the blood spurting out of his neck, and you can hear Yassar attempting to cough up the blood flooding into his severed windpipe and lungs.

Our hero then carries on and finishes the job, in the name of Allah.

Apparently Yassar was a western spy. 
Serves him right then!
Yassar Musil - Beheaded By Ansar Al-Sunnah Army 22-10-04 RIP.

Margaret Hassan...your 15 minutes of fame is next.


----------



## really (24 Oct 2004)

*really?*

Who went to Iraq to try and free Ken Bigley? Who was on the news today on behalf of all British Muslims pleading for this new hostages life? 

Instead of having your head in the sand Elcid take it out and you'll see that Muslim leaders the world over have distanced themselves from extremists. Islamic Extremism is NOT a representation of Islam. Everyone except you can see that.


----------



## ElCid (24 Oct 2004)

*Protests*

Hey! I'm not talking about a token visit by a few Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) representatives to Iraq. Nor am I talking about interviews with muslim prayer-goers on the way to the mosque!

I'M TALKING ABOUT MASSIVE STREET DEMONSTRATIONS!

You'll never see it. Because, unlike you, the average muslim on the street has a pretty clear idea of what their brothers are all about and where this is all headed. You're the one with your head in the sand.


----------



## Tizona (24 Oct 2004)

*Moderates*



> I'M TALKING ABOUT MASSIVE STREET DEMONSTRATIONS!



Or even just a Muslim website with clear and unequivocally worded condemnation by large numbers of posters? 
A Bulletin Board like this one?

All I can find are 'moderate' muslim websites which say "well of course these beheadings are wrong because Islam is a religion of peace(!), BUT what about.....". 

All Islamic 'condemnation' of muslim atrocities is qualified by a big BUT.

Lets have no BUTs about it!!


----------



## sueellen (24 Oct 2004)

This thread appears to have run its course.  Closed now.


----------

