quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

YE$$$$$$$$$! Your turn Dev, no pressure. I can safely say you're the most famous Maltese man ever now.

Why is this fucking shit stirrer hanging about in this thread?

To see Dev woop that ass. Which he's doing a mighty fine job of so far I must say. You're making it too easy, every time you type something, he wins a little more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

YE$$$$$$$$$! Your turn Dev, no pressure. I can safely say you're the most famous Maltese man ever now.

Why is this fucking shit stirrer hanging about in this thread?

To see Dev woop that ass. Which he's doing a mighty fine job of so far I must say. You're making it too easy, every time you type something, he wins a little more.

Yeah sorry you're right, I can see why everyone thinks I'm a bellend around here

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

YE$$$$$$$$$! Your turn Dev, no pressure. I can safely say you're the most famous Maltese man ever now.

Why is this fucking shit stirrer hanging about in this thread?

To see Dev woop that ass. Which he's doing a mighty fine job of so far I must say. You're making it too easy, every time you type something, he wins a little more.

Yeah sorry you're right, I can see why everyone thinks I'm a bellend around here

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

YE$$$$$$$$$! Your turn Dev, no pressure. I can safely say you're the most famous Maltese man ever now.

Why is this fucking shit stirrer hanging about in this thread?

To see Dev woop that ass. Which he's doing a mighty fine job of so far I must say. You're making it too easy, every time you type something, he wins a little more.

Yeah sorry you're right, I can see why everyone thinks I'm a bellend around here

Actually I did start it by calling you a shit stirrer

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

quote:

They are a dictatorship - backed and armed by the Americans. They are not a democracy, they repress their own people and yet you defend them - they are puppets. It's incredible you think otherwise.

quote:

What link do you require here, links to prove that the Saudis are a puppet of the West? A repressive dictatorship armed by America - is that unique in your book

quote:

That's Egypt and apparently the Libyan opposition is 'linked' to them. Not exactly across the entire middle east.

quote:

I can talk on behalf of the hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and millions displaced by the war on Iraq. You admitted yourself in your previous post Iraq is worse off - why are we arguing about this.

quote:

Did you know the US backed Iraq during that war?

quote:

You yourself have admitted America have done "BAAAAAAAAAAD" things in the past - but you continue to defend them. Why is this - are you a puppet?

quote:

As your arguments break down you begin to lie. You will of course quote where I've defended any dictator in your next post.... or will you? And people can read back and see where you've defended the use of dictatorships in your previous posts.

quote:

AHAHAHA - The IRONING is delicious!!!! Sorry that was a cheap shot

quote:

Yeah someone in Pakistan must have known about Bin Laden I'll admit, but it's country run by corrupt money hungry politicians not terrorists. At the end of the day they've lost thousands of soldiers to terrorism - they are clearly doing more to combat it than your beloved Saudi Arabia.

quote:

The whole move against the 'axis of evil' as Bush put it is part of a strategy to knock off a succession of dictators who we don't 100% control. It's been most recently tied in with the arab spring which is a genuine movement to throw the shackles off dictatorships but the involvement of the west had clouded matters. Egypt for example looks like arabs taking down a western backed dictator - not ideal for America as they pumped billions into Mubarak over the years to keep him in charge.Gaddafi wasn't perfectly compliant even though he had to extent been brought in from the cold by Blair so he got knocked off, Saddam got taken down beforehand but at great cost so direct invasions were off the cards. Assad is next and then finally Iran - as I've said before no arab spring or calls for democracy in places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain because we of course control these dictatorships.

quote:

Groups killing each other within a country also reflects a US tactic used numerous times before. Weaken a nation by pitting people against each other. The west arming groups has forced Assad into a civil war where he has shown his own hand in terms of brutality. They should have let the Syrian people attempt it peacefully first at the very least as in Egypt. The problem is with Egypt they no longer have control and they don't want a repeat in Syria. America don't want real democracy in the middle east, they never have.

quote:

Al Zaqawi came out of nowhere and was suddenly linked to all sorts of terrorist acts not only in Iraq but actually round the world. In fact there was no evidence of any of this. He was the face of America's attempt to destabilise Iraq, a super-terrorist, on one hand a lone-wolf, on another attempting to topple Bin Laden himself. Al Zaqarwi was actually used by Colin Powell to try and link Al Qaeda to Iraq to give the Americans a valid reason to invade. He told the UN Al Zaqarwi was cooking up ricin in Northern Iraq - an Observer journalist visited the facility pinpointed by Powell and found nothing.

quote:

No you're a Neocon and you don't know it, you back Saudi Arabia even though you know for a fact they finance terrorism and you back the use of dictators to meet foreign policy goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

They are a dictatorship - backed and armed by the Americans. They are not a democracy, they repress their own people and yet you defend them - they are puppets. It's incredible you think otherwise.

This isn't defending them, this is putting some moderation in a discussion that reeks of simplicity.

You have clearly defended them in your previous posts.

quote:

What link do you require here, links to prove that the Saudis are a puppet of the West? A repressive dictatorship armed by America - is that unique in your book

You know what links I want. I want links that the US are controlling Saudi affairs (which would be contradictory to everything else) and that it wasn't the King who told the American to send troops there (something that caused anger in bin Laden). I want links that show that the Monarchy itself, outside of the jihad in the Soviet War in Afghanistan where everyone was pouring money into the muhajeeden, be it the Taliban or the Northern Alliance of Massoud, that this is one of the Monarchy's major policies. This is what I ask.

Are you really this stupid? Honestly? They are a DICTATORSHIP ARMED BY AMERICA. They are not a country free to pick and choose their own allies because the Saudi royals oppress their people. The real feeling on the street in arab countries is hate towards America because of their foreign policy, the way America controls this hate and the oil supply is by inflicting dictatorships to prevent these people from expressing themselves. And google 'Saudi puppets', 'Saudi US backed dictatorship' and there is all the info you need.

Just type is Saudi puppets or the like into Google there's tons of info.

quote:

That's Egypt and apparently the Libyan opposition is 'linked' to them. Not exactly across the entire middle east.

You also have arming and offering support to terror groups and has links within almost all the Arab states and some African states. OH NO WAIT, you don't care, even if they are even considered to be arming some of the Syrian rebels. NO INFLUENCE AT ALL.

Are you making this shit up as you go along?

quote:

I can talk on behalf of the hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and millions displaced by the war on Iraq. You admitted yourself in your previous post Iraq is worse off - why are we arguing about this.

Compared to the hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and were exterminated on by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War or the first Gulf War, or during his reign. But again, you don't care because by your own logic, you are supporting this dictator.

What hundreds of thousands exterminated by Saddam in Iraq - most of the Iraq dead in recent years have been due to western sanctions and illegal wars. Saddam killed his own people but there was no wholescale extermination unless you have some evidence of this. And you of course seem to be forgetting that like the Saudis, Saddam was a Western backed dictator. The Iran-Iraq conflict was a war between two nations - and the west actually armed both sides. Nice little earner as well as weakening two middle eastern countries into the bargain.

quote:

Did you know the US backed Iraq during that war?

Indeed, gave him chemical weapons too which he used on the Kurds. So fucking what? Oh Saddam is bad now because he was being compliant. I honestly have no idea of what you want. US supports a dictator, IT'S BAD. The US take away a dictator, IT'S BAD. The US do anything, IT'S BAD. The Arabs do something, IT'S THE BAD UNITED STATES FAULT.

So you are saying that the US supporting a dictator isn't bad? Or selling them chemical weapons? Or the US then starting a war based on lies to decimate a country isn't bad? Arabs have clearly behaved badly but you need to ask yourself this - if someone had knocked off our leadership in this country and installed criminals and gangsters who would be the main person to blame? The dictatorship in charge or those that put them there? How exactly do you view America - do you thing they are a force for good or evil?

quote:

You yourself have admitted America have done "BAAAAAAAAAAD" things in the past - but you continue to defend them. Why is this - are you a puppet?

Because foriegn affairs are far more complicated than the bullshit you're spewing here. This is not defending them, this perspective on your very simplistic views on foriegn policy.

It's not complicated at all when it comes to America - retain power and control by any means necessary. It's only causing conflict in your mind because you defend the use of dictatorships on one hand while coming across all high and mighty on the other.

quote:

As your arguments break down you begin to lie. You will of course quote where I've defended any dictator in your next post.... or will you? And people can read back and see where you've defended the use of dictatorships in your previous posts.

Hey, I'm operating on your logic here, you're the one criticizing the West for going agaisnt Assad (which it hasn't really, it's really quite pathetic if they did), Hussien and Gaddafi. Why are you criticizing this Fluke? Aren't you the one saying Hussien should have stayed, or that Assad and Gaddafi are being just attacked for being non-complaint.

Of course the west has gone to war on Assad you fool, how the hell do these well trained and heavily armed groups spring up out of nowhere? Did Santa fucking Claus drop 'em off over Christmas? The same thing happend in Libya. And it's absolutely clear that the west is moving against all of these countries are you that stupid - Iraq was invaded, Libya was bombed and now Syria is being destabilised, while compliant puppets like the Saudis and Bahrain are left untouched.

quote:

AHAHAHA - The IRONING is delicious!!!! Sorry that was a cheap shot

Oh the ironing is delicious with your NeoCon comment below.

quote:

Yeah someone in Pakistan must have known about Bin Laden I'll admit, but it's country run by corrupt money hungry politicians not terrorists. At the end of the day they've lost thousands of soldiers to terrorism - they are clearly doing more to combat it than your beloved Saudi Arabia.

THEN WHY DID THEY ALLOW A KNOWN TERRORIST IN THEIR COUNTRY. This is a country known for training extremists in their madrasas, showing extremist tendencies even before the Talibanization of Afghanistan, harboring extremists (in this case, the Deobandis), still can operate freely and letting them go to neighbouring countries. If you believe that the army has no influence then you have no idea how things function over there. Oh and I'm not saying Saudi Arabia are great, I'm saying they are both pricks, and like Pakistan, it cannot be completely blamed on the government for actions going on throughout the nation because of other institutions and individuals' actions within the nation. Pakistan is a divided nation, but there are elements, especially in the army that while fighting some terrorists and it has done its job doing so especially with the Deobandi groups, do also favor those terrorists, like the Afghan Taliban. They do enjoy formal or informal state support. This is playing a double game.

There's no evidence to suggest the Pakistani government knew anything about Bin Laden and this has been expressed by the Americans. That said someone must have known as I've conceded. And the proliferations of Mudrassars took place during the Afghan war when the CIA wanted to increase the numbers of fighters available to take on the Russians. In terms of a global impact on terrorism it's clear the Saudis are far more important - and now your calling them pricks, I thought they were this great ally of America?

quote:

The whole move against the 'axis of evil' as Bush put it is part of a strategy to knock off a succession of dictators who we don't 100% control. It's been most recently tied in with the arab spring which is a genuine movement to throw the shackles off dictatorships but the involvement of the west had clouded matters. Egypt for example looks like arabs taking down a western backed dictator - not ideal for America as they pumped billions into Mubarak over the years to keep him in charge.Gaddafi wasn't perfectly compliant even though he had to extent been brought in from the cold by Blair so he got knocked off, Saddam got taken down beforehand but at great cost so direct invasions were off the cards. Assad is next and then finally Iran - as I've said before no arab spring or calls for democracy in places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain because we of course control these dictatorships.

Last time I checked, Syria was not in the Axis of Evil speech spoken by Bush, it was added later by Bolton and it has always shown rogue tendencies. Still, if this was so, why not just bombard the damned fucker? They did it in Libya, didn't cost much money and got what they wanted. Oh and Gaddafi wasn't a perfect compliant, he was an absolute prick who constantly caused problems even with other Arab states. Oh and the protests in Saudi Arabia weren't massive, and the ones in Bahrain tend to prefer aiding themse.............wait a second, you already had this discussion with chief wiggum and he countered exactly your point. Oh I see, there is no point into this because you'll keep ignoring all this to keep a simplistic view of anything.

So Syria were part of the axis of evil then according to the Americans! In terms of bombarding them I'm actually suprised they haven't done this already although this could well be down to backing the Syrians have from China and Russia. I see you're defending Bahrain now as well, well you were till you cut yourself off quoting Chief - and why no move from America for democracy and elections in Saudi Arabia? Does this not actually register with you?

quote:

Groups killing each other within a country also reflects a US tactic used numerous times before. Weaken a nation by pitting people against each other. The west arming groups has forced Assad into a civil war where he has shown his own hand in terms of brutality. They should have let the Syrian people attempt it peacefully first at the very least as in Egypt. The problem is with Egypt they no longer have control and they don't want a repeat in Syria. America don't want real democracy in the middle east, they never have.

Do you even realize the difference between Egypt and Syria? Assad wasn't being peaceful. The last revolts the Syrians had done didn't end up peacefully. He himself has used a lot of violence to attack the group and violence begets violence. Ben Ali scampered off and Mubarak stepped down, both after a few days, Assad didn't. He's being a Gaddafi, he's repsonded by shooting demonstators and staying there, refusing to quit. Can you see the difference between both civil war and do you honesty belief that Assad would have just stepped down peacefully after doing all the things that suggest that he won't.

The rebels started their campaign with violence blowing up soldiers and policemen. What do you expect any country to do even one which is not a dictatorship, roll over and accept it? There's clearly going to be a ramping up of events - the west arming and training rebels and islamists has taken us to this point. Who knows where things could have led if the international community had applied pressure over time - but real democracy was never an option because you might get another Egypt, people voting for who they actually want. What the west really wants is a compliant dictator back in charge in Syria.

quote:

Al Zaqawi came out of nowhere and was suddenly linked to all sorts of terrorist acts not only in Iraq but actually round the world. In fact there was no evidence of any of this. He was the face of America's attempt to destabilise Iraq, a super-terrorist, on one hand a lone-wolf, on another attempting to topple Bin Laden himself. Al Zaqarwi was actually used by Colin Powell to try and link Al Qaeda to Iraq to give the Americans a valid reason to invade. He told the UN Al Zaqarwi was cooking up ricin in Northern Iraq - an Observer journalist visited the facility pinpointed by Powell and found nothing.

He didn't come out of nowhere, he was the second in command after bin Laden in Al Qaeda. He wasn't an important presence compared to the big bearded one until he became the leader of Al Qaeda. But you don't care because you want to keep your position no matter what even if it is simplistic.

In terms of his apparent impact on global jihadism he came out of nowhere, he was blamed for all sorts of things that turned out to be untrue, sending anthrax, setting up ricin factories. Even US forces themselves were sent to buildings that he was supposedly operating in and found nothing. He was the Al Qaeda bogeyman America needed in Iraq to extend their occupation.

quote:

No you're a Neocon and you don't know it, you back Saudi Arabia even though you know for a fact they finance terrorism and you back the use of dictators to meet foreign policy goals.

Actually I don't, it's just what happens and what occasionally happens. It's a depressing fact and it is used by everyone who can use it. I find many Saudi Arabia's policies repulsive and I find your arguments beyond simplistic and failing to grasp Saudi-US relations and failing to provide links about what I questioned you about. It's two evils in one thread. Also, if you believe that this is just what NeoCons do, you just passed a honest-to-God inanely stupid point. Mintoff was a guy who had brutal dictators as allies, from Gaddafi to offering advice to Mugabe after being disgraced. The man was a socialist.

You now find Saudia Arabia repulsive? You were defending them as an important ally before. You are contradicting yourself again - the views you've expressed about the Saudis and use of dictatorships are definately a Neocon point of view so don't try and slime your way out of that one.

Btw, do I have to remind you that it wasn't a NeoCon who has signed the bill to aid Syrian rebels and to intervene in the Libyan War. It wasn't NeoCons who went to hug Gaddafi (Sarkozy and Berlusconi as neocons is a ridiculous concept), I honestly doubt you know what NeoCon means.

In fact, that has nothing to do with NeoCons.

You called yourself a Democrat (not a Republican) and I labelled you a Neocon as you were using US political labels - and your views (well some of them because you don't actually agree with yourself half the time) are more Bush era Neoconservative. Knock off regimes, deal with dictatorships, install dictatorships if necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

I'm waiting for one post to fill a page.

quote:

You have clearly defended them in your previous posts.

quote:

Are you really this stupid? Honestly? They are a DICTATORSHIP ARMED BY AMERICA. They are not a country free to pick and choose their own allies because the Saudi royals oppress their people. The real feeling on the street in arab countries is hate towards America because of their foreign policy, the way America controls this hate and the oil supply is by inflicting dictatorships to prevent these people from expressing themselves. And google 'Saudi puppets', 'Saudi US backed dictatorship' and there is all the info you need.

quote:

Are you making this shit up as you go along?

quote:

What hundreds of thousands exterminated by Saddam in Iraq - most of the Iraq dead in recent years have been due to western sanctions and illegal wars. Saddam killed his own people but there was no wholescale extermination unless you have some evidence of this. And you of course seem to be forgetting that like the Saudis, Saddam was a Western backed dictator. The Iran-Iraq conflict was a war between two nations - and the west actually armed both sides. Nice little earner as well as weakening two middle eastern countries into the bargain.

quote:

So you are saying that the US supporting a dictator isn't bad? Or selling them chemical weapons? Or the US then starting a war based on lies to decimate a country isn't bad?

quote:

Arabs have clearly behaved badly but you need to ask yourself this - if someone had knocked off our leadership in this country and installed criminals and gangsters who would be the main person to blame? The dictatorship in charge or those that put them there? How exactly do you view America - do you thing they are a force for good or evil?

quote:

It's not complicated at all when it comes to America - retain power and control by any means necessary. It's only causing conflict in your mind because you defend the use of dictatorships on one hand while coming across all high and mighty on the other.

quote:

It's not complicated at all when it comes to America - retain power and control by any means necessary. It's only causing conflict in your mind because you defend the use of dictatorships on one hand while coming across all high and mighty on the other.

quote:

There's no evidence to suggest the Pakistani government knew anything about Bin Laden and this has been expressed by the Americans. That said someone must have known as I've conceded. And the proliferations of Mudrassars took place during the Afghan war when the CIA wanted to increase the numbers of fighters available to take on the Russians. In terms of a global impact on terrorism it's clear the Saudis are far more important - and now your calling them pricks, I thought they were this great ally of America?

quote:

So Syria were part of the axis of evil then according to the Americans! In terms of bombarding them I'm actually suprised they haven't done this already although this could well be down to backing the Syrians have from China and Russia. I see you're defending Bahrain now as well, well you were till you cut yourself off quoting Chief - and why no move from America for democracy and elections in Saudi Arabia? Does this not actually register with you?

quote:

The rebels started their campaign with violence blowing up soldiers and policemen. What do you expect any country to do even one which is not a dictatorship, roll over and accept it? There's clearly going to be a ramping up of events - the west arming and training rebels and islamists has taken us to this point. Who knows where things could have led if the international community had applied pressure over time - but real democracy was never an option because you might get another Egypt, people voting for who they actually want. What the west really wants is a compliant dictator back in charge in Syria.

quote:

In terms of his apparent impact on global jihadism he came out of nowhere, he was blamed for all sorts of things that turned out to be untrue, sending anthrax, setting up ricin factories. Even US forces themselves were sent to buildings that he was supposedly operating in and found nothing. He was the Al Qaeda bogeyman America needed in Iraq to extend their occupation.

quote:

You now find Saudia Arabia repulsive? You were defending them as an important ally before. You are contradicting yourself again - the views you've expressed about the Saudis and use of dictatorships are definately a Neocon point of view so don't try and slime your way out of that one.

quote:

You called yourself a Democrat (not a Republican) and I labelled you a Neocon as you were using US political labels - and your views (well some of them because you don't actually agree with yourself half the time) are more Bush era Neoconservative. Knock off regimes, deal with dictatorships, install dictatorships if necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

You have clearly defended them in your previous posts.

No I haven't, I've been saying that the position of the Saudi government is still that of aiding the Americans in the War on Terror OR DID YOU IGNORE THAT, hence why they are still close allies.

Yes you have - you've slagged off various dictatorships while talking about Saudis as allies even though they are the number one financiers of islamic terror according to Hilary Clinton herself.

quote:

Are you really this stupid? Honestly? They are a DICTATORSHIP ARMED BY AMERICA. They are not a country free to pick and choose their own allies because the Saudi royals oppress their people. The real feeling on the street in arab countries is hate towards America because of their foreign policy, the way America controls this hate and the oil supply is by inflicting dictatorships to prevent these people from expressing themselves. And google 'Saudi puppets', 'Saudi US backed dictatorship' and there is all the info you need.

Again, you've failed to provide links about the soldiers in SA and the Monarchy having an official policy within the country to aid the terrorists. Well done.

You don't even know what links you want? Saudis as puppets, Saudis as official backers of terror. The Wikileaks link says it all

quote:

Are you making this shit up as you go along?

You know, a simple check into the Muslim Brotherhood, even using wiki, to give you some background info on them. Will tell you this. Here's a wiki link if that's too hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#Syria

And? What's any of this got to do with what we've been discussing all along

quote:

What hundreds of thousands exterminated by Saddam in Iraq - most of the Iraq dead in recent years have been due to western sanctions and illegal wars. Saddam killed his own people but there was no wholescale extermination unless you have some evidence of this. And you of course seem to be forgetting that like the Saudis, Saddam was a Western backed dictator. The Iran-Iraq conflict was a war between two nations - and the west actually armed both sides. Nice little earner as well as weakening two middle eastern countries into the bargain.

Really? So the massacres on the Kurds and Christians was all made up? So the hundreds of thousands of dead during that very long war were all down to the West? Oh of course, Saddam couldn't have attacked the Persians or done this on his own personal will, it's all the West.

That's why the Kurds were allied with the West in the last war.

You're saying Saddam exterminated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - he didn't. A million people died in the war between Iran and Iraq but that's a war between two countries. Yes he was a nasty dictator, yes he massacred those Kurds but no he didn't kill Iraqis in hundreds of thousands. Not a defence of Saddam more a highlighting of the truth - these are the kinds of lies peddled by elements of the media and of course people like Blair and Bush - I bet you believed there were WMDs in Iraq as well didn't you.

quote:

So you are saying that the US supporting a dictator isn't bad? Or selling them chemical weapons? Or the US then starting a war based on lies to decimate a country isn't bad?

Oh they are, but that's just how it works. You do realize the people you're defending do the same exact thing? Also, what do you want, Hussien to stay there and maintain power or Iraqis actually having to choose on what they want, no matter how disasterously. Careful, because by your own logic, you'd be supporting a dictator depending on which one you choose.

Once again you're peddling the lie that I've defending a dictator - I've already called you on that asked you to quote me, suprise suprise you couldn't. And you're explanation for everything the Americans did to Iraq : 'that's just how it works'. You have to ask yourself if the 'freedom' inflicted on the Iraqis is worth the price. In hindsight you have to say no - what's the point of being free to lie in a grave for all eternity.

quote:

Arabs have clearly behaved badly but you need to ask yourself this - if someone had knocked off our leadership in this country and installed criminals and gangsters who would be the main person to blame? The dictatorship in charge or those that put them there? How exactly do you view America - do you thing they are a force for good or evil?

Wait, the Americans put Hussien in charge now? Oh and America is neither, it's a superpower doing what superpowers do, preserve their own personal good even if they act like pricks while doing it. Simple dualities are moronic.

Do you not even know the history of Iraq? The CIA helped put the Ba'ath party into power in the 60s and Hussein was already part of the equation at the time. And it's clear superpowers abuse their advantages - doesn't mean we have to just accept it especially when it comes to someone like the US who have attacked so many countries.

quote:

It's not complicated at all when it comes to America - retain power and control by any means necessary. It's only causing conflict in your mind because you defend the use of dictatorships on one hand while coming across all high and mighty on the other.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID THAT IRAQ WAS BETTER WITH HUSSIEN. THAT IS SUPPORTING A DICTATORSHIP BY YOUR OWN RATIONALE. Of course it does it's best to support it's power and keep some influence there, it would be rather suicidal not to.

God you're thick - as I've repeated consistently it's about the standard of the lives of the Iraqi people post the invasion. Not a defence of Hussein, a damning criticism of the bloody chaos unleashed on the place.

quote:

It's not complicated at all when it comes to America - retain power and control by any means necessary. It's only causing conflict in your mind because you defend the use of dictatorships on one hand while coming across all high and mighty on the other.

It's complicated when it comes to everyone, from Brunie to the Americans. WHO IN THIS THREAD IS DEFENDING ASSAD AND HUSSIEN. It's not me. But of course, you don't care, because you view everything as good or evil and not a shades of grey, and everyone else is either supporting when they disagree with your simplistic stance. Well done.

Keep repeating the lie and I'll keep calling you on it!

quote:

There's no evidence to suggest the Pakistani government knew anything about Bin Laden and this has been expressed by the Americans. That said someone must have known as I've conceded. And the proliferations of Mudrassars took place during the Afghan war when the CIA wanted to increase the numbers of fighters available to take on the Russians. In terms of a global impact on terrorism it's clear the Saudis are far more important - and now your calling them pricks, I thought they were this great ally of America?

There's quite a bit of evidence that shows that they knew. Also, still WHO TRAINED THEM IN THE MADRASSAS. Was it mostly the CIA or the Pakistanis? Oh yeah, well done on failing to understand once again, diplomacy and foriegn politics.

Of course but once again the hand of America is at play again pulling the strings. In this case to help overthrow the Russian occupation but it's undeniable American involvement helped foster radicalisation in the region. In terms of Osama, Pakistan actually knew about the US raid and provided assistance but had to feign anger and ignorance to paint a different picture to the more radical elements in the country.

quote:

So Syria were part of the axis of evil then according to the Americans! In terms of bombarding them I'm actually suprised they haven't done this already although this could well be down to backing the Syrians have from China and Russia. I see you're defending Bahrain now as well, well you were till you cut yourself off quoting Chief - and why no move from America for democracy and elections in Saudi Arabia? Does this not actually register with you?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PUPPETS BUT A SEPARATE STATE WHY DOES THIS NOT REGISTER

THEY ARE WESTERN BACKED DICTATORSHIPS WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE AN 'ARAB SPRING' WHY DOES THIS NOT REGISTER.

quote:

The rebels started their campaign with violence blowing up soldiers and policemen. What do you expect any country to do even one which is not a dictatorship, roll over and accept it? There's clearly going to be a ramping up of events - the west arming and training rebels and islamists has taken us to this point. Who knows where things could have led if the international community had applied pressure over time - but real democracy was never an option because you might get another Egypt, people voting for who they actually want. What the west really wants is a compliant dictator back in charge in Syria.

No, it started with protests. Well done, you just defended Assad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_%28January%E2%80%93April_2011%29

I've been trying to get to the bottom of the truth not defend Assad and you know it -but the existence of foreign fighters causing instability and killing civilians has turned Syria on it's head, and these fighters have been brought in by the west to destabilise the country :

Have a look at this video and tell me what you think :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8S27BuM4jU

quote:

In terms of his apparent impact on global jihadism he came out of nowhere, he was blamed for all sorts of things that turned out to be untrue, sending anthrax, setting up ricin factories. Even US forces themselves were sent to buildings that he was supposedly operating in and found nothing. He was the Al Qaeda bogeyman America needed in Iraq to extend their occupation.

Oh he exists now. Also, show me where the Americans put the blame only on him. They did put put the blame on him even with the Shiite insurgencies?

He was clearly someone identified by the Americans as a major cause for the bloodshed in the Iraq - that's common knowledge, what isn't as obvious is how much of the killing was actually down to him.

quote:

You now find Saudia Arabia repulsive? You were defending them as an important ally before. You are contradicting yourself again - the views you've expressed about the Saudis and use of dictatorships are definately a Neocon point of view so don't try and slime your way out of that one.

Important ally is not mutually exclusive to being repulsive, only an idiot would think they are. What, you thought the Soviets were nice during WW2? Or anybody else in that matter...

OH I SEE, THAT'S WHY FAMOUS NEOCON OBAMA IS STILL HOLDING CLOSE DIPLOMA...no wait that's stupid.

You say important ally, I say US puppet. And Obama is no saint, under him they've continued with Guanatanmo Bay, continued funding the likes of Mubarak, did nothing to reign in Israel, killed more civilians using drone strikes than Bush did. Obama is the lesser of the two evils, but as it did under Clinton as well what's clear is it doesn't actually matter who is in charge of America - their foreign policy goals generally remain the same.

quote:

You called yourself a Democrat (not a Republican) and I labelled you a Neocon as you were using US political labels - and your views (well some of them because you don't actually agree with yourself half the time) are more Bush era Neoconservative. Knock off regimes, deal with dictatorships, install dictatorships if necessary.

Where did they install distatorships? How is knocking off regimes terrible (supporting dicatorships well done), THE LIBYAN WAR all just Neo-Conservative? America never did this before before the word was even coined? Say yes to all these and your being silly.

Are you this fucking ignorant? Are you honestly asking me 'where did they install dictatorships'??? How can you be trying to discuss this whole thing with such a limited knowledge of events. Fucking hell

How is knocking off regimes terrible? How is destabilising people's countries and causing the deaths of thousands of people terrible? How is backing dictators one minute and then destroying their countries in the next terrible?

DO YOU NOT FIND THE DOUBLE STANDARDS THAT LEAD TO SO MUCH HUMAN SUFFERING TERRIBLE?

quote:

Did Santa fucking Claus drop 'em off over Christmas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

Yes you have - you've slagged off various dictatorships while talking about Saudis as allies even though they are the number one financiers of islamic terror according to Hilary Clinton herself.

quote:

You don't even know what links you want? Saudis as puppets, Saudis as official backers of terror. The Wikileaks link says it all

quote:

And? What's any of this got to do with what we've been discussing all along

quote:

You're saying Saddam exterminated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - he didn't. A million people died in the war between Iran and Iraq but that's a war between two countries. Yes he was a nasty dictator, yes he massacred those Kurds but no he didn't kill Iraqis in hundreds of thousands. Not a defence of Saddam more a highlighting of the truth - these are the kinds of lies peddled by elements of the media and of course people like Blair and Bush - I bet you believed there were WMDs in Iraq as well didn't you.

quote:

Once again you're peddling the lie that I've defending a dictator - I've already called you on that asked you to quote me, suprise suprise you couldn't. And you're explanation for everything the Americans did to Iraq : 'that's just how it works'. You have to ask yourself if the 'freedom' inflicted on the Iraqis is worth the price. In hindsight you have to say no - what's the point of being free to lie in a grave for all eternity.

quote:

Do you not even know the history of Iraq? The CIA helped put the Ba'ath party into power in the 60s and Hussein was already part of the equation at the time. And it's clear superpowers abuse their advantages - doesn't mean we have to just accept it especially when it comes to someone like the US who have attacked so many countries.

quote:

Once again you're peddling the lie that I've defending a dictator - I've already called you on that asked you to quote me, suprise suprise you couldn't. And you're explanation for everything the Americans did to Iraq : 'that's just how it works'. You have to ask yourself if the 'freedom' inflicted on the Iraqis is worth the price. In hindsight you have to say no - what's the point of being free to lie in a grave for all eternity.

quote:

I can talk on behalf of the hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and millions displaced by the war on Iraq. You admitted yourself in your previous post Iraq is worse off - why are we arguing about this.

quote:

I've seen interviews with Shia muslims who preferred it under Saddam! Simply because while Saddam was a brutal dictator the level of killing, horror and lawlessness unleashed on Iraq after 9/11 far outstripped what he did to his people. That's how bad Iraq is now.

quote:

The west arming groups has forced Assad into a civil war where he has shown his own hand in terms of brutality. They should have let the Syrian people attempt it peacefully first at the very least as in Egypt.

quote:


The protests are part of the arab spring, arming people within a country and flooding them with foreign fighters is not part of the arab spring, it's an attempt by Western powers to knock off a non-compliant dictatorship.

quote:

God you're thick - as I've repeated consistently it's about the standard of the lives of the Iraqi people post the invasion. Not a defence of Hussein, a damning criticism of the bloody chaos unleashed on the place.

quote:

Keep repeating the lie and I'll keep calling you on it!

quote:

Of course but once again the hand of America is at play again pulling the strings. In this case to help overthrow the Russian occupation but it's undeniable American involvement helped foster radicalisation in the region. In terms of Osama, Pakistan actually knew about the US raid and provided assistance but had to feign anger and ignorance to paint a different picture to the more radical elements in the country.

quote:

THEY ARE WESTERN BACKED DICTATORSHIPS WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE AN 'ARAB SPRING' WHY DOES THIS NOT REGISTER.

quote:


I've been trying to get to the bottom of the truth not defend Assad and you know it -but the existence of foreign fighters causing instability and killing civilians has turned Syria on it's head, and these fighters have been brought in by the west to destabilise the country :

Have a look at this video and tell me what you think :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8S27BuM4jU

quote:

He was clearly someone identified by the Americans as a major cause for the bloodshed in the Iraq - that's common knowledge, what isn't as obvious is how much of the killing was actually down to him.

quote:

You say important ally, I say US puppet. And Obama is no saint, under him they've continued with Guanatanmo Bay, continued funding the likes of Mubarak, did nothing to reign in Israel, killed more civilians using drone strikes than Bush did. Obama is the lesser of the two evils, but as it did under Clinton as well what's clear is it doesn't actually matter who is in charge of America - their foreign policy goals generally remain the same.

quote:


Are you this fucking ignorant? Are you honestly asking me 'where did they install dictatorships'??? How can you be trying to discuss this whole thing with such a limited knowledge of events. Fucking hell

quote:

How is knocking off regimes terrible? How is destabilising people's countries and causing the deaths of thousands of people terrible? How is backing dictators one minute and then destroying their countries in the next terrible?

quote:

DO YOU NOT FIND THE DOUBLE STANDARDS THAT LEAD TO SO MUCH HUMAN SUFFERING TERRIBLE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

Right, as fun as this has all been, it's time to dial it down a bit.  For a start, it's began to descend into name-calling on both sides.  For another, arguing US foreign policy with Fluke is like arguing evolution with a creationist (no offence meant Fluke - I appreciate the passion of your stance on this issue and even agree with some of it, but your refusal to acknowledge any evidence that runs contrary to your position is on a par with the proponents of "intelligent design is a science").  And finally, those multi-quote posts are doing my fucking head in and making the thread a pain to follow!

So, by all means continue the debate but (a) keep it civil, and (b) try not to get to the stage where one post does in fact fill an entire page! M'kay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Is an ironing crack anything like a builder's crack?

Sort of but it smells better.

(ugh....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

That could actually happen?

Aw, I want to see that happen....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

Yes you have - you've slagged off various dictatorships while talking about Saudis as allies even though they are the number one financiers of islamic terror according to Hilary Clinton herself.

YES BUT THEY STILL OFFER INFORMATION AND FIGHT THE TERRORISTS, even if possibly for their own defense of the their own economy. They. Are. Still. Officially. An. Ally.

No a puppet - you would have called Saddam Hussein an ally in the past, or Mubarak as well because they were once on the side of the Americans. That is the extent of your confused thinking.

quote:

You don't even know what links you want? Saudis as puppets, Saudis as official backers of terror. The Wikileaks link says it all

That's it, fuck off. All you had to provide was two links that the Monarchy did not tell the Americans to send troops in Saudi Arabia and that the M-O-N-A-R-C-H-Y, or the officials, provided direct, official funding to the terrorists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

Becuase not even that says that. At best they're described as reluctant.

You what? Individuals in the Saudi Arabia are pumping so much money into terrorism that they are considered the no.1 financiers in the world? And yet you still defend this dictatorship as an ally? You are a massive hypocrit.

quote:

And? What's any of this got to do with what we've been discussing all along

1- This started when you started calling out everyone's knowledge of the Middle East.
2- I reminded you that you still didn't know who they are, and still don't.
3- You claimed that they only have influence in two countries, which is blatantly false.
4- I showed you it didn't, not only that , they are sending funding to the Syrian rebels.
5- You suddenly want to say that has nothing to do with the point. Well done.

No what we've been discussing is the backing of dictators, destabilisation of countries in the middle east. You brought up the point about about the brotherhood to make it look like I know nothing about the region - your comments show that you are wilfully ignorant about the actions of countries like America - you are typical of the double standards that some western commentators and politicians apply to foreign policy

quote:

You're saying Saddam exterminated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - he didn't. A million people died in the war between Iran and Iraq but that's a war between two countries. Yes he was a nasty dictator, yes he massacred those Kurds but no he didn't kill Iraqis in hundreds of thousands. Not a defence of Saddam more a highlighting of the truth - these are the kinds of lies peddled by elements of the media and of course people like Blair and Bush - I bet you believed there were WMDs in Iraq as well didn't you.

Yes, he did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/weekinreview/the-world-how-many-people-has-hussein-killed.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

What a pro-Bush NY Times article? You are a Neocon aren't you.

By making a couple of wars, one quite short, another insanely long, killing his enemies and oppressing others, like those who dared to criticize him and send waves of violence on the minorities. Oh, and well done on making assumptions. I'm not saying what my opinion of the Iraq War is (it was stupid to say the least), but again you won't care. You only care about antagonizing those who don't agree with you. Those who actually suffered genocide are nothing.


Iraq-Iran war killed a lot of people but that was a western backed war to weaken two powerful middle eastern nations. Sanctions on Iraq killed 1,000,000 people after GW1 killed 100,000. Last ten years have killed at least another 100,000. All of this has taken place since America helped the Ba'ath party to power. The blood is on their hands as much as Hussein. Hussein didn't systematically kill hundreds of thousands of his own people as you claim - it's a lie.

quote:

Once again you're peddling the lie that I've defending a dictator - I've already called you on that asked you to quote me, suprise suprise you couldn't. And you're explanation for everything the Americans did to Iraq : 'that's just how it works'. You have to ask yourself if the 'freedom' inflicted on the Iraqis is worth the price. In hindsight you have to say no - what's the point of being free to lie in a grave for all eternity.

Oh I'm sorry, am I the one wanting that Assad stays in his place and Hussien should have stayed in his place. You probably have many arguments (Assad still means , I'd be glad to listen to them and maybe agree with them, but whatever you say, it will be supporting a dictator no matter what you say by your own good-and-evil-and-that's-it stance.

And yes, that it is how it works. Again, give me a nation that is in power and has maintained power by being nice. Give me one. It's good to criticize it, what you're doing is "I'm ANGRY AT ALL THIS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SUBTLETES AND THE WHOLE INSANE SITUATION AT THE TIME AND I'M GOING TO REMAIN ANGRY".

For you the subtleties mean acceptance of abhorrent actions - for me it's disgusting and inhuman. But that's where we differ don't we? You think it's acceptable because everyone does it and it's part of the Great Game - except you haven't seen your society destabilised in the way so many have by countries like America so you can sit on your high horse and defend evil actions.

quote:

Do you not even know the history of Iraq? The CIA helped put the Ba'ath party into power in the 60s and Hussein was already part of the equation at the time. And it's clear superpowers abuse their advantages - doesn't mean we have to just accept it especially when it comes to someone like the US who have attacked so many countries.

And so did the Soviets. And so did the United Kingdom. They still weren't the ones to assassinate Qasim or to actually take power. Oh and you're not even doing anything about, you're just oing "AAAAAAAAAAAARGH America is evil, down with this sort of thing" and that's it, without even providing to what they should do, without being ridiculous.

So no criticism of America destabilising Iraq in the 60s then? There's a suprise - it's ok coz everyone does it. And I know the UK and the Soviets have done the same but were discussing the middle east in this region and the primary culprit has been America.

quote:

Once again you're peddling the lie that I've defending a dictator - I've already called you on that asked you to quote me, suprise suprise you couldn't. And you're explanation for everything the Americans did to Iraq : 'that's just how it works'. You have to ask yourself if the 'freedom' inflicted on the Iraqis is worth the price. In hindsight you have to say no - what's the point of being free to lie in a grave for all eternity.

Oh sorry, I was running fast. I will. From the last page, using your own black and white morality.

quote:

I can talk on behalf of the hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and millions displaced by the war on Iraq. You admitted yourself in your previous post Iraq is worse off - why are we arguing about this.

quote:

I've seen interviews with Shia muslims who preferred it under Saddam! Simply because while Saddam was a brutal dictator the level of killing, horror and lawlessness unleashed on Iraq after 9/11 far outstripped what he did to his people. That's how bad Iraq is now.

quote:

The west arming groups has forced Assad into a civil war where he has shown his own hand in terms of brutality. They should have let the Syrian people attempt it peacefully first at the very least as in Egypt.

quote:


The protests are part of the arab spring, arming people within a country and flooding them with foreign fighters is not part of the arab spring, it's an attempt by Western powers to knock off a non-compliant dictatorship.

All of these, are defending them, whatever else you say.

None of those are defending dictators whatsoever!

quote:

God you're thick - as I've repeated consistently it's about the standard of the lives of the Iraqi people post the invasion. Not a defence of Hussein, a damning criticism of the bloody chaos unleashed on the place.

You know where they would be chaos if their leaders where simply deposed? Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Do you want them to stay in the condition they are now? Tell me. Same goes with Hussien.

What are you talking about now, your saying that Saudi Arabia's shouldn't be deposed because it would cause chaos - but you back the invasion of Iraq and destabilisation of Syria? You are contradicting yourself.

quote:

Keep repeating the lie and I'll keep calling you on it!

I think you have no shame.

quote:

Of course but once again the hand of America is at play again pulling the strings. In this case to help overthrow the Russian occupation but it's undeniable American involvement helped foster radicalisation in the region. In terms of Osama, Pakistan actually knew about the US raid and provided assistance but had to feign anger and ignorance to paint a different picture to the more radical elements in the country.

No they didn't, they paid the Pakistani to train the muhajedeen, not to radicalize them. Who radicalized them?

What is radicalisation? Funding Mudrassars to get people to fight a holy war against Russian? What the hell are you talking about.

Also, that's why their scanners were jammed during the operation. They would not have warned bin Laden or anything.

Ridiculous - flying choppers into that area and Pakistan knowing absolutely whatsoever about it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491561/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Pakistan-played-pivotal-role-in-operation-to-kill-al-Qaeda-leader.html

quote:

THEY ARE WESTERN BACKED DICTATORSHIPS WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE AN 'ARAB SPRING' WHY DOES THIS NOT REGISTER.

Ok, first of all, a monarchy is not a dictatorship, it is a form of monarchy. Secondly, the king still appeased to any of the protests (hence, the female right to vote) which is why they diminished. Oh, give me links to all this. Not Saudi puppets, but links, that the US didn't allow Saudi Arabia to have an Arab Spring linking to direct actions and events.

LOL Saudi Arabia isn't a dictatorship? What they have free and fair elections there. Are you taking the piss - and all the evidence you need about these puppets and a lack of an arab spring is there in front of you - NO ARAB SPRING IN SAUDI OR BAHRAIN, while other parts of the middle east have been destabilised and bombed. They are protected.

quote:


I've been trying to get to the bottom of the truth not defend Assad and you know it -but the existence of foreign fighters causing instability and killing civilians has turned Syria on it's head, and these fighters have been brought in by the west to destabilise the country :

Have a look at this video and tell me what you think :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8S27BuM4jU

Wait, a second, did you actually link me the Kremlin version of Fox News?

This channel also has ex-CIA officers heavily critical of US foreign policy - did the Kremlin brainwash all these guys or is the truth that in the heavily censored US media they can't get a hearing. And the existence of foreign terrorists spoken about in this video has actually now been accepted as fact.Or maybe the Kremlim made that bit up as well?

Also, the rebels are being armed, partially by the West, partially the terrorists. I JUST LINKED YOU ABOUT THE FUNDING BY MB

The rebels are armed and trained by the west the terrorists are fighting on their side bombing the Assad regime? Is this just a coincidence? Of course not - standard tactic backed up by history, CIA have armed death squads in countries to help bring down non compliant regimes/ help keep dictatorships in power. As I stated before the Saudis are radicalising islamists and they are being used as a tool by western nations.

And it still doesn't contradict that Assad would have never stepped down under peaceful demonstrations.

You're right he might not have - but helping plunge Syria into a devastating civil war is pure evil. They should have given it time at least.

quote:

He was clearly someone identified by the Americans as a major cause for the bloodshed in the Iraq - that's common knowledge, what isn't as obvious is how much of the killing was actually down to him.

Oh yes, he still is, but like many terrorists (there are many things linked to Carlos the Jackal, if he actually did them is another thing) and one of the major ones, he has an influence and a voice. Whether he did or not is a difficult issue and can lead to them blaming many things on one guy. These things can be hazy as fuck, especially if you're an crafty bugger like Al-Zawahiri.

quote:

You say important ally, I say US puppet. And Obama is no saint, under him they've continued with Guanatanmo Bay, continued funding the likes of Mubarak, did nothing to reign in Israel, killed more civilians using drone strikes than Bush did. Obama is the lesser of the two evils, but as it did under Clinton as well what's clear is it doesn't actually matter who is in charge of America - their foreign policy goals generally remain the same.

So he's a NeoCon right?

Actions speak louder than words - the recent moves in the middle east against Libya and Syria for example smack of Neoconservatism - that said he is not directly invading anyone like Bush. He's not an innocent do-gooder by any means and anyone who thinks he is is naive to the extreme.

quote:


Are you this fucking ignorant? Are you honestly asking me 'where did they install dictatorships'??? How can you be trying to discuss this whole thing with such a limited knowledge of events. Fucking hell

No seriously, I can think of Noriega, Pinochet and Shah Pahlavi right now. Saying that's just the US is giving those three people not enough credit and downgrading the situations they were in to just "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'M THE UNITED STATES I'M GONNA BE EVIL (and the United Kingdom in case of the Shah and Pinochet)" and not giving credit to those dictators/monarchs and the social/political athmosphere of the era.

Lol did a spot of googling did you? the 'social/ political atmosphere' of the era - what America fighting commies by backing brutal right-wing dictatorships? But of course you see this an acceptable course of action because you are a hypocrit. And I'm not absolving the UK at all - we've done our fair share to help this all along.

quote:

How is knocking off regimes terrible? How is destabilising people's countries and causing the deaths of thousands of people terrible? How is backing dictators one minute and then destroying their countries in the next terrible?

I agree, but isn't this, *gasp* SUPPORTING A DICTATOR TO REMAIN THERE?! OMG!!!!!11111\ And again, sadly, that is how it operates. If you want to change the world, fine, do so, but stop acting so indignant when you discover that the world is shit and you must be shit to work in it.

'The world is shit and you must be shit to work in it' - this essentially sums up your viewpoint. The truth is 'the world is shit because powerful countries fuck it up royally - then they go to work in this shit'. This applies to the west, Russia, China anyone who has decided upon themselves to focus on fucking up someone weaker - the reason I focus on America is that they have attacked more countries than anyone else over the last 50 years - fact.

quote:

DO YOU NOT FIND THE DOUBLE STANDARDS THAT LEAD TO SO MUCH HUMAN SUFFERING TERRIBLE?

Indeed I do, but again, anything would. Going agaisnt them is fine and showing the hypocrisy. Going all "AMERICA IS EVIL AND DOES EVIL I'M GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS TILL KNOGDOM COME ON MY CHAIR AND ASK FOR SOMETHING AS REALISTIC AS BERG'S BATTLESHIP".

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

Right, as fun as this has all been, it's time to dial it down a bit.  For a start, it's began to descend into name-calling on both sides.  For another, arguing US foreign policy with Fluke is like arguing evolution with a creationist (no offence meant Fluke - I appreciate the passion of your stance on this issue and even agree with some of it, but your refusal to acknowledge any evidence that runs contrary to your position is on a par with the proponents of "intelligent design is a science").  And finally, those multi-quote posts are doing my fucking head in and making the thread a pain to follow!

So, by all means continue the debate but (a) keep it civil, and (b) try not to get to the stage where one post does in fact fill an entire page!  M'kay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

I'm pretty certain it's 30 posts per page regardless of the size of the post

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

I'm pretty certain it's 30 posts per page regardless of the size of the post

Imagine thirty massive fluke/deviation posts

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

I'm pretty certain it's 30 posts per page regardless of the size of the post

Imagine thirty massive fluke/deviation posts

Done!

http://youtu.be/OKnpPCQyUec

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker


Come on Sharkboy - you said yourself said the Saudis had no part to play in terrorism and then I provided you with the Wilkileaks info completely contradicting that view, Dev defends the Saudis, I say they are US puppets. They are clearly a US backed and armed dictatorship it's as plain as day.

quote:

Imagine thirty massive fluke/deviation posts