Political forum for open debate

Zany · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject:

I,m off skiing for a week, I'll check in when I get back
Love you all Very Happy

_________________
The past is a lesson, the present are mistaken, the future we always leave too late. I wish we'd come to our senses and see there is no truth. In those who promote this confusion and my ever changing moods.

drblow · Member Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 482

Zany wrote:

Blow your link must be cached. If I try to open it Wiki says the article has been deleted.

Ah, right. Bum.

When I click it, there is an option available to search for it. Click that.

drblow · Member Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 482

manicmineruk wrote:

I think we have done all the Iraq/Afghanistan Saddam/Bin Laden link stuff before.

So in words that Shadow would possibly be proud of "No, because I can't be arsed".

What is the point? I have posted all these links before and links don't prove anything. They prove other people's comment and other people's opinions.

I show you a link. You say it is a nonsense source (Even if it is the BBC, Wikipedia etc).

You show a link from an obscure website and it must be right.

That is not fair. I have never nonsensed links from the BBC, I have used them myself. And, while I have indeed used some non-mainsteam web content as a reference, I have also backed up my opinions on all these issues with mainstream sources aswell when they can be found. This is mainly as a result of instant dismissal of information that may be deemed contraversial if it comes from somewhere outside of BBC/CNN world.

Of course, given that we tend to agree that mainstream media is well controlled, you do need to look elsewhere to get information that will not be available through mainstream sources.

If you think that any/all references I have made to the war on terror have come from "obscure" websites, then you have not been paying attention. It is a bit lame to just throw out these old claims at this stage to be honest.

I don't really remember you posting "all these links" before, certainly not regarding evidence against OBL for 911. Pretty much of a cop-out to say that I think.

But, there you go. In discussion about Afghanistan/Iraq there is no avoiding dicussing OBL, AQ and the war on terror. Afterall, that is where it all started.

Yes, we do go around in circles. But it is funny how often people claim that there is loads of evidence against OBL, and when pressed to detail it, seem reluctant. If you type "osama 911 confession" into google, the list of links that comes up is all related to the fact that it is widely believed to be a fake. I believe that in the alleged type, he even got the names of 2 of the hijackers wrong apparently! Laughing

But hey, if you think you have posted all this before, then I am sure you knew that already.

Zany · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject:

Quote:

he even got the names of 2 of the hijackers wrong apparently!

And that just shows how little he cares, when he doesn't even know his employees names!
Irrefutable proof that AQ has gone corporate.

_________________
The past is a lesson, the present are mistaken, the future we always leave too late. I wish we'd come to our senses and see there is no truth. In those who promote this confusion and my ever changing moods.

drblow · Member Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 482

Zany wrote:

Quote:

he even got the names of 2 of the hijackers wrong apparently!

And that just shows how little he cares, when he doesn't even know his employees names!
Irrefutable proof that AQ has gone corporate.

Irrefutable proof that AQ is bullshit, more like. Rolling Eyes

Zany · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:24 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Irrefutable proof that AQ is bullshit, more like

Couldn't agree more. They are bloody useless, stood no chance against the Americans.

_________________
The past is a lesson, the present are mistaken, the future we always leave too late. I wish we'd come to our senses and see there is no truth. In those who promote this confusion and my ever changing moods.

drblow · Member Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 482

Zany wrote:

Couldn't agree more. They are bloody useless, stood no chance against the Americans.

Well, quite. An imaginary "army", run by a cripple in a cave who apparently doesn't even know the names of the alleged martyrs whom he allegedly sent to their alleged deaths.

Anyone would think that such a joke operation would have been easy to subdue, wouldn't you? I mean, outside of 911 and 7/7, look at the tragic failures of AQ operatives blowing themselves up in cafes, or setting fire to their pants on planes.

Ridiculous.

Strange then, that it took 10 years and 2 wars, and several hundred thousand dead civilians to bring it down, eh?

notinyourparty · Member Joined: 20 Aug 2011 Posts: 570 Location: Londres

Sad truth when the enemy is anything more than imaginary, the US don't seem to have a lot of success do they?

Well not since the Second World War anyway,

Korea: Humiliating draw
Cuba: Bay of pigs, wiped out.
Vietnam: humiliating total defeat
First Gulf War: Failed to remove the threat.

So of course they are much happier fighting threats they have imagined and/or bigged up in order to get the popular support required, experience has taught them that real enemies have a bad habit of kicking them a bloody good kicking!

_________________
E pur se muovo

Zany · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject:

Aren't you being a bit harsh NIYP?
Some of those Afghan farmers shoot their Lee Enfield bolt action rifles at the Americans F16 jet fighters.
Those 1st world war rifles are accurate up to 500 yards and can fire up to 15 rounds a minute, its no wonder the Americans don't take any chances and use unmanned drones. Laughing

_________________
The past is a lesson, the present are mistaken, the future we always leave too late. I wish we'd come to our senses and see there is no truth. In those who promote this confusion and my ever changing moods.

manicmineruk · Moderator Joined: 18 Aug 2011 Posts: 623

The truth is though that the Americans only lost those wars because they played fair. They have a weapon that could have wiped out each and every one of the opposing countries.

They chose not to use it and went for more conventional warfare.

Had they decided to nuke the hell out of Cuba or Vietnam then I think they may well have won.

It is the same with Afghanistan. They want to win the war by removing the Taliban and getting the Afghan people to live peacefully. They could just as easily Napalm large areas of Afghanistan and just have done with it.

_________________
If you knew half of what I know your fuzzy little heads would explode

notinyourparty · Member Joined: 20 Aug 2011 Posts: 570 Location: Londres

manicmineruk wrote:

The truth is though that the Americans only lost those wars because they played fair. They have a weapon that could have wiped out each and every one of the opposing countries.

They chose not to use it and went for more conventional warfare.

Had they decided to nuke the hell out of Cuba or Vietnam then I think they may well have won.

It is the same with Afghanistan. They want to win the war by removing the Taliban and getting the Afghan people to live peacefully. They could just as easily Napalm large areas of Afghanistan and just have done with it.

They lost those wars because they were up against people who had help and or really wanted to fight, the suggestion that they could have used nukes in Vietnam or Korea is stupid and unworthy of this forum, however I will address it, is a war where the objective is to impose ideological values on a population who is perceived as moving in "an undesirable direction" politically ever going to be won by killing them all?
How would plunging the whole world into a global conflict that could well have destroyed the planet and that would certainly have destroyed the world economy totally ever in any way be described as "winning"?
Only the most stupid of US leaders ever imagined that there was any future in the actual use of nuclear weapons, cretins like Macarthur and Barry Goldwater for example.
If you think that the use of Agent Orange was "playing fair" you are, in my opinion in urgent need of education as to what is "fair".

_________________
E pur se muovo

manicmineruk · Moderator Joined: 18 Aug 2011 Posts: 623

I hope you realise that sometimes I just go fishing. I dangle the line and see who bites.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that nuclear was ever a real option or killing everyone was the option (the Arnold Rimmer school of warfare).

_________________
If you knew half of what I know your fuzzy little heads would explode

drblow · Member Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 482

Zany wrote:

Aren't you being a bit harsh NIYP?
Some of those Afghan farmers shoot their Lee Enfield bolt action rifles at the Americans F16 jet fighters.
Those 1st world war rifles are accurate up to 500 yards and can fire up to 15 rounds a minute, its no wonder the Americans don't take any chances and use unmanned drones. Laughing

I can see that you have given up on the idea of trying to debate this topic seriously. Is that sour grapes due to an inability to persuade?

drblow · Member Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 482

manicmineruk wrote:

I hope you realise that sometimes I just go fishing. I dangle the line and see who bites.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that nuclear was ever a real option or killing everyone was the option (the Arnold Rimmer school of warfare).

I hope you realise that even if that is true, it very much looks like you just realised how stupid a thing that was to say, and retracted it in an "only joking" manner.

It's the internet man. Put a smiley on if you aren't being serious. Otherwise we will, naturally, assume you are and take you to task on it.

Zany · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject:

Surely the point Manic was making is;

It is only because the Americans were trying to do 'good' that they lost. Had their intention been merely to beat their enemy they could have easily done so. Unlike their enemies who care not a jot for civilian casualties, the Americans are always hamstrung in their efforts by the need to consider who they are shooting.
Incidentally, nobody lost the Korean war
And the first gulf war, the Americans only stopped at the behest of the United Nations. Sadam could not have possibly stopped them.

Quote:

I can see that you have given up on the idea of trying to debate this topic seriously. Is that sour grapes due to an inability to persuade?

Just havin some fun.
If my intention was to persuade you to change even one of your case hardened views, I would have given up and topped myself months ago.

_________________
The past is a lesson, the present are mistaken, the future we always leave too late. I wish we'd come to our senses and see there is no truth. In those who promote this confusion and my ever changing moods.