BS: Caliphate

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:17 AM

Ah but MGM-Lion they are not going to kill a great number they are going to kill them all (admittedly a great number if anyone wishes to be pedantic about it) so they are not going to be "decimated" they are going to be annihilated, or exterminated.

If people wish to use language incorrectly then that is up to them - but in the case of Richard Bridge I would have thought that someone trained in the law would know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:44 AM

Better than someone who read English at Cambridge & pursued a long joint career as teacher & journalist? Hmmmm!

Actually, I have remarked before that Richard obviously has certain knowledge & talents; but as to his views on semantics & linguistics, I wouldn't give you a dime a dozen for such...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:50 AM

The American President has decided that ISIS is destabilising the region and has authorised action.

That shuts up (though they won't keep quiet) those who say nobody gives a shit about anything other than Israel bashing..

If a few people want to fly a flag, then getting upset about it furthers the cause they are duped into.

Same as if people want to defend Israeli aggression on Mudcat, it's a free country, do so. It isn't as if either are calling UK citizens second class.

Both stances are shunned by normal decent people though, as is their right too.




Am I dreaming, or did Poo Bad just say that Islam as a religion isn't peaceful? Well, no it isn't in the same way any other superstition is. Israeli terrorists hide behind the Jewish faith when it suits them, (even though many Jews oppose their aggression,) Christians try to colonise the world anyway, see US military for details, and the Caliphate scenario requires something that if it is the will of free choice would be a coincidence.

But to single out one superstition above others just shows the stupidity of otherwise intelligent people seeing imaginary friend nonsense to justify bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:57 AM

That shuts up (though they won't keep quiet) those who say nobody gives a shit about anything other than Israel bashing..

No.
US government was not accused of that.
Others were, and still are.
UN general assembly.
The liberal left, esp. on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:09 AM

"to single out one superstition above others just shows the stupidity of otherwise intelligent people seeing imaginary friend nonsense to justify bigotry."

.,,.

So to 'single out above the others' the only one whose 'bigotry' enjoins that they will judicially kill any of its members who change their mind and decide that another one might suit them better, as being even more mischievous and worthy of condemnation than any of the others, is 'stupidity', is it. I've heard of foolish relativism; but this is idiocy unworthy even of the egregious Mr Mouthie-Mather.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:09 AM

"So, where is it?"
Are you actually denying that you have claimed them to be "legal" when they are decidedly not when used indiscriminately in built-up ares, that they were probably from Hamas shells, that they are no different from shrapnel emitted from shells dating back to Napoleonic times, that there is no evidence of them having been used when photographs have been presented of spent ones and others embedded in walls.... all in the light of tha fact that Israel not only has them in their arsenal, has used them before and has not denied their use now
Then you add both stupidity and blatant dishonesty to your CV - they were there anyway.
You choose not to mention the other examples I gave of your despicable inhumanity - I assume you accept it without comment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:15 AM

Can Mr Mouthie-Mather really not see that his relativistic foolishness is the equivalent of declaring that, as all illness is to be regretted, it will be 'stupidity' to be more worried about getting cancer than getting a cold?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:21 AM

NO WEAPON IS LEGAL " when used indiscriminately in built-up areas"!!!

(And I have never claimed they are.)

Flechette munitions ARE legal and ARE just a new kind of shrapnel.
Fact, not my opinion.

Same old false accusations.
" you've proved that by taking up cudgels of behalf of a terrorist state's having used illegal weapons of a civilian population"

I have never defended the use of any weapons being used against civilians, nor the use of any illegal weapons at all.

No Keith - you say this shit - I cut and paste exactly what you say for you to deny

So, where is it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 08:11 AM

"And I have never claimed they are"
Yes you have - you made the point that they were "legal" after it had been pointed out to you that they had been used in built-up areas.
The obscene fact that they are legal in some circumstances has never been in question.
Your declaring they were, coupled with your comparing them to early nineteenth century and calling into question that they have ever been used or were the result of Hamas 'friendly fire' all constitutes support for their use.
Are you ever going to explain why you should adopt the role of spokesman for a terrorist state which has never suggested any of the above.
You are a fanatical Sickophant
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 08:22 AM

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AqhTaNadeGV6H.zY6_ESqKKbvZx4?p=hamas+rockets+shrapnel&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-74

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 08:30 AM

Yes you have - you made the point that they were "legal" after it had been pointed out to you that they had been used in built-up areas.
The obscene fact that they are legal in some circumstances has never been in question.

I was correct then Jim.
They are not an illegal weapon, but it is illegal to use any weapons on civilians.

Your declaring they were, coupled with your comparing them to early nineteenth century
That is when shrapnel shells were first used.
Flechettes are just a new form of shrapnel.
Fact.

or were the result of Hamas 'friendly fire'
That was a reference to "nail shrapnel" reported in your link.
Nails are not used as shrapnel in commercially produced munitions, but Hamas have used them.

I have never defended the use of any weapons being used against civilians, nor the use of any illegal weapons at all.

No Keith - you say this shit - I cut and paste exactly what you say for you to deny

So, where is it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 09:39 AM

"or were the result of Hamas 'friendly fire' all constitutes support for their use."

???? How does stating that HAMAS uses anti-personnel warheads, with enhanced shrapnel such as nails and ball bearings imply support for their use?


YOU have talked about massacres- Can we say that YOUR bringing them up implies that YOU support them?

Or is this ANOTHER case of you having two sets of values, one to apply to yourself, and one to apply to those who dare disagree with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 09:49 AM

"They are not an illegal weapon, but it is illegal to use any weapons on civilians."
Which was pointed out to you at the very beginning
To most human beings (find and ask one) the legality of such weapons in no way detracts from the fact that they are inhuman
"Flechettes are just a new form of shrapnel."
Nuclear weapons are just a new form of hand grenades - you are still downgrading the effect of these weapons
Flechettes are missiles deliberately designed to scatter dart-shaped, streamlined fragments into any human being who comes in their path - they have no function other than that - they are anti-personnel weapons
Fact
They were used indiscriminately in built-up areas making their use a war-crime
Fact
This has been pointed out by independents observers, including the Israeli B'Tsalem
Fact
Describing them as merely another form of shrapnel is to support their use - ie to support a war crime
Fact
"I have never defended the use of any weapons being used against civilians,"
You have supported the use of flecchettes by denying their use and by minimising their effect, as you are still doing.
Fact
I ask again WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE USE OF THESE OBSCENITIES ON HUMAN BEINGS AND ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE THEIR EFFECT AND THE DFACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN USED WHEN THE ISRAELIS HAVE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM - ARE YOU ON THEIR PAYROLL OR IS IT JUST A LITTLE HOBBY OF YOURS?
"So, where is it Jim?"
I have presented your having supported the use of this shit
I have presented your having supported white phosphorus
I have presented your having supported selling weapons, ammunition and riot control equipment to Assad (and your actually proposing he be sold more)
I have presented your having supported selling him chemicals which were capable of being turned into weapons
I have presented your supporting the sale of weapons to terrorist states
I have presented your supporting the use of chemicals on Bedouins in order to drive them off their land
And much, much more - in some cases several times over.
Where is what exactly?
Juicy Brucie:
What is the point of your link other than to reiterate their ineffectual and the incompetence of those using them?
Israel has just slaughtered around 2000 human beings in the name of 'defence' from these missiles - massive overkill in anybody's book, even if the 2000 were all fighters - they were not of course - the vast majority of the dead were non combatants, a large percentage of those being children.
Whose side are you on here - make up yur mind Weirdy Beardie!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 09:54 AM

"Can we say that YOUR bringing them up implies that YOU support them?"
As I did not bring them up - no you can not.
I find all such weapons obscene and condemn their use - whoever uses them.
Unlike you people who have openly supported the slaughter of nearly 2000 hman beings using all the weapons at their disposal
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 09:58 AM

Sorry - didn't quite finish
Friendly fire is a term coined by the U.S. to neutralise the killing of ones own troops.
It is what Keith described and it is how you have depicted the firing of rockets that (apparently) were worth slaughtering nearly 2000 people over.
Keep up, O Belligerent One
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:03 AM

Twisting my words just reinforces the relevance of them, you silly old sod.

A gaggle of old biddies singing "Fight the good fight" is no better than the raising of a flag to a rational person.

Neither kill, both state that allegiance to their imaginary friend comes above allegiance to the law of the land.

Both potentially disturbing. Both irrelevant in reality. Only one seen as unacceptable.

Anyway, at least when you were pretending I didn't exist, you missed so many opportunities to give us a laugh.

As I said before,

Some say good old Michael
Some say fuck him

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:03 AM

Jimmy boy,

"Flechettes are missiles deliberately designed to scatter dart-shaped, streamlined fragments into any human being who comes in their path - they have no function other than that - they are anti-personnel weapons
Fact"

TRUE


"They were used indiscriminately in built-up areas making their use a war-crime
Fact"

FALSE- NO indiscriminate use EXCEPT BY HAMAS has been claimed.


"This has been pointed out by independents observers, including the Israeli B'Tsalem
Fact"

FALSE- A SINGLE USE (6 shells, resulting in ONE WOUNDED WOMAN)


"Describing them as merely another form of shrapnel is to support their use - ie to support a war crime
Fact"

FALSE- But IF it were true, than YOUR claim as to Hamas rockets being so harmless is by YOUR definition supporting THAT war crime.


"Israel has just slaughtered around 2000 human beings in the name of 'defence' from these missiles "

FALSE- YOU are ignoring the FACT that a large number of those Palestinians civilians killed IN GAZA are being killed by HAMAS ROCKETS that misfire. I gave the numbers- your failure to comprehend factual information does not in any way impact it's validity.


160 dead children- Digging tunnels for Hamas
30 dead civilians - summarily executed by Hamas
600-1000 HAMAS antipersonnel warheads hitting Gaza - between 1 and 17 civilians killed for each warhead that was acknowledged by Hamas

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:07 AM

Jimmy,

YOUR lies area getting out of hand, boyo.

"As I did not bring them up - no you can not.
"

YOU did not bring up massacres?

"YOU have talked about massacres- Can we say that YOUR bringing them up implies that YOU support them?"


So someone else keeps posting those lies about Jenin?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:11 AM

Jimmy,

"the firing of rockets that (apparently) were worth slaughtering nearly 2000 people over."

THOSE ROCKETS have killed a significant number of the 2000 or so.

The majority of the rest were killed while launching this illegal anti-personnel rockets AT CIVILIANS-

Obviously, you and your fellow stooges APPROVE of launching anti-personnel rockets at civilians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:15 AM

"YOUR lies area getting out of hand, boyo."
If that is true - and it certainly isn't, I have a lonfg way to go before I catch up to yours.
I posted the facts on Jenin in response to stupid claims about one form of propaganda being any more or less than any other form
I posted up the facts about Jenin as I understand them and I linked my statement.
Personally, I have no knowledge of the affair other than it was one of several attacks attack on a refugee camp by Isreal.
I notice that you, in all your honesty decline to comment on Sabra/Shatila and the buring of the evidence there.
Don't call me a liar you Antisemitic bastard
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:21 AM

Jimmy,

You have been shown to be a liar by your posts AFTER being given UN report data that proves your claims to be false.


YOU ARE A LIAR, you anti-Semitic bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:24 AM

And you are a STU{PID liar, at that.

"The UN report to the Secretary General noted "Palestinians had claimed that between 400 and 500 people had been killed, fighters and civilians together. They {The Palestinians} had also claimed a number of summary executions and the transfer of corpses to an unknown place outside the city of Jenin. The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55 (27 of whom were combatants)."

The claim picked out in bold in the above passage was bollocks because:

"Amnesty International's report concluded "No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre." Amnesty's report specifically observed that "after the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on April 17, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on April 3, 2002. WITHIN FIVE WEEKS ALL BUT ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WAS ACCOUNTED FOR."

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:54 AM

I have presented your having supported the use of this shit

Yes, you are good at that Jim, but it is bollocks.
What you can not do is produce a single quote of me doing it.
You claimed you could,
No Keith - you say this shit - I cut and paste exactly what you say for you to deny

So, where is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 11:49 AM

I could ask old Mather·the·Mouthie·titz to demonstrate where & how he thinks I have "twisted his words"; but really can't be arsed any further with the deceitful & evasive (& foulmouthed) little swine at present. Our exchange is there for anyone who wants to be bothered to read it. I rest my case entirely on our previous exchange. However, I might continue to read some of his fatuous posts [no predicting which], as it appears he preferred it when I didn't -- & so robbed him of the delight of explicitly expressing the desire that I might be "fucked".

Worrer Charmer, in't he just! So articulate and cultured...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 12:25 PM

"but it is bollocks."
Shit - you've just lost me a bet.
A couple of mates here have been observing all this, and they siad you'd deny it outright without evidence - I thought you'd attempt to talk your way out of it or blame somebody else - I'll be buying the pints all night.
YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE STILL PUTTING UP ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL THAT THEY HAVEN'T EVEN PUT UP IN THEIR OWN DEFENCE
Jim Carroll
Incidentally, I notice that the U.S. has pledged itself to oppose Islamic groups who threaten the lives and safety of other minorities AND THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
That's the American oil supply taken care of!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 01:49 PM

Name one country under a State Religion that is a stable peaceful nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 01:53 PM

Denmark (Church of Denmark)[18] Also the Church of the Faroe Islands is the state church of the Faroe Islands, a territory of Denmark.

Iceland (Church of Iceland)[19] (76.81% of population members at 1 January 2012) [20]

Norway (Church of Norway)[21][22][23]

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 02:08 PM

Liechtenstein        Roman Catholic Church[7]

Malta        Roman Catholic Church

Greece        Greek Orthodox Church

Monaco        Roman Catholic Church

England        Church of England

Tuvalu        Church of Tuvalu

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 03:13 PM

Jim, I have never defended the use of any weapons being used against civilians, nor the use of any illegal weapons at all.

No Keith - you say this shit - I cut and paste exactly what you say for you to deny

So, where is it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 03:38 PM

News of Caliphate lost in all the ---- posted here.

The U. S. bombing ISIS to protect Erbil, and dropping food and supplies to Yazidis.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 04:49 PM

Gee, I wonder what THAT'S gonna cost the U.S. taxpayers?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:18 PM

What should we infer from that Greg?
Do you begrudge money spent to avert genocide?
You would let those Arab people die, by violence or thirst?
What are you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:27 PM

Bruce: Not entirely sure you have answered Donuel's question. I don't think that a state having a traditionally "established" church is quite what he will have meant by a "country under a State Religion"; by which I take him to mean one in which the religious authorities exercise political control: I am sure we can all think of examples, generally within that putative entity which gives its name to the thread. If that wasn't what he meant, it would certainly be what I meant if I used the formulation.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:32 PM

I should perhaps have written "principal political control". I don't think the presence of Bishops in the UK House of Lords would qualify; or even, these days, the influence of Catholicism in Italy or Spain or Ireland; tho that might have been so argued until fairly recently. In "caliphate"-style domains, OTOH...

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:21 PM

What should we infer from that Greg?

Infer whatever you like, Fuckwit. Never stopped you before.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 03:49 AM

"Name one country under a State Religion that is a stable peaceful nation."
It is far easier to name dozens that aren't.
"Do you begrudge money spent to avert genocide?"
Nobody does - what we do worry about is that, in including "the interests of America" among its objectives, the U.S. has given itself a blank cheque 'to go where it has been before' and defend its own interests wherever it sees fit.
W.M.D all over again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 04:33 AM

So you are against US protecting those helpless, desperate people?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 04:42 AM

"So you are against US protecting those helpless, desperate people?"
I have just said I am not - I am against the United States using the plight of those "suffering, desperate people" as a window of opportunity to protect its oil interests, as it has in the past and is now quite likely to do again as it has deliberately added that to its intentions.
You apparently are not - now there's a surprise!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 04:44 AM

Human compassion Jim.
You and Greg will never understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 05:52 AM

Hypocrisy Keith
Can I remind you that when some of us called for military intervention at the time when the people of Homs were being slaughtered by snipers who were probably trained using British sold ammunition - before the Arab Spring Protests ahd developed into a civil war, you referred to us as "war-mongerers and fascists" and told us the "we couldn't be expected to become involved in every dispute that happened on the planet".
Had the west become involved then none of this need never have happened.
Isis is a direct product of the West's inaction - they were able to step into the gap left and they used arm supplied by the west to fight Assad to do so.
This has enabled them to grow into a significant extremist force threatening numerous states.
At the time, you were the first to defend the sale of arms and equipment to Assad, even extending that support to providing him with equipment to continue his oppression.
You opposed any boycott of sales to Assed, or ven the confiscation by Britain of London property belonging to him and one of his henchmen.   
America's intervention might have been regarded as an attempt to make up for past mistakes, but the rider that it gives itself to protect "American interests" makes it nothing bot an act of cynical opportunism.
Talk about the past coming back to bite your bum - both Americas and yours, that is
Don't suppose you'll respond to any of this with anything more than more denials
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 07:16 AM

Yes,pacifist Jim wanted another Western military intvasion in another Arab land.
It was not just me who thought that crazy!
You were on your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 11:01 AM

Jim, you have finally, completely lost the plot.
"Isis is a direct product of the West's inaction - they were able to step into the gap left and they used arm supplied by the west to fight Assad to do so.
This has enabled them to grow into a significant extremist force threatening numerous states."

President Assad said right from the beginning that he was fighting fundamentalist extremists and nobody believed him. We supported his opponents.
Do you think the West's action in Iraq and Libya contributed to a "safer" world?
Billions wasted, hundreds of thousands killed and both countries are now suffering what amounts to genocidal civil war.

I warned many months ago of a Caliphate being set up, and it has come to pass.
The West is only to blame in that it is beginning to be controlled by "liberal" numbskulls with no idea who or what they are dealing with.    Mr T is correct when dealing with fundamentalist lunatics the only word that matters is survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 12:14 PM

ISIS is worse than a lice infection and should be handled the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,William of Oakham
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 12:42 PM

It is a forlorn hope, but how much better the world would be were there no religion. Superstition based on the ramblings of ancient imbeciles and demagogues is used to justify the infliction of much of the suffering of mankind. It is past time we all grew up - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon and every variation thereof. I'm sure that the contributors to this thread could find a more productive way to pass the time.

"So they argue through the night, black is black and white is white
Walk away knowing they are right! "

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 12:59 PM

"Isis is a direct product of the West's inaction - they were able to step into the gap left and they used arm supplied by the west to fight Assad to do so.
This has enabled them to grow into a significant extremist force threatening numerous states." Jim Carroll

I would take your statement a further step. Isis is not the result of 'inaction" by the west. It is the result of purposeful action by the west to withdraw from the conflict, leaving the defense of the country to an immature government and an immature military. Also, either the west's intelligence services are pitiful in this modern world, or their accurate information was being deliberately ignored. I lean toward the latter scenario.

I use the word 'immature' in the sense of not being fully developed or prepared.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 01:18 PM

Isis is a direct product of the West's inaction

No, its a result of the cack-handed U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Iran (not to say the whole Middle East) most recently exemplified by George Dumbya Bush & his lap-dog Tony Blair.

By their bogus Iraq war they've created this situation, and all the hand-wringing in the world won't change that fact.

Not to say that this situation is their responsibility alone; this clusterfuck goes back before Reagan and Iran-Contra.

Its the chickens coming home to roost one more time, a.k.a. blowback.

The U.S. didn't learn dick from the Vietnam experience, & its deja vu all over again.

"We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began, its the U.S. marching in an Arab land" -    (with apologies to Phil Ochs)

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 04:00 AM

"President Assad said right from the beginning that he was fighting fundamentalist extremists and nobody believed him."
So now you are advocating for a mass murderer - out of the closet finally and not before time - I see you are addressing him with the honour his rank bestows on him!
The Syrian conflict began as part of the Arab Spring conflict, Assad the thus (to give him his correct title) reacted with extreme violence, as a dictator with track record of torture and murder whould be expected to react.
The West did nothing allowing extremists to fill the gap left by their inaction.
To suggest that the protesters were, as you quote "President" Assad as claiming is as gut-heaving as it gets and puts into perfect context your support for selling him ammunition, riot control equipment and the wherewithal to manufacture chemical weapons.
It would have saves so much time if you had made your position clear from the beginning.
Another item for your C.V. - it will look wonderful next to your "cultural implant" theory.
Have a good day now, I'm sure I will now you've got that off your chest.
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 04:35 AM

Just to correct those speaking of the term "state religion" using the term wrongly in order to justify their bullshit.

Whilst many countries are influenced by a religion, there are two countries where religion is constituted in the legislature.

The United Kingdom
Iran


That's it.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 04:48 AM

Incidentally, regarding my "warmongering" and "pacifism"
I have never advocated "invading" anywhere - not would I
My suggestion was that, as the U.N. had refused to act and in the light of the massacres that were taking place, Britain, the U.S. and other willing nations should assist the Arab Spring protesters in the form of manpower and arms to stop the bloodbath as they had done in Libya - that was my analogy from the start.
I made the point that, if Syria had had a marketable oil supply, Britain and America would have had no hesitation in doing so, as they had done in Iraq and in Libya.
If that was "warmongering" and "fascism" as you suggest, then in was something the British Government was guilty of - it was exactly what Cameron tried and failed to get through Parliament - it's always given me more than a little discomfort to realise that I became that close to agreeing with a Tory Prime Minister!
Had they done so, and backed their actions with a call for a world-wide embargo of Syrian Trade and seizure of property abroad, Assad might have been stopped in his tracks, the Syrian Arab Spring protests might have developed into something worthwhile and the opportunity for the extremists to take over would not have taken place, thus closing a window of opportunity on ISIS, who was enabled to cut its teeth in that war.
As a pacifist (sort of, as I describe myself), like others who share by outlook, I baulk at the idea of taking life and have been lucky to never been put in the position of having to choose to do so.
In the light of what was happening in Syria, it would have been insane to allow Assad to continue as he was allowed to and as you appear to be happy that he was, 'champion of the fight against terrorism' as you seem to regard him.
Once again, have a good day now!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 07:48 AM

BEIRUT (AP) — A cleric read the verdict before the truck came and dumped a large pile of stones near the municipal garden. Jihadi fighters then brought in the woman, clad head to toe in black, and put her in a small hole in the ground. When residents gathered, the fighters told them to carry out the sentence: Stoning to death for the alleged adulteress.

None in the crowd stepped forward, said a witness to the event in a northern Syrian city. So the jihadi fighters, mostly foreign extremists, did it themselves, pelting Faddah Ahmad with stones until her body was dragged away.

"Even when she was hit with stones she did not scream or move," said an opposition activist who said he witnessed the stoning near the football stadium and the Bajaa garden in the city of Raqqa, the main Syrian stronghold of the Islamic State group.