UK aid worker may have been killed by US forces

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power"

 

It's ironic that you come out with these facetious remarks in light of the fact that if your policy of inaction was employed toward Afghanistan post-9/11, there would be a heightened and real chance of Taliban/Al Quaeda forces getting hold of Pakistan's arsenal. Of course you will never acknowledge this as it doesn't fit into your worldview. It puts your comments towards LM into perspective though; you probably just type it out to make you feel better while you go and watch Iplayer and play more Xbox live and admire your nice shelfing that you construct to house your Beano annuals.

 

 

"To be fair these 'backward folk' wouldn't have half the technology they have if it hadn't been traded to them for oil or some other commodity needed by the more developed nations."

 

Saddam was provided with weapons by the west because those governments believed in a strategy of arming these people to keep other enemies in check. Hence arming Saddam to combat Iran and arming the Taliban to combat the Russians. Of course it has turned out in both cases to be a terrible strategy, and this has been acknowledged by later governments.

 

With regard to Iraq the fabrication of evidence in the buildup to the conflict does not negate many arguments for the invasion. A strong argument is to be made that he should have been removed after invading Kuwait but it is easy to say that in hindsight. I was about 3 at the time of the first gulf conflict, but I take that position. Considering what has happened since it is an absolute tragedy that Saddam wasn't dealt with then. THat failure meant that a catastrophe was inevitable in Iraq in the future.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[LeazesMag 0]

"So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power"

 

It's ironic that you come out with these facetious remarks in light of the fact that if your policy of inaction was employed toward Afghanistan post-9/11, there would be a heightened and real chance of Taliban/Al Quaeda forces getting hold of Pakistan's arsenal. Of course you will never acknowledge this as it doesn't fit into your worldview. It puts your comments towards LM into perspective though; you probably just type it out to make you feel better while you go and watch Iplayer and play more Xbox live and admire your nice shelfing that you construct to house your Beano annuals.

 

 

"To be fair these 'backward folk' wouldn't have half the technology they have if it hadn't been traded to them for oil or some other commodity needed by the more developed nations."

 

Saddam was provided with weapons by the west because those governments believed in a strategy of arming these people to keep other enemies in check. Hence arming Saddam to combat Iran and arming the Taliban to combat the Russians. Of course it has turned out in both cases to be a terrible strategy, and this has been acknowledged by later governments.

 

With regard to Iraq the fabrication of evidence in the buildup to the conflict does not negate many arguments for the invasion. A strong argument is to be made that he should have been removed after invading Kuwait but it is easy to say that in hindsight. I was about 3 at the time of the first gulf conflict, but I take that position. Considering what has happened since it is an absolute tragedy that Saddam wasn't dealt with then. THat failure meant that a catastrophe was inevitable in Iraq in the future.

 

I admire your patience to explain how to suck eggs here. I couldn't be arsed to explain the obvious to them. Saddam should have been removed first time round, I've also said this, which is even more amusing when I hear them saying it's about oil. Fact is he flouted all the terms of the treaty, he was laughing in the faces of the UN and the west, and didn't think further action would be taken. Further action was taken by the west though, but not the UN, because too many of the leading figures of the UN are themselves from banana republics and strongly support the politically correct nonsense that is everywhere you go these days.

 

The world is better off without Saddam. It would be better off without leaders of certain other countries too, admittedly, but we can't go around playing the world's policeman all the time. It's a shame that the leftie hippies think the way they do.

[The Fish 9047]

We should simply obliterate all who disagree with you Leazes?

[Meenzer 14111]

and you could also be going out [which I am doing in a few minutes]

 

 

How was the real world? Was your second pint of Directors at the County interrupted by ragheads threatening your way of life?

[LeazesMag 0]

and you could also be going out [which I am doing in a few minutes]

 

 

How was the real world? Was your second pint of Directors at the County interrupted by ragheads threatening your way of life?

 

When in Rome, do as the Romans do Meenzer. Have you read that in any of your books

[LeazesMag 0]

We should simply obliterate all who disagree with you Leazes?

 

no, just one or two people.

[Meenzer 14111]

and you could also be going out [which I am doing in a few minutes]

 

 

How was the real world? Was your second pint of Directors at the County interrupted by ragheads threatening your way of life?

 

When in Rome, do as the Romans do Meenzer. Have you read that in any of your books

 

I can read, if that's what you're asking. Let me know if you need any help with that.

[tooner 243]

"So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power"

 

It's ironic that you come out with these facetious remarks in light of the fact that if your policy of inaction was employed toward Afghanistan post-9/11, there would be a heightened and real chance of Taliban/Al Quaeda forces getting hold of Pakistan's arsenal. Of course you will never acknowledge this as it doesn't fit into your worldview. It puts your comments towards LM into perspective though; you probably just type it out to make you feel better while you go and watch Iplayer and play more Xbox live and admire your nice shelfing that you construct to house your Beano annuals.

 

 

"To be fair these 'backward folk' wouldn't have half the technology they have if it hadn't been traded to them for oil or some other commodity needed by the more developed nations."

 

Saddam was provided with weapons by the west because those governments believed in a strategy of arming these people to keep other enemies in check. Hence arming Saddam to combat Iran and arming the Taliban to combat the Russians. Of course it has turned out in both cases to be a terrible strategy, and this has been acknowledged by later governments.

 

With regard to Iraq the fabrication of evidence in the buildup to the conflict does not negate many arguments for the invasion. A strong argument is to be made that he should have been removed after invading Kuwait but it is easy to say that in hindsight. I was about 3 at the time of the first gulf conflict, but I take that position. Considering what has happened since it is an absolute tragedy that Saddam wasn't dealt with then. THat failure meant that a catastrophe was inevitable in Iraq in the future.

 

I admire your patience to explain how to suck eggs here. I couldn't be arsed to explain the obvious to them. Saddam should have been removed first time round, I've also said this, which is even more amusing when I hear them saying it's about oil. Fact is he flouted all the terms of the treaty, he was laughing in the faces of the UN and the west, and didn't think further action would be taken. Further action was taken by the west though, but not the UN, because too many of the leading figures of the UN are themselves from banana republics and strongly support the politically correct nonsense that is everywhere you go these days.

 

The world is better off without Saddam. It would be better off without leaders of certain other countries too, admittedly, but we can't go around playing the world's policeman all the time. It's a shame that the leftie hippies think the way they do.

 

 

.....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now. the "story" you've been sold on CNN and the Beeb are just communication exercises given out to justify and rationalize the blatent aggressive stance that US/UK foreign policy took post 9/11

 

Have you heard of Peak Oil LM? might want to crack a book.

[The Fish 9047]

Still don't understand how education is a bad thing...

 

is it because those who're informed tend to hold polar opinions to the frothing rage-filled demagogue types?

[Meenzer 14111]

Still don't understand how education is a bad thing...

 

is it because those who're informed tend to hold polar opinions to the frothing rage-filled demagogue types?

 

It's because the ability to read is something those infidel Islams teach our kids just up the road from the Wetherspoons on Gosforth High Street in that there real world.

[The Fish 9047]

Still don't understand how education is a bad thing...

 

is it because those who're informed tend to hold polar opinions to the frothing rage-filled demagogue types?

 

It's because the ability to read is something those infidel Islams teach our kids just up the road from the Wetherspoons on Gosforth High Street in that there real world.

shut up Mohammed

[Happy Face 29]

"So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power"

 

It's ironic that you come out with these facetious remarks in light of the fact that if your policy of inaction was employed toward Afghanistan post-9/11, there would be a heightened and real chance of Taliban/Al Quaeda forces getting hold of Pakistan's arsenal. Of course you will never acknowledge this as it doesn't fit into your worldview.

 

I have acknowledged this already in a thread elsewhere numb nuts.

 

My very facetious remark was taking the piss out of Leazes' blanket racism....they're uneducated backward farmers living in caves and beneath us....and also the gravest threat to world peace with the strength and intellect to back it up?

[Gemmill 34880]

You've just said that HF has no idea about the Muslim/Taliban mindset. What exactly is it makes you more qualified than him?

 

As I said in the other thread, what experience do you have in the real world?

 

He's been in a war zone and had a gun pointed at him on a regular basis, for a start.

 

I'm sure he'll contradict me if that's not the case.

 

Are you German or a Brit living in Germany ?

 

Nope.

 

How's life in the war zone?

 

Plenty of time to read Mein Kampf. Some of you should try it. He was a nice bloke really you know.

 

Not sure where you're heading with this one LM but I ask you to exercise caution as it's a subject that could easily blow out of proportion.

[Guest alex]

<sigh>......against my better judgement.

 

 

LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint.....

...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West.

 

your ideas are, convoluted at best

It's the same sort of cultural idea sharing that allowed him to obtain those curry recipes.

[LeazesMag 0]

"So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power"

 

It's ironic that you come out with these facetious remarks in light of the fact that if your policy of inaction was employed toward Afghanistan post-9/11, there would be a heightened and real chance of Taliban/Al Quaeda forces getting hold of Pakistan's arsenal. Of course you will never acknowledge this as it doesn't fit into your worldview.

 

I have acknowledged this already in a thread elsewhere numb nuts.

 

My very facetious remark was taking the piss out of Leazes' blanket racism....they're uneducated backward farmers living in caves and beneath us....and also the gravest threat to world peace with the strength and intellect to back it up?

 

racism ? The bog standard do-gooder liberal get out of jail card.

[LeazesMag 0]

"So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power"

 

It's ironic that you come out with these facetious remarks in light of the fact that if your policy of inaction was employed toward Afghanistan post-9/11, there would be a heightened and real chance of Taliban/Al Quaeda forces getting hold of Pakistan's arsenal. Of course you will never acknowledge this as it doesn't fit into your worldview. It puts your comments towards LM into perspective though; you probably just type it out to make you feel better while you go and watch Iplayer and play more Xbox live and admire your nice shelfing that you construct to house your Beano annuals.

 

 

"To be fair these 'backward folk' wouldn't have half the technology they have if it hadn't been traded to them for oil or some other commodity needed by the more developed nations."

 

Saddam was provided with weapons by the west because those governments believed in a strategy of arming these people to keep other enemies in check. Hence arming Saddam to combat Iran and arming the Taliban to combat the Russians. Of course it has turned out in both cases to be a terrible strategy, and this has been acknowledged by later governments.

 

With regard to Iraq the fabrication of evidence in the buildup to the conflict does not negate many arguments for the invasion. A strong argument is to be made that he should have been removed after invading Kuwait but it is easy to say that in hindsight. I was about 3 at the time of the first gulf conflict, but I take that position. Considering what has happened since it is an absolute tragedy that Saddam wasn't dealt with then. THat failure meant that a catastrophe was inevitable in Iraq in the future.

 

I admire your patience to explain how to suck eggs here. I couldn't be arsed to explain the obvious to them. Saddam should have been removed first time round, I've also said this, which is even more amusing when I hear them saying it's about oil. Fact is he flouted all the terms of the treaty, he was laughing in the faces of the UN and the west, and didn't think further action would be taken. Further action was taken by the west though, but not the UN, because too many of the leading figures of the UN are themselves from banana republics and strongly support the politically correct nonsense that is everywhere you go these days.

 

The world is better off without Saddam. It would be better off without leaders of certain other countries too, admittedly, but we can't go around playing the world's policeman all the time. It's a shame that the leftie hippies think the way they do.

 

 

.....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now. the "story" you've been sold on CNN and the Beeb are just communication exercises given out to justify and rationalize the blatent aggressive stance that US/UK foreign policy took post 9/11

 

Have you heard of Peak Oil LM? might want to crack a book.

 

hoho. His invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with us putting him out again ? Who says CNN and the BBC tell it like it is ? They tell it as they think it is but nothing more, in fact the BBC themselves are liberal left wing loonies too. Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

[ewerk 26562]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

I think your posts leave us in no doubt as to your level of knowledge on the subject.

[Happy Face 29]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

EDIT: Nor can you presume he's taken in anything you tell him either. He's shown himself to be inpenetrable to facts. An official Bush era document on how to start war with Iraq under false pretenses is brushed aside like Superman stands up to bullets.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest]

I love the fact that anyone who points out the fact that he's a daft racist cunt to him gets called a do-gooder or accused of being an overly P.C wanker

[LeazesMag 0]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

I think your posts leave us in no doubt as to your level of knowledge on the subject.

 

and your source is the BBC or the Guardian, right ?

[ewerk 26562]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

I think your posts leave us in no doubt as to your level of knowledge on the subject.

 

and your source is the BBC or the Guardian, right ?

 

The 'real world'.

[LeazesMag 0]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

I think your posts leave us in no doubt as to your level of knowledge on the subject.

 

and your source is the BBC or the Guardian, right ?

 

The 'real world'.

 

nah, they only tell you what they think they know and/or to a degree what their political allegiance wants you to believe

 

Especially the Guardian. Liberal, namby pamby left wing rubbish.

[LeazesMag 0]

I love the fact that anyone who points out the fact that he's a daft racist cunt to him gets called a do-gooder or accused of being an overly P.C wanker

 

do you also love the fact that you need to show you are obsessed with following me around ?

 

How many carling's did you have in Ibiza

[LeazesMag 0]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

[Happy Face 29]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

 

Must be a bore to write so much, while saying nothing whatsoever though.