Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

British suicide bomber in Syria

Have we learnt nothing?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

#1 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:15 PM

Has the british and US governments learnt nothing from backing these maniacs in Afghanistan during the 80's? These are the same extremist fanatics that we are now backing in Syria and it won't be long until these hardened jihadist fighters are back on the streets of the uk, France and Saudi Arabia causing mayhem. If anything the "west" should be backing Assad and not the "rebels", after all isn't that the excuse the governments of the US and UK give for the backing and propping up of brutal Arab dictators in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt(under Mubarak) that they are fighting against the Islamists?

#2 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:56 PM

To be fair, we're not really supporting either side.  I think if Assad hadn't been such a bloody idiot in using chemical weapons that we'd be far more likely to be listening to his requests for aid, not involving military action.  Same with Israel, if Assad had shown a bit of give towards Israel, and not done things that just wind them up, then they'd find they'd have access to some pretty top-end resources that have been hardened in dealing with the sort of threats that Assad has to face now.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#3 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:33 PM

To be fair, we're not really supporting either side.  I think if Assad hadn't been such a bloody idiot in using chemical weapons that we'd be far more likely to be listening to his requests for aid, not involving military action.  Same with Israel, if Assad had shown a bit of give towards Israel, and not done things that just wind them up, then they'd find they'd have access to some pretty top-end resources that have been hardened in dealing with the sort of threats that Assad has to face now.


There was no evidence that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons and as for Assad showing "a bit of give" towards Israel Israel occupies part of their territory, the golan heights. Assad is a thug and war criminal but Israel, the "west" and Syria would be far worse off if al Qaeda and their affiliates take over Syria.

#4 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,520 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:42 PM

One less dickhead anyway.

#5 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:48 PM

One less dickhead anyway.


True but how many more is there in Syria and what happens when they return home?

#6 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,520 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:52 PM

True but how many more is there in Syria and what happens when they return home?

We ensure their rights are upheld.

#7 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,461 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:24 PM

We ensure their rights are upheld.

 

That's exactly what we do.

 

It's why Western civilisation is the dog's doodads.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#8 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,520 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:39 PM

That's exactly what we do.

It's why Western civilisation is the dog's doodads.

It won't be the dogs doodas for very much longer then will it?

#9 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,461 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:42 PM

It won't be the dogs doodas for very much longer then will it?

 

Why, are you out to destroy it?


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#10 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,520 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:48 PM

I can't even be arsed arguing about it, he's gone and that's great news.

Edited by Johnoco, 16 February 2014 - 04:04 PM.


#11 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,747 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 05:41 PM

What "rights" do British  jihadist suicide bombers have...compared with , say, British non-jihadist non-suicide non- bombers?

 

 

Also, I'm not sure that its right to say  "To be fair, we're not really supporting either side"    as Hague seems to be putting his weight behind Assad stepping down.



#12 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:07 PM

There was no evidence that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons and as for Assad showing "a bit of give" towards Israel Israel occupies part of their territory, the golan heights. Assad is a thug and war criminal but Israel, the "west" and Syria would be far worse off if al Qaeda and their affiliates take over Syria.

Of course there's evidence Assad did it, we had a whole thread about it and it's an established fact, except in the minds of the conspiracy theorists.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#13 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:09 PM

I can't even be arsed arguing about it, he's gone and that's great news.


Unless you were on the receiving end of his truck bomb.

#14 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:12 PM

Of course there's evidence Assad did it, we had a whole thread about it and it's an established fact, except in the minds of the conspiracy theorists.


Let's see this "evidence" then and what about Israel occupying the Golan heights and building illegal settlements on there?

#15 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,520 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:20 PM

Unless you were on the receiving end of his truck bomb.

Yes, I don't mean to trivialise the people involved.

#16 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:21 PM

What "rights" do British  jihadist suicide bombers have...compared with , say, British non-jihadist non-suicide non- bombers?
 
 
Also, I'm not sure that its right to say  "To be fair, we're not really supporting either side"    as Hague seems to be putting his weight behind Assad stepping down.

Exactly, so are the US government.

#17 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:22 PM

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.

 

Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.

 

If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#18 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:37 PM

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.
 
Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.
 
Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.
 
If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.

The Brits and others who volunteered to fight in Spain were fighting against fascism while the foreign fighters in Syria are fighting to oust a dictator only to replace it with an even worse kind of tyranny, al Qaeda style Wahhabism.

#19 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:54 PM

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.

 

Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.

 

If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.

The Saudi army lot who fought with me in the first Gulf war would be a bit surprised to hear that.

 

Also, the second largest military contingent in the first Gulf war were the Saudis with just shy of 100,000 troops committed in combat and non-combat roles.  Other muslim combat forces involved in the first Gulf war included Syrians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Omanis and so on, admittedly most were non-combat troops but it's very naive to think that the combat troops were all US and UK


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#20 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 08:42 PM

The Saudi army lot who fought with me in the first Gulf war would be a bit surprised to hear that.

 

Also, the second largest military contingent in the first Gulf war were the Saudis with just shy of 100,000 troops committed in combat and non-combat roles.  Other muslim combat forces involved in the first Gulf war included Syrians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Omanis and so on, admittedly most were non-combat troops but it's very naive to think that the combat troops were all US and UK

 

Yes, I realise that Craig. I should have qualified it by saying it was the attitude of British Islamists.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users