ISIS documentary...

[David Johnson]

", as you can see, Essex Lad, that David will say anything thing to divert attention away from ISIS and all other atrocities that can be related to Islam."

Wrong and clearly a lie. I am not diverting attention away from ISIS. I stated the following in this very thread:

1. Talking about ISIS, That probably results from being a bunch of seemingly bonkers, bloodthirsty mass murderers."

2. In response to Bernard "In this particular case, they (ISIS) should be attacked, certainly by air in line with what Obama is doing.

I do point out that prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were not tens of thousands of violent, bloodthirsty terrorists causing complete chaos in Iraq. Unlike your point, this is not a lie, but is true and I note you do not contradict it.

You stated "What we do know is that when Gaddafi decided he was losing, his last resort was hiding in a tunnel instead of poisoning half the country with the hundreds of tonnes of chemical weapons he'd stockpiled." and

You imply that Gaddafi ended up in a tunnel rather than using his chemical weapons because "He gave them all us because of what he saw happening in Iraq."

The link you quote from, clearly proves the above statement is a lie. Thanks for disproving your own argument for me. It states

"February 23rd 2011 OPCW spokesperson Michael Luhan tells the Associated Press that Libya destroyed ?nearly 13.5 metric tons? of its mustard gas in 2010, accounting for ?about 54 percent of its stockpile.?

Libya destroyed "about 54% of its stockpile" I will leave you to work out the difference between 54% of an enormous stockpile and 100%.

"And as for David saying there were no violent Islamic forces when Saddam and Gaddafi was in charge, of course there was. They were just living under authoritarian dictatorships where trouble causers were visited by government officials in the night and never seen again."

And the midnight visit that you describe is exactly what you wanted from the Allies except from 20,000 ft. or an Allied boot through the door in the early hours. Again you have clearly missed the point which you cannot address i.e. that under Saddam and Gaddafi there were not tens of thousands of out of control Islamic militants bringing total chaos to the countries concerned.


"And David constantly talks about 'innocent civilian deaths' because of our invasion of Iraq but until he accepts the 'innocent civilian deaths' caused by our inaction in Rwanda, it's a cheap point."

It's not a cheap point but a point you cannot answer. Not cheap to the little kids blown to bits or the families in Falluja having to cope with the cancerous effects of uranium tipped munitions . You are stumped. The analogy is very childish In the case of Iraq the innocent civilian deaths were caused by an Allied intervention which has resulted in a country only buffoons would argue is in better shape now in terms of everyday life than what it was in prior to an illegal allied war.

And as for your argument that we knew Iraq would turn out as it did, don't be so idiotic. Anyone who knows anything about the Iraq War knows that the Allies had no idea that things would turn out as catastrophically bad post-Saddam as they did. The post-Saddam Allied measures were catastrophically incompetent and led to the disastrous situation arising today in which a bunch of maniacs have the upper hand.

Oh and are you ever going to explain why that evil religion, Islam which you clearly hate and despise so much has not resulted in tens of thousands of Christian bodies piled up in the streets of England as a result of attacks by the clearly religious, British Muslim population?

And by the way, your tendency to reply to me always in the third person in a post to someone else rather than to me directly is very sweet.

Stupid, but very sweet.

[Essex Lad]

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]You're doing what you accused me of and replying to
> someone else but I suspect that's deliberate.[/quote]
>
> Uh? I replied to you. I quoted you directly. What are you on
> about, man?
>
No, you didn't. I posted, then frankthring posted THEN you replied to my points after his thread. That's indirect by anyone's definition.

[Porn Baron]

No, but I do remember Saddam Hussein attacking the Kurds with chemical weapons. Halabja Massacre killed thousands.

It is impossible for me to understand these Islamist's who believe that listening to music, dancing, watching TV, playing chess, art, acting in a play or writing fictional book fiction is in some way evil.

It is almost as if they are insane. Murdering children??? They seem to have all the traits of being Psychopaths?

[David Johnson]

"No, but I do remember Saddam Hussein attacking the Kurds with chemical weapons. Halabja Massacre killed thousands."

This is very fair comment. Saddam was a brutal dictator and I certainly would not defend his actions. However, Iraq under Saddam was largely a secular state. Blair was warned by the security services that an invasion of Iraq would greatly increase any terrorist threat in the region and to the west as well as destabilising the area. This has been proved to be true.

In addition to creating a situation where terrorism has increased umpteen fold in the area, the invasion has helped to spawn a seemingly medieval interpretation of Islam followed by an army, Isis that is causing far more horror than al Qaeda ever did.

All of that was paid for by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.



And when you look at the situation in Iraq now with once again urgent pleas for yet more weapons, air strikes and boots on the ground, it is difficult to imagine a worse military cock-up than the intervention in Iraq.

My heart bleeds for the innocents in Iraq.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]No, you didn't. I posted, then frankthring posted THEN you replied to my points after his thread.[/quote]

Jesus Christ. I replied to you. It's obvious to see if you're in thread view. My post is branching off your post, not frankthring's.

I replied to this post>

At the end of that post you say: "What should we do? Nothing. It isn't our problem." Do you not?

My reply is here: As you can see, I quote you and give you my answer below the quote.

[Essex Lad]

Yes, I read your post and Mr Johnson kindly replied.