Cameron goes Turkey crazy!

[David Johnson]

"It may amaze you, but the west was not the only player in arming the Muj. There are a lot of very rich Saudis (such as Bin Laden) who got in on the act"

Of course they had help not just from the west. You obviously agree with my point that the west helped arm the mujaheddin in their fight with the Russians and they then went on to take over the country.

For more info. read this about the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar who fought against the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar

"Saddam Hussein's army was almost exclusively equipped with Soviet bloc weapons, although the French sold him some stuff. The west didn't arm him to any great extent, he had the money to buy his own arms, he was a big boy, who had an unfortunate habit of invading his neighbours. This was why, in the final analysis, he was removed. There was no way to deal with him, he was a snake.

You are wrong. Again, read this to improve your background knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 ... t_for_Iraq

In particular read the section on Foreign Support to Iraq and Iran e.g. "During the war, Iraq was regarded by the West (and specifically the United States) as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support of Iraq took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment and satellite intelligence to Iraq".

"That will be why most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens then will it? Face it, they were Muslim fanatics. Saudi Arabia was never a European colony, it was never oppressed or exploited by the west, but that's not the point for these people. It's about their religion. "

Side issue. There have been a number of terrorist attacks. Some of the people involved have been Saudi, some have been Pakistani, Indonesian, African origin etc etc. You are stating the obvious.

You seem to struggle to understand basic points. I have stated that the terrorist attacks were done by Muslim extremists. But as the UK Security Services pointed out to Blair before the Iraq invasion, that the invasion would widen and increase the spread of extremism. They were right.

I note you totally ignored my request for you to summarise your view in a sentence. I repeat yet again for you, my point is that you cannot tarnish an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Your view seems to be "Muslims are bad. The religion is bad"

Is this your view or not?

I'm getting a bit bored with having to correct your statements in every single message you post. Can't you do a bit of reading beforehand?

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

"One day they will be sawing your head off and you will still be trying to reason with them. I feel sorry for you, I really do."

A tad over excitable, perhaps? You appear to be suffering from bogeyman syndrome.

Cheers
D

[Robches]

David Johnson wrote:

> "It may amaze you, but the west was not the only player in
> arming the Muj. There are a lot of very rich Saudis (such as
> Bin Laden) who got in on the act"
>
> Of course they had help not just from the west. You obviously
> agree with my point that the west helped arm the mujaheddin in
> their fight with the Russians and they then went on to take
> over the country.

The west helped fighters such as the Northern Alliance, who became the sworn enemy of the Taliban. You must be aware that the Taliban/AQ assassinated Ahmed Shah Masood just before 9/11?

>
> "Saddam Hussein's army was almost exclusively equipped with
> Soviet bloc weapons, although the French sold him some stuff.
> The west didn't arm him to any great extent, he had the money
> to buy his own arms, he was a big boy, who had an unfortunate
> habit of invading his neighbours. This was why, in the final
> analysis, he was removed. There was no way to deal with him, he
> was a snake.
>
> You are wrong. Again, read this to improve your background
> knowledge.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 ... t_for_Iraq
>
> In particular read the section on Foreign Support to Iraq and
> Iran e.g. "During the war, Iraq was regarded by the West (and
> specifically the United States) as a counterbalance to
> post-revolutionary Iran. The support of Iraq took the form of
> technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and
> military equipment and satellite intelligence to Iraq".

I said the Iraqi army was almost entirely equipped with Soviet bloc weapons, and that is true. The US did give the Iraqis some intelligence help in his war with Iran, largely on the basis that he was, at the time, the lesser of two evils. Still makes him evil.


>
> "That will be why most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi
> citizens then will it? Face it, they were Muslim fanatics.
> Saudi Arabia was never a European colony, it was never
> oppressed or exploited by the west, but that's not the point
> for these people. It's about their religion. "
>
> Side issue. There have been a number of terrorist attacks.
> Some of the people involved have been Saudi, some have been
> Pakistani, Indonesian, African origin etc etc. You are stating
> the obvious.

Side issue? What else do they have in common? Maybe radicalisation by Saudi Wahhabists?
>
> You seem to struggle to understand basic points. I have stated
> that the terrorist attacks were done by Muslim extremists. But
> as the UK Security Services pointed out to Blair before the
> Iraq invasion, that the invasion would widen and increase the
> spread of extremism. They were right.

No, I struggle to agree with a word you say, which is clearly something you cannot get your head round. Your problem, not mine.
>
> I note you totally ignored my request for you to summarise your
> view in a sentence. I repeat yet again for you, my point is
> that you cannot tarnish an entire religion based on the actions
> of a few. Your view seems to be "Muslims are bad. The
> religion is bad"

I have ignored your "request". Why? Because you are not my boss, and I don't happen to have a philosophy that I wish to summarise in a sentence. Again, not my problem.
>
> Is this your view or not?
>
> I'm getting a bit bored with having to correct your statements
> in every single message you post. Can't you do a bit of
> reading beforehand?

Only if you promise to stop thinking that everyone who does not agree with every word you write must, by definition, be an imbecile. I wonder if that's possible?

[David Johnson]

So what is the point that you are making? Why do you so clearly find it impossible to summarise?

Cheers
D

[Robches]

I am not trying to make any "point" as you put it. The "point" of this thread was Green Dave's advocacy of Turkey's entry into the EU. I'm against it. Are you for it?

[David Johnson]

"I am not trying to make any "point" as you put it. The "point" of this thread was Green Dave's advocacy of Turkey's entry into the EU. I'm against it. Are you for it?"

No. I am against it because I do not think this country has the infrastructure to support the millions that would potentially be able to come to the UK. My view would be exactly the same whether Turkey was an overwhelmingly Muslim or Christian country.

Why are you against it then?

Cheers
D

[Robches]

I agree with you about numbers, but not the fact that Turkey is a Muslim country. Millions of Muslims would be literally impossible to assimilate. Outside of the cities, Turkey is literally third world. Practices such as honour killing are commonplace. The thought of millions of Turks having the right to settle in the UK chills my blood. Cameron is a moron for even considering it, much less advocating it.

[David Johnson]

"Millions of Muslims would be literally impossible to assimilate."

And I thought that after your post stating...

"One day they will be sawing your head off and you will still be trying to reason with them. I feel sorry for you, I really do."

you'd have been welcoming them with open arms.

Cheers
D

[frankthring]

Sorry to stick my nose in the David/Robches spat, but going back to the
original Post, I think its worth bearing in mind that historically Britain
has always supported or, in Victorian times, acted as Turkey`s chief
Western benefactor. The Ottoman Empire, ruled from Constantinople -
modern Istanbul - depended on British support.
We went to war with Russia in 1854 because Turkey, "the sick man of
Europe" asked for our help. We helped run the Ottoman Empire and
in 1882 were even asked by the Sultan to take Egypt, his richest
dominion, off his hands. Throughout the Balkan Wars of the 19th
century we always took Turkey`s side Valentine Baker - "Baker Pasha"
- led Turkish armies in Bulgaria, General Gordon did the same in the
Sudan.
That Turkey fought on the German side in WW I was a splendid irony.
But once the war was over Britain and its Foreign Office chappies
helped dismantle the Ottoman Empire, re-assemble bits in British
interests, and went on sipping their Turkish coffee.
History teaches us that things change surprisngly little.....

[Robches]

You are right, British foreign policy has always been rather pro-Turk. I think it had a lot to do with trying to keep Russia out of the Balkans and the Mediterranean.