Another major problem, is that it's obviously a religious issue for fundamentalist Muslims. That needs to change from within, and when we go round bombing the **** out of them, we force them to become more insular, and even less likely to be open to change.

The Islamic world needs to go through an enlightenment period, but we've made it almost impossible in these countries.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Another major problem, is that it's obviously a religious issue for fundamentalist Muslims. That needs to change from within, and when we go round bombing the **** out of them, we force them to become more insular, and even less likely to be open to change.

The Islamic world needs to go through an enlightenment period, but we've made it almost impossible in these countries.

it's not religious, it's idealogical, just as nazism was idealogical.

[Marc]

Handled well

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by lostalex

you do realize how hypocritical you seem right? one minute you are complaining about the coalition/NATO invading countries controlled by dictators, and the next minute you are talking about how we should invade all of the other countries controlled by dictators? Ridiculing leaders for posing with dictators when they are trying to make diplomatic peaceful changes??

So which is it? If Hillary Clinton goes to Cuba and hugs a Castro, will you praise her for trying to be diplomatic? or condemn her for supporting a fascist dictatorship?

You seem to pick and choose who you praise and condemn based only on yur own political agenda against the Western leaders.

Aka, anything a western leader does = bad.

No I don't want us to invade any countries, just pointing out Western hypocrisy

In fact if you read any of my posts from the Libya conflict I was against NATO intervention

Originally Posted by lostalex

it's not religious, it's idealogical, just as nazism was idealogical.

The parallels between Nazism and a religion are there for all to see.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

No I don't want us to invade any countries, just pointing out Western hypocrisy

In fact if you read any of my posts from the Libya conflict I was against NATO intervention

you can be for or against anything you like, it doesn't matter, because you arn't responsible for anyone's wellbeing.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

The parallels between Nazism and a religion are there for all to see.

all religions are just idealogy.

America has already proven successful against other ideologies.... we defeated Nazism and Marxism(communism), we can defeat militant islam as well. The cold war lasted 40 years.

didn't britain once fight a 100 year war? patience is a virtue.

Before:




and After:

Originally Posted by lostalex

all religions are just idealogy.

America has already proven successful against other ideologies.... we defeated Nazism and Marxism(communism), we can defeat militant islam as well. The cold war lasted 40 years.

Communism ran out of money (the people from within were a major component for change), and Nazism was was defeated with force. It's impossible to wait out religious fundamentalism. The whole premise is flawed. Every victory for them, becomes a sign from god, every defeat for them becomes a warning from god. You don't change someones mind like that.

The Islamic faith is at the equivalent point in it's history, to 14th century Christians. What changed Christianity, was a changing of ideas, and that's how you change Islam into a relatively harmless religion like Christianity. There are no Christians that are anything like Christ, but it's been watered down. The flow of ideas, is what changes peoples views, not attacks.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

all religions are just idealogy.

America has already proven successful against other ideologies.... we defeated Nazism and Marxism(communism), we can defeat militant islam as well. The cold war lasted 40 years.

didn't britain once fight a 100 year war? patience is a virtue.

America wasn't alone in defeating Nazism, despite what Hollywood may try to portray. And when America finally decided to join in the fight in Europe to defeat the nazis, Europe was helping the US defeat the Japanese in the Far East. Just sayin'...

And I fail to see how American can claim any credit for defeating communism.

[joeysteele]

I personally believe that no matter who was the UK Prime Minister at the time,they would have supported the USA in the invasion of Iraq, I do think Tony Blair may have things to answer for, however I don't think the outcome would have been any different no matter who was in power.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator,he did cause the deaths of vast sections of his people however I agree with Jesus H Christ on this issue in the main.
He has said most of what I would have on the subject and I totally agree with his satement as to the moral standard of Western leaders where they are very selective as to where they allow us to get involved in as to Nations with dictatorships who cause misery to their citizens.

As Jesus H Christ commented, either get involved in all those situations or none at all.Stop the double standards.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

America wasn't alone in defeating Nazism, despite what Hollywood may try to portray. And when America finally decided to join in the fight in Europe to defeat the nazis, Europe was helping the US defeat the Japanese in the Far East. Just sayin'...

And I fail to see how American can claim any credit for defeating communism.

That's not true Have you ever seen that documentary, Inglorious Bastards?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

America wasn't alone in defeating Nazism, despite what Hollywood may try to portray. And when America finally decided to join in the fight in Europe to defeat the nazis, Europe was helping the US defeat the Japanese in the Far East. Just sayin'...

And I fail to see how American can claim any credit for defeating communism.

LMAO @ europe helping America defeat the Japanese., you must be joking right?

and an equal hardy laugh at you not seeing how America defeated communism. If it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Russian right now.

The only reason russia stopped where they did is because of America. We could have scrapped the whole Marshall plan and just allowed you to become another Soviet Republic, you don't know that??? SERIOUSLY?

What are they teaching in british schools these days?

Unlike Russia, America was not planting flags the whole way. every place the russians liberated from the nazi's in ww2, they also planted a giant russian flag and assimilated them into the collective of soviet states. If it wasn't for America you would have suffered the same fate,. you would also have been assimilated into the collective of soviet states. You would be borg.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by lostalex

If it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Russian right now.

Well I've heard the "you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for us" one, but that we'd be speaking Russian now is news to me

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well I've heard the "you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for us" one, but that we'd be speaking Russian now is news to me

well, if America had not gotten involved, and we'd left it to the Russian to liberate you and we only focused on the pacific war, yes, you'd be a soviet republic. go ask the polish or the ukranians. I'm sure they would have prefered to have been liberated from the Nazi's by America rather than Russia. Or just ask the east germans about the difference.

[MTVN]

Oh dear.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Oh dear.

lol, you think england could have defeated not only the NAzi's by yourself, but also the Russians? lol

keep dreaming.

the Russians in the 40's were never interested in LIBERATING anyone, they were only interested in acquiring new states.

[Kizzy]

Alex has a point if it was not for NATO we would have been in troube I feel.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by lostalex

lol, you think england could have defeated not only the NAzi's by yourself, but also the Russians? lol

Where'd I say anything remotely close to that?

[arista]

Back On Topic:


The man that invaded the court
would have had a press pass.

He has been on Ch4News, before.


David Lawley-Wakelin was taken to a central London police station for questioning

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1wAcsZojA










He could have had a weapon and killed War Criminal Blair

I always wondered why I had this really strong urge to start writing my "R's" backwards.

[BBfanUSA]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I always wondered why I had this really strong urge to start writing my "R's" backwards.

actually the real war criminal here is the press imo. If I recall America never went into Iraq until 2003. Surely there had to be something building up rage inside of americans and 9/11 helped it.

It's the press because they used 9/11 to get ratings. That's what all the press cares about The three big stations (CBS, NBC, ABC) and The 24/7 Channels (FOX news, MSNBC, and CNN). They wanted war so they could get ratings and they used 9/11 to start it.

So the press should be on trial over here in America as well, but we don't see it happening anytime soon do we? If there was anyone that would be charged with a war crime it should be Bush and the US congress (At least those who said yes to an declaration of war, which only congress can do, The President can send people into a war zone, but he cannot officially declare war. An example of this is Vietnam I believe)

[arista]

Arrested: David Lawley-Wakelin


What a great man

[arista]

David Lawley-Wakelin has not been charged
he told LBC Radio no one stopped him walking in the rear entrance
he then went into a
Empty Court to get to the Court
Blair was in.

[arista]

David is live on LBC radio now
taking questions on War Criminal Blair.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/

Live Link above