[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I would stop holding Washington's hand every time it decided to invade somewhere in the Middle East. There have been many wars we want no part of because there's little gain in getting involved but when it comes to oil/uranium rich deserts, we always want to join in with getting our hands dirty.

If terrorism from the Middle East is going to stop, we have to put an end to invading their lands because its our invasions that are the very bedrock of everything we are seeing unfold today in the West.

This is woefully incorrect Red.

What is the very bedrock of what we are seeing unfold in the West today is a century old agenda by a not so little faction called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes - The 'West' has committed more than one 'faux pas' in its meddling in the Middle East, and yes we have been duplicitous - none more so than with the Israel matter - but this is no more than one of many contributary factors and is certainly not THE cause of the appalling horrors which are shedding innocent blood and creating such misery in the West (and in the Middle East and elsewhere).

I will be glad when some British stop trying to blame us for all the world's ills and trying to get us to self-flagellate and wear hair shirts.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is woefully incorrect Red.

What is the very bedrock of what we are seeing unfold in the West today is a century old agenda by a not so little faction called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes - The 'West' has committed more than one 'faux pas' in its meddling in the Middle East, and yes we have been duplicitous - none more so than with the Israel matter - but this is no more than one of many contributary factors and is certainly not THE cause of the appalling horrors which are shedding innocent blood and creating such misery in the West (and in the Middle East and elsewhere).

I will be glad when some British stop trying to blame us for all the world's ills and trying to get us to self-flagellate and wear hair shirts.

What does this mean? This theory is not unheard of that our involvement in the middle eastern conflicts have exacerbated situations you say so yourself...
DR suggests this is the reason for the surge in numbers and advancement of ISIS that is woeful but not incorrect.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What does this mean? This theory is not unheard of that our involvement in the middle eastern conflicts have exacerbated situations you say so yourself...
DR suggests this is the reason for the surge in numbers and advancement of ISIS that is woeful but not incorrect.

What does this mean?

Again? I really don't know what to suggest to you to render it easier for you to understansd my posts. Perhaps Nightclasses in English Comprehension?

"This theory is not unheard of that our involvement in the middle eastern conflicts have exacerbated situations you say so yourself..."

Yes - I do "say so myself" so doesn't that render this part of your response superfluous? So why write it?

"DR suggests this is the reason for the surge in numbers and advancement of ISIS that is woeful but not incorrect."


I am confused as to the actual meaning of what you are trying to say above, because the sentence does not make sense. Sorry.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Kizzy;8298637] "Apologists... That is a very interesting word, it for me anyway denigrates anyone who attempts to see the issue from all angles."

For you, the word 'Apologist' might do so - that is hardly surprising to me - but I USE the word in its CORRECT meaning; to define 'anyone who defends the actions of 'something' which is controversial' and when I deliberately precede the word 'Apologist' with the word 'Terrorist', then my use of the term 'Terrorist Apologist' means EXACTLY what I intend it to mean - ANYONE WHO DEFENDS TERRORISM'.

A 'Terrorist Apologist' means exactly that, and does NOT mean 'anyone who attempts to see the issue from all angles'.

Not in my logical, rational world anyway.

"'such is the cost of war' is not an adequate response to the severity of the reality of war it simplifies the horror of it, and the ramifications following any military involvement."

As everyone on here knows - I am no disciple of brevity, because, by definition, 'Serious Debates' cannot usually be satisfactorily addressed by a few 'sound bites' or copy-pasta.

However, there are occasions when it is simply not feasible to extend already lengthy posts or response posts by expounding side points or incidental issues of which - one assumes - the reader already has at least cursory knowledge.

So to accuse me of not 'giving an adequate response' etc in my comment on the 'side' issue of war, is frankly mere disingenuous deflection and 'straw clutching'

"It's not stupidity personified to question whether the west inadvertently made a bad situation worse due to said involvement, in a rational, logical world that's what people do they look at all the variables."

With respect, you are once again deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what I said, because I DID NOT state what you claim I stated above, I ACTUALLY clearly statedThat our intervention in) "Iraq was WRONG. Blair and Bush were WRONG, but they are but contributary factors and to claim that any mistakes which the WEST makes is RESPONSIBLE for ISIS or any other type of terrorism is stupidity personified."

What I actually said is so very easily verified on here by anyone who wishes to check and it bears NO resemblance to your ridiculous claim of what I said. But hey, I am finally getting used to your misrepresentations as a cover to obscure the fact you have no real argument - as tiresome as it is.

"There are in your analogies a consequence, had the girl and the lady been better prepared or taken an alternative route the outcome would have perhaps been different for them... Why is it so wrong to suggest that in reference to our naked streaking across Afghanistan or spilling our cash all over Syria?"

Again you illustrate by your confused and confusing text above, that you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what has been said, because the WHOLE point of my analogies which you allude to, is that; while both the young girl and the old woman can be said to have CONTRIBUTED to the terrible outcomes by their "ERROR OF JUDGEMENTS" - NEITHER CAN BE ACCUSED OF CAUSING THOSE OUTCOMES, and it is wrong to accuse them of such instead of laying the REAL blame were it so obviously belongs -- AT THE FEET OF THE EVIL PERPETRATORS.

Which is the same as in RED blaming the WEST instead of the evil twisted terrorist butchers.

In my logical, rational world anyway.

Now I am no more personally attacking you than you have me. I am merely responding, once again, to a response of yours to a post of mine which was NOT directed to you - a post in which you once again misrepresent and distort the truth of what I said.

It is futile to discuss if we do not start from a premise of truth.

- ANYONE WHO DEFENDS TERRORISM'.

And yet nobody has....