Wikileaks 'insurance' file...

[joinerjohn]

Sadly Woody, I don't think that pulling out of Afghanistan will change the radical lot. Remember 9/11 happened when the US wasn't even in Iraq.
Certain Muslim groups want to dominate the west. These groups are far too idealogical and will stop at nothing to further their ends.

 

[Mickymoody]

Sadly Woody, I don't think that pulling out of Afghanistan will change the radical lot. Remember 9/11 happened when the US wasn't even in Iraq.
Certain Muslim groups want to dominate the west. These groups are far too idealogical and will stop at nothing to further their ends.

Does anyone remember the Crusades?

WE will roughshod you, and impose OUR religion on YOU!

Time for payback? The Bible is pretty radical, but not taken literaly, but the Koran, seems to be taken to the letter of the law, by the extremists.

So in a court of law, I was assaulted, therefore the punishment is death..It says in the Bible, an eye for an eye.

The neighbour gave me the eye, so we went upstairs, and had a little fun, DEATH!

The Koran, kill ALL unbelievers? Make a death ray, if someone writes a book?

Get real! If people believe in something made up, then good at them, but at some stage they must realise that what they believe isn't real.

 

[ellal]

I simply say that both sides commit acts of terrorism

Absolute boll*cks.

Ridiculous thing to say.

Really?

Naivety is a wonderful thing...

Scratch the surface and....

Several of the documents set to be published by WikiLeaks this weekend show the US has been helping Turkey's Kurdish separatist movement the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers Party.

The PKK is listed as a terrorist group in Turkey, the US, the European Union and Australia.....

US military documents referred to the PKK as ''warriors for freedom and Turkish citizens'' and said the US had set free arrested PKK members in Iraq.

The documents also say US forces in Iraq have given weapons to the PKK.

So would you call funding/arming a proscribed terrorist group fighting a nato ally an act of terrorism or not then?...

 

[ellal]

You have defended the sort of things I mentioned in previous posts (although you are careful to disguise this as defending something else. Either freedom of speech or the right to protest etc).

No disguising of anything...I say what I believe regarding freedom of speech or the right to protest, even if I disagree with what someone is saying/doing!

Is there a large difference between secret and private?
If I tell someone something in private and they don't say a word to anyone, does that make it a secret?

Something said in private is not a secret as it's been shared in confidence with someone who doesn't neccesarily need to know. Passing that private information on is being untrustworthy. This is what the US has been shown to be (and worse) in this instance! Secrecy is not saying something in private in the first place!

 

[LastMagicBean]

Naivety is a wonderful thing...

The problem isn't my naivety but your interpretation of the word terrorism.

If for example a muslim fundamentalist f*ckwit decides to pack a rucksack with explosives, travel on a packed London underground train and detonate it, with the SOLE INTENTION of murdering and maiming as many INNOCENT men, women and children as possible....That's terrorism in my book.

The selling of arms between nations has happened since inception.
Hardly the same thing is it.

It's like blaming cream cake sellers for the fatness of their customers.

The statement of yours I commented on was b*llocks, still is b*llocks, and always will be b*llocks.

 

[regsmyth]

Oh dear oh dear.

Divide and conquer. Works every time.

 

[Mickymoody]

Naivety is a wonderful thing...

The problem isn't my naivety but your interpretation of the word terrorism.

If for example a muslim fundamentalist f*ckwit decides to pack a rucksack with explosives, travel on a packed London underground train and detonate it, with the SOLE INTENTION of murdering and maiming as many INNOCENT men, women and children as possible....That's terrorism in my book.

The selling of arms between nations has happened since inception.
Hardly the same thing is it.

It's like blaming cream cake sellers for the fatness of their customers.

The statement of yours I commented on was b*llocks, still is b*llocks, and always will be b*llocks.

Seems like a whole load of hype, I post on DIYNOt, but when I'm in the pub I slag it off..oh! That's news! (not that I do, DIYnot is great!), best insult ever on Have I got news for you, I think it was, that the French president would be referred to as a "Cheese eating surrender monkey," lmao! Can you really see diplomats being diplomatic? Storm in a teacup, whipped up by the media.

 

[ellal]

The selling of arms between nations has happened since inception.
Hardly the same thing is it.

Did you actually read the post?

Since when is the PKK a nation?...It is a proscribed terrorist group which targets civilians!

Supplying arms and funding such a group is a terrorist act...

So on reflection I was obviously wrong with the naivety remark....it should have read your blind stupidity!

 

[joinerjohn]

Strangely enough, when Iraq were at war with Iran, Iraq were supported by the West. When Afghanistan were at war with the USSR they were supported by the West. Oh how the tables have turned.
Iraqi Army officers used to be trained at Sandhurst. Years ago the Taliban were supplied with arms by the US. Mind you, the IRA were supplied with US dollars a plenty too.
Strange world we live in. I wonder who the enemy will be in 10 yrs??

 

[LastMagicBean]

Since when is the PKK a nation?...It is a proscribed terrorist group which targets civilians! :

I was well aware that the PKK was an organisation and not a nation, thanks very much.
My comment on nations was a general one. I didn't feel it was necessary to specifically debate the PKK to illustrate my point.

Supplying arms and funding such a group is a terrorist act...:

NO IT ISN'T. !!!!!!

If an unscrupulous arms dealer supplies an organisation with arms, which are then used in an act of terrorism, then no matter how immoral, criminally responsible, or ultimately culpable that b*stard is...........

That doesn't make HIM a terrorist.

So it's nothing to do with blind stupidity I just don't agree with your interpretation of the word.

 

[joinerjohn]

I suppose next We'll be told that anyone who supplies terrorists with a batch of hydrogen peroxide (a common ingredient in bomb making) is a terrorist too.
Hmmm I remember some people found guilty last year of keeping nitrogen fertilizer in a lock up (for bomb making purposes). Are the companies/shops that supplied them, terrorists too?
I wonder if B&Q are too? they supplied some of the gas canisters used in the Glasgow Airport incident.

 

[Mickymoody]

I suppose next We'll be told that anyone who supplies terrorists with a batch of hydrogen peroxide (a common ingredient in bomb making) is a terrorist too.
Hmmm I remember some people found guilty last year of keeping nitrogen fertilizer in a lock up (for bomb making purposes). Are the companies/shops that supplied them, terrorists too?
I wonder if B&Q are too? they supplied some of the gas canisters used in the Glasgow Airport incident.

Isn't that use for dying hair? Not that I'm an expert! I thought fertiliser was the key ingredient?

So hair dye, gas cannisters..I have two ingredients...whats the trigger? Nitrogen fertiliser...good so far..

I'm sure if I chucked all that on a bonfire then it would go up good. Must have the NATO forces on overdrive with that post!

WHY is a bonfire called a bonfire? I understand the last bit, but why BON? French?

 

[wreckedit]

WHY is a bonfire called a bonfire? I understand the last bit, but why BON? French?

WIKI
The English term bonfire is attested from the 15th century, as banefire "bone-fire", originally of fires in which the bones of slaughtered animals were burned, allegedly a Gaelic tradition of the slaughter season in autumn (Samhain).[1]

Its no wonder that after 1066a.d. we do have have French in our language. How on earth we ever got to the English language completely baffles me.

 

[studips]

I reckon if World War Three was to start tomorrow, Ellal would be the perfect candidate for recruitment as an enemy spy.(that's if he's not already one) If not then conscientious objector springs to mind.

You defend terrorism , by turning the argument around , so the terrorists are the victims. You mention innocent people, killed by roadside bombs. (it's not often on the news we here of innocent people killed by IED's It's usually soldiers doing their jobs). You conveniently forget that the majority of Afghanistan people don't want the Taliban in control, but focus on our soldiers and portray them as the terrorists.

the individual you speak of is not worth getting irritated with, there is more than just the element of troll there. these conspiricists can't function in society, and need conspiracy to make sense or survive in this world.

hey, don't like the facts? (dr. kelly committed suicide) selectively pick some facts, season with half truths and fairy tales, spin the lot and cook at gas mark 2 for a few months and hey presto - the poor troubled (and undoubtedly dumped on) guy was assassinated.

i'm glad i don't have to live the way these poor fools who see conspiracy everywhere do.

jj - the ignore button is there for people like that, i'm just about to use mine
m

 

[ellal]

I was well aware that the PKK was an organisation and not a nation, thanks very much.
My comment on nations was a general one. I didn't feel it was necessary to specifically debate the PKK to illustrate my point.

Funnily enough my point wasn't a 'general one', so your attempt to dig youself out of a hole is pathetic...

NO IT ISN'T. !!!!!!

If an unscrupulous arms dealer supplies an organisation with arms, which are then used in an act of terrorism, then no matter how immoral, criminally responsible, or ultimately culpable that b*stard is...........

That doesn't make HIM a terrorist.

Really?..

Linky Linky..

Of course many such instances could be provided, but hey - you don't have a clue do you... You probably don't have any idea of what a EULA is either do you! (That's an 'End User Licence Agreement' to thickies!)

And 'HIM' doesn't of course apply to a 'nation state' such as America does it!