RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:I have to say, between the 2 party leaders, I much preferred Corbyn's approach of saying no to campaigning, and then (mostly) dead-batting questions trying to get him to go campaigning. May on the other hand gives a speech that's basically the conservative manifesto as it relates to terrorism.

Corbin isn't PM. May is. The expectation for her to show leaders is greater

There was Islamic terrorists before we invaded Iraq so to blame western imperialism is just to sing the terrorists tune.[/quote]

That's balls. It's always been English imperialism.

kk67 wrote:
That's balls. It's always been English imperialism.

Putting aside logic, common sense, history and so on an so on then even just the idea we're that important reeks of arrogance.

That's balls. It's always been English imperialism.[/quote]

So there has only ever been an English Empire (actually British not just English)?

kk67 wrote:There was Islamic terrorists before we invaded Iraq so to blame western imperialism is just to sing the terrorists tune.

That's balls. It's always been English imperialism.[/quote]
Utter nonsense. There were plenty of Islamic terrorist attacks in the decades before the Iraq invasion. And at least a generation after we left the ME to its own devices.

Blaming this all on western policies is intellectually lightweight.

Sandydragon wrote:[
Blaming this all on western policies is intellectually lightweight.

That, is intellectual retard.

How can a 21st century country dictate policy to a 16th century country.
It's Balls.We were far bigger cunts than they are now.

You treat people like cunts,.....don't be surprised when they treat you the same.

belgarion wrote:So there has only ever been an English Empire (actually British not just English)?

There was never a British empire.......just an English home counties establishment.
And those are the same pricks causing shit like this. Profit driven fecks that launder money and cheapen our concept of democracy.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:There was Islamic terrorists before we invaded Iraq so to blame western imperialism is just to sing the terrorists tune.

That's balls. It's always been English imperialism.

Utter nonsense. There were plenty of Islamic terrorist attacks in the decades before the Iraq invasion. And at least a generation after we left the ME to its own devices.
Blaming this all on western policies is intellectually lightweight.

When did we exactly?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:
That's balls. It's always been English imperialism.

Utter nonsense. There were plenty of Islamic terrorist attacks in the decades before the Iraq invasion. And at least a generation after we left the ME to its own devices.
Blaming this all on western policies is intellectually lightweight.

When did we exactly?

lol. Never.
And the English intervention in Afghanistan is even more shit.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman ... mlOpLyYm9p

A Man Who Witnessed The London Bridge Attack Went Back To Pay His Restaurant Bill On Sunday
...

kk67 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Utter nonsense. There were plenty of Islamic terrorist attacks in the decades before the Iraq invasion. And at least a generation after we left the ME to its own devices.
Blaming this all on western policies is intellectually lightweight.

When did we exactly?

lol. Never.
And the English intervention in Afghanistan is even more shit.

English empire? What a strange historical grounding you have.

Just for the record, remind me when the British empire pulled it of the ME? Explain to me, if you can, why there were Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe well before 9/11?

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
When did we exactly?

lol. Never.
And the English intervention in Afghanistan is even more shit.

English empire? What a strange historical grounding you have.

Just for the record, remind me when the British empire pulled it of the ME? Explain to me, if you can, why there were Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe well before 9/11?

Tell me the islamist terror attacks pre-9/11 and I'll tell you some of our foreign policies that might be relevant...

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:
lol. Never.
And the English intervention in Afghanistan is even more shit.

English empire? What a strange historical grounding you have.

Just for the record, remind me when the British empire pulled it of the ME? Explain to me, if you can, why there were Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe well before 9/11?

Tell me the islamist terror attacks pre-9/11 and I'll tell you some of our foreign policies that might be relevant...

At best it'd be a fleeting justification, and really to believe it holds merit you'd be in league with those who think violent actions against muslims/mosques warranted as a response. If it beholds us to rise about such petty and disgusting retaliation it beholds them too.

Also some of the problems within Islam go back to the 18th Century if looking to the influence of Wahhabism, maybe even earlier by many centuries depending on how one looks at it.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: English empire? What a strange historical grounding you have.

Just for the record, remind me when the British empire pulled it of the ME? Explain to me, if you can, why there were Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe well before 9/11?

Tell me the islamist terror attacks pre-9/11 and I'll tell you some of our foreign policies that might be relevant...

At best it'd be a fleeting justification, and really to believe it holds merit you'd be in league with those who think violent actions against muslims/mosques warranted as a response. If it beholds us to rise about such petty and disgusting retaliation it beholds them too.

Also some of the problems within Islam go back to the 18th Century if looking to the influence of Wahhabism, maybe even earlier by many centuries depending on how one looks at it.

Wahhabism indeed is dreadful. It's ridiculous that we support the KSA.

I disagree that explaining causes of terrorism equates to excusing it.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Tell me the islamist terror attacks pre-9/11 and I'll tell you some of our foreign policies that might be relevant...

At best it'd be a fleeting justification, and really to believe it holds merit you'd be in league with those who think violent actions against muslims/mosques warranted as a response. If it beholds us to rise about such petty and disgusting retaliation it beholds them too.

Also some of the problems within Islam go back to the 18th Century if looking to the influence of Wahhabism, maybe even earlier by many centuries depending on how one looks at it.

Wahhabism indeed is dreadful. It's ridiculous that we support the KSA.

I disagree that explaining causes of terrorism equates to excusing it.

Again it's not an explanation. Some might use it to stir up resentment, but that resentment would be simply driven by something else given the groups we're talking about if our foreign policy had been different.

Would these attacks have happened without western interference in the ME?

Possibly, but we'll never know, as the west has indeed fwcked over a number of ME countries, killed millions in the process and I'm absolutely certain that alone has played a massive role in what is happening at the moment. The foreign policies of certain western countries have helped to make them a 'legitimate' target for these cowardly, dickless cwnts.

Batshit crazy religion and its interpretation is without a doubt relevant too.

I'm just wondering how we can blame western foreign policy for Muslims killing Christians in the subcontinent. The Yazidis must have an awful foreign policy.

The terrorist attacks of the last year have been aimed at western society - music concerts, Saturday night drinking, Christmas markets etc - it is about our way of life and religion, not just our foreign policy.

Mellsblue wrote:I'm just wondering how we can blame western foreign policy for Muslims killing Christians in the subcontinent. The Yazidis must have an awful foreign policy.

The terrorist attacks of the last year have been aimed at western society - music concerts, Saturday night drinking, Christmas markets etc - it is about our way of life and religion, not just our foreign policy.

Apparently the dickheads that did this were pelted with pint glasses

Don't think they'll do the Saturday night drinking one again.

If Doctor Congo ever gets his shit together we'll suffer even more terrorism. And it will be for the same reasons.

WaspInWales wrote:Would these attacks have happened without western interference in the ME?

Possibly, but we'll never know.

Probably not. If the risibly titled Dr.Congo were allowed to build a decent internal government...then the Wests profit margins would go up like a lead balloon.

But that will not happen,......because destabilising internal governance in an asset rich state is at the core of imperialism. Divide and conquer.

We are raping the profit from these countries. That's why they are pissed. That's why they become radicalised.
It ain't Sir Tim's fault. He gave it away for exactly this reason.

Mellsblue wrote:I'm just wondering how we can blame western foreign policy for Muslims killing Christians in the subcontinent. The Yazidis must have an awful foreign policy.

The terrorist attacks of the last year have been aimed at western society - music concerts, Saturday night drinking, Christmas markets etc - it is about our way of life and religion, not just our foreign policy.

It's about maximum effect for what they can do. Can they drop precise air strikes on weddings, family gatherings and the like? No. They have no air force, no state of the art weapons. Just a bunch of deranged cwnts with no respect of life including their own, and given what they can do, this is just about the most destructive they can be. Is it any surprise? I'm not so sure. Abhorrent, disgraceful and cowardly, definitely yes.

Not an excuse for their actions in any way.

Yes, it's not just foreign policy, but that's where the batshit crazy religion and its interpretation comes into things.

WaspInWales wrote:
Yes, it's not just foreign policy, but that's where the batshit crazy religion and its interpretation comes into things.

Fecking A.

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I'm just wondering how we can blame western foreign policy for Muslims killing Christians in the subcontinent. The Yazidis must have an awful foreign policy.

The terrorist attacks of the last year have been aimed at western society - music concerts, Saturday night drinking, Christmas markets etc - it is about our way of life and religion, not just our foreign policy.

Yes, it's not just foreign policy, but that's where the batshit crazy religion and its interpretation comes into things.

Which still doesn't explain Muslim killings of Christians who have nothing to do with western foreign policy.

As for the maximum effect theory. If that were the case why didn't the Manchester bomber drop his rucksack at Victoria station five hours earlier and take out a lot more people. Why did he choose a concert of a scantily dressed woman that would predominantly be attended by women and girls? Why did the London nutters choose late night on Saturday outside licensed premises rather than twenty nine hours earlier during rush hour where the pavements would've been far more packed?

Mellsblue wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I'm just wondering how we can blame western foreign policy for Muslims killing Christians in the subcontinent. The Yazidis must have an awful foreign policy.

The terrorist attacks of the last year have been aimed at western society - music concerts, Saturday night drinking, Christmas markets etc - it is about our way of life and religion, not just our foreign policy.

Yes, it's not just foreign policy, but that's where the batshit crazy religion and its interpretation comes into things.

Which still doesn't explain Muslim killings of Christians who have nothing to do with western foreign policy.

As for the maximum effect theory. If that were the case why didn't the Manchester bomber drop his rucksack at Victoria station five hours earlier and take out a lot more people. Why did he choose a concert of a scantily dressed woman that would predominantly be attended by women and girls? Why did the London nutters choose late night on Saturday outside licensed premises rather than twenty nine hours earlier during rush hour where the pavements would've been far more packed?

"Muslim killings"?

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
Yes, it's not just foreign policy, but that's where the batshit crazy religion and its interpretation comes into things.

Which still doesn't explain Muslim killings of Christians who have nothing to do with western foreign policy.

As for the maximum effect theory. If that were the case why didn't the Manchester bomber drop his rucksack at Victoria station five hours earlier and take out a lot more people. Why did he choose a concert of a scantily dressed woman that would predominantly be attended by women and girls? Why did the London nutters choose late night on Saturday outside licensed premises rather than twenty nine hours earlier during rush hour where the pavements would've been far more packed?

"Muslim killings"?

Yep. See the infamous ISIS treatment of the Yazidis. See the amount of killings of Christians by Muslims in the India, Pakistan etc. I'm no Christian but to claim terrorism is occurring in the UK solely because of our foreign policy is just ridiculous.