Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.

I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! 

You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... 

Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? 

[cem_devecioglu]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.

I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! 

You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... 

Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? 

ok.. let me ask you a question, do you really believe that those soldiers are there to stop Al Quaida ?

[Sir Tigger KC]

Would anyone be surprised Cem if vast quantities of crude oil were suddenly discovered under the Afghan deserts? Of course not and what was Iraq all about?    So no, in answer to your question I don't believe it's all about chasing Al Quaida and their affiliates, but that is how Afghanistan started off, as the Afghan government at the time, the Taliban, allowed Al Quaida to operate, recruit and train in Afghanistan. 

It's not just western armies fighting the Islamists either, take Somalia for example where African countries are taking the fight to Al Shabaab.  Uganda has about 6,000 troops and apparently have lost about 2,700 men there!!    Kenya has about 5,000 troops, Burundi about 4500 troops and Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon and Senegal all have troops there as well.  Kenya and Uganda have both suffered terrorism as a result with bombings targeted at civilians in Nairobi and Kampala. 

A question for you Cem!    Where does Iran fit into the puzzle? 

[cem_devecioglu]

Would anyone be surprised Cem if vast quantities of crude oil were suddenly discovered under the Afghan deserts? Of course not and what was Iraq all about?    So no, in answer to your question 1.I don't believe it's all about chasing Al Quaida and their affiliates, but that is how Afghanistan started off, as the Afghan government at the time, the 2.Taliban, allowed 3.Al Quaida to operate, recruit and train in Afghanistan. 

It's not just western armies fighting the Islamists either, take Somalia for example where African countries are taking the fight to Al Shabaab.  Uganda has about 6,000 troops and apparently have lost about 2,700 men there!!    Kenya has about 5,000 troops, Burundi about 4500 troops and Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon and Senegal all have troops there as well.  Kenya and Uganda have both suffered terrorism as a result with bombings targeted at civilians in Nairobi and Kampala. 

A question for you Cem!    Where does Iran fit into the puzzle? 

1.   so finishing Al Quaida is not the actual goal and your question to Lizzie
"Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?"
 
is meaningless..   Al quaida as a reason just fits and hides the main purpose..
 
2.Taliban is initially trained and armed by Americans against Russians
 
3.There is no puzzle about Iran.. Iran stays at a very strategic point.. with its arms , rockets, fighter planes can effect oil flow in the gulf at any moment.. effects surrounding govts..besides they are totally anti west..
 

[Sir Tigger KC]

1. so finishing Al Quaida is not the actual goal and your question to Lizzie
"Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace?"
 
is meaningless..   Al quaida as a reason just fits and hides the main purpose..

I didn't say that.... Read what I said carefully Cem! 

"I don't believe it's all about chasing Al Quaida..."  Emphasis on the word 'all' !!  and I didn't say, that I don't believe that finishing Al Quaida is the 'goal' as you put it, so my question to Lizzie is meaningful and valid! 

But, I'm sure that there are other factors at work, like control of natural resources for one, Mali borders oil and gas rich Algeria, so it's conceivable that there is oil and gas under the sands of Mali.  Look at the proximity of Afghanistan to Iran and then think of the military assets that NATO has there.....    I'm sure  that you can come up with some more Cem as you love a good conspiracy theory! 

All said and done though, the main job of the Western (and African) armies fighting these Islamic extremists is to stop them from consolidating power in any particular area, giving them space and time to recruit, plan and train for attacks on the free world! 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.

I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! 

You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... 

Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? 

If I have not made it already clear, is it justified that the West has troops in these Muslim countries?  All the time they are there killing and maiming "innocents" they are gaining nothing but enemies of the west.  Can any western army justify itself by being on foreign lands unless their is a clear threat to national interests i.e. Germany threatening Great Britain in 1940; the German's invading Russia in 1941?  Unless there is a unambiguous threat to "Christian" lands then the West's armies have no business being there.  After 9/11 the American's, and Britain, had sympathy from many quarters about such a terrorist attack on innocents.  That all was thrown away by subsequent American actions in the Middle East, including the nonsense that was the invasion of Iraq.  Going for Bin Laden should have been enough, but no typically of the USA they went in with a policy of all guns blazing.  If America / West had been wise far more subtle actions should have ensued to use local and international diplomacy and Arab friends to track down and kill the threat. The ensuing wars of Iraq and Afghanistan just greatly increased the level of enemies for the West and has achieved little.  Is London or New York, or even Paris now, any safer from terrorist attack?  The answer is no!!  That is due to all the enemies these wasteful, mindless wars, have created for us all.  So YES TigerHayes, if we pull our troops out, and enter into peace talks with the opposing forces then YES we could gain a far more permanent peaceful solution to the one we have now!

Never forget the other piece of American history; the Vietnam War. The USA thought they could fight it after the French pulled out and avoid the Communists taking control of the whole the South China Sea area, even as far as Australia.  The Americans went in eventually, after first having 'advisors' there, with ground troops from 1965 with full carpet bombing following. It cost trillions of dollars, 58 thousand US personnel and millions of Vietnamese lives, with eventually political pressure at home resulting in the US pulling out in 1973.  The North Vietnamese then took over the whole country.  But did the communists sweep in to the countries around the South China Sea as America originally feared? No!  In fact the other countries all decided that they wanted a different political control than one from China.  All that Western / American interference for what?  Another war at great expense in all respects, but for no gain to the West.  Just many enemies that still hate the Americans for killing their families in random carpet bombing attacks whilst trying to kill the elusive Viet Cong.  And, yes most historians, including this one,  now recognise how the longer the Americans fought the war, the more South Vietnamese supported the Viet Cong and Sheltered them as they had learnt to hate the Americans and just wanted the war to stop. The Communists ended up being their preferred option.  That is exactly what is happening in these Muslim countries that the West is interfering in; originally politically indecisive people are being persuaded by what they see to hate Western forces.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Still our western armies are bombing, strafing, and generally killing innocent men, woman and children in these Muslim countries.

If you want your nation and way of life to be hated, then just go and bomb some other countries civilian population!

So, for those who genuinely want so called dangerous elements not to infiltrate Britain as immigrants, then demand the politicians pull our troops out of Muslim countries and use democratic, peaceful means to reach objectives.

So which countries are we talking about Lizzie?  'These Muslim countries' is a bit of a sweeping statement if you ask me....   

Are you really suggesting that NATO troops in Afghanistan go round murdering the civilian population like the Nazis did?    or maybe the French in Mali are raping and pillaging their way across the desert!   

From what I saw on various news channels, the general population in Mali were damn glad to see the French and were thankful to them for getting rid of the Islamists/Jihadists/Rebels/Terrorists whatever you want to call them... 

Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? 

Nope, it is like the useful fool socialists wanted to let communism spread all over the world as it was no threat, fortunately the Americans and the Western World fought where necessary to stop it happening. The same socialists have the same attitude to Islam and can't see any threat to Western civilization either. Most civilizations are destroyed from within and Europe has no divine right to carry on advancing technologically. After the fall of the Roman empire Europe and especially the UK went backwards for 100's of years where we lost their technologies in the dark age.

If you don't want this country by 2066 being a majority Muslim state then you have got to do your bit to stop it by supporting a ban on immigration (vote UKIP) and start breeding. An average Muslim family in the UK has 8.2 children and an average Christian family has 1.6 where you need 2.11 for the Christian population to just stay static!

Once a country is majority Muslim then the Middle East shows that it tends to be ethically cleansed of other religions. This is currently happening in Egypt, Iraq and Syria and Africa, hence the French intervention in Mali. 80% of Imams are radical extremists as this is what has motivated then to become an Imam in the first place! So the chances of this country being in control of moderate Muslims once they are the majority is slim. Moderate Mulims won't necessarily support it but they won't go against the Imams either.

Remember this will lead to the banning of pork, alcohol, mixed education, women's equality, music and most current TV programs for starters. Most OOFers will be too old for this to affect them, but it will your children and grand children.

To show how peaceful the religion is, were there mass riots by Christians and death threats over the Film "The Life of Brian",  which some Christians thought was blasphemous? Now consider the response to "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, the Danish Mohammed cartoons in Denmark and the Muslim film released in America last year. As a Christian you are taught to love thy neighbour. Radical Muslims are taught to kill the infidel. As one Imam put it: Christians love life, we love death.

The majority of moderate Muslims are like moderate Christians and just want to get on with life and raise their families etc, but the radical Muslims have a very different agenda as we have seen with 7/7 and numerous other thwarted attacks.

Appeasers are like Churchill said: "They feed all their friends to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat them last"

In 1970 the world's population was 20% Western countries and 15% Muslim. By 2005 it was 15% Western countries and 20% Muslims. The US strategically expects to be the lone major Christian Western country by 2100. I have not read it yet, but a book "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn used to have a column in the DT.

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

Here is a lecture Mark Steyn gave on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IMJ6asESM

It is only called the "dark ages" because today we know so little about those times.

Absolutely right!

[cem_devecioglu]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.

I think that Lizzie was talking about a different Arab spring Albs, about 150 years ago? Unless Lizzie is older than I thought and followed General Gordan's exploits!! 

You didn't answer my question Lizzie..... 

Do you believe that if all western troops were pulled out of Muslim countries and a unilateral truce with Al Quaida was announced that they would respect that and leave us in peace? 

If I have not made it already clear, is it justified that the West has troops in these Muslim countries?  All the time they are there killing and maiming "innocents" they are gaining nothing but enemies of the west.  Can any western army justify itself by being on foreign lands unless their is a clear threat to national interests i.e. Germany threatening Great Britain in 1940; the German's invading Russia in 1941?  Unless there is a unambiguous threat to "Christian" lands then the West's armies have no business being there.  After 9/11 the American's, and Britain, had sympathy from many quarters about such a terrorist attack on innocents.  That all was thrown away by subsequent American actions in the Middle East, including the nonsense that was the invasion of Iraq.  Going for Bin Laden should have been enough, but no typically of the USA they went in with a policy of all guns blazing.  If America / West had been wise far more subtle actions should have ensued to use local and international diplomacy and Arab friends to track down and kill the threat. The ensuing wars of Iraq and Afghanistan just greatly increased the level of enemies for the West and has achieved little.  Is London or New York, or even Paris now, any safer from terrorist attack?  The answer is no!!  That is due to all the enemies these wasteful, mindless wars, have created for us all.  So YES TigerHayes, if we pull our troops out, and enter into peace talks with the opposing forces then YES we could gain a far more permanent peaceful solution to the one we have now!

Never forget the other piece of American history; the Vietnam War. The USA thought they could fight it after the French pulled out and avoid the Communists taking control of the whole the South China Sea area, even as far as Australia.  The Americans went in eventually, after first having 'advisors' there, with ground troops from 1965 with full carpet bombing following. It cost trillions of dollars, 58 thousand US personnel and millions of Vietnamese lives, with eventually political pressure at home resulting in the US pulling out in 1973.  The North Vietnamese then took over the whole country.  But did the communists sweep in to the countries around the South China Sea as America originally feared? No!  In fact the other countries all decided that they wanted a different political control than one from China.  All that Western / American interference for what?  Another war at great expense in all respects, but for no gain to the West.  Just many enemies that still hate the Americans for killing their families in random carpet bombing attacks whilst trying to kill the elusive Viet Cong.  And, yes most historians, including this one,  now recognise how the longer the Americans fought the war, the more South Vietnamese supported the Viet Cong and Sheltered them as they had learnt to hate the Americans and just wanted the war to stop. The Communists ended up being their preferred option.  That is exactly what is happening in these Muslim countries that the West is interfering in; originally politically indecisive people are being persuaded by what they see to hate Western forces.

pheeew..perfect.. I wouldnt want to be against you Lizzie

[Lizzie_Zoom]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950

When I mentioned Egypt Albiltz I wrote "Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself."   That being in 1956, but British control in Egypt was never welcomed, and the way "natives" were treated, as recorded by many historians who have studied the British involvement in that country, was appalling. By the time of Suez the average Egyptian could not wait to be rid of the British occupation by it's military soon enough.  All this when Egypt had been granted a form of independence by the British in 1922, and it being ratified in 1936 with Egypt being granted it's full independence as a sovereign state.  However, British forces remained and tried to dictate the politics of the country. By 1956 the hero and saviour of Egypt had arrived in the form of Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser and nationalised the Canal. The rest his history, but put simply what followed was a disgusting act of deceit by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who colluded with the State of Israel to stage an invasion by them to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt with massed forces to "fight off" the Israeli's.  All was guaranteed to anger Nasser and his people beyond imagination, but of course for once the Americans stepped in and demanded Britain and France withdraw. It was yet another attempt by Britain to interfere with the internal politics of a Muslim country, and of course today still represents how close Britain, America, The West, is to Israel who are the enemy of Palestine and Muslims generally. 

So in Muslim eyes you have America and the West supporting Israel against the Arab states and Islam in general, whilst attacking Palestinian civilians.  Are we then surprised we in the West have ended up with Muslim extremists attacking us?


Poor old Turkey, the subject of this thread, is suffering by being between both camps with very volatile internal politics balancing between secular and Muslim control, with the West hardly assisting them by staying out of the region!

[cem_devecioglu]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950

When I mentioned Egypt Albiltz I wrote "Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself." That being in 1956, but British control in Egypt was never welcomed, and the way "natives" were treated, as recorded by many historians who have studied the British involvement in that country, was appalling. By the time of Suez the average Egyptian could not wait to be rid of the British occupation by it's military soon enough.  All this when Egypt had been granted a form of independence by the British in 1922, and it being ratified in 1936 with Egypt being granted it's full independence as a sovereign state.  However, British forces remained and tried to dictate the politics of the country. By 1956 the hero and saviour of Egypt had arrived in the form of Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser and nationalised the Canal. The rest his history, but put simply what followed was a disgusting act of deceit by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who colluded with the State of Israel to stage an invasion by them to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt with massed forces to "fight off" the Israeli's.  All was guaranteed to anger Nasser and his people beyond imagination, but of course for once the Americans stepped in and demanded Britain and France withdraw. It was yet another attempt by Britain to interfere with the internal politics of a Muslim country, and of course today still represents how close Britain, America, The West, is to Israel who are the enemy of Palestine and Muslims generally. 

So in Muslim eyes you have America and the West supporting Israel against the Arab states and Islam in general, whilst attacking Palestinian civilians.  Are we then surprised we in the West have ended up with Muslim extremists attacking us?


Poor old Turkey, the subject of this thread, is suffering by being between both camps with very volatile internal politics balancing between secular and Muslim control, with the West hardly assisting them by staying out of the region!

Lizzie, it was an excellent history lesson
 
I hope your university deans are not like  our admins   you may end up loosing the job

[Lizzie_Zoom]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950

When I mentioned Egypt Albiltz I wrote "Add to that Egypt which Britain abused for decades until the Suez crisis, a further war, where again Britain did no favours for itself." That being in 1956, but British control in Egypt was never welcomed, and the way "natives" were treated, as recorded by many historians who have studied the British involvement in that country, was appalling. By the time of Suez the average Egyptian could not wait to be rid of the British occupation by it's military soon enough.  All this when Egypt had been granted a form of independence by the British in 1922, and it being ratified in 1936 with Egypt being granted it's full independence as a sovereign state.  However, British forces remained and tried to dictate the politics of the country. By 1956 the hero and saviour of Egypt had arrived in the form of Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser and nationalised the Canal. The rest his history, but put simply what followed was a disgusting act of deceit by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, who colluded with the State of Israel to stage an invasion by them to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt with massed forces to "fight off" the Israeli's.  All was guaranteed to anger Nasser and his people beyond imagination, but of course for once the Americans stepped in and demanded Britain and France withdraw. It was yet another attempt by Britain to interfere with the internal politics of a Muslim country, and of course today still represents how close Britain, America, The West, is to Israel who are the enemy of Palestine and Muslims generally. 

So in Muslim eyes you have America and the West supporting Israel against the Arab states and Islam in general, whilst attacking Palestinian civilians.  Are we then surprised we in the West have ended up with Muslim extremists attacking us?


Poor old Turkey, the subject of this thread, is suffering by being between both camps with very volatile internal politics balancing between secular and Muslim control, with the West hardly assisting them by staying out of the region!

Lizzie, it was an excellent history lesson
 
I hope your university deans are not like  our admins   you may end up loosing the job

Thanks Cem

[albitz]

America and the west supporting Israel against a constant onslaught of terrorism from Muslim Palestinian extremists.
The point I was making was that much of what is currently happening in the region is pretty much as a direct result of the "Arab spring".
At the time,some of us thought it may be akin to poking a stick in a hornets nest,others didnt.

[STMO123]

Let's be honest, the world would be a much better place without fairy stories religion of any kind.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

We didnt attack or invade Egypt.We helped them in their "Arab spring",which iirc Lizzie,you were very much in favour of at the time.
Now,Christians in Egypt are being persecuted (even rumours of them being crucified),by their own Muslim countrymen.
The rise of Muslim fundamentalism (which is happening on a global scale) must be stopped by whatever means it takes.
As for the Ankara attack.Responsibilty has been claimed by a marxist,U.S. hating group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305950

Sorry, I have just realised I have not answered your points fully Albitz. So here goes!

Yes, I was very much in favour of the "Arab Spring", as it was Arabs /Muslims fighting for a new democracy in both Egypt and Libya.  In both cases they were being ruled by dictators and they needed democratic reform.  Egypt is still though trying to sort it's democracy out, just as the British did 200 years ago. The difference with these revolutions were they were home grown, with Muslims fighting Muslims, and apart from some Western support in the air over Libya, they won all by themselves.  No hate of the West ensued, and in fact only praise for their limited action, that should teach us something; the West should only give the help the countries people's want, and need, but no more.  No full war involvement, no troops on the ground, and no internal "actions" by the West using it's "hidden" forces.

As for "Christians" being crucifying by Muslims; that is pure scaremongering, and probably propaganda by certain interested parties!  It reminds me of when the British nation were "informed" during the early days of WW1 that German troops, the wicked Hun, were skewing babies on their bayonets, with even posters produced to support the claim, to encourage as many men as possible to join up!

Then there is "The rise of Muslim fundamentalism". Well, yes that is true!  Why?  It is simple to answer, the more the West invades Muslim countries and meddles in their politics, the more resentment builds up and creates fundamentalists out of moderate thinking people.  If you have lost your family, or members of your family, along with friends due to "mistaken" allied attacks, what would you do?  Free French, Poles, Jews, Russians, and others, all sought revenge for German atrocities.  The more Germany committed, the more enemies they created who would rather die than let the Nazis do what they wanted!  Yes, we rarely speak about it but before the extremists of the Islamic World came about, there were already those committed to die in fighting the German's. They would throw themselves into fighting the Hun at whatever costs to themselves.

So "Responsibility has been claimed by a Marxist,U.S. hating group." Not extremists of Muslim flavour this time then, how disappointing for some of you!  But this was an act by yet another group who have a real niggle about American foreign policy.

[STMO123]

Oh yes. Muslims hate the US and Britain. Except the free housing and benefits bit, they seem quite fond of those.
I think all westerners should eff off back home where they came from, and the same for all easterners as well.