Jump to content

Frankie Boyle


SuperMikey
 Share

Recommended Posts

They invaded Iraq for Oil, what was the motive for Afganistan if it wasn't to deal with Al Qaeda?

 

Like I said, somebody had to get a good kicking for 9/11. Didn't really matter who it was, but someone had to get it to satisfy the american voters. Afghanistan is such a disparate concept politically that its hard to allocate blame to any particular entity in that country, they didn't have a formal government as we would understand it; Bin Laden was somewhere nearby, so they were the ginger kid in the playground getting a shoeing. Speaks volumes that he wasn't actually "found" there in the end, almost as amazing as the missing WMDs in Iraq that the world seems to have forgotten about, and were used as almost total justification for the invasion (by our own government as well, shamefully.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A total of 779 prisoners have been held at Guantanamo Bay since it opened in January 2002.

 

600 have been released without charge.

 

It's a gulag that's become a political disaster for the Yanks.

 

Yeah, f**k all the terrorist atrocities that have been prevented in that time.

 

Most people couldnt give a sh*t about the camp at Gitmo; its only those with an anti-Yank agenda who care.

 

I see we have the usual Seumas Milne wannabees on here.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, f**k all the terrorist atrocities that have been prevented in that time.

 

What atrocities have been stopped directly by having those men imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay? By the way ignoring facts that don't suit your argument doesn't make you right.

 

Most people couldnt give a sh*t about the camp at Gitmo; its only those with an anti-Yank agenda who care.

 

I see we have the usual Seumas Milne wannabees on here.........

 

Not feeding you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, f**k all the terrorist atrocities that have been prevented in that time.

 

Most people couldnt give a sh*t about the camp at Gitmo; its only those with an anti-Yank agenda who care.

 

I see we have the usual Seumas Milne wannabees on here.........

 

Not good enough, I'm afraid. We are trying to enforce democracy and our moral principles on countries basically unwilling to embrace them. Therefore, we have to demonstrate those principles as being better than the ones they currently use; and Guantanamo is a prime example of the exact opposite, detention without charge, trial, or any prospect of either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why hasn't the US invaded Iran, who they claim fund terrorism, or as they have frequently misquoted as wanting to "wipe Israel off the face of the map"? How well do you think they've achieved their objective, given that most observers have acknowledged that the Taleban are still going to be around post-withdrawal. Is the world a safer place as a result of this action, or have we simply created more trouble for ourselves?

 

The Afghanistan invasion can at best be described as an over-reaction, and if OBL had been hiding out somewhere else, somewhere less convenient, it's highly doubtful that the US would have invaded said country to prosecute a manhunt. You may want to ignore it, but the US were perfectly happy dealing with the Taleban when it looked like they'd be the conduit for their non-Russian gas pipeline.

 

Long time ago, so perhaps people have forgotten. The Taliban offered to hand over OBL in October 2001.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

 

Their price? A bit of evidence, for the US to stop bombing them and for OBL to be transferred to a third impartial country. Not a tall order for the world's most wanted man. You have to wonder why it wasn't taken up.

 

 

 

Only because every time the administration tried to spin that line, they were firmly rebuffed by experts on the area.

 

 

 

Of course it was. They didn't want him in an international court for the same reason they didn't produce a bit of evidence when the Taleban asked for it. They had their story. Scrutiny was not only irrelevant, but dangerous.

 

 

 

You've got some front, aintforever. I don't know if I've got the ball to ask someone for evidence on the same thread where I'd been caught instantly inventing stuff to make your point, but kudos to you for having them.

 

Interesting, this evidence thing, isn't it?

 

 

 

I was merely repeating what his surgeon was saying. I believe I even posted a link so that people got the full context.

 

I read an interesting post about Tsarneav turning up on the cover of Rolling Stone. The message very much seems to be "the terrorist next door" now, which is some progress from "madman in a cave".

 

Welcome to the Second Weimar Republic :)

 

You really are a nutjob, that offer from the Taliban came a week after the war started! Of course the coalition were not going to stop, they needed regime change not just to capture/kill OBL.

 

As for the Boston bomber, you know full well that you tried to make out he was "conveniently shot in the throat" so couldn't speak. Wasn't it some bizarre false flag conspiracy involving Russia letting the US into Syria? Yeah, that's worked out well hasn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to post this earlier, although now seems to be a more opportune moment.

 

The Taleban offered Bin Laden up before 9/11. True story.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

 

How different might our world be today if they did?

 

You are just making things up now. IF that story is true, they offered to put him on trial, a bit different to offering him up to the US.

 

You are a f*cking fruit loop, seriously, get help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Boston bomber, you know full well that you tried to make out he was "conveniently shot in the throat" so couldn't speak. Wasn't it some bizarre false flag conspiracy involving Russia letting the US into Syria? Yeah, that's worked out well hasn't it.

 

The throat shooting did seem rather convenient. Reports indicated that he was communicating via the medium of written notes, which always leaves an element of doubt regarding potential coercion. It is good news that he will be able to give evidence in his defence. The not guilty plea he entered means that we'll hopefully see some judicial process, especially since the surgeon's initial prognosis turned out to be pessimistic.

 

It's odd. I originated very little in the Boston thread. Most of it was thrown in by other esteemed posters, which I commented on. I seem to remember the comment about Russia and Syria coming from someone's mate's Facebook feed. I quite liked it. The West has been clamouring to get the gloves off in Syria for some time. It seemed like a viable way to approach such an impasse. Discussing the possibility of something doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe it 100% (see transfers threads on main board for examples). It just means its worthy of discussion.

 

As it turns out, Russia is just as intractable on Syrian matters as it ever was. That doesn't actually preclude the Facebook-suggested scenario. The Russians may just have said no, or, as you suggest, the scenario could have been boll*cks from the start.

 

All comments are fair game. You keep banging the nut job drum, I'll keep knocking your assumptions for six every time you shoot from the hip. Super teamwork, I say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are just making things up now. IF that story is true, they offered to put him on trial, a bit different to offering him up to the US.

 

You are a f*cking fruit loop, seriously, get help.

 

Read the article. Confirmed by US, but dismissed as a ploy.

 

Who made that call, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not good enough, I'm afraid. We are trying to enforce democracy and our moral principles on countries basically unwilling to embrace them. Therefore, we have to demonstrate those principles as being better than the ones they currently use; and Guantanamo is a prime example of the exact opposite, detention without charge, trial, or any prospect of either.

 

Sorry, this is real life, not an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not good enough, I'm afraid. We are trying to enforce democracy and our moral principles on countries basically unwilling to embrace them. Therefore, we have to demonstrate those principles as being better than the ones they currently use; and Guantanamo is a prime example of the exact opposite, detention without charge, trial, or any prospect of either.

 

He's too thick to understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this is real life, not an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

 

Could be a mirror universe, Alps. Roddenberry's vision, perhaps best vocalised during the otherwise questionable First Contact, was that humanity's purpose is self-improvement in whatever field one felt was fulfilling.

 

Is what's going on now the complete opposite? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...