Blair refuses to back Iran strike

[scandium]

"TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday."

More: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=577092006

[Skybird]

Burned child fears the fire.

[kiwi_2005]

Why should he back it. Its not his war.

[Kapitan]

At last some thing good :D

[STEED]

Tony Blair’s next job in the E.U. and he dose not want to mess that one up dose he?

[Godalmighty83]

unless the UN backs the war against iran i really doubt the UK will get involved. and considering how much the US has been deliberatly pissing off the UN that aint never gonna happen.

[Skybird]

Tony Blair’s next job in the E.U. and he dose not want to mess that one up dose he?
Really? Britain traditionally works against the continental Europe's policy-making. And seeing where the EU is heading at, I even cannot blame them for that any longer. Not that Britain's stand during the cartoon-row was any more convincing and preferrable.

[STEED]

Tony Blair’s next job in the E.U. and he dose not want to mess that one up dose he?
Really? Britain traditionally works against the continental Europe's policy-making. And seeing where the EU is heading at, I even cannot blame them for that any longer. Not that Britain's stand during the cartoon-row was any more convincing and preferrable.

Latest info Skybird a very high position in the Environment section that's where are Mr Blair is going. Interesting comment you made Skybird, 80% of the running of the U.K. is now govern by Europe and Mr Blair has gone a long away to help them. To put it in a nut shell Tony Blair say's one thing like no but puts yes on the paper work. And he thinks we don't know what a fool that man is.

[Skybird]

One day I come over to your island and stay there :cool:. Or Ireland, maybe. Said to have a wonderful landscape, and home of The Corrs, some of my favourite music. :) Last thing the EU needs is a Tony Blair in one of it's offices, I think. And last thing Britain needs is a Skybird in one of it's pubs :lol:

[STEED]

One day I come over to your island and stay there :cool:. Or Ireland, maybe. Said to have a wonderful landscape, and home of The Corrs, some of my favourite music. :) Last thing the EU needs is a Tony Blair in one of it's offices, I think. And last thing Britain needs is a Skybird in one of it's pubs :lol:

Your welcome any time Skybird and we have plenty of pubs for you. :D :D

Catch you all next weekend yes you heard me right very busy for the rest of the week. Enjoy yourself and please have some fun. :D :lol: :D

[The Avon Lady]

Why should he back it. Its not his war.
Are you certain (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011049.php)?

[mapuc]

Why should he back it. Its not his war.
Are you certain (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011049.php)?

If that should happen, then the englishmen will join the US in the war against Iran. but as I understand England is not interestet in a prestrike against Iran.

Markus

[The Avon Lady]

Why should he back it. Its not his war.
Are you certain (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011049.php)?

If that should happen, then the englishmen will join the US in the war against Iran. but as I understand England is not interestet in a prestrike against Iran.

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

On the other hand, what you're saying is that the UK should risk being hit first anyway. Perhaps London or Machester is expendable after all.

[Skybird]

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.


It is no secret that Israel repeatedly has "leaked" it's intention that if it ever should fall it will take Europe with it. It also is no secret, as retired Israelis militaries repeatedly have indicated, that all European capitals and m ajor cities are in the crosshais of Israel'S nuclear forces. Maybe we should attack Israel, preemptively?

Concerning the Islamization, I must agree.

[kiwi_2005]

So by attacking Iran, this means that if nothing is done iran will fire that nuke on isreal or whoever. Isreal should have no fear of her enemies cos it aint gonna happen. Isreal will never be destroyed. And iran haven't said we going to wipe out the americans. So what is the friggin problem.

I say let iran talk out of there ass, and just keep an eye on them, but dont go and do some code red strike. America will only wake up the pitbulls :D

[The Avon Lady]

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

It is no secret that Israel repeatedly has "leaked" it's intention that if it ever should fall it will take Europe with it.
Sounds like a secret leaked by Israel hating Europeans, if you ask me.
It also is no secret, as retired Israelis militaries repeatedly have indicated, that all European capitals and major cities are in the crosshais of Israel'S nuclear forces.
Go ahead and post direct, verbatim quotes, please.
Maybe we should attack Israel, preemptively?
You sound French today.

[The Avon Lady]

So by attacking Iran, this means that if nothing is done iran will fire that nuke on isreal or whoever. Isreal should have no fear of her enemies cos it aint gonna happen. Isreal will never be destroyed. And iran haven't said we going to wipe out the americans. So what is the friggin problem.

I say let iran talk out of there ass, and just keep an eye on them, but dont go and do some code red strike. America will only wake up the pitbulls :D
What you said is much in parallel to what Neville Chamberlain said and against which Winston Churchill argued vigorously against. There Hear/See/Speak No Evil crowd won, leading to millions of more deaths a few years later down the line.

[kiwi_2005]

What you said is much in parallel to what Neville Chamberlain said and against which Winston Churchill argued vigorously against. There Hear/See/Speak No Evil crowd won, leading to millions of more deaths a few years later down the line.


Thats living in the past Avon.

War what is it really good for. Kill Kill Kill. Thats it. Someone threatens another lets go blast them. And all in the name of God. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

What you said is much in parallel to what Neville Chamberlain said and against which Winston Churchill argued vigorously against. There Hear/See/Speak No Evil crowd won, leading to millions of more deaths a few years later down the line.

Thats living in the past Avon.
No, I'm living today. Maybe had I myself back then been a British or US citizen, I might have sung Neville's tune.

But we should all be much the wiser now.

Do you mean there is nothing to learn from such past history? There are no parallels between then and now?

Please elaborate.
War what is it really good for. Kill Kill Kill. Thats it. Someone threatens another lets go blast them.
What happens if the threats are put into practice? You will likely have war with many more killed than had you stopped the agressor in the first place. Or should we all just raise a white flag in advance and get it over with?
And all in the name of God.
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?

[scandium]

What happens if the threats are put into practice? You will likely have war with many more killed than had you stopped the agressor in the first place. Or should we all just raise a white flag in advance and get it over with?
And all in the name of God.
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?

You're talking about a hypothetical. More accurately, you're justifying pre-emptive war to prevent a hypothetical. An act of aggression to prevent aggression and killing to prevent killing. I guess this Orwellian "War is Peace" concept is over my head. Probably because I don't see the comparison to WWII Nazi Germany that you see.

[The Avon Lady]

What happens if the threats are put into practice? You will likely have war with many more killed than had you stopped the agressor in the first place. Or should we all just raise a white flag in advance and get it over with?
And all in the name of God.
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?

You're talking about a hypothetical. More accurately, you're justifying pre-emptive war to prevent a hypothetical. An act of aggression to prevent aggression and killing to prevent killing. I guess this Orwellian "War is Peace" concept is over my head. Probably because I don't see the comparison to WWII Nazi Germany that you see.
How long before Germany attacked Poland did the situation stop being hypothetical?

Was Churchill an Orwellian to you? How was he not?

Sorry if I cannot respond further. Holiday coming up.

[scandium]

How long before Germany attacked Poland did the situation stop being hypothetical?

Was Churchill an Orwellian to you? How was he not?

Sorry if I cannot respond further. Holiday coming up.

No Churchill wasn't Orwellian to me. Are you saying there's a modern day Churchill? Who would that be, Rumsfeld? :rotfl:

Or has Iran already built up the equivalent modern day arsenal that Germany had built up in the run-up to Poland? Do they even have the capability? I still don't see the parallels, sorry.

[The Avon Lady]

How long before Germany attacked Poland did the situation stop being hypothetical?

Was Churchill an Orwellian to you? How was he not?

Sorry if I cannot respond further. Holiday coming up.

No Churchill wasn't Orwellian to me. Are you saying there's a modern day Churchill? Who would that be, Rumsfeld? :rotfl:
Unfortunately, I know of no leader today who comes near the stature of Churchill.

My point being, what did Churchill advocate way before the actual onset of WWII?
Or has Iran already built up the equivalent modern day arsenal that Germany had built up in the run-up to Poland?
Question: do the Iranians currently have teh capacity to produce dirty nukes? How many?

What about Iranian chemical and biological weaponry? Are you aware of their program's status in these areas?
Do they even have the capability? I still don't see the parallels, sorry.
I'm sorry, too.

Must be running....................

[Wim Libaers]

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

It is no secret that Israel repeatedly has "leaked" it's intention that if it ever should fall it will take Europe with it.
Sounds like a secret leaked by Israel hating Europeans, if you ask me.
It also is no secret, as retired Israelis militaries repeatedly have indicated, that all European capitals and major cities are in the crosshais of Israel'S nuclear forces.
Go ahead and post direct, verbatim quotes, please.
Maybe we should attack Israel, preemptively?
You sound French today.

Easiest to find:
http://www.rense.com/general34/esde.htm

[kiwi_2005]

Avon wrote:
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?

You haven't heard? I thought Isreal would be the first to know about it. GB believes God speaks to him.... :yep:

:rotfl:

[Skybird]

It is no secret that Israel repeatedly has "leaked" it's intention that if it ever should fall it will take Europe with it.
Sounds like a secret leaked by Israel hating Europeans, if you ask me.
It also is no secret, as retired Israelis militaries repeatedly have indicated, that all European capitals and major cities are in the crosshais of Israel'S nuclear forces.
Go ahead and post direct, verbatim quotes, please.[/quote]


I have, repeatedly, last time some months ago. An ex-chief of military staff, some ex-intel-director, van Crefeld.Forgive that I do not store all and everything on HD for years, just in case someone asks for the precise quote. It is a pretty well-known thing anyway. At least over here.

[Konovalov]

I have, repeatedly, last time some months ago. An ex-chief of military staff, some ex-intel-director, van Crefeld.Forgive that I do not store all and everything on HD for years, just in case someone asks for the precise quote. It is a pretty well-known thing anyway. At least over here.

Skybird,

Earlier on in the thread you will find that Wim Libaers linked to this guy as per below:
England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

It is no secret that Israel repeatedly has "leaked" it's intention that if it ever should fall it will take Europe with it.
Sounds like a secret leaked by Israel hating Europeans, if you ask me.
It also is no secret, as retired Israelis militaries repeatedly have indicated, that all European capitals and major cities are in the crosshais of Israel'S nuclear forces.
Go ahead and post direct, verbatim quotes, please.
Maybe we should attack Israel, preemptively?
You sound French today.

Easiest to find:
http://www.rense.com/general34/esde.htm

Isn't this guy a Dutchman who resides in Israel?

[Skybird]

Van Creveld is one of the guys I meant, yes. Jewish military-historian, I red some of his books (the one on personnel-leading in the Wehrmacht, "fighting Power", and the one on the future of wars, "On Future War" are top readings), Israelis hate him for he takes the freedom to think queer, and says from a military-historians position he must conclude that Israel is unable to survive in that hostile environemnt over the long run, and has been deadlocked in a self-destructive war it cannot win by tactics as used in the political acting in the last decades. no wonder that they look at him with deepest disgust. Beyond Israel, though, he has a top reputation.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/203-8738703-7370301

But I have retired official's statements and/or indications in mind, too.

[The Avon Lady]

Wow! More links from Rense.

I'm sure you can find Stormtrooper links to confirm such reliable info.

Good night.

[SUBMAN1]

Why should he back it. Its not his war.
Are you certain (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011049.php)?

If that should happen, then the englishmen will join the US in the war against Iran. but as I understand England is not interestet in a prestrike against Iran.

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

On the other hand, what you're saying is that the UK should risk being hit first anyway. Perhaps London or Machester is expendable after all.

What are the requirements for immigrating to Isreal? They seem to be the only ones left in this world with half a brain. :)

-S

[bradclark1]

I think you have to be able to speak the lingo? Maybe AL can give you lessons. :)

[SUBMAN1]

I think you have to be able to speak the lingo? Maybe AL can give you lessons. :)

Yes! Must know the lingo! :)

ANyway, the US of A hasn't gone downhill yet, and they still have half a brain too, but the number of countries is dwindling! If Iran gets nukes, we may have a rather large problem on our hands however and it may be too late to do anything about it at that point.

It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have a pres who uses suicide bombers, who believes that the Holocaust didn't happen, and who thinks Isreal should be nuked off the map, and who will start beleiving some other stupid thing tomorrow, but you really want to give this guy nukes? That is the dumbest idea I think I have ever heard! Let him send his 40,000 suicide bombers. All in all, the world will be a much better place for a very small price to pay.

-S

[scandium]

Let him send his 40,000 suicide bombers. All in all, the world will be a much better place for a very small price to pay.

Yeah, "bring it on" :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

Why should he back it. Its not his war.
Are you certain (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011049.php)?

If that should happen, then the englishmen will join the US in the war against Iran. but as I understand England is not interestet in a prestrike against Iran.

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

On the other hand, what you're saying is that the UK should risk being hit first anyway. Perhaps London or Machester is expendable after all.

What are the requirements for immigrating to Isreal?
1. Half a brain.
They seem to be the only ones left in this world with half a brain.
2. Refer to point no. 1.

Sadly, Israel today has maybe an 8th of a brain. We are endangering ourselves faster than Europe is. Rational, logical political thinking has long been dead here.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon wrote:
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?
You haven't heard? I thought Isreal would be the first to know about it. GB believes God speaks to him.... :yep:

Here's the official denial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1587122,00.html) to this nonsense. Note the source.

[kiwi_2005]

Just pulling ya leg. I like GB, hes a modern day warrior, that is a defender of his country and those that support freedom. Attacking iraq was a mistake. Maybe he could of did it another way like get the CIA to handle the situation in Iraq by taking Saddam out.

[XabbaRus]

Avon wrote:
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?
You haven't heard? I thought Isreal would be the first to know about it. GB believes God speaks to him.... :yep:

Here's the official denial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1587122,00.html) to this nonsense. Note the source.

And why does the fact that the source is the Guardian have anything to do with it. Ah I remember the Guardian is a looney liberal lefty paper of the kind you don't like.....

Wasn't just in the Guardian that this was reported.

Thing is I do wonder if Bush in private does think he is on God's mission. I am sure Tony "Brown Nose" Blair does.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon wrote:
Other than the Iranians, who is talking about religion here?
You haven't heard? I thought Isreal would be the first to know about it. GB believes God speaks to him.... :yep:

Here's the official denial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1587122,00.html) to this nonsense. Note the source.

And why does the fact that the source is the Guardian have anything to do with it. Ah I remember the Guardian is a looney liberal lefty paper of the kind you don't like.....
Well if you like loonies, no problem. I don't. I also don't care if the loonies are right or left leaning.

But I wasn't even referring to the Guardian. Rather, read the article of the source of the rumor about Bush in the first place.
Wasn't just in the Guardian that this was reported.
Again, I'm not referring to the Guardian.
Thing is I do wonder if Bush in private does think he is on God's mission. I am sure Tony "Brown Nose" Blair does.
Ain't that a fact!

:88)

[Konovalov]

Well if you like loonies, no problem. I don't. I also don't care if the loonies are right or left leaning.

No, you only don't care about the source if it fits your side of the arument. Don't be so disingenuous. I have seen when someone links to an article from the BBC, the Guardian, or some "leftist looney" source and you simply dismiss it out of hand because of where it came from.

[The Avon Lady]

Well if you like loonies, no problem. I don't. I also don't care if the loonies are right or left leaning.
No, you only don't care about the source if it fits your side of the arument.
You are apparently claiming I quote "loonies" to justify my points. I'm waiting for a sample reference to such a post of mine.
Don't be so disingenuous. I have seen when someone links to an article from the BBC, the Guardian, or some "leftist looney" source and you simply dismiss it out of hand because of where it came from.
Again, give me such an example.

Oh, I'll give you an example myself. I am constantly amazed by people referring to sites like Rense.

Other than such putrid sites, do you have anything else in mind?

EDIT: Again, as much as I personally disdain the Guardian, the Guardian was not the subject of my comments here. But enjoy the distraction as you wish.

[The Avon Lady]

England, like much of the rest of Western Europe, may never have to experience sufferring from a single nuke. Sha'aria law is comming to a theater near you via creeping Islamization.

It is no secret that Israel repeatedly has "leaked" it's intention that if it ever should fall it will take Europe with it.
Sounds like a secret leaked by Israel hating Europeans, if you ask me.
It also is no secret, as retired Israelis militaries repeatedly have indicated, that all European capitals and major cities are in the crosshais of Israel'S nuclear forces.
Go ahead and post direct, verbatim quotes, please.
Maybe we should attack Israel, preemptively?
You sound French today.

Easiest to find:
http://www.rense.com/general34/esde.htm
Shame on you, Skybird. The only quoted words of Moshe Dayan by this nutty professor are "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

Every other word is this guy's own opinions - nothing said by any Israeli officials whatsoever about "taking Europe down" should the Arabs destroy Israel. What rubbish!

And even the Dayan quote is taken out of context. Who was Dayan referring to? Europe or Israel's Arab enemies at the time?

Is this a language problem or just the desire to believe in the latest renditions of the Protocols?

:down:

[XabbaRus]

Avon you disdain anyone who disagrees with your point of view however they back it up.

Seriously since you and a couple of others have been posting here the General Topics forum has taken a steep nose dive.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon you disdain anyone who disagrees with your point of view however they back it up.
There was a blatant lie promoted here. This has nothing to do with a point of view. Look around for the original interview, in which this professor states what Skybird claimed Israeli officials said and see for yourself.
Seriously since you and a couple of others have been posting here the General Topics forum has taken a steep nose dive.
You're wrong. Sorry. Too bad. Better luck next time.

[tycho102]

Seriously since you and a couple of others have been posting here the General Topics forum has taken a steep nose dive.

Thank you. I do try. ;)

[Wim Libaers]

Wow! More links from Rense.

I'm sure you can find Stormtrooper links to confirm such reliable info.

Good night.

Stormtrooper? I find a Star Wars fansite and some parked domains, perhaps you meant Stormfront?

Anyway, on the following google search (the title of the article), rense just happens to be first. Stormfront is there too, a bit lower on the list (and, apparently, at least some of the Stormfront members share your view that the article is rather questionable).
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+could+destroy+all+European+capitals %22

Given 743 hits, most of them with the exact same article, I was not inclined to waste my time browsing through all of them to find the most politically correct domain name. :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

Wow! More links from Rense.

I'm sure you can find Stormtrooper links to confirm such reliable info.

Good night.

Stormtrooper? I find a Star Wars fansite and some parked domains, perhaps you meant Stormfront?
:yep: :damn: :yep: :damn: :yep: :damn: :yep: :damn: :yep: :damn:
Anyway, on the following google search (the title of the article), rense just happens to be first. Stormfront is there too, a bit lower on the list (and, apparently, at least some of the Stormfront members share your view that the article is rather questionable).
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+could+destroy+all+European+capitals %22

Given 743 hits, most of them with the exact same article, I was not inclined to waste my time browsing through all of them to find the most politically correct domain name. :roll:
It's not a question of PC or not. You should know that I'm no advocate of PC by now.

It's a question of relying on vile hate sites for your information and - even worse - someone goes around misquoting what they state to make it sound even worse than they intended in the 1st place.

[Konovalov]

Well if you like loonies, no problem. I don't. I also don't care if the loonies are right or left leaning.
No, you only don't care about the source if it fits your side of the arument.
You are apparently claiming I quote "loonies" to justify my points. I'm waiting for a sample reference to such a post of mine.
Don't be so disingenuous. I have seen when someone links to an article from the BBC, the Guardian, or some "leftist looney" source and you simply dismiss it out of hand because of where it came from.
Again, give me such an example.

Oh, I'll give you an example myself. I am constantly amazed by people referring to sites like Rense.

Other than such putrid sites, do you have anything else in mind?

EDIT: Again, as much as I personally disdain the Guardian, the Guardian was not the subject of my comments here. But enjoy the distraction as you wish.

Examples following as per your request for evidence.

From this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

We're sick of this cliche. BTW, it originated from the manager of Reuters New Service, for those that don't recall. And it figures.

Then from the same thread you use Reuters to support your argument:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180

Naivity? Maybe. Maybe not. Bumbling ninkumpoops (http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=794472&section=news&src=rss/uk/topNews)? Certainly.

But that's by far not limited to Germany or France.

From this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40128&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

A very candid letter to the editor in The Guardian (of all places! :o ) tells it like it is:
Muslims and violence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1535443,00.html)
Monday July 25, 2005
The Guardian

For Muslim religious leaders to condemn……

From this thread in reply to someone linking to a BBC article:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=366215&highlight=#366215

Uzbekistan is a nation, where 88% of the population are Sunni Muslims. Its government, too, is Muslim, though not (yet) of the Hizb ur Tahrir variety.

The point of Jihad Watch's article is not specifically the lost Uzbek base. The point is a failure to notice a blatant historical pattern.

No one talked about conspiracies here.

Enjoy your BBC (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001204.html)! I won't suck up to such rubbish.

From this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43051&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

http://www.rense.com/general47/betey.htm
No one seems to have picked up which rabid racist site BC here is quoting from. If you haven't caught his drift yet, here's the home page of Rense (http://www.rense.com/).

I can think of plenty a reputable forum where links to such sites would not be tollerated for a moment.

You be the judge.

Bradclark dispels this attempt to discredit the article via the website it was linked from with:

What is racist about that article? Irregardless of the mother site it has no bearing on the article. Where it comes from is the Houston Chronicle so get off your horse.

And again more attempts to discredit the source or origin or the souce rather than the directly rebutting the information provided within the report in this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43387&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/ HRW with a big grain of salt. (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258).

More reports on HRW and other left-tilting NGOs can be found at Discover The Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/viewGroups.asp?catId=65) and at NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/).

Agendas.Agendas.

And some loonie labelling of the origin of the source in this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=45156&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html
Wow! The lonney left rag called the Guradian strikes again! They just can't resist sinking their fangs into Israel at every which opportunity.

Abraham, you're talking nonsense. The only thing wrong this officer did was to shoot at her after she was dead.

A copy of the IDF Spokesman's press release can be found here (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=27514).

You seem to talk from experience. When you man a position with an enemy that straps bombs to children and have to defend yourself and you fellow soldiers in your position, let us know.

:down:

[jumpy]

Avon you disdain anyone who disagrees with your point of view however they back it up.

Seriously since you and a couple of others have been posting here the General Topics forum has taken a steep nose dive.

Like this topic.

How did a discussion about phony tony backing off iran end up turning into a battle of semantics over who is and who isn't a leftie liberal and pointless bickering over whether your internet source is more credible than mine..? :zzz:

From my point of view anybody with a religious angle on this one should step back a ways. From where I see it being involved in such a manner looses all objectivity.

None of the international players in this one are whiter than white; but the fact is tony is getting leery of the warmongering and aggressive rhetoric both from and directed at Iran. Small wonder he doesn't want to stretch the UK in terms of any military commitment to such an end. Shooting himself in the foot a second time by leading the nation to war on a less than watertight premise will amount to political suicide (and rightly so). Afterall, there's a time and a place; and nobody likes being pushed into something they're not ready for. If america wants to play at World Police, for the time being let them; we're supposed to be able to make up our own minds and not be shouted down by the loudest voice. If it comes to armed conflict with Iran then we should decide upon that when we are good and ready to- not before.
Sure, Saddam needed to gotten rid of, but I am less convinced that we need to show Iran the iron-fist at this early stage in the game.
TBH, international terrorism asside, why we let this constant middle eastern argy-bargy spill out into the rest of the world is beyond me- let those who want war take it somewhere else instead of demanding it become everyones problem also. When you can play nice with all the rational ppl then maybe there will be some point talking.

I would have thought the dashing in with all guns blazing approach would be a little shortsighted? Besides, the day we coldly endorse pre-emptive strikes (and that's what is really at the crux here) based upon endorsing/combatting religious conviction with its own agenda will be a dark day for all those who consider thamselves as sensible countries; might as well set up our own "40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action" in that case.
Our suicide bombers are better and more reliable than your suicide bombers - only difference is ours have onboard computers and laser guidence systems - the reasult is the same though as they're both programed to do what they're told.

So where's the victory there? I can't see it, or any advantage in it at this point and neither (I suspect) can tony; if he's being honest about it.

[XabbaRus]

Jumpy I don't have a religious angle on this but I am fed up of seeing the hate in many threads of recent times, hate perpetuated by Avon Lady and Six Pack to name two.

This place used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss things. Even in the year after 9/11 there was never such vitriolic postings with hate and bile in each one.

I'll probably be accused of having my head in the sand etc.

Anyone who disagrees is treated with disdain and offhand remarks.

Look what happened with Mike "Red Oktober" Hense.

I do support free speech but more and more of what I see here is leaning towards incitement to hate.

[The Avon Lady]

Well if you like loonies, no problem. I don't. I also don't care if the loonies are right or left leaning.
No, you only don't care about the source if it fits your side of the arument.
You are apparently claiming I quote "loonies" to justify my points. I'm waiting for a sample reference to such a post of mine.
Don't be so disingenuous. I have seen when someone links to an article from the BBC, the Guardian, or some "leftist looney" source and you simply dismiss it out of hand because of where it came from.
Again, give me such an example.

Oh, I'll give you an example myself. I am constantly amazed by people referring to sites like Rense.

Other than such putrid sites, do you have anything else in mind?

EDIT: Again, as much as I personally disdain the Guardian, the Guardian was not the subject of my comments here. But enjoy the distraction as you wish.

Examples following as per your request for evidence.

From this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

We're sick of this cliche. BTW, it originated from the manager of Reuters New Service, for those that don't recall. And it figures.

So? Where are the loonies? 1 down.
Then from the same thread you use Reuters to support your argument:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180

Naivity? Maybe. Maybe not. Bumbling ninkumpoops (http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=794472&section=news&src=rss/uk/topNews)? Certainly.

But that's by far not limited to Germany or France.

Again, where are the loonies that I quote? 2 down. Next:
From this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40128&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

A very candid letter to the editor in The Guardian (of all places! :o ) tells it like it is:
[quote]Muslims and violence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1535443,00.html)
Monday July 25, 2005
The Guardian

For Muslim religious leaders to condemn……
Once again, where are the loonies? 3 down.

I discarded the rest of your post because your mistake was in not reading exactly what I responded to your earlier question.

I never said that I do not quote news agencies and sources from all sides of the political spectrum, if they have something reasonable and reliable to say.

Thank you for wasting our time. :up: :88)

UPDATE:

Regarding your post's last part, yes indeed, I will reference "loonies" for the sake of pointing out their looniness.

I hope that satisfies your argument. :zzz:

[jumpy]

Surely the only time 'wasted' is yours as you choose to see fit and as such is unnessescary as a ripost? :up: :88)

[The Avon Lady]

Jumpy I don't have a religious angle on this but I am fed up of seeing the hate in many threads of recent times, hate perpetuated by Avon Lady and Six Pack to name two.
Please show me where I was the first one to "perpetuate hate" on this thread. Should be easy, no?

This place used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss things. Even in the year after 9/11 there was never such vitriolic postings with hate and bile in each one.

I'll probably be accused of having my head in the sand etc.

Anyone who disagrees is treated with disdain and offhand remarks.

Here again, we are talking about a completely false statement on the part of Skybird. Or do you agree with false statements or do you have some other source to legitimize them?
Look what happened with Mike "Red Oktober" Hense.
Who initiated hostilities by calling me worse than the kommandant of Auschwitz?

And why were you so silent then?

One wonders...........................
I do support free speech but more and more of what I see here is leaning towards incitement to hate.
Try barking up the right tree. Get your facts straight. It helps.

[The Avon Lady]

Surely the only time 'wasted' is yours as you choose to see fit and as such is unnessescary as a ripost? :up: :88)
Definitely mine is wasted but if this is entertainment for you, enjoy the show. :-j

[Konovalov]

Jumpy I don't have a religious angle on this but I am fed up of seeing the hate in many threads of recent times, hate perpetuated by Avon Lady and Six Pack to name two.

This place used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss things. Even in the year after 9/11 there was never such vitriolic postings with hate and bile in each one.

I'll probably be accused of having my head in the sand etc.

Anyone who disagrees is treated with disdain and offhand remarks.

Look what happened with Mike "Red Oktober" Hense.

I do support free speech but more and more of what I see here is leaning towards incitement to hate.

Another guy with the balls to call it like it is around here as Mike "Red October" Hense has done. :up:

Avon Lady,

I made it quite clear that what you do is simply trash the other persons argument time and time again by labelleing the website linked to as leftie, loonie, and so on. You asked for evidence and I called your bluff. Get over it.

[The Avon Lady]

Jumpy I don't have a religious angle on this but I am fed up of seeing the hate in many threads of recent times, hate perpetuated by Avon Lady and Six Pack to name two.

This place used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss things. Even in the year after 9/11 there was never such vitriolic postings with hate and bile in each one.

I'll probably be accused of having my head in the sand etc.

Anyone who disagrees is treated with disdain and offhand remarks.

Look what happened with Mike "Red Oktober" Hense.

I do support free speech but more and more of what I see here is leaning towards incitement to hate.
Another guy with the balls to call it like it is around here as Mike "Red October" Hense has done. :up:
So, you're also for promoting incitement to hate other forum members here? Well bully for you!
Avon Lady,

I made it quite clear that what you do is simply trash the other persons argument time and time again by labelleing the website linked to as leftie, loonie, and so on. You asked for evidence and I called your bluff. Get over it.
Very well. Whatever. You now have my clarification in my previous post to you. You win. I lose.

[jumpy]

And why were you so silent then?

One wonders...........................

I think most will agree here that you have no need for anyone else to champion your cause - for want of a better word which escapes me for now; I refrain from the word 'bias', but perhaps 'oppinion' or 'point of view' or maybe 'standpoint' would be more accurate?

And it's not so much entertainment as compelling to see what new revalation is going to appear upon the magic window of mystery (my monitor) :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

And why were you so silent then?

One wonders...........................

I think most will agree here that you have no need for anyone else to champion your cause
I fully agree with that.

It's another thing, however, to accuse me of being the instigator of the hate incitement on several threads here.

And now back to our show!