Chat Forum
It is currently Fri May 29, 2020 3:38 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112823 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420, 2421, 2422 ... 2821  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17027
bimboman wrote:
BokJock wrote:
bimboman wrote:
BokJock wrote:
bimboman wrote:
I am rightly pointing out that Iran isn’t Trumps failing, be critical where it’s due but making it everything takes the microscope from where it should be.


why did every other nation that was party to the deal want the deal to continue and still do - you are a liar that lies all the time.



Because America was paying for it, and the other countries don’t have any skin in the game in the region. You might have noticed the lack of European will in Syria recently for example.

Also my opinion is what it is, there’s no lie there , that’s just lazy and stupid.


what were America paying for - you lying liar



Haha, you’re angry and stupid today.

That certainly does seem to be your standard response to any argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17027
BokJock wrote:
bimboman wrote:
BokJock wrote:
bimboman wrote:


Because America was paying for it, and the other countries don’t have any skin in the game in the region. You might have noticed the lack of European will in Syria recently for example.

Also my opinion is what it is, there’s no lie there , that’s just lazy and stupid.


what were America paying for - you lying liar



Haha, you’re angry and stupid today.


ah, just trolling - carry on

I don't think he is; I think he firmly believes it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40498
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


I'm still trying to work out how the USA was paying for the Iran deal.

Sanctions were released on a chunk of Iranian money (estimates ranging from $18 million to $150 million, depending on who's making the claim) and the US returned a $1.7 million deposit for weapons that weren't shipped following the Iranian revolution. I agree that in Trump's business world he would regard that as his money - but it simply wasn't

I also don't recall any other GOP candidate wanting to withdraw from the agreement at the time. This is Trump's doing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


And Saint if you don’t think the Iranian military expansion in recent times is related and a change we don’t want great. I do .


Last edited by bimboman on Fri May 24, 2019 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


It could have been 1.7 trillion - the US still wasn't paying for it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


Sorry, yes. But either way, that was undeniably Iran's money


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


John's Bolton and McCain probably agreed too - they were wrong also


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40498
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


Do you ever remove your face from Trump's arse?


Last edited by Kiwias on Fri May 24, 2019 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


Sorry, yes. But either way, that was undeniably Iran's money



I think cash was the best way to deliver it as well. Come on let’s all be honest the deal was atrocious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


How many other parties decided unilaterally to scrap it?



Again, I’ve explained why. Keep on cheering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


Do you ever remove your face from Trump's arse?



As I stated , make the many correct criticisms and issues that need attention, making stuff up or going after right decisions weakens those efforts. Certainly nothing there supports Trump, your reply is a facile and incorrect .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40498
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
How many other parties decided unilaterally to scrap it?



Again, I’ve explained why. Keep on cheering.


You offered your opinion, one not shared by a majority of experts in the field. Keep on sucking his mushroom dick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


Sorry, yes. But either way, that was undeniably Iran's money



I think cash was the best way to deliver it as well. Come on let’s all be honest the deal was atrocious.


What was atrocious about it? You keep saying that, you say that America paid for it (which we've just agreed now that they didn't), what exactly is the issue with it? Every other signatory to the deal thought it was a good deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
How many other parties decided unilaterally to scrap it?



Again, I’ve explained why. Keep on cheering.


You offered your opinion, one not shared by a majority of experts in the field. Keep on sucking his mushroom dick.



See , you can’t look at anything sensibly. This is exactly the attitude which makes a second term more not less likely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


Sorry, yes. But either way, that was undeniably Iran's money



I think cash was the best way to deliver it as well. Come on let’s all be honest the deal was atrocious.


What was atrocious about it? You keep saying that, you say that America paid for it (which we've just agreed now that they didn't), what exactly is the issue with it? Every other signatory to the deal thought it was a good deal.



It didn’t restrict their other military and regional expansive policies at all. The other signatories where either not invested in the region or in the case of Germany and France over the moon with themnew market.

America are paying in the region right now. I made no claim it was American money btw.


Last edited by bimboman on Fri May 24, 2019 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40498
BokJock wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

Even China and Russia were in agreement that Iran was abiding by the deal and wanted it to stay in force. One person unilaterally destroyed the deal and I'll give bimboboy a hint: he lives in a big white house in Washington.


Yeah Russia and China are honest players here. The deal was shit, it has to go.


So were all the parties to the agreement. One person thought it was shit but his reasoning is so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by stating it.



Yeah, just one person. :uhoh: that view is a perfect Trump derangement demonstration.


John's Bolton and McCain probably agreed too - they were wrong also


John Bolton jerks off each morning as he imagines Iran being bombed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


Sorry, yes. But either way, that was undeniably Iran's money



I think cash was the best way to deliver it as well. Come on let’s all be honest the deal was atrocious.


What was atrocious about it? You keep saying that, you say that America paid for it (which we've just agreed now that they didn't), what exactly is the issue with it? Every other signatory to the deal thought it was a good deal.



It didn’t restrict their other military and regional expansive policies at all. The other signatories where either not invested in the region or in the case of Germany and France over the moon with themnew market.

America are paying in the region right now. I made no claim it was American money btw.


We're invested in the region. China and Russia are massively invested in the region

And you don't try and sign one single, enormous, agreement with this type of thing,. You take steps; in this case deal with the Nuclear issue a bit. Then once both parties are comfortable with the new arrangement, you move on to the next step. There was plenty of sanctions money in place still to encourage that movement.

Instead, the US withdrew and Iran regressed further back and is now possibly lashing out. Things are currently worse than before the agreement was first put in place - and that is directly at the doorstep of your hero. Even if he genuinely thought it was a bad deal and needed to be changed, THIS was not the way to do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.

I know - but like I said, you don;t try and do everything all at once, especially when there was fundamentally no real diplomatic relationship to start with,

So you do things one at a time. Pretty much everybody agreed that the Nuclear piece was the most important thing to address, so that's what you start with.

If you try and do one big deal to cover anything you end up not doing any deal at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 62727
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.

I know - but like I said, you don;t try and do everything all at once, especially when there was fundamentally no real diplomatic relationship to start with,

So you do things one at a time. Pretty much everybody agreed that the Nuclear piece was the most important thing to address, so that's what you start with.

If you try and do one big deal to cover anything you end up not doing any deal at all.



I’d agree with one thing at a time if that’s what the deal had been.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.

I know - but like I said, you don;t try and do everything all at once, especially when there was fundamentally no real diplomatic relationship to start with,

So you do things one at a time. Pretty much everybody agreed that the Nuclear piece was the most important thing to address, so that's what you start with.

If you try and do one big deal to cover anything you end up not doing any deal at all.



I’d agree with one thing at a time if that’s what the deal had been.


The thing about one thing at a time is that there's gaps between each stage. The action Trump should have taken was to build on the previous agreement - offering further reductions of sanctions in return for curbing expansionist tendencies, or whatever specific next step he wanted to address. But each deal is a self contained deal in it's own right that you complete, allow to settle down, then move on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.

I know - but like I said, you don;t try and do everything all at once, especially when there was fundamentally no real diplomatic relationship to start with,

So you do things one at a time. Pretty much everybody agreed that the Nuclear piece was the most important thing to address, so that's what you start with.

If you try and do one big deal to cover anything you end up not doing any deal at all.



I’d agree with one thing at a time if that’s what the deal had been.


The thing about one thing at a time is that there's gaps between each stage. The action Trump should have taken was to build on the previous agreement - offering further reductions of sanctions in return for curbing expansionist tendencies, or whatever specific next step he wanted to address. But each deal is a self contained deal in it's own right that you complete, allow to settle down, then move on.


Bimbo is the arch Brexiteer on the bored - fixing things that are wrong in a current deal is completely alien to him.

If certain things aren't working but the main goal of the deal is - what you should definitely always do is rip the whole thing up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Turbogoat wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Trump planning to pardon soldiers awaiting trial for war crimes & murder apparently.

Good to know in this world of fuzzy morals you can always rely on Trump to be a massive piece of shit.


When I heard that I was shocked. Will this play well with the troops? I mean these guys were turned in by their fellow soldiers. What about if you saw a guy killing a kid for fun now? What motivation is there for someone to risk their career to turn in a bad apple?


This is all sorts of fucked up.

Yeah, you'll get some people who won't look past the surface of it and just see the farce as 'supporting the troops', no matter how blindly this support is. Many others are pissed though. There's a pretty lengthy facebook discussion going on among a lot of ex-mil guys and the disgust at this is palpable among the majority of them.

The SEAL one, Chief Gallagher is yet to stand trial, but is accused of murdering a wounded prisoner and posing with the body, as well as non-combatant civilians. There's enough evidence for that to go to trial, and those accusations are pretty damn serious. There are pretty strict rules about this sort of thing and you'll find a lot of service personnel don't want to be seen as part of any group that is not held to any sense of honour.
What really strikes home though, is that it was his own SEAL team who turned him in and will bear witness against him. THEY understood that he had broken the rules of combat and had the strength of character to draw the line in the sand. Where the hell do they stand now? They've taken a stand, and are now effectively having the rug pulled out from under them for doing so. They've been completely hung out to dry. There needs to be a trial so they can back up their charges against one of their own (a decision they wouldn't have taken lightly). Unless they have fabricated the whole thing to frame their TL, they are the troops who need to be supported right now, not Chief Gallagher. Unless there is an actual trial, the truth will not be known.


Bit if a development going on with the Chief Gallagher saga. His lawyer is now Marc Mukasey, who is also now one of the personal lawyers of a certain Donald Jehosephat Trump.

I wonder if one of our legal geniuses here can expound on the ethics of having two clients, one who may potentially pardon the other?

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... ial-pardon


I've finally twigged why this alleged fukknuckle has been causing my brain to itch.
Chief.
Gallagher.

The Super Rugby team I support:

Image

Dammit.

One of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children just compared pardoning this guy to taking a steaming dump on the Stars and Stripes... there is a lot of bad feeling about giving this guy a free pass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40498
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.

I know - but like I said, you don;t try and do everything all at once, especially when there was fundamentally no real diplomatic relationship to start with,

So you do things one at a time. Pretty much everybody agreed that the Nuclear piece was the most important thing to address, so that's what you start with.

If you try and do one big deal to cover anything you end up not doing any deal at all.


It is amazing that a clear, concise description of the situation still is unable to convince bimbo that he is wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
You are reaching there a bit, mate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5452
Location: Front and centre.
Kiwias wrote:
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Iran was being expansive before trump Saint. It was let of the leash and the cash went into that expansion.

I know - but like I said, you don;t try and do everything all at once, especially when there was fundamentally no real diplomatic relationship to start with,

So you do things one at a time. Pretty much everybody agreed that the Nuclear piece was the most important thing to address, so that's what you start with.

If you try and do one big deal to cover anything you end up not doing any deal at all.


It is amazing that a clear, concise description of the situation still is unable to convince bimbo that he is wrong.


Bimbo is Sarah Huckleberry Dim Sanders, and I claim my free ex-Jeremy Kyle Show Lie Detector machine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Saint wrote:
bimboman wrote:
1.7 billion wasn’t it ?


Sorry, yes. But either way, that was undeniably Iran's money


Not to the likes of Bimbo. But ask them about Farmer's medical bill and they go silent.

They will ignore all through diplomatic analysis and explanation to get to what they believe. We live in a world where an idiots opinion is as valid as your facts because he believes in it as deeply.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3442
Location: Nire itsasontzian
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he already made an arse of himself in the brexit thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he keeps making an arse of himself in the brexit thread.

fixed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he already made an arse of himself in the brexit thread.


Check out how Dylan Roof was portrayed, Heather Meyer's killer only got hate crimes when a Muslim driving into a crowd would have been terrorism. Same for the synagogue shooters and etc. There is always this extra effort to find out what turned them into these "killers" while the Muslim person is kind of how did no one see this coming. The fact that the Pulse nightclub shooter is not viewed as a little boy lost and labelled a terrorist is says a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Deadtigers wrote:
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he already made an arse of himself in the brexit thread.


Check out how Dylan Roof was portrayed, Heather Meyer's killer only got hate crimes when a Muslim driving into a crowd would have been terrorism. Same for the synagogue shooters and etc. There is always this extra effort to find out what turned them into these "killers" while the Muslim person is kind of how did no one see this coming. The fact that the Pulse nightclub shooter is not viewed as a little boy lost and labelled a terrorist is says a lot.


I am not sure what you are arguing here - the person in your article is a muslim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
BokJock wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he already made an arse of himself in the brexit thread.


Check out how Dylan Roof was portrayed, Heather Meyer's killer only got hate crimes when a Muslim driving into a crowd would have been terrorism. Same for the synagogue shooters and etc. There is always this extra effort to find out what turned them into these "killers" while the Muslim person is kind of how did no one see this coming. The fact that the Pulse nightclub shooter is not viewed as a little boy lost and labelled a terrorist is says a lot.


I am not sure what you are arguing here - the person in your article is a muslim


It is how there is always a good kid gone bad angle with white terrorists (who are never called that.) And a Muslim terrorist is always, we should have seen it coming. So I want to see how that is now juxtaposed when you have a while boy converted to Islam and a proud terrorist. Will the kid gloves white terrorist get treated with win out or will they go with the evil Muslim narrative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


A mate of mine (Robert Young Pelton) was the first Westerner to spot who this kid was, all those years ago. Back then it was a real novelty (to the regular world), that an American might go and join a group like this. (There had been others, like those who fought in Chechnya, but nothing that reached the mainstream attention).
He held this little shit in a fair bit of contempt back then, in contrast to much of the 'poor misguided child' type narrative that was spun about him. Lindh knew what he was doing, much more so than was portrayed, but he was the first posterchild of this sort of thing... people back home struggled to rationalize it all.
Since Lindh, we've now gotten more accustomed to idiots joining ISIS etc... and it's less of a novelty that needs to be comprehended from our perspective, so there's less rationalization going on.

Here's RYPs account of what went down:
https://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_c ... about.html

What's remarkable is that he's served his time, about to be freed, and the conflict in Afghanistan is still going on with Western forces still on the ground there... it's been that long.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3442
Location: Nire itsasontzian
Deadtigers wrote:
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he already made an arse of himself in the brexit thread.


Check out how Dylan Roof was portrayed, Heather Meyer's killer only got hate crimes when a Muslim driving into a crowd would have been terrorism. Same for the synagogue shooters and etc. There is always this extra effort to find out what turned them into these "killers" while the Muslim person is kind of how did no one see this coming. The fact that the Pulse nightclub shooter is not viewed as a little boy lost and labelled a terrorist is says a lot.


Whatever race, color or religion you'll always have crazy lose canons everywhere. But when it's a group or an individual having a central leader calling for destruction and chaos that recruits, trains , indoctrinates and is supported by an ethnic, religious or political base that is sympathetic to its cause this is terrorism.
And yes, I wish we could exterminate all of them.

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.


@Laurent - Merci.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
lexpat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So considering how to terrorist acts by white offenders are more often than not labelled as hate crimes and the offender described as a little boy lost, while Muslim ones are terrorism regardless of the circumstances, I can't wait to see how people will behave and what will happen now that the original white boy lost is out and unrepentant about literally taking up arms against the US.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/america ... years.html


Really? :lol: :lol: which tv channels are you watching ?

Please guys don't quote bimbo and his ludicrous comments, he already made an arse of himself in the brexit thread.


Check out how Dylan Roof was portrayed, Heather Meyer's killer only got hate crimes when a Muslim driving into a crowd would have been terrorism. Same for the synagogue shooters and etc. There is always this extra effort to find out what turned them into these "killers" while the Muslim person is kind of how did no one see this coming. The fact that the Pulse nightclub shooter is not viewed as a little boy lost and labelled a terrorist is says a lot.


Whatever race, color or religion you'll always have crazy lose canons everywhere. But when it's a group or an individual having a central leader calling for destruction and chaos that recruits, trains , indoctrinates and is supported by an ethnic, religious or political base that is sympathetic to its cause this is terrorism.
And yes, I wish we could exterminate all of them.

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.


@Laurent - Merci.


Enjoy yours too. I get your point but the Orlando guy was a repressed gay Muslim man who killed those he hated because he couldn't be as free as them. That is not terrorism. He may have claimed some Islamist group towards the end but if you look at his history and actions, it was a last minute attempt to redeem himself as a "good Muslim." How this was a terrorist act and the Synagogue shooters were not, is beyond me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Lone GOP rep. From Texas, right outside Austin, blocks 19 Billion dollar disaster relief. Apparently his issues were the looking deficit and money for the border was not included.

Quote:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/24/chip-roy-blocks-disaster-aid-funding-1343295


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6882
Location: emmerdale
poor old jerry nadler is starting to feel the pace.

panic attack?

https://twitter.com/buzzman888/status/1132005252503355394


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112823 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420, 2421, 2422 ... 2821  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, BillW, farmerdave, flashman, Floppykid, Gavin Duffy, Google Adsense [Bot], kerrandy, La soule, Leinsterman, Lobby, not_english, penguin, Raggs, redderneck, rialtoblue, Risteard, Smutley, Snooze and 75 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group