Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 24 of 41 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 11.51am
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.00am Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Jun 2014 10.55pm So the BBC say we did something and that's the proof.....Now I'm a fan of the BBC but I don't think it's valid to state something as a fact that in reality is journalism. If it were as you say it was wouldn't it be more likely to find some discussion of this stuff in Benn's or Thatcher's accounts? Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 11.08pm) The Telegraph,30 December 2010,just by way of further example: "Newly published papers show that one of the country’s top civil servants held a private summit with senior American, French and German politicians at which they decided to provide “discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance”. One faction of the Mujahideen fighters, who were also covertly funded by the CIA, went on to become founding members of the al-Qa’eda terrorist network. ...The Communist superpower had sent troops into Kabul in December 1979 to support a Marxist-Leninist regime that was under threat from Islamic opposition groups known as the Mujahideen. On January 15th, 1980, Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, met Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Advisor, along with government representatives from France and West Germany at the Palais Marigny in Paris. A note sent to London afterwards stated: “There was some discussion of support for Afghan resistance to the invading Soviet troops.” In a restricted memo, Sir Robert told how the Americans suggested supporting refugee camps in pakistan as they were being used as bases by guerrillas opposing the Soviet invasion, and it would “help to keep Afghan resistance alive”. It was said at the meeting: “If one of the objectives of the West in this crisis was to keep the Islamic world aroused about the Soviet invasion, that would be served by encouraging a continuing guerrilla resistance.” ...The Germans were legally unable to supply arms, but the US, UK and France agreed to help the Mujahideen. “It was agreed that heads of government should be invited to endorse this conclusion and, if they did so, to authorise discussions at the appropriate level in the agencies involved as to feasibility and methods of providing discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance.” ...In a confidential assessment of Soviet strategy, British officials recognised the potential dangers of military action against a guerrilla force in Afghanistan. ...“We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed.” ..Muslims from around the world travelled to Afghanistan to join the resistance and some Mujahideen veterans who had received weapons and training from Western powers, including Osama Bin Laden, went on to use them against their former supporters in terrorist atrocities". This information supports my statements on the issue and just reveals yours to have been exaggerated. While I can't know this happened, this makes more realistic sense...At least on a subjective level. I said, if this happened it would have mainly been a civil service arrangement. Where's the Thatcher commentary on this?....Where is the huge amount of money spent that you referred to? I don't see any problem with the west supporting the Afghan resistance to the Soviets at the time.....It was the lesser evil. The mistakes were made after the Soviets left....Not the policy of assistance. I see no participation in 'billions of dollars', a quote you repeated from the BBC. Not from this country. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 11.52am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 11.51am

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.00am

Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Jun 2014 10.55pm

So the BBC say we did something and that's the proof.....Now I'm a fan of the BBC but I don't think it's valid to state something as a fact that in reality is journalism.

If it were as you say it was wouldn't it be more likely to find some discussion of this stuff in Benn's or Thatcher's accounts?

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 11.08pm)

The Telegraph,30 December 2010,just by way of further example:

"Newly published papers show that one of the country’s top civil servants held a private summit with senior American, French and German politicians at which they decided to provide “discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance”.

One faction of the Mujahideen fighters, who were also covertly funded by the CIA, went on to become founding members of the al-Qa’eda terrorist network.

...The Communist superpower had sent troops into Kabul in December 1979 to support a Marxist-Leninist regime that was under threat from Islamic opposition groups known as the Mujahideen.

On January 15th, 1980, Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, met Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Advisor, along with government representatives from France and West Germany at the Palais Marigny in Paris.

A note sent to London afterwards stated: “There was some discussion of support for Afghan resistance to the invading Soviet troops.”

In a restricted memo, Sir Robert told how the Americans suggested supporting refugee camps in pakistan as they were being used as bases by guerrillas opposing the Soviet invasion, and it would “help to keep Afghan resistance alive”.

It was said at the meeting: “If one of the objectives of the West in this crisis was to keep the Islamic world aroused about the Soviet invasion, that would be served by encouraging a continuing guerrilla resistance.”

...The Germans were legally unable to supply arms, but the US, UK and France agreed to help the Mujahideen.

“It was agreed that heads of government should be invited to endorse this conclusion and, if they did so, to authorise discussions at the appropriate level in the agencies involved as to feasibility and methods of providing discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance.”

...In a confidential assessment of Soviet strategy, British officials recognised the potential dangers of military action against a guerrilla force in Afghanistan.

...“We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed.”

..Muslims from around the world travelled to Afghanistan to join the resistance and some Mujahideen veterans who had received weapons and training from Western powers, including Osama Bin Laden, went on to use them against their former supporters in terrorist atrocities".

This information supports my statements on the issue and just reveals yours to have been exaggerated. While I can't know this happened, this makes more realistic sense...At least on a subjective level.

I said, if this happened it would have mainly been a civil service arrangement. Where's the Thatcher commentary on this?....Where is the huge amount of money spent that you referred to?

I don't see any problem with the west supporting the Afghan resistance to the Soviets at the time.....It was the lesser evil.

The mistakes were made after the Soviets left....Not the policy of assistance.

I see no participation in 'billions of dollars', a quote you repeated from the BBC. Not from this country.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 11.52am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 12.04pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.24am Tory governments always encouraged British culture....Blair's government only started talking about the same thing once this country had suffered from these groups......Before then everything they did encouraged multiculturalism....And lots of them still do because their heads are just too wedded to the ideology. As I stated, this is a country where both the right and left agree with immigration (though disagree with the extent). Both agree with religious freedom and both agree with the idea of political asylum. However, unlike the left.....The right have never....Let me repeat that...Never agreed with multiculturalism....The idea that it's alright for groups to exist within their own mindsets without reference to the wider community. For decades the left defended that practice. It was the left that that gave the space for these groups to flourish. Many on the left have altered their tune now but they can't re-write history. Like I said, accusations of racism or bigotry were leveled at pretty much any criticisms or interventions about these matters. The left created that 'culture of fear' in addressing these areas not the right. Again you refer to a foreign government's policy waffle and relate it to here. What you don't seem to understand is that warm words put out in an official document and reality are two very different things. These words kind of represent an idea of how many of us would like these things to work. It doesn't match up to the reality. They are put out there for cohesion and because many immigrants do assimilate and play their part.....And that's the ideal. But the reality is pursuing a policy of multiculturalism in the real world is a conclave of differing values, isolationism and separatism. Still there's a refusal to see the cause and effect. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 12.34pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 12.04pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.24am

Tory governments always encouraged British culture....Blair's government only started talking about the same thing once this country had suffered from these groups......Before then everything they did encouraged multiculturalism....And lots of them still do because their heads are just too wedded to the ideology.

As I stated, this is a country where both the right and left agree with immigration (though disagree with the extent). Both agree with religious freedom and both agree with the idea of political asylum.

However, unlike the left.....The right have never....Let me repeat that...Never agreed with multiculturalism....The idea that it's alright for groups to exist within their own mindsets without reference to the wider community. For decades the left defended that practice.

It was the left that that gave the space for these groups to flourish. Many on the left have altered their tune now but they can't re-write history.

Like I said, accusations of racism or bigotry were leveled at pretty much any criticisms or interventions about these matters.

The left created that 'culture of fear' in addressing these areas not the right.

Again you refer to a foreign government's policy waffle and relate it to here.

What you don't seem to understand is that warm words put out in an official document and reality are two very different things.

These words kind of represent an idea of how many of us would like these things to work. It doesn't match up to the reality. They are put out there for cohesion and because many immigrants do assimilate and play their part.....And that's the ideal.

But the reality is pursuing a policy of multiculturalism in the real world is a conclave of differing values, isolationism and separatism. Still there's a refusal to see the cause and effect.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 12.34pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 12.39pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 11.41am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 11.01am Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic. Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am) Do you agree that many of the problems today are as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion? If so, do you still believe that this was caused by the left? I don't think you're really reading my posts Nick. I've said that middle eastern wars radicalised sections of Muslims in the UK. My point....made many times is they were radicalized because culturally that had room within this country. As evidence of that...Again I state, where are the radical Muslims in America....America was the prime mover...Yet very little home grown Islamic extremism. No room for them there because there is no real left wing ideology in America that has local, state or central power. [Link] [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 12.39pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 11.41am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 11.01am

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

More worrying than interesting.
Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq!
Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior.
Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise.

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic.

Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am)

Do you agree that many of the problems today are as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion?
If so, do you still believe that this was caused by the left?

I don't think you're really reading my posts Nick.

I've said that middle eastern wars radicalised sections of Muslims in the UK. My point....made many times is they were radicalized because culturally that had room within this country.

As evidence of that...Again I state, where are the radical Muslims in America....America was the prime mover...Yet very little home grown Islamic extremism.

No room for them there because there is no real left wing ideology in America that has local, state or central power.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 12.46pm
Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control?

I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion.

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jun 14 1.01pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 11.51am Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.00am Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Jun 2014 10.55pm So the BBC say we did something and that's the proof.....Now I'm a fan of the BBC but I don't think it's valid to state something as a fact that in reality is journalism. If it were as you say it was wouldn't it be more likely to find some discussion of this stuff in Benn's or Thatcher's accounts? Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 11.08pm) The Telegraph,30 December 2010,just by way of further example: "Newly published papers show that one of the country’s top civil servants held a private summit with senior American, French and German politicians at which they decided to provide “discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance”. One faction of the Mujahideen fighters, who were also covertly funded by the CIA, went on to become founding members of the al-Qa’eda terrorist network. ...The Communist superpower had sent troops into Kabul in December 1979 to support a Marxist-Leninist regime that was under threat from Islamic opposition groups known as the Mujahideen. On January 15th, 1980, Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, met Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Advisor, along with government representatives from France and West Germany at the Palais Marigny in Paris. A note sent to London afterwards stated: “There was some discussion of support for Afghan resistance to the invading Soviet troops.” In a restricted memo, Sir Robert told how the Americans suggested supporting refugee camps in pakistan as they were being used as bases by guerrillas opposing the Soviet invasion, and it would “help to keep Afghan resistance alive”. It was said at the meeting: “If one of the objectives of the West in this crisis was to keep the Islamic world aroused about the Soviet invasion, that would be served by encouraging a continuing guerrilla resistance.” ...The Germans were legally unable to supply arms, but the US, UK and France agreed to help the Mujahideen. “It was agreed that heads of government should be invited to endorse this conclusion and, if they did so, to authorise discussions at the appropriate level in the agencies involved as to feasibility and methods of providing discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance.” ...In a confidential assessment of Soviet strategy, British officials recognised the potential dangers of military action against a guerrilla force in Afghanistan. ...“We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed.” ..Muslims from around the world travelled to Afghanistan to join the resistance and some Mujahideen veterans who had received weapons and training from Western powers, including Osama Bin Laden, went on to use them against their former supporters in terrorist atrocities". This information supports my statements on the issue and just reveals yours to have been exaggerated. While I can't know this happened, this makes more realistic sense...At least on a subjective level. I said, if this happened it would have mainly been a civil service arrangement. Where's the Thatcher commentary on this?....Where is the huge amount of money spent that you referred to? I don't see any problem with the west supporting the Afghan resistance to the Soviets at the time.....It was the lesser evil. The mistakes were made after the Soviets left....Not the policy of assistance. I see no participation in 'billions of dollars', a quote you repeated from the BBC. Not from this country. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 11.52am) I was simply giving you a further example re the veracity of one aspect since you seemed to doubt even that. I'm unclear quite how what I posted supports your position (or shows mine to have been exaggerated in any way), but if you think so, well, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. The "mistake" was letting the genie out of the bottle...that happened from 1979/80 onwards...the mistake was the Cold War warriors being so blinded by being anti-Soviet not to appreciate that what you unleash is not necessarily going to be your poodle and is going to come back and bite you big time...
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jun 14 1.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 11.51am