Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Iranian President says Holocaust is a myth

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    course they do. Saddam was our alley pre gulf. The iraq and Iran revolutions where 2 new leaders got put in power happened at a similar time. Iran was anti west at the time and about to invade kuwait. Saddam did a deal with kuwait to defend them and was all pro west, so we supported him and let him fight a war we might have ended up in. Then he starts pushing things, going off and using stuff he shouldnt, then invades kuwait. We and everyone else says stop doing that, he says fuck off, thats it no more are we allies.

    I'm trying to see your point. America is allies with Isreal, same as they are the the UK. They aren't gonna take their nukes away, same as they won't take ours.

    not that hard to understand.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well I think Ireplied to that post before I saw it lol.

    The UN doesn't matter, and they found loopholes in it anyway, legality doesn't come in it legally speaking, justificationa nd legitmacy are in the eyes of the beholder, just ask the Kurds what they think.

    once again its all down to opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's down to breath-taking hypocrisy, double standards and greed. I wish at least they would stop pretending they did it for security, safety or human rights... :rolleyes:

    The fact is the US didn't give a toss about human rights in Iraq or whether Saddam had any weapons for as long as he danced to Washington's tune.

    Just as it doesn't give a toss about human rights, democracy or freedom anywhere else. If the regime in question can serve a purpose to the US government, all atrocities will be forgiven or even encouraged. And when there isn't a further use for the regime or if it refuses to collaborate with America, then we start seeing crocodile tears about the poor oppresed civilians and all those weapons primed to be launched at us.

    And millions of brain-dead sheeple will go with it and support more illegal wars.

    It's pathetically sickening.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    once again its all down to opinion

    If you believe that then you have zero recourse to any claim for the rule of law or legitimacy for those claiming to act in the furtherance thereof. Consistency of principle cannot be maintained by pursuing such moral and ethical relativism.

    And you'd best review your history concerning the invasion of Kuwait again, dude, your comic book recounting of what was said and done falls fall short of the actualities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Once again, the pair of you have presented nothing but YOUR OPINION of which you entitle to, but to calim at as more is folly.

    Well I wasn't writing an essay on the Iraq-IRan-kuwait-US conflcit, I am posting on a message board stiney, so forgive the simplistic descriptions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are no opinions of anything Walkindude- everything I have said is fact.

    Unless of course you are actually denying any of it is true.

    Do you deny that Saddam was America's ally?

    Do you deny we supplied him with weapons and supported him?

    Do you deny that we did nothing or even made much of a comment as he was happily gassing people or torturing and killing thousands of his own during the 1980s?

    Do you deny that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and that he was not threat to us or other nations?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    everything you say around those is conjecture though and opinion. Their motives etc,

    I said Sadam was America's ally, read upwards.

    Yes we did suport and supply him, read above.

    Yes I don't think we made any real comments, but then agin you'd have to go back and check that.

    No I think he was a threat and the WMD issue has not been resolved.

    not that I think anyone accpets that on here, but then again, they have already made up their mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er... even the US government gave up quite a while ago and admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq (but that didn't matter because he was a baaaaaaad man and he had to go).

    So if the entire world, from international observers to the UN to the US government itself now accepts there were no WMDs, why do you think any different?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because governments, to a degree , bow to public pressure. Its the image, the presnetation that counts. So we have this war and as soon as its over people said "wheres the "WMD'S", beaing my mind it had only just fifnished and they kept on in that vein, never ending. The governments couldn't produce the goods rtaright away, the Iraqi survey team sent in after was a joke. their study took a couple of months under war conditions in a huge conutry known for secrecy, stash holes and neighbours willing to move things on their behalf. Also the borders were never guarded and so all this means that the case of WMD's is not over, well it is coz they just wanna move on and forget about it. But you can't quarentee there wasn't WMD's there because once again it was down to piss poor management.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    the WMD issue has not been resolved.

    not that I think anyone accpets that on here, but then again, they have already made up their mind.

    Seems like Bush has made his mind up too
    Bush's speech was the last of four designed to improve his credibility on the war and boost the public's backing for it.

    He offered few qualms about the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    He said foreign intelligence agencies -- including several for governments that didn't back his decision to invade -- also believed before the war that Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons.

    He said his administration is changing the U.S. intelligence apparatus to head off future errors.

    Bush also contended that Saddam had intended to restart weapons programs.

    See, he says it was faulty intelligence maaaan!

    What most of us knew long ago was that Bush and Blair had doctored the intelligence to provide an alibi for the visitation of death upon the Iraqi people.

    Still, he's going to make the intelligence agencies pay for allowing him to doctor their reports.

    Which is quite a neat trick, no?

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Best you refer to the expert and informed firsthand testimony of Scott Ritter on the matter then dude. He spent years actively destroying Iraq's WMDs and has plenty to say about those who were the real stumbling block to the inspectors' work.

    Then again, you seem to prefer to cling to the PR of rabid ideologues and repeatedly exposed liars than face the darker truth of corruption and powermongering at the heart of US policymaking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well faulty intelligence is duh quite frankly , we all know that. But its all abotu saving face. Take a hit for one thing to maintian postion and and be there for something more important.

    The question of HOW much Blair and Bush were invloved in gettin the reporst to say what they did is in question because it hasn't yet been proven.

    FDid they do it direct or was the agnecies just trying to please the Boss without him knowing? Or did they just make a mistake. I mean unless you have expereince in the intelligence community, its quite hard to say no?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    well faulty intelligence is duh quite frankly , we all know that. But its all abotu saving face. Take a hit for one thing to maintian postion and and be there for something more important.

    The question of HOW much Blair and Bush were invloved in gettin the reporst to say what they did is in question because it hasn't yet been proven.

    FDid they do it direct or was the agnecies just trying to please the Boss without him knowing? Or did they just make a mistake. I mean unless you have expereince in the intelligence community, its quite hard to say no?

    The intelligence agency leaks have become a virtual torrential downpour on the matter ..... and it is clear that the "sexing up" really did take place - as well as the usage of an essay from the internet

    Who knows, they might use one of your posts to justify the next slaughter

    :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What the report fails to mention, FTP, is that those "foreign intelligence agencies" were set up by the same cabal of aspirants to the Iraqi throne, aka Chalabi and his INC/INA cohorts, from whence the entirety of the false justifications for invasion were sourced by the current US administration.

    The "informant" codenamed "Curveball" was the principal source for German and UK intelligence agencies and was susbsequently revealed as a Chalabi put up job and deemed unreliable. Unfortunately the revelations came only after Washington's course was set and the military mobilisation in full tilt.

    Just another sanitised oversight that characterises mainstream reporting on the whole sordid affair.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One can only dream.......;)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Ah bless, I've just realised that I have my own mention in FTP's signature.

    La, la, la, la, la I can't hear you [/fingers in ears]
    :lol: Classic.

    And so what if he says its a myth? A) OLD NEWS! B) He's not the only one.

    I still love him for being absolutley NUTS! And having a decent armed forces, se we are leaving Iran well alone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Anytime that Man of Kent is ready to start saying what he actually thinks instead of playing pointless games, I'm ready to take him off my ignore list.


    But ...but ...but how will you know?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm still waiting on Born Slippy to come back and explain exactly how he knows that FTP and Clandestine think the holocaust never happened. Funny how the right wing thinks that repetition of a lie in an attempt to smear a mans character actually works.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    But ...but ...but how will you know?

    No doubt someone will quote him on it ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    White supremacists always say their view is the only correct one. On this issue, many people across africa and asia, especially muslims, disagree with the white man. I agree with the white supremacists on this but wish they would try to listen to the other civilisations a bit more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piss off monocrat you freak
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    piss off monocrat you freak
    You know this from my few words. You must be very clever a little too quick to judge.

    Blagsta I have edited this post, if you had already seen my intemperate comment, I apologise.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Blagsta wrote:
    piss off monocrat you freak
    Couldn't put it better myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.