IS kill Christians

[AfghanRam]

Cleaner Mate - You dont need to be frontline, I was close enough to form an opinion. In ****q I paid all the local ****qs so I had a fair ammount to do with them.

I wonder how many I paid in the day, were shelling us at night. I could see the hatred in some of there eyes, so there is a fair possibility as most were ex conscripts.

But isn't that the point Afghan? Genuinely liberating armies are welcomed in the countries they become involved in but we're a small country in the North Atlantic that repeatedly keeps poking its nose into affairs that are taking place thousands of miles away. Our interest is political/financial rather than humanitarian and although I don't blame the majority of our actual soldiers, our actions have actually only led to the resentment you describe and ultimately put the UK more at risk of terrorist attack.[/quote]

Ex

[AnagRam]

Good Thread this and I'm enjoying the read.

Nahh this thread is not for me Alto, let me know when some jokes have been posted [/quote]

Just for you Acido...a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian walk into a bar...they have a few drinks, a chat and a laugh. That's what happens when you're not an extremist asshole![/quote]

Are you having a pop at me there Anagram ? [/quote]

Absolutely not Acido...you wanted a joke...it's not a great one admittedly but it kind of makes my point. I don't get the need for the 'tribalism' of religion but without all the radical extremists we stand a much better chance of getting along together.

[Acido]

Yes in all fairness Anag, thats what I thought you were trying to say (hence the smiley face as i was joking).
To be honest these political and sometimes racial threads just dont interest me, thats why I try to stay away from them.

Give me some good comedy, a few beers, and a Barnsley win and Im happy (just like tonight actually, get in there super Sammy Winnall against Oldham lol).

[Arundelred]

Cleaner Mate - You dont need to be frontline, I was close enough to form an opinion. In ****q I paid all the local ****qs so I had a fair ammount to do with them.

I wonder how many I paid in the day, were shelling us at night. I could see the hatred in some of there eyes, so there is a fair possibility as most were ex conscripts.

But isn't that the point Afghan? Genuinely liberating armies are welcomed in the countries they become involved in but we're a small country in the North Atlantic that repeatedly keeps poking its nose into affairs that are taking place thousands of miles away. Our interest is political/financial rather than humanitarian and although I don't blame the majority of our actual soldiers, our actions have actually only led to the resentment you describe and ultimately put the UK mor

[roger_ramjet]

You dont often talk sense Arundel but in this case I applaud you. However in making your point you also by inference would appear therefore to justify the US et al reactoive strikes. This is the problem that one wrong seems to legitimise subsequent wrongs.

I also fail to see any distinction between so called "legal" and "illegal" wars. How can any war be "legal"? How can its legaility under one country's legal code make any difference. War is never justified except as a defensive reaction to the aggression of another. Thus one could argue WW2 was justifiable as regards England but not as regards Germany etc etc.

The removal of ****q from Kuwait might thus be a justifiable action (not necessarily legal) if requested by a sovereign state from its ally, but the continuance of that war into an act of invasion into another country is no more defensible than the original incursion. All it does is exacerbate that that we find repellent, Arundel

[Arundelred]

[quote="roger_ramjet"]You dont often talk sense Arundel but in this case I applaud you. However in making your point you also by inference would appear therefore to justify the US et al reactoive strikes. This is the problem that one wrong seems to legitimise subsequent wrongs.

I also fail to see any distinction between so called "legal" and "illegal" wars. How can any war be "legal"? How can its legaility under one country's legal code make any difference. War is never justified except as a defensive reaction to the aggression of another. Thus one could argue WW2 was justifiable as regards England but not as regards Germany etc etc.

The removal of ****q from Kuwait might thus be a justifiable action (not necessarily legal) if requested by a sovereign state from its ally, but the continuance of that war into an act of invasion into another country is no more defensible than the original incursion. All it does is exacerbate that that we find repelle

[roger_ramjet]

OK I retract the unfounded suggestion that you were talking sense!!

[alfinyalcabo]

Can we all agree on one thing..?

Tony Blair and George Bush senior should be tried for war crimes.

[AfghanRam]

[quote="roger_ramjet"]You dont often talk sense Arundel but in this case I applaud you. However in making your point you also by inference would appear therefore to justify the US et al reactoive strikes. This is the problem that one wrong seems to legitimise subsequent wrongs.

I also fail to see any distinction between so called "legal" and "illegal" wars. How can any war be "legal"? How can its legaility under one country's legal code make any difference. War is never justified except as a defensive reaction to the aggression of another. Thus one could argue WW2 was justifiable as regards England but not as regards Germany etc etc.

The removal of ****q from Kuwait might thus be a justifiable action (not necessarily legal) if requested by a sovereign state from its ally, but the continuance of that war into an act of invasion into another country is no more defensible than the original incursion. All it does is exacerbate that that we find repelle

[Arundelred]

[quote="AfghanRam"]You dont often talk sense Arundel but in this case I applaud you. However in making your point you also by inference would appear therefore to justify the US et al reactoive strikes. This is the problem that one wrong seems to legitimise subsequent wrongs.

I also fail to see any distinction between so called "legal" and "illegal" wars. How can any war be "legal"? How can its legaility under one country's legal code make any difference. War is never justified except as a defensive reaction to the aggression of another. Thus one could argue WW2 was justifiable as regards England but not as regards Germany etc etc.

The removal of ****q from Kuwait might thus be a justifiable action (not necessarily legal) if requested by a sovereign state from its ally, but the continuance of that war into an act of invasion into another country is no more defensible than the original incursion. All it