No more immigrants.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 79 of 85 < 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 >

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Sep 15 4.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.38pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.23pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 12.37pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 11.36am Personally I don't believe a word of what any politician says about migrants in general. Does anyone really believe that Europe couldn't close it's borders to migrants if it really wanted to ? To migrants, it'd be almost impossible, given the nature of tourism and transportation requirements, especially given that border towns often are dependent on cross border interaction. Its important to remember that some migration is necessary - you can't have an no migration situation. I'm not sure I can buy that. It all comes down to how many resources you want to throw at it and what infrastructure you have in place to apply them. If we were at war with with these countries I wonder how many would get in then ? If you put enough resource and infrastructure into place you could probably 'effectively' restrict migration to a halt. The irony of course is that doing so would likely increase illegal immigration. The problem with 'stopping smugglers' is that you only really know 'how they're doing it' when you catch a break. By the time you hit that kind of success rate where you'd get it down to a trickle, you'd have spent so much on staff and technology, that you'd need the immigrants to do the jobs you took the border staff from. Usually the incentive to succeed overcomes the willingness to resist. It's an interesting question. I'm not sure it is the dichotomy you suggest but it could prove to be a virtually bottomless pit of expenditure. There will be a price to pay either way I'm certain.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Sep 15 4.43pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.38pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 12.37pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 11.36am

Personally I don't believe a word of what any politician says about migrants in general.

Does anyone really believe that Europe couldn't close it's borders to migrants if it really wanted to ?

To migrants, it'd be almost impossible, given the nature of tourism and transportation requirements, especially given that border towns often are dependent on cross border interaction. Its important to remember that some migration is necessary - you can't have an no migration situation.

I'm not sure I can buy that. It all comes down to how many resources you want to throw at it and what infrastructure you have in place to apply them. If we were at war with with these countries I wonder how many would get in then ?

If you put enough resource and infrastructure into place you could probably 'effectively' restrict migration to a halt. The irony of course is that doing so would likely increase illegal immigration. The problem with 'stopping smugglers' is that you only really know 'how they're doing it' when you catch a break.

By the time you hit that kind of success rate where you'd get it down to a trickle, you'd have spent so much on staff and technology, that you'd need the immigrants to do the jobs you took the border staff from.

Usually the incentive to succeed overcomes the willingness to resist.

It's an interesting question.
I'm not sure it is the dichotomy you suggest but it could prove to be a virtually bottomless pit of expenditure. There will be a price to pay either way I'm certain.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Sep 15 4.47pm
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm) I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ? I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm) Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Sep 15 4.47pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm

if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like

Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)

I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ?

I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them

People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them.

Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories.

They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire.
Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm)

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm)

Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us.

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 Sep 15 4.52pm
We should just continue our policy of Appeasement as invented by Chamberlain and his cabinet. It seems to be working well at present and is hardly costing anyone a penny. Perhaps we could do some kind of deal with all the migrants/refugees and shake the piece of paper around triumphantly - demonstrating we have definately averted any kind of crisis by taking positive action. The other option Europe could take is to sit around and wait for America, with perhaps Britain, to do something about IS and regimes like Assad's. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 Sep 15 4.52pm

We should just continue our policy of Appeasement as invented by Chamberlain and his cabinet. It seems to be working well at present and is hardly costing anyone a penny.
Perhaps we could do some kind of deal with all the migrants/refugees and shake the piece of paper around triumphantly - demonstrating we have definately averted any kind of crisis by taking positive action.
The other option Europe could take is to sit around and wait for America, with perhaps Britain, to do something about IS and regimes like Assad's.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

7@burnley79 Battersea 16 Sep 15 5.53pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 4.47pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm) I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ? I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm) Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us. Yes im quite sure. Why didn't the yanks give us the opportunity to refuel the fleet. Covertly they may have as Thatcher would of made Reagans life hell. We didnt go down there to save a 1000 "british" citizens i can assure you. In 1905 there was a treaty set up between 5 ruling nations britain was 1 and so where the yanks. Part of the british ruling was the fact we had to maintain occupancy of the Malvinas. The treaty stated that no mining wiuld take place for 100 years in Antartica. Now we still cant mine it properly and we haven't found out how too yet, but once we do Britain will become a very rich nation again down to the fact that our sector has the only port from which to distribute. Thats why Argentina want the islands back. I assure you its not for the sheep and why we sent our entire fleet cruise ships and anything we could muster back in the 80s
Alert a moderator to this post

7@burnley79

Battersea 16 Sep 15 5.53pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 4.47pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm

if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like

Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)

I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ?

I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them

Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories.

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm)

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm)

Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us.

Yes im quite sure. Why didn't the yanks give us the opportunity to refuel the fleet. Covertly they may have as Thatcher would of made Reagans life hell.
We didnt go down there to save a 1000 "british" citizens i can assure you. In 1905 there was a treaty set up between 5 ruling nations britain was 1 and so where the yanks. Part of the british ruling was the fact we had to maintain occupancy of the Malvinas. The treaty stated that no mining wiuld take place for 100 years in Antartica. Now we still cant mine it properly and we haven't found out how too yet, but once we do Britain will become a very rich nation again down to the fact that our sector has the only port from which to distribute.
Thats why Argentina want the islands back. I assure you its not for the sheep and why we sent our entire fleet cruise ships and anything we could muster back in the 80s

Alert a moderator to this post

7@burnley79 Battersea 16 Sep 15 6.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 4.22pm Quote Stirlingsays at 16 Sep 2015 4.18pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous Pray tell, who do you think was responsible for 9/11? Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Sep 2015 4.20pm) Cucking Funt I actually thought it was plane as i heard someone shout his name at the time. I know i know i just couldnt resist
Alert a moderator to this post

7@burnley79

Battersea 16 Sep 15 6.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 4.22pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 16 Sep 2015 4.18pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm

They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire.
Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous

Pray tell, who do you think was responsible for 9/11?

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Sep 2015 4.20pm)

Cucking Funt

I actually thought it was plane as i heard someone shout his name at the time.

I know i know i just couldnt resist

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Sep 15 7.28pm
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 5.53pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 4.47pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm) I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ? I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm) Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us. Yes im quite sure. Why didn't the yanks give us the opportunity to refuel the fleet. Covertly they may have as Thatcher would of made Reagans life hell. We didnt go down there to save a 1000 "british" citizens i can assure you. In 1905 there was a treaty set up between 5 ruling nations britain was 1 and so where the yanks. Part of the british ruling was the fact we had to maintain occupancy of the Malvinas. The treaty stated that no mining wiuld take place for 100 years in Antartica. Now we still cant mine it properly and we haven't found out how too yet, but once we do Britain will become a very rich nation again down to the fact that our sector has the only port from which to distribute. Thats why Argentina want the islands back. I assure you its not for the sheep and why we sent our entire fleet cruise ships and anything we could muster back in the 80s I understand it's significance in terms of resources but I'm yet to be convinced that the Americans hampered our efforts during the conflict.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Sep 15 7.28pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 5.53pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 4.47pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm

if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like

Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)

I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ?

I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them

Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories.

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm)

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm)

Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us.

I understand it's significance in terms of resources but I'm yet to be convinced that the Americans hampered our efforts during the conflict.

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 16 Sep 15 9.21pm
That vicar on Gogglebox basically summed it up. Applied to take refugees in while her husband was oblivious to her plans and unable to express his objection.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

16 Sep 15 9.21pm

That vicar on Gogglebox basically summed it up. Applied to take refugees in while her husband was oblivious to her plans and unable to express his objection.

Alert a moderator to this post

7@burnley79 Battersea 16 Sep 15 10.44pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 7.28pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 5.53pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 4.47pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm) I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ? I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm) Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us. Yes im quite sure. Why didn't the yanks give us the opportunity to refuel the fleet. Covertly they may have as Thatcher would of made Reagans life hell. We didnt go down there to save a 1000 "british" citizens i can assure you. In 1905 there was a treaty set up between 5 ruling nations britain was 1 and so where the yanks. Part of the british ruling was the fact we had to maintain occupancy of the Malvinas. The treaty stated that no mining wiuld take place for 100 years in Antartica. Now we still cant mine it properly and we haven't found out how too yet, but once we do Britain will become a very rich nation again down to the fact that our sector has the only port from which to distribute. Thats why Argentina want the islands back. I assure you its not for the sheep and why we sent our entire fleet cruise ships and anything we could muster back in the 80s I understand it's significance in terms of resources but I'm yet to be convinced that the Americans hampered our efforts during the conflict. The original point of them selling arms to the argies right up to the start of the conflict. Also no help in refuelling the fleet.
Alert a moderator to this post

7@burnley79

Battersea 16 Sep 15 10.44pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 7.28pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 5.53pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 4.47pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm

if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like

Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)

I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ?

I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them

Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories.

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm)

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm)

Are you sure about that ? I was under the impression that Thatcher and Ronnie were allied on that one. Rumour was that the US covertly assisted us.

I understand it's significance in terms of resources but I'm yet to be convinced that the Americans hampered our efforts during the conflict.

The original point of them selling arms to the argies right up to the start of the conflict. Also no help in refuelling the fleet.

Alert a moderator to this post

richard shaw (og)65 my minds eye 17 Sep 15 8.37am
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm) I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ? I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Also it sounds nothing like your IRA analogy. It is what it is. Thats just ridiculous Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm) AGREE NOT SURE ABOUT THE ARGIES , SOUNDS A BIT FAR FETCHED TO ME . JAMIE YOUR IRA COMPARISON IS A BIT WIDE OF THE MARK interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?" iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "
Alert a moderator to this post

richard shaw (og)65

my minds eye 17 Sep 15 8.37am

Send a Private Message to richard shaw (og)65

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm

Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm

if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like

Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)

I wouldn't dismiss your claim out of hand but do you have any evidence for this ?

I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them

Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories.

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm)

Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm)

AGREE

NOT SURE ABOUT THE ARGIES , SOUNDS A BIT FAR FETCHED TO ME . JAMIE YOUR IRA COMPARISON IS A BIT WIDE OF THE MARK

interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?"
iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "

Alert a moderator to this post

richard shaw (og)65 my minds eye 17 Sep 15 8.42am
if you want to know more about the covert arming or the backing of the wrong side by the americans watch the adam Curtis docs bitter lake and the politics of fear . i watched the politics of fear on the bbc but you cant find it on their archive ( I would love to think that it is too explosive ) I had to get a pirate dvd of it to watch again interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?" iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "
Alert a moderator to this post

richard shaw (og)65

my minds eye 17 Sep 15 8.42am

if you want to know more about the covert arming or the backing of the wrong side by the americans watch the adam Curtis docs bitter lake and the politics of fear .

i watched the politics of fear on the bbc but you cant find it on their archive ( I would love to think that it is too explosive ) I had to get a pirate dvd of it to watch again

interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?"
iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "

Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish Burgess Hill 17 Sep 15 9.12am
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 17 Sep 2015 8.42am if you want to know more about the covert arming or the backing of the wrong side by the americans watch the adam Curtis docs bitter lake and the politics of fear . i watched the politics of fear on the bbc but you cant find it on their archive ( I would love to think that it is too explosive ) I had to get a pirate dvd of it to watch again Or possibly too dull. Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 17 Sep 15 9.12am

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 17 Sep 2015 8.42am

if you want to know more about the covert arming or the backing of the wrong side by the americans watch the adam Curtis docs bitter lake and the politics of fear .

i watched the politics of fear on the bbc but you cant find it on their archive ( I would love to think that it is too explosive ) I had to get a pirate dvd of it to watch again

Or possibly too dull.

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

richard shaw (og)65 my minds eye 17 Sep 15 10.41am
Quote Catfish at 17 Sep 2015 9.12am Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 17 Sep 2015 8.42am if you want to know more about the covert arming or the backing of the wrong side by the americans watch the adam Curtis docs bitter lake and the politics of fear . i watched the politics of fear on the bbc but you cant find it on their archive ( I would love to think that it is too explosive ) I had to get a pirate dvd of it to watch again Or possibly too dull. have you seen it then ? interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?" iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "
Alert a moderator to this post

richard shaw (og)65

my minds eye 17 Sep 15 10.41am

Quote Catfish at 17 Sep 2015 9.12am

Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 17 Sep 2015 8.42am

if you want to know more about the covert arming or the backing of the wrong side by the americans watch the adam Curtis docs bitter lake and the politics of fear .

i watched the politics of fear on the bbc but you cant find it on their archive ( I would love to think that it is too explosive ) I had to get a pirate dvd of it to watch again

Or possibly too dull.

have you seen it then ?

interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?"
iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 79 of 85 < 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

No more immigrants.

Site Map

Sponsors