Viewing Thread:
"You could have seen this coming a mile away..."

A while ago I read about a group of Iraqi asylum seekers who had attacked four royal marines whilst they were returning to their barracks.
One of the iraqis pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the marines, so the another marines obviously try to defend their mate who had just been stabbed.

The marines were holding a *kit sale* that day and this was to auction off for charity their dead mates stuff (he had died in a copter crash in Iraq).
Anyways one of the Asylum seekers has put in a complaint against a marine because the marine had assaulted him - even though he was part of the group that had ambushed the marines and he had been arrested two days before for carrying a knife.
What SHOULD happened is the Iraqis should be kicked out the country straight away and the complaint against the marine dropped. What WILL happen is the Iraqi will get a few grand for all the distress that has occured to him and the marine will proberbly be up for a court Martial.

We will have to wait and see what happens.

Do you see us hijacking planes and crashing them into Iraq? Do you see us doing terrorist attacks to Iraq? We have internal problems yes but we will handel them internally. When they attack either our nation or our allies then we have an obligation to make sure that they can't do it again. Would you let Hitler stay alive after what he did? I wouldn't. In the end he did die and I don't think anyone's sitting at home saying "I wish Hitler was still alive...". We should eliminate all possible threats. ALL POSSIBLE THREATS, not just the the ones running the show (Osama, Suddam etc) there will always be another to take their place unless we strike at them all at once. It makes sense but none of you have a moral vaccume. All lawyers have to have one and I suggest you try and get one too.

Cubist wrote:
> We should eliminate all possible threats

I can’t believe this. I was just reading, watching this argument develop as it was quite interesting, rather then just “you’re a nob”, “No, you’re a nob”. But that statement is just farcical.

You seem to be suffering from the same thing a lot of Americans are.

“Americans are the good guys, and all those that have a different viewpoint and try to stress it are the bad guys.”

I can't believe I'm hearing this.

I'm honestly, *HONESTLY* surprised you haven't managed to kill yourself in a domestic accident yet.

Do you not read the news Blank? They were Osama bin ladens men on the plane and we know that because frightened and afraid passengers where sending out messages from the plane on their mobiles when they knew they were going to die. They knew they were going to die when members of the taliban siezed the plane and told them not to worry because they were dying for a nobel cause of killing us white-foriegn devils.

As for Suddam and Osama being friends well the fact that he has said to all the citizens that he full supports Osama and what he did, it's kind of set in stone.

Jesus, just stop talking! Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and their finger even remotely near the pulse can see how stupidly ill-informed and quick to jump to conclusions you are.

It's not as if Nuclear weapons etc have a sell by date. We know they have had them, we know many of them support Osama and Suddam and finally we know that many of them are willing to do extremist things to kill us. We should eliminate all possible threats and not just be all moral and nice waiting for some psycho member of the Taliban to get his hands on something we really will have to worry about.

My evidence is that you have no evidence.

How can you possibly say as fact that it was Iraq under Osama bin Laden's lead that destroyed the Twin Towers? How can you say that Saddam fully supports Osama?

I'm not kidding, you're going to seriously offend someone soon if you carry spouting this rubbish. And I wouldn't like to be you when that happens.

Practical Magic wrote:
> You need to clarify, there is no direct evidence of the manufacture of
> WMD post 1991, there is evidence of it and procurement pre 1991, and
> evidence of the pursuance of WMD post 1991.
--

There you have it ladies and gentlemen.
Directly in contrast to his "Gardening in Iraq" thread, where you tried to stress the dangers of the nuclear programme.
And, amusingly, I've been saying there is no new evidence of any activity towards WOMD since 1991, and you've been saying over and over there has.
You've offered chemical suits being found, centrifuges under rose bushes, scientists not being allowed to talk without supervision etc etc.

So you are now agreeing with me in that there is no evidence, by admittance from Rumsfeld himself, that there has been any advance in the WOMD programme since 1991, despite the "he presents a clear and immediate threat to this country" speech by Tony Blair on national television?

I'm just making sure I've read that right.
Because, y'know, it's kind of contrasting to every single post you have made about Iraq, WOMD and Hussein since this started...I can pop them if you like?

Blank wrote:
> And that is relevant because....?

Read what Practical Magic said

Maybe you could point out how that is foolish? Come on this is intelligent chat so I'm sure you have some good hard evidence to back up your insults towards me?