The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well we had "Gulf 2:The Distraction" and, as per the norm with sequels, it was uninspired, a retread of the 1st one and an awful lot of noise from critics about why did they even bother?
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
Page:
And, why were Sky News, Fox News and the BBC (possibly others but I don't wath any others) all giving some coverage to Aceh last year? Hmm? In fact I remember mentioning the place many times last year to the general indifference of Goatboy and Light who were only bothered about Iraq at the time.
And, excuse me, but isn't it true that those in the Indonesian military which acted illegally against civilians were tried and found guilty? Er, yes.
More to the point, isn't it a tad insane to becry the invasion of a nation like Iraq whilst complaining about a the illegal actions taken in places like Aceh? I mean, what's the message, "don't intervene in that country, intervene in this one because you're intervening in the first country" ?
And, excuse me, but isn't it true that those in the Indonesian military which acted illegally against civilians were tried and found guilty? Er, yes.
More to the point, isn't it a tad insane to becry the invasion of a nation like Iraq whilst complaining about a the illegal actions taken in places like Aceh? I mean, what's the message, "don't intervene in that country, intervene in this one because you're intervening in the first country" ?
Belldandy wrote:
> Hahahahaha.
>
> No, the vast majority of Goatboy's post is inaccurate crap.
What do you mean, "no"? I laughed! How can you try and retaliate with "no"? It doesn't make any sense!
And once again, you'll require proof to so easily dismiss what seemed to me to be a sound post that for the most part merely stated the evidence.
> Hahahahaha.
>
> No, the vast majority of Goatboy's post is inaccurate crap.
What do you mean, "no"? I laughed! How can you try and retaliate with "no"? It doesn't make any sense!
And once again, you'll require proof to so easily dismiss what seemed to me to be a sound post that for the most part merely stated the evidence.
Sorry, that quote should have read:
Belldandy wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Hahahahaha.
>
> No, the vast majority of Goatboy's post is inaccurate crap.
Belldandy wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Hahahahaha.
>
> No, the vast majority of Goatboy's post is inaccurate crap.
Blank wrote:
> And once again, you'll require proof to so easily dismiss what seemed
> to me to be a sound post that for the most part merely stated the
> evidence.
A fair ammount of it seems to be supposition, suppositious or conjecture.
> And once again, you'll require proof to so easily dismiss what seemed
> to me to be a sound post that for the most part merely stated the
> evidence.
A fair ammount of it seems to be supposition, suppositious or conjecture.
Belldandy wrote:
> And, why were Sky News, Fox News and the BBC (possibly others but I
> don't wath any others) all giving some coverage to Aceh last year?
> Hmm? In fact I remember mentioning the place many times last year to
> the general indifference of Goatboy and Light who were only bothered
> about Iraq at the time.
I don't recall you starting a thread about it Bell. If I'm wrong, please do correct me. But could it be cos you only mentioned Aceh (incidentally, I also mentioned the Burmese and Indonesian juntas which are supported by the west but you weren't keen to talk about 'em) to try and rubbish anyone slamming the Iraq war? If you're SO interested in the injustices of Aceh, start a thread. I'll get involved and respond. But spare us the "You never talk about anything else" when the only times you've brought it up is to distract from a thread about Iraq, 'kay?
>
> And, excuse me, but isn't it true that those in the Indonesian
> military which acted illegally against civilians were tried and found
> guilty? Er, yes.
6 of them. Yes, we talked about this earlier. So Bell; are you still saying a show trial of 6 people makes up for the abuses of an entire army?
>
> More to the point, isn't it a tad insane to becry the invasion of a
> nation like Iraq whilst complaining about a the illegal actions taken
> in places like Aceh? I mean, what's the message, "don't
> intervene in that country, intervene in this one because you're
> intervening in the first country" ?
I think you've missed the point. The intervention in Iraq is justified by all sorts of moral outrage-like reasons. Yet we support dictators everywhere. So in other words, I believe the point being made is "If the war was really about freeing oppressed people, why do we support oppressors elsewhere?". To put it another way, he's (I think) saying that the evidence would suggest that the moral reasons for the land grab are lies.
> And, why were Sky News, Fox News and the BBC (possibly others but I
> don't wath any others) all giving some coverage to Aceh last year?
> Hmm? In fact I remember mentioning the place many times last year to
> the general indifference of Goatboy and Light who were only bothered
> about Iraq at the time.
I don't recall you starting a thread about it Bell. If I'm wrong, please do correct me. But could it be cos you only mentioned Aceh (incidentally, I also mentioned the Burmese and Indonesian juntas which are supported by the west but you weren't keen to talk about 'em) to try and rubbish anyone slamming the Iraq war? If you're SO interested in the injustices of Aceh, start a thread. I'll get involved and respond. But spare us the "You never talk about anything else" when the only times you've brought it up is to distract from a thread about Iraq, 'kay?
>
> And, excuse me, but isn't it true that those in the Indonesian
> military which acted illegally against civilians were tried and found
> guilty? Er, yes.
6 of them. Yes, we talked about this earlier. So Bell; are you still saying a show trial of 6 people makes up for the abuses of an entire army?
>
> More to the point, isn't it a tad insane to becry the invasion of a
> nation like Iraq whilst complaining about a the illegal actions taken
> in places like Aceh? I mean, what's the message, "don't
> intervene in that country, intervene in this one because you're
> intervening in the first country" ?
I think you've missed the point. The intervention in Iraq is justified by all sorts of moral outrage-like reasons. Yet we support dictators everywhere. So in other words, I believe the point being made is "If the war was really about freeing oppressed people, why do we support oppressors elsewhere?". To put it another way, he's (I think) saying that the evidence would suggest that the moral reasons for the land grab are lies.
Hmmm, and why has Fox News given more coverage to Haiti - a story just appearing on UK news for the most part this week - since about two months ago?
Belldandy wrote:
> Hmmm, and why has Fox News given more coverage to Haiti - a story just
> appearing on UK news for the most part this week - since about two
> months ago?
Okay; so if you're interested about that, start a thread on it. Don't just mention things to distract attention away from the fact that you haven't acknowledged anything that's been said.
As to the coverage and how much...well, with the best will in the world Bell, you've proved yourself to be a liar. Can you provide any proof that Fox has given any more than about 2 minute's coverage per bulletin?
> Hmmm, and why has Fox News given more coverage to Haiti - a story just
> appearing on UK news for the most part this week - since about two
> months ago?
Okay; so if you're interested about that, start a thread on it. Don't just mention things to distract attention away from the fact that you haven't acknowledged anything that's been said.
As to the coverage and how much...well, with the best will in the world Bell, you've proved yourself to be a liar. Can you provide any proof that Fox has given any more than about 2 minute's coverage per bulletin?
You presume I care whether you believe me. I know the truth of it and it only serves to make you're increasing "well I think you're lying" arguments desperate.
We're ALL lying.
In related news, a US helicopter came down in Iraq and hit power lines, knocking out power. Which is kind of strange because many here continually claim most of Iraq has no electricity, despite news reports/UN statements to the contrary.
We're ALL lying.
In related news, a US helicopter came down in Iraq and hit power lines, knocking out power. Which is kind of strange because many here continually claim most of Iraq has no electricity, despite news reports/UN statements to the contrary.
Anyway, I'm through with our government.
I don't trust the Tories either.
Cutting out Uni tuition fees is a bit of a White Elephant because as Labour had it, the debt was spread so thinly, interest-free, that you'd barely notice it, and if you weren't earning a fortune as a result of this education then you wouldn't have to pay a penny.
I'm going to support the Liberals.
I've always like their policies, and best of all, if they come out on top it'll give Labour and Conservative such a kick in the pride that they'd realise that people do care about what's being done to their country and think twice before running it for themselves.
I don't trust the Tories either.
Cutting out Uni tuition fees is a bit of a White Elephant because as Labour had it, the debt was spread so thinly, interest-free, that you'd barely notice it, and if you weren't earning a fortune as a result of this education then you wouldn't have to pay a penny.
I'm going to support the Liberals.
I've always like their policies, and best of all, if they come out on top it'll give Labour and Conservative such a kick in the pride that they'd realise that people do care about what's being done to their country and think twice before running it for themselves.
Belldandy wrote:
> You presume I care whether you believe me. I know the truth of it and
> it only serves to make you're increasing "well I think you're
> lying" arguments desperate.
Desperate? Heh. Coming from the man who is still avoiding answering any questions, that's rather funny.
>
> We're ALL lying.
Speak for yourself Bell. First you say you know the truth, then you admit you're lying. Which is it Bell? Are you truthful (in which case, lets see some proof), or are you lying?
>
> In related news, a US helicopter came down in Iraq and hit power
> lines, knocking out power. Which is kind of strange because many here
> continually claim most of Iraq has no electricity, despite news
> reports/UN statements to the contrary.
Right; so when we say MANY Iraqi's are without power...well, you see where I'm going with this. Bell, "The difference between Many and All; discuss"
> You presume I care whether you believe me. I know the truth of it and
> it only serves to make you're increasing "well I think you're
> lying" arguments desperate.
Desperate? Heh. Coming from the man who is still avoiding answering any questions, that's rather funny.
>
> We're ALL lying.
Speak for yourself Bell. First you say you know the truth, then you admit you're lying. Which is it Bell? Are you truthful (in which case, lets see some proof), or are you lying?
>
> In related news, a US helicopter came down in Iraq and hit power
> lines, knocking out power. Which is kind of strange because many here
> continually claim most of Iraq has no electricity, despite news
> reports/UN statements to the contrary.
Right; so when we say MANY Iraqi's are without power...well, you see where I'm going with this. Bell, "The difference between Many and All; discuss"
Page: