Jump to content



Recommended Posts

To be fair we don't know that is why. As I said before I can't see why Ross County would acquiesce to Celtic' date=' their owner could buy and sell Celtic if he felt like it, as a club they certainly aren't beholden to anyone else for survival. He was also one of the chairman who voted against the ridiculous reconstruction being forced through last season, despite the three-line-whip from Lawell and Regan.

If it had been Dundee Utd or Aberdeen, who are clearly in Celtic's pocket, I'd have little doubt, but Ross County are quite different.[/quote


Well its got to be one or the other - either an oversight or a deliberate acquiescing - you cant have both ![/quote']


Well they are clearly saying it was an oversight, I didn't realise I was claiming both?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to heavily get into the rights and wrongs of particular wars but the Taliban aren't an enemy? Seriously?


Please tell me the last time the Taliban attacked or invaded the UK or US and that should answer your question. You only believe they are an enemy because that is who we are 'supposed' to be fighting in Afghan according to the script. Not 1 Afghan has ever posed a threat as little as 'I'll punch you in the face' to anyone in the UK.


I think what you are trying to say is 'Are Al-qaeda' not an enemy? Which again the answer is no. Al-Qaeda translates to 'the Database'. They were a CIA funded organisation trained to fight the Russians in their invasion of Afghan in the 80s. They were supported by the UN. However the UN led countries (NATO) needed an excuse to justify tighter rules on its own people and at the same time take global resources...therefore 9/11 happened and they used their ‘tool’ and blamed it on 19 members of Al-Q (8 of which are still alive, must have had good parachutes on 9/11) so the public would get in uproar and it would justify public support of invading. I believed the official version was all true at first also until in 2003 a few inconsistencies led me learning for myself and not simply swallowing the garbage corporate owned mainstream media versions.


Jumping to Syria - the Rebels are armed by NATO and are members of Al-Q. Therefore once again this database is being used as an asset by the West. Yet the problem is you wont here this version on Trevor McDonald Tonight or on the BBC 6 O clock news because their versions are scripted for them. You have to step into alternative media which reveals such truth and facts. The BBC cant even report lies properly, recently they shot video of an Indian Protest in Delhi and stated it was conflict in Syria.



Calscot, drop the term conspiracy 'theory'....you may find most of these are now what is known as conspiracy 'fact'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Insulting? Look, I don’t want to get into some kind of flame war and I can’t see how I insulted you


if you think that calling someone underhanded is not an insult, well, I can't really help you.



I said no such thing. My words are in the thread so please quote them.


So when you said the fight against the Taliban was, and I quote, " a fight against terrorism" you weren't calling them terrorists?


The "received wisdom" for me is that they were a safe haven for, and supportive of Al Qaeda and also responsible for radicalising young men into the mind-set of joining the terrorist group. There was also the proximity of these terrorists to Pakistan who own nuclear missiles.


Can't help noticing you called them terrorists again. Either that or you're saying that the Taliban radicalised young men into joining AlQueda - which would make no sense. Why would the Taliban recruit men for another organisation?



The received wisdom is that were trying to give the Afghanistan to its people.

We've occupied a country in order to give it back to the people we took it from?



But if they have nothing to do with terrorism, believe in the freedom of their people, and are the most popular choice for leadership, why don't they just denounce terrorism, embrace democracy and become the elected leaders?


Well, firstly why should they denounce an invented lable that you have imposed on them, particularly when you haven't been able to define the difference between resistance fighters and terrorists? Secondly what part of "they don't want a western style democracy" don't you understand?



Democracy is not perfect by any means and comes in many flavours, but surely it's obviously better than tyranny - what's your choice for the UK, the current democracy or Taliban type rule?


reductio ad absurdum


but I can’t imagine people not choosing freedom and choice over some sort of autocracy (or some equivalent strict theocracy).

Then you need to get out more.


Your argument could apply to the southern states in America about abolishing slavery. The north imposed a culture which they had no exposure of, not that generation anyway.


Except that the north was the north of the United States of America and the south was the south of the United States of America - same country, same language, same president, same people - that's why they called it a civiil war - different States having different laws is fundamentally what the USA is all about, it does not imply each state has a differnet culture.

And in any event the Civil war was not about human rights - it was about economics.



I don't actually know the time line or number of deaths and admit that.

if you admit to not knowing, why did you claim that fighting the Taliban would result in a reduction of attacks on us?


But you are saying no Brits had previously been killed by Islamic terrorists at all? Despite all the Al Quieda propaganda we hear, you don't think any would have happened if we hadn't gone to Afghanistan? You don't think there are other factors?


Now you're expanding it to include all Islamic terrorists. You clearly won't believe anything I tell you, so why don't you google to find out the number of British citizens killed in the UK by Al Queda or any islamic organisation prior to our invasions of Iraq and afghanistan?

As to whether it would have happened if we hadn't invaded, all we can do is look at the facts. Pre invasion: no attacks, no deaths ; post-invasion: many attacks, many deaths.

It's not rocket science to work out the correlation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if you think that calling someone underhanded is not an insult, well, I can't really help you.


So, have you just insulted me? ;)


If you can't see that what you said could be perceived as underhand with what looks like bait and switch tactics, and also can't see that quite of few of your comments could be construed as insulting, whether you meant it or not, then I'm very disappointed in you. Try challenging the accusation and objectively gauge whether it has some validity.


I can at least see where my comments can be construed as insulting, and so challenge them. I feel "underhand" is justified in it's accuracy in my opinion, the intent - as a complaint, and the fact it was in response to what looked like a veiled insult.


You also seem to be insulting in this post and either can't faithfully interpret what I've said or are deliberately misinterpreting my words. I could explain it more but it's verbose enough as it is and I can't see the point if you're not receptive.


I'll admit this is not a subject I know much about or really want to get into, but as a voter, my opinion does count at some level. I never actually know who to believe, and with all the propaganda from many areas, I doubt many people know much "truth" or "facts". I do know that I struggle to understand people who can't make a straight case or straight bat my points, and this is far from that.


I'm sorry, but you've not come across well to me on this (remember it is you who is trying to convince me not the other way around), you seem think you know the "truth" and instead of trying to persuade or convince me, you want to hit me over the head with it and belittle me, and when I complain, you act all insulted... and then belittle me some more.


I'm pretty sure this will just make you angry rather than make you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(remember it is you who is trying to convince me not the other way around),


mate, I'm not your mother - I honestly couldn't care less what you believe and have no interest in trying to convince you of...of...eh...what is it exactly I'm trying to convince you of?


you seem think you know the "truth" and instead of trying to persuade or convince me, you want to hit me over the head with it and belittle me, and when I complain, you act all insulted... and then belittle me some more.


It certainly wasn't my intention to try to belittle you (and nor have I insulted you at any time during this exchange) but if you're going to jump into a debate on a subject you yourself admit to knowing little about, be prepared to have your received wisdom questioned.


I'm pretty sure this will just make you angry rather than make you think.


It really, really doesn't do either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.