| Paul Markham |
06-21-2017 05:33 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifissio
(Post 21846124)
terrorism is terrorism...the location of it does not matter one little bit...
|
Then denounce all terrorism and not be so selective.
Quote:
no this is not their policy at all..."lets kill ourselves" is not a policy anywhere
|
Then why are they killing themselves?
Quote:
no it is because the US gov is arming and supporting them...
|
No it's because Muslims are giving them money.
Quote:
yes invading and bombing and de-stabilizing...in a massive way...
|
Links to proof, please.
Quote:
dude you can not be serious with this "west didnu nuffin" crap :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
|
Answer the question.
Quote:
it was with western influence paul...the USA stoked saddam in to attacking iran and kuwait...you are the worst history student of all time paul....
|
20 things the U.S. did to help Saddam against Iran - Khamenei.irTrue. But it's easy to stoke Muslims into killing other Muslims. Now Quatar, Iran and other countries are doing it.
Quote:
because the west supported him...war INC is too big to fail...
|
You mean they gave him the weapons to do it more effectively? He didn't have to use them. My god you're screwed up.
Quote:
for the same reason the west supported him...western crony capitalism is dependent on war profits
|
Quote:
no...the west sells war and weapons...war profits are important to western economy
|
China, Russia and Israel sell arms. Who supplied Serbia with their arms?
Not according to the body count.
Quote:
for me, the rest of the world should develop nuke or bacteria...there is no freedom for the small and weak from invaders like USIS...bacteria and radiation seem to keep them away....remember paul it is YOUR armies on foreign soil not the other way around...your arguments are willful blindness at best...
|
Serbia would have done a much better job at wiping out Bosnians if it had nuke or bacteria weapons. Do you think that's the better way? Assad and Saddam had no problem using chemical weapons. So you think everyone having them is a good idea.
For someone who can only see one side of the debate, your thinking is flawed. You blame the arms sellers, not the arms users, then advocate those users should have WMDs. Do you love the idea of Serb's usings chemical weapons on Bosnians? Also, where is the West to blame for that war?
I'm done debating this because you're too blind to see the real problem, even when it's pointed out to you. In no way do I support the West's involvement in the ME wars. Except for selling them arms, because if we didn't. China and Russia would. So at least, as you point out, we get jobs out of it. But the West isn't the reason they want to kill each other. |
