• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Topic: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    On Newsnight tonight, a regular BBC political latenight program, it surfaced that Tony Blair prayed to his god and got permission to invade Iraq.
    I wonder if it was god on the other end of the line, or George was trickin' him.................

    Someone has definitely opened the door to the fundamentalist, 'I'm right because god tells me i'm right' nuthouse.

    Long live atheism.

    Alex.

  2. #2

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Did it say whether he used his cell phone?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Budleigh Salterton
    Posts
    1,477

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    I knew he would eventually play the God card. I refer all you wankers to my Seriously thread. Read that and then tell me the British public have got a clue about who they voted for in the last election.

    The British voting public are, and always have been 2 elections behind the times because the British public are, and always have been a bunch of ~~~~ing cretins of the first order.
    And just to make matters even worse for the moronic British public, the Tory party have elected another ~~~~ing cretin to lead them - because they think that this new guy is more like Blair and should do well in the next election. Because the British public are bland, pathetic a@@holes with sh!t for brains in general.

    And just for fun, the Liberal Party yesterday couldn't come up with anything better as their new leader that Menzies Campbell. Jesus H Christ - seriously, let's all go to the ball. Mind you, when the other candidates are either a married man that gets exposed as having an affair with a male prostitute, another suddenly has to admit, after denying it, publicly that he is in fact homosexual, the previous leader has to admit after denying it, he's an alcoholic - then no real surprises there I guess. So much for several million defected retards voting Liberal at the last election.

    That is the the kind of mentality that you now have to deal with. I've been telling you morons on this board that for years.

    But do you listen - nah.

    You ~~~~ing morons!





    Edit: Was I being a little strong do think?


  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    380

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    God's using a cell phone? No wonder I can't reach the guy. I always thought I was dialing wrong. Who's got the right number?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Budleigh Salterton
    Posts
    1,477

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Tony - luvvy - DON'T use God as an excuse or a shield when you're in politics. It's embarrassing sweetheart.

    And it's an insult to those that died.

  6. #6

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulR
    I knew he would eventually play the God card. I refer all you wankers to my Seriously thread. Read that and then tell me the British public have got a clue about who they voted for in the last election.

    The British voting public are, and always have been 2 elections behind the times because the British public are, and always have been a bunch of ~~~~ing cretins of the first order.
    And just to make matters even worse for the moronic British public, the Tory party have elected another ~~~~ing cretin to lead them - because they think that this new guy is more like Blair and should do well in the next election. Because the British public are bland, pathetic a@@holes with sh!t for brains in general.

    And just for fun, the Liberal Party yesterday couldn't come up with anything better as their new leader that Menzies Campbell. Jesus H Christ - seriously, let's all go to the ball. Mind you, when the other candidates are either a married man that gets exposed as having an affair with a male prostitute, another suddenly has to admit, after denying it, publicly that he is fact homosexual, the previous leader has to admit after denying it, he's an alcoholic - then no real surprises there I guess. So much for several million defected retards voting Liberal at the last election.

    That is the the kind of mentality that you now have to deal with. I've been telling you morons on this board that for years.

    But do you listen - nah.

    You ~~~~ing morons!





    Edit: Was I being a little strong do think?

    You keep your right cross to yourself Spartacus my friend, i've felt so strongly about this, that i've put the house up for sale, and after my study concludes will move to somewhere else in Europe that remains a secular state, not the ever more rigid quasi religio/political direction that Blair, and the corporate fundamentalists behind him are taking Britain in. And the fundamentalism that drives Blair is the same ideological determination that creates a police state, and suppresses freedoms of speech and dissent. We've already seen the 0ne kilometre anti protest zone put in place and in law.(Don't you think the anti-terror bill and the patriot act bear remarkable similarity in content?)

    And don't think Brown or Cameron will reverse anything in the future. They're just as determined to change the fundamental relationship between the people and the state to one that puts the people answering TO the state instead of the reverse, as written in the Magna Carta. Blair isn't just trying to stifle dissent, he's trying to create a structure that is more akin to the hypocrisy that was the catholic church in the dark ages.
    And as you may know, the deliberate, determined, dumbing down of the educational and cultural foundation of the country is designed to reduce the intelligence of the nation as a whole, and create a more compliant population that is more likely to do as it's told.

    So we're on the same side here!


  7. #7

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulR
    I knew he would eventually play the God card. I refer all you wankers to my Seriously thread. Read that and then tell me the British public have got a clue about who they voted for in the last election.

    The British voting public are, and always have been 2 elections behind the times because the British public are, and always have been a bunch of ~~~~ing cretins of the first order.
    And just to make matters even worse for the moronic British public, the Tory party have elected another ~~~~ing cretin to lead them - because they think that this new guy is more like Blair and should do well in the next election. Because the British public are bland, pathetic a@@holes with sh!t for brains in general.

    And just for fun, the Liberal Party yesterday couldn't come up with anything better as their new leader that Menzies Campbell. Jesus H Christ - seriously, let's all go to the ball. Mind you, when the other candidates are either a married man that gets exposed as having an affair with a male prostitute, another suddenly has to admit, after denying it, publicly that he is in fact homosexual, the previous leader has to admit after denying it, he's an alcoholic - then no real surprises there I guess. So much for several million defected retards voting Liberal at the last election.

    That is the the kind of mentality that you now have to deal with. I've been telling you morons on this board that for years.

    But do you listen - nah.
    Nice rant, but who do you suggest they vote for instead? I personally voted Liberal, partly (though not only) because of their opposition to the war and to Blair's general policy of deferring all decisions that affect us to Washington. I seem to remember you at the time guffawing heartily at this and bringing out the same old tired, baseless rhetoric about what a nothing party the Libs are, how it's a waste of a vote yada yada, that is precisely what prevented more people from voting for them and getting Blair out.

    [Please accept my apologies if I'm thinking of someone else - I remember having a few animated conversations here about British politics around the time of the last election.]

    If on the other hand your alternative is the Tories, then be honest and admit the fact that they FULLY supported Blair in going into Iraq, more so than Blair's OWN party. Traditionally, they have always been MORE sycophantic to Washington than any other party, and it was the unholy coupling of Thatcher and Reagan that cemented that relationship. To criticise Blair over Iraq, then suggest an alternative which would be worse over the exact same issue, is highly disingenuous.

    So which is it? The British people are morons . . . what do you suggest they could have done, to escape this label and exercise their intelligence?

    Personally I'm happy to have voted Lib Dem as they have the best policies for the country, foreign policy regarding Europe and America being one of them. Once again you offer no actual substance to your attack on Menzies Campbell, only rhetoric. And only homophobia in eliminating the others.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Budleigh Salterton
    Posts
    1,477

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermitage59
    not the ever more rigid quasi religio/political direction that Blair, and the corporate fundamentalists behind him are taking Britain in. And the fundamentalism that drives Blair is the same ideological determination that creates a police state, and suppresses freedoms of speech and dissent.
    The second you start bringing religion into political decisions - you're in BIG trouble in this country as you well know. First of all, in matters of international fracas, you subliminally put your God against their God, just for starters.
    As it turns out on the news this morning, families of servicemen killed and wounded in this conflict are very annoyed with this latest Blair bollocks. Big surprise there then.
    Fantastic, from a PM, who takes on a million plus mortgage and then sends his wife out to do a lecture tour to help pay for it. Little wonder that someone with an IQ of around 12 - namely Tessa Jowell is given full backing by Blair over the Italian situation.

    And this morning, the news reveals that there is a massive strain on Jowell's marriage over this - because she is 'apparently' very angry over her husband 'allegedly' taking around a $1million 'gift' from Bellasconi - and 'allegedly' not knowing about it.
    2 things immediately strike you about that. (a) why sign joint mortgage documents for approximately £400K and not ask what the money is for and (b) given the benefit of the doubt and actually really 'not knowing' - WTF is someone as thick as that doing in the Cabinet?
    But that's Labour's par for the course when it comes to their ninth rate women ministers over the last nine years.
    Helen Liddell basically almost destroyed the financial services industry - and if that couldn't get any worse - she was then replaced by the Queen of Disaster - Patricia Hewitt.
    His great friend and ally Harriet Harmon was given the Health Service - and even he couldn't carry on with that fiasco for much more than a year.
    Some other female lunatic - can't remember the name - was given Immigration. 9 months later, it was a miracle this island didn't sink under the weight of half the worlds population.

    Let's keep it fair and talk about Stephen Byers and the man with the dog if you want.

    Shambles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermitage59
    And don't think Brown or Cameron will reverse anything in the future. They're just as determined to change the fundamental relationship between the people and the state to one that puts the people answering TO the state instead of the reverse, as written in the Magna Carta.
    Brown - here is a guy, who's almost first act as C of Ex - was to impose advanced corporation tax onto the pension funds back in 1997 - that worked out at around £5 billion per annum. Until the funds had become so fked up - this figure has naturally declined. Pension funds were always sacrosanct. Not anymore. When you finally get a situation where a top FTSE100 company sells all it's shares secretly out of it's final salary scheme over a 9 month period - you know you're in trouble.
    Brown has always been mooted for the Labour leadership - so what does Blair do - he keeps him as Chancellor for 9 years. Wow! Tony! Loads of experience for Gordon when he takes over. Not that he'll last very long.

    Cameron, given his short tenure at this time, comes across as a fiasco. If that guy says the word 'change' one more time.....

    I agree with Lord Tebbit over Cameron.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hermitage59
    And as you may know, the deliberate, determined, dumbing down of the educational and cultural foundation of the country is designed to reduce the intelligence of the nation as a whole, and create a more compliant population that is more likely to do as it's told.
    So we're on the same side here!
    One of the most hysterically funny aspects of 9 years of this government has of course been the education system. You can't fail your exams under Labour. It's virtually impossible. Dumb down the kids - shove them into institutions called universities - keep them off the unemployment record. Easy.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Budleigh Salterton
    Posts
    1,477

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ouch that hurts
    [Please accept my apologies if I'm thinking of someone else - I remember having a few animated conversations here about British politics around the time of the last election.]
    No - that would have been me.

    Menzies Campbell was one of the Liberal architects of the Lib/Lab pact - GO FIGURE!!!

    He was the only one they could vote for in the end, because the rest of them were either total fk ups - or even blander than he is. HELLO????

    If I were you - I would vote UKIP.

  10. #10

    Re: I asked God if i could invade Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ouch that hurts
    Nice rant, but who do you suggest they vote for instead? I personally voted Liberal, partly (though not only) because of their opposition to the war and to Blair's general policy of deferring all decisions that affect us to Washington. I seem to remember you at the time guffawing heartily at this and bringing out the same old tired, baseless rhetoric about what a nothing party the Libs are, how it's a waste of a vote yada yada, that is precisely what prevented more people from voting for them and getting Blair out.

    [Please accept my apologies if I'm thinking of someone else - I remember having a few animated conversations here about British politics around the time of the last election.]

    If on the other hand your alternative is the Tories, then be honest and admit the fact that they FULLY supported Blair in going into Iraq, more so than Blair's OWN party. Traditionally, they have always been MORE sycophantic to Washington than any other party, and it was the unholy coupling of Thatcher and Reagan that cemented that relationship. To criticise Blair over Iraq, then suggest an alternative which would be worse over the exact same issue, is highly disingenuous.

    So which is it? The British people are morons . . . what do you suggest they could have done, to escape this label and exercise their intelligence?

    Personally I'm happy to have voted Lib Dem as they have the best policies for the country, foreign policy regarding Europe and America being one of them. Once again you offer no actual substance to your attack on Menzies Campbell, only rhetoric. And only homophobia in eliminating the others.
    And by what you've written, you confirm a wider malaise in the poitical structure of not only Britain, but the US and other countries too. We simply don't have enough options. Why? Because the intent of today's professional politican is to GAIN POWER. Little else matters. It's a race to the top that has little to do with government providing administration FOR a society, and creating an environment that improves the wealth of citizens.
    Who do the majority of today's politicans represent? Themselves and those who stand to gain from an almost indecent relationship built on the increase of profits or self. The political class in general, particularly in Britain, is so far removed from the society they profess to represent, that little remains of the structure Cromwell and others tried to cement in place, in a relationship that put the citizen first. The recent spate of legislation poorly disguised as 'protection from terrorism' is a glaring example of the fundamentalist nature of today's policy. It's a giant snow job, and because the bulk of citizens don't want to get actively involved in the future of their country, preferring to let the government of the day in every facet of life, the propaganda is working. The US suffers from this too, and it's even more apparent there, such is the nature of a capitalist society. Any changes in the US economic and social fabric are more marked than in Britain, as Britons tend to be more conservative and less keen on big and quick changes.
    Then there's the foreign policy. Both countries, and including others, have a big deficit in their perception of what constitutes Honourable FP, as the PEOPLE perceive it. We don't have a say. It's left to corporations, powerful economic and religious lobby groups, and armament manufacturers to determine who gets invaded, and who doesn't. Add to that in the corporate sphere the oil magnates, and the situation becomes even more intractible and less likely to be a reflection of the people's will. The careful propaganda of Collateral Damage is a sales job for the Armament manufacturers in particular, as they push to dehumanise the destructive finality of their products. Why supports them in this? Governments. The proof in Britain is Cellarfield, BAE, etc. We are getting Nuclear power whether we want it or not, because we need the facility to produce plutonium and spent uranium for weapons. Think about that. If you as a citizen could decide about whether Britain should manufacture these terrible weapons without a percieved threat, you would almost certainly say no. If however, you were constantly reminded through propaganda of a 'threat' then, because of the self preservative nature of human beings, you would be too busy looking after yourself to notice just what was happening behind closed doors. I'm sure the US armaments manufacturers, and their researchers in Israel, Australia, etc. are having a bumper season., supported and maintained by the governments of those countries without the consent, and often without the knowledge of it's citizens. There are those who will say that people shouldn't be told about these machinations, because it will 'frighten' them. rubbish. We're not told because governments and manufacturers are fearful the average citizen would be horrified at the thought of that little factory down the road from their house producing WMD's that would kill thousands of fellow human beings in other places, and in their name.
    And that's why we get the constant bombardment of propaganda, designed to keep us hopping from one foot to another, focusing on the immediate now, and distracting us from asking awkard questions. Governments are implicit in this, and with intent serve to look after those corporate friends, and lobby groups who often supply the funds to get them in power.
    I have no doubt Bush is little more than a puppet for others, and i'm equally sure Blair in Britain, and Howard in Australia, are equally complicit in this.
    This is readily dismissed as paranoia or conspiracy theory, but the evidence is clear to see. If we saw on our TV screens every day the mutilation and destruction of others, and equally those images were presented with the open and detailedknowledge that a factory in Indiana, US, or Cambridge, UK manufactured the weapons that caused such bloodshed, and it was in our name, then i suspect public mood would shift fairly quickly.

    And the politics we think is ours, and belongs to us, is more the 'terrorist' arm of an organisation, than a real representation of the wishes and desires of the people. I voted Liberal in the last election. I was also immediately accused of voting on a single subject anti war agenda.
    Not true.
    I voted against the constant bombardment of propoganda that seeks to dumb down and de-sensitize one human being from another. I voted against the weaponry and military technology that enables a soldier to kill a percieved enemy from afar, so he didn't have to look in a man's eyes before he murdered him.
    I voted against the economic crippling of the middle and working class people through taxation, deliberately keeping their attention fixed on their own econimic challenges and away from watching and commenting about a government that is blatantly determined to control everyone and everything.
    If you think Marxism is too strong a word for the current direction of British politics, then re-reading the original idelology may well be a shock when you compare it to the current situation.

    And the timing of this renewed push in today's politics couldn't be worse for us, and better for the manufacturers. Because there's another ideology that is emerging that can be held up as the enemy. Islamicism.
    As the discontent and disinformation grows in those parts of the world of predominantly islamic faith, and generally poorer places, so the imams and religious fundamantalists gain strength and power. (The prime reason that any religion exists, to gain power.)

    So who do we pick?
    What type of political structure will give us more say, and limit the influence of government in the big decisions, without getting a mandate each time from the people.

    Switzerland has a citizen oriented system with it's self governing Cantons, and an established system of citizen based referenda. As i understand it, the citizens themselves can initiate a motion questioning federal government intent. I don't know how well this system works, but Switzerland doesn't seem to get involved in anywhere near the same strife and trouble that other countries find themselves in. Nor does Sweden, or Norway, or Finland for that matter.

    One thing is for sure. The current herd of self interested professional politicans (and i dont use the term professional as an indicator of competence), has little between them to choose from. Paul may well be right. If enough vote UKIP, or Greens, or for other smaller political parties in enough numbers, then we could see a change to the accepted norm in politics, and watch with interest as the smaller parties have the final say, providing they are elected in large enough numbers.
    But the system is setup to favour the big parties, as it is in the US, so i'm not holding my breath.

    Alex.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •