Martin2005

Stick to the facts.

'Bombing them into next week' was never on the table. Targeted air strikes against key installations was, and that was what parliament voted against.

mrmadcap

There is no way Cameron wanted to go into Syria and neither does Obama, Cameron went through the motions with a bit of sabre rattling, put it to the vote and Miliband did the rest.

As a result we don't have to get involved and Camerons conscious is clear because it looked like he wanted to do something when in reality he had no intention to do anything, therefore a win win.

There are no good guys and bad guys in Syria, only bad guys and bad guys.

Martin2005

What a load of tripe.

mrmadcap

Exactly, that is the situation, no politician would get entangled in that country.

RA Dunk

Stick to the facts? Your missing the ******* point and just being argumentive for the sake of it.

Invading them or bombing them into next week both involve the military, what's the bloody difference. Both actions mean the same thing, we're involved .

Shaid

Martin2005 - You are right the Arab's are not doing anything about it but again, what could they do? What is the solution? We have no idea and no doubt neither do they.

I don't agree with mrmadcap stating there is only bad and bad out there. The problem is once the good have been shat on so many times the only way they can fight back could be by being bad themselves. I have no idea, i don't have the answer.

There is a lot of crap going on in the world. North Korea needs it's *** kicking and it's people are crying out for freedom a lot more than anyone.

Martin2005

you keep twisting and turning to the point that I don't think you understand what you mean

RA Dunk

Ooohhh the irony...

Your slippier than an eel and flyer than a fox, I bet your a failed politician.

Martin2005

I despair at you.

Your argument is non-existent, shown to be so, and therefore you keep changing it.

The 'irony' being that I've been completely consistent on the subject, whereas you just keep making stuff up?

RA Dunk

The only thing you consistantly do is annoy everyone with your constant politically correct constant defence of the government drivel, your like an annoying fly people just want to swat.

Invading Syria, bombing Syria or even looking speaking to them in the wrong tone of voice has the same consequences why even deny that? Why even create an argument over what F1 Fan said? The results are the same.

mrmadcap

Strange really when you think about it, the region has some of the oldest civilisations but they have learned nothing and now don't have a civilisation or a society.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Sorry I didn't realise you were so f**king thick that I needed to say "if Cameron had had his way the UK would be involved in military operations targeted at Syria".

You know damn well what I meant and are, as usual, trying to claim some sort of moral high ground this time through tedious pedantry!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

And it wouldn't stop there as Cameron likes a bit of 'misson creep'. Funny how protecting the Libyan civilians became hunting down Gadaffi and murdering him in cold blood!

Martin2005

No you're exactly the same as Dunk, getting the facts wrong and then wriggling and insult

Martin2005

Wrong again!

Gadaffi was killed by Libyan opposition forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
Why are you always so wrong?

Also why is the 'cold blooded murder' of him such an issue to you, but the mass 'cold blooded murder' of countless thousand innocents in Syria, so easy to ignore?


Has your account been hacked, or have you finally gone postal?

Martin2005

Maybe because you're both talking ****e again?


btw I have a new Goodwin's Law - the moment anyone has to resort to using the phrase 'political correctness' they've clearly lost the argument

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Sorry, but if I have a fault it is that I am not tolerant of the stupid and you are trying my patience!

You cannot see anything wrong with our politicians or our polictical system, in fact you seem to think the sun shines out of our politicians' collective backsides... as I have said before you have to be one of them as otherwise you could not be so defensiveve not even with the lowest of IQs that I suspect you have!

If you seriously think Cameron ahd nothing to do with Gaddafi's demise then you are an even bigger cretin than I thought And believe me that is going some!

Martin2005

Like I said, wriggle then insult

Martin2005

It's amazing that despite my obvious 'stupid, 'cretinous' and 'idiotic' disadvantages, I consistently manage to stick to the facts, whereas the super-being that you clearly are, consistently posts up made-up nonsense.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I think Cameron's actions led directly and deliberately to Gadaffi's demise, you don't.

That is not you posting a fact, it is you posting opinion that you have convinced yourself is a fact!

Same goes for Cameron's actions over Syria. I think if he had won his vote we would be involved militarily by now, you obviously don't. Again more opinion you have convinced yourself is fact!

Ergo you are at best deluded and at worst a cretin! QED!!!

RA Dunk

Martin you know fine well what we we're getting at but because we didn't word it 'exactly' to your own requirements you made a argument out of it.

Martin you are a Uber Troll.

Martin2005

Funny because I thought that making posts deliberately misleading was a much better description of a troll

Martin2005

[QUOTE]Don't I? - He didn't kill him in cold blood, the way you wanted to portray it.

It's a fact Cameron did not kill Gadaffi in cold blood. Let me just remind you of what you posted (I know you're keen to airbrush it out of the conversation) 'Funny how protecting the Libyan civilians became hunting down Gadaffi and murdering him in cold blood!'. Now exactly what part of that statement is true?

I obviously do and wish we were doing something

And back to insulting again

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

All of it.

Cameron claimed we were going to Libya to protect civlians

A few months later Gadaffi was being hunted down and subsequently killed with the help of the UK military.

I don't recall Cameron objecting or doing anything to suggest he should have a fair trial or what happened was in any way wrong!

Yes technically (and obviously) he didn't personally murder him, but he as good as sanctoned it!

Or do you disagre?

Also if we're going to get into tedious semantics (as is always your way these days even if you cannot see it due to being ... well whatever).... my quote "Funny how protecting the Libyan civilians became hunting down Gadaffi and murdering him in cold blood!'" does not actually syntactically state that Cameron killed Gadaffi, but it does state that the misson was changed from the one we were 'sold' and the ultimate result of that mission was Gadaffi being murdered with the apparent support of the UK government!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So you do think we'd be involved militarily yet you said Dunk and I were wrong when we said if the vote was won we'd be in there?

I do wish you'd make your mind up from one day to the next!

Maybe it'll change again tomorrow... who knows?

Oh and will you for once and for all please learn to use the quote function... you claim to be so clever yet nearly every post you seem unable to get the quotes in the right place. How hard is it FFS?

RA Dunk

It wasn't misleading for anyone else Martin.

RA Dunk

Don't argue with him its our fault he needs everything spelled out to the letter for him to understand...

Martin2005

You stated wrongly (or just for effect) that we'd be 'in' Syria right now, but that was never the plan.

If you are going to continue to debate anything with me, stick to the facts and stop the rhetoric and hyperbole - it keeps getting you into trouble

Martin2005

Tell you what, why don't you simply reread what you posted earlier on this then come back and apologise

You went on a journey from believing we were going to launch a ground war against Syria, when I told that wasn't the case you said 'are you sure'?, then you stated we were 'going to bomb them into next week', so then you rather radmonly said that it didn't matter what we were going to do because any military action would lead to us being 'involved'. Well no **** Sherlock, nobody said it wouldn't.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The only person I am getting into trouble with is you and you don't matter one jot, if you died tomorrow I couldn't care less!

Yes we'd be 'in Syria' as in bomibing it etc. No one else seems to have struggled with the concept of what I wrote only Martin, SN's government apologist!

And please don't accuse me of wriggling again. If you need every point spelling out to you like a four year old then find some other **** to annoy!