Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first evidence of Russian attempts to influence the result of the general election by promoting the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has emerged in an investigation into social media by the Sunday Times in conjunction with Swansea University. Their research discovered that 6,500 Russian Twitter accounts rallied behind Labour in the weeks before last year’s election, helping supportive messages to reach millions of voters and denigrating its Conservative rivals. A question to those who believe that Russian influence can swing an election, how did the Russians succeed in the US yet fail in the UK?" Hang on, let's roll back a little... The Sunday Times!? Owned by whom?! Remember who the news is owned by. This whole Russian hysteria is getting you to be paranoid, and, i may say, influence you to vote for the far right nazi.. Ooops tory party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first evidence of Russian attempts to influence the result of the general election by promoting the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has emerged in an investigation into social media by the Sunday Times in conjunction with Swansea University. Their research discovered that 6,500 Russian Twitter accounts rallied behind Labour in the weeks before last year’s election, helping supportive messages to reach millions of voters and denigrating its Conservative rivals. A question to those who believe that Russian influence can swing an election, how did the Russians succeed in the US yet fail in the UK? Hang on, let's roll back a little... The Sunday Times!? Owned by whom?! Remember who the news is owned by. This whole Russian hysteria is getting you to be paranoid, and, i may say, influence you to vote for the far right nazi.. Ooops tory party" Are Swansea University a far right Nazi organisation? Did I vote Conservative at the last election? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first evidence of Russian attempts to influence the result of the general election by promoting the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has emerged in an investigation into social media by the Sunday Times in conjunction with Swansea University. Their research discovered that 6,500 Russian Twitter accounts rallied behind Labour in the weeks before last year’s election, helping supportive messages to reach millions of voters and denigrating its Conservative rivals. A question to those who believe that Russian influence can swing an election, how did the Russians succeed in the US yet fail in the UK? Hang on, let's roll back a little... The Sunday Times!? Owned by whom?! Remember who the news is owned by. This whole Russian hysteria is getting you to be paranoid, and, i may say, influence you to vote for the far right nazi.. Ooops tory party Are Swansea University a far right Nazi organisation? Did I vote Conservative at the last election?" 1st question: i don't know 2nd question: possibly Notice i didn't jump to a conclusion  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. " How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim?" Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? " Because corbyn was following evidence based logic, same as tbe police investigation, not jumping to conclusions based on opinionated bias | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Because corbyn was following evidence based logic, same as tbe police investigation, not jumping to conclusions based on opinionated bias" He is a isolationist by nature. That plays into Russia's hands, they would prefer an isolated Britain, with fewer allies, and keeping their noses out of international affairs. That's why they like Corbyn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first evidence of Russian attempts to influence the result of the general election by promoting the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has emerged in an investigation into social media by the Sunday Times in conjunction with Swansea University. Their research discovered that 6,500 Russian Twitter accounts rallied behind Labour in the weeks before last year’s election, helping supportive messages to reach millions of voters and denigrating its Conservative rivals. A question to those who believe that Russian influence can swing an election, how did the Russians succeed in the US yet fail in the UK? Hang on, let's roll back a little... The Sunday Times!? Owned by whom?! Remember who the news is owned by. This whole Russian hysteria is getting you to be paranoid, and, i may say, influence you to vote for the far right nazi.. Ooops tory party Are Swansea University a far right Nazi organisation? Did I vote Conservative at the last election? 1st question: i don't know 2nd question: possibly Notice i didn't jump to a conclusion "You've already jumped to the conclusion that Swansea University has colluded with The Sunday Times to disseminate false information and I was influenced to vote for the far right Nazi Tory party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? " Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action??" No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. " . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. " OK, and what did it prove? Did it prove that the Russians did it? They probably did, but that's another point. Plus, that took a couple of weeks. What Corbyn was criticised for, on both this and Syria, were similar. On Salisbury, that he wouldn't condemn a foreign power without evidence. On Syria, that he wouldn't launch military action without evidence. Which of those do you think are OK to do without evidence?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you?" Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? " But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? " . You mean intelligence like that of Iraq and wmds or intelligence of Libya that turned out useless 5 years after destroying the country. I'd like a reason, that would do and maybe some hint of a culprit, maybe some CCTV, apparently were number 1 in the world for CCTV coverage, I'd like to know what this guy's been up to for 8 years in the UK and maybe errr an interview with the two victims. Plus I'd like to know how many Russian oligarchs are living in the UK who have incredibly murky pasts,I want to know the financial dealings of them and where they've visited. If you find out how this guy's been living a reasonable life without having a job for 8 years you might find your attempted assassin  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?" . He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?" He didn't condemn after the tests, no one condemned Russia before the tests | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it " I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? . You mean intelligence like that of Iraq and wmds or intelligence of Libya that turned out useless 5 years after destroying the country. I'd like a reason, that would do and maybe some hint of a culprit, maybe some CCTV, apparently were number 1 in the world for CCTV coverage, I'd like to know what this guy's been up to for 8 years in the UK and maybe errr an interview with the two victims. Plus I'd like to know how many Russian oligarchs are living in the UK who have incredibly murky pasts,I want to know the financial dealings of them and where they've visited. If you find out how this guy's been living a reasonable life without having a job for 8 years you might find your attempted assassin "i suspect as a double agent and defector he would be on a stipend from our security services where they could use him as an advisor on russian spys | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? . You mean intelligence like that of Iraq and wmds or intelligence of Libya that turned out useless 5 years after destroying the country. I'd like a reason, that would do and maybe some hint of a culprit, maybe some CCTV, apparently were number 1 in the world for CCTV coverage, I'd like to know what this guy's been up to for 8 years in the UK and maybe errr an interview with the two victims. Plus I'd like to know how many Russian oligarchs are living in the UK who have incredibly murky pasts,I want to know the financial dealings of them and where they've visited. If you find out how this guy's been living a reasonable life without having a job for 8 years you might find your attempted assassin i suspect as a double agent and defector he would be on a stipend from our security services where they could use him as an advisor on russian spys ". What a guy that's been out of the intelligence agency for 14 years knows something we don't already know?. Your having your pants pulled down if you believe that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time." . As you often point out about brexit, it's not the majority of the population it's a majority of the voters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Because corbyn was following evidence based logic, same as tbe police investigation, not jumping to conclusions based on opinionated bias He is a isolationist by nature. That plays into Russia's hands, they would prefer an isolated Britain, with fewer allies, and keeping their noses out of international affairs. That's why they like Corbyn." I can just see you in Cambridge. Doing your knitting while the witch hunters execute evil socialists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time.. As you often point out about brexit, it's not the majority of the population it's a majority of the voters "That's why he won 3 back to back elections  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Because corbyn was following evidence based logic, same as tbe police investigation, not jumping to conclusions based on opinionated bias He is a isolationist by nature. That plays into Russia's hands, they would prefer an isolated Britain, with fewer allies, and keeping their noses out of international affairs. That's why they like Corbyn. I can just see you in Cambridge. Doing your knitting while the witch hunters execute evil socialists "Surely witch hunters execute witches, if you think they are executing socialists, then you are saying that socialists are witches. Is that want you meant to say? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time." 'Liked Blair'...past tense. A majority of the country have nothing but contempt for him now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time. 'Liked Blair'...past tense. A majority of the country have nothing but contempt for him now. " If you say so! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time.. As you often point out about brexit, it's not the majority of the population it's a majority of the voters
That's why he won 3 back to back elections ". No I don't disagree with the fact labour won 3 elections just your claim that it was the majority of the population!. I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue and you meant a majority of the voting population. Of course that's not true either they never got higher than 44% of the vote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time.. As you often point out about brexit, it's not the majority of the population it's a majority of the voters
That's why he won 3 back to back elections .
No I don't disagree with the fact labour won 3 elections just your claim that it was the majority of the population!.
I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue and you meant a majority of the voting population.
Of course that's not true either they never got higher than 44% of the vote "But can you disprove my claim that more than 50% of the population liked him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests? He didn't condemn after the tests, no one condemned Russia before the tests " That's not true CCLC. May and the Government openly accused Russia before the Salisbury tests and called on the rest of our allies to do the same. Exactly the same with Syria. They started bombing before any tests and before a vote in Parliament. How can you support either of those positions. As for condemning them after the tests, the government needs to show us the proof if they want to hold anyone to blame. If Iraq taught us nothing else, surely it's that our (and US) intelligence agencies will say anything to get us to take action. Blair and Bush took us into a war which killed probably a million civillians. May and the Blairites seem desperate to provoke a war with Russia which would kill many times that. Are you not worried at the reckless way in which they jump to blame without hard evidence??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Because corbyn was following evidence based logic, same as tbe police investigation, not jumping to conclusions based on opinionated bias He is a isolationist by nature. That plays into Russia's hands, they would prefer an isolated Britain, with fewer allies, and keeping their noses out of international affairs. That's why they like Corbyn. I can just see you in Cambridge. Doing your knitting while the witch hunters execute evil socialists
Surely witch hunters execute witches, if you think they are executing socialists, then you are saying that socialists are witches. Is that want you meant to say? "Nope, what im saying is you see people for the stereotyped image | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Well you didn't answer my questions. Should we take action and make allegations as statements of facts before any evidence is put forward??? On Syria, it's a similar story. Not wishing to take military action doesn't mean support of Assad and Putin. I don't support military intervention but that doesn't mean I support Assad or Putin in the slightest. Again, no evidence was put forward before the strikes. Both the Russians AND the West used their veto at the U.N. to block proper investigations initially, so on what basis do we take action?? No, we should carry out tests in the most sophisticated government labs available. That's what we did. . Tests that proved nothing but what toxin was used, the North Koreans brother was assassinated with VX nerve gas which was invented by the UK, I don't think that means we had anything to do with the assassination, do you? Tests, plus motive, plus a history of at least two known previous attacks, plus other intelligence from the other security services that the PM would know about, and you probably wouldn't. What would you need to be convinced? A signed confession? But your criticism was of Corbyn. He didn't condemn at the point prior to any tests. As the firsy thing you state in your answer is tests, how can you condemn Corbyn for waiting for the tests?. He's a self confessed Blairite!. You know, the type that likes to sell off the NHS and invade countries over sexed up intelligence causing middle East turmoil and more bombing but shits his pants when he's threatened in downing Street by a Saudi politician!. He always wanted to be like Thatcher but didn't have the balls for it I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I, like the majority of the country, liked Blair. 3 back to back election wins. Brown lost an election, so did Miliband, so did Corbyn. To me, a Labour party in government beats a Labour party in opposition every time.. As you often point out about brexit, it's not the majority of the population it's a majority of the voters
That's why he won 3 back to back elections .
No I don't disagree with the fact labour won 3 elections just your claim that it was the majority of the population!.
I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue and you meant a majority of the voting population.
Of course that's not true either they never got higher than 44% of the vote
But can you disprove my claim that more than 50% of the population liked him? ". Yes, I've never met a nice Blairite! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party." He is not a war criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. " Tony Blair has never been found guilty of war crimes but he left a trail of death and political destruction behind him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. " If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions."
Exactly this. It's The double standards of international law.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia would much rather Corbyn in No 10 rather than on the opposition benches. Look how he supported them over the Salisbury attack. How did he support them??? What's your definition of support? He asked for evidence before fully accusing but said that it was highly likely to be them. Should we accuse without the evidence or act on a whim? Right, nah, he didn't support them. How was he on Russia's close ally, Syria? Because corbyn was following evidence based logic, same as tbe police investigation, not jumping to conclusions based on opinionated bias He is a isolationist by nature. That plays into Russia's hands, they would prefer an isolated Britain, with fewer allies, and keeping their noses out of international affairs. That's why they like Corbyn. I can just see you in Cambridge. Doing your knitting while the witch hunters execute evil socialists
Surely witch hunters execute witches, if you think they are executing socialists, then you are saying that socialists are witches. Is that want you meant to say?
Nope, what im saying is you see people for the stereotyped image "Ok, correct me on my view of Corbyn as isolationist. Give me some examples of when he has called for UK intervention in another country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the Tories didn't really need much help to throw away the election - TM calling one that no-body wanted, the social care fiasco, TM dodging the public. And how much of the Tory campaign was funded by Russian donations again?" That fox hunting thing was a real winner too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party." What specific war crimes did he commit? Seeing as he is the only living Labour leader to have won a GE, it kind of disproves your theory that he either is or was trying to sink the party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What specific war crimes did he commit? Seeing as he is the only living Labour leader to have won a GE, it kind of disproves your theory that he either is or was trying to sink the party." I agree with you comment about war crimes, there were none. But Blair was a Tory enterist, never a socialist or social democrat. All you have to do is look at the policies of new labour, they were more right wing than any post WW2 Conservative government prior to Thatcher. And in some areas even further to the right than Thatcher (in my opinion). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions." No he's not, you've been taken in by the false media campaign against him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions." Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. " Seeing as the USA make up double standard international law to suit themselves and their pals like isreal then none. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. " Sure can. He and bush was responsible for sending in all our military under the false lies that sadamn had wmd. Which resulted in over a million civilisn deaths plus many thousands of our forces. He was the leader, he made the decision, the blood is on his hands. Like i said earlier only reason he isnt locked up or even dead is because he was leader of a country within the UN and allied with the US. if he was leader of any other country (not in the UN), he would be convicted of war crime or desposed off via a "regime change" from countrys in the west. stop defending the indefensable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. Sure can. He and bush was responsible for sending in all our military under the false lies that sadamn had wmd. Which resulted in over a million civilisn deaths plus many thousands of our forces. He was the leader, he made the decision, the blood is on his hands. Like i said earlier only reason he isnt locked up or even dead is because he was leader of a country within the UN and allied with the US. if he was leader of any other country (not in the UN), he would be convicted of war crime or desposed off via a "regime change" from countrys in the west. stop defending the indefensable. " No, you haven't named the specific law that he broke. Try again, or more likely, you are unable to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. Sure can. He and bush was responsible for sending in all our military under the false lies that sadamn had wmd. Which resulted in over a million civilisn deaths plus many thousands of our forces. He was the leader, he made the decision, the blood is on his hands. Like i said earlier only reason he isnt locked up or even dead is because he was leader of a country within the UN and allied with the US. if he was leader of any other country (not in the UN), he would be convicted of war crime or desposed off via a "regime change" from countrys in the west. stop defending the indefensable. " No one is defending the indefensible. The conspiracy websites and news feeds that you subscribe to are clearly affecting your judgment. Tony Blair has not even been tried as any kind of criminal, let alone charged with being one. Just because you think he should be a war criminal not give you the right to label him as something that he isn't. Think about it logically - you have to be lawfully convicted to be a criminal and he has not even faced charges. Making up stuff and posting it as true is the prerogative of conspiracy websites and news feeds. I guess it is no surprise then that you regurgitate the stuff that you brainwash yourself with. PS - Any word on this "manoeuvre" that the 911 hijackers performed that was "next to impossible"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. Sure can. He and bush was responsible for sending in all our military under the false lies that sadamn had wmd. Which resulted in over a million civilisn deaths plus many thousands of our forces. He was the leader, he made the decision, the blood is on his hands. Like i said earlier only reason he isnt locked up or even dead is because he was leader of a country within the UN and allied with the US. if he was leader of any other country (not in the UN), he would be convicted of war crime or desposed off via a "regime change" from countrys in the west. stop defending the indefensable. No one is defending the indefensible. The conspiracy websites and news feeds that you subscribe to are clearly affecting your judgment. Tony Blair has not even been tried as any kind of criminal, let alone charged with being one. Just because you think he should be a war criminal not give you the right to label him as something that he isn't. Think about it logically - you have to be lawfully convicted to be a criminal and he has not even faced charges. Making up stuff and posting it as true is the prerogative of conspiracy websites and news feeds. I guess it is no surprise then that you regurgitate the stuff that you brainwash yourself with. PS - Any word on this "manoeuvre" that the 911 hijackers performed that was "next to impossible"?" Sure heres one example of many https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.” Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings. Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career. Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven! He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces"? Thats just one pilot...there has been many saying same thing. Now go do your own research and stop asking to be spoon fed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up." Which law did he break? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up. Which law did he break?" There is no law where a leader of a country can take his country to war based on lies. Just because there isnt a law for it doesnt mean there shouldnt be somthing in place. So let me ask you then, who do you hold responsible for the million civilian deaths? Or do you just see them as collateral damage? Be honest now...whos responsible? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up. Which law did he break? There is no law where a leader of a country can take his country to war based on lies. Just because there isnt a law for it doesnt mean there shouldnt be somthing in place. So let me ask you then, who do you hold responsible for the million civilian deaths? Or do you just see them as collateral damage? Be honest now...whos responsible?" So if there is no law he has broken, do you admit therefore that he has done nothing criminal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. Sure can. He and bush was responsible for sending in all our military under the false lies that sadamn had wmd. Which resulted in over a million civilisn deaths plus many thousands of our forces. He was the leader, he made the decision, the blood is on his hands. Like i said earlier only reason he isnt locked up or even dead is because he was leader of a country within the UN and allied with the US. if he was leader of any other country (not in the UN), he would be convicted of war crime or desposed off via a "regime change" from countrys in the west. stop defending the indefensable. No one is defending the indefensible. The conspiracy websites and news feeds that you subscribe to are clearly affecting your judgment. Tony Blair has not even been tried as any kind of criminal, let alone charged with being one. Just because you think he should be a war criminal not give you the right to label him as something that he isn't. Think about it logically - you have to be lawfully convicted to be a criminal and he has not even faced charges. Making up stuff and posting it as true is the prerogative of conspiracy websites and news feeds. I guess it is no surprise then that you regurgitate the stuff that you brainwash yourself with. PS - Any word on this "manoeuvre" that the 911 hijackers performed that was "next to impossible"?" . Quick Google on YouTube and here's the animated flight path | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up. Which law did he break? There is no law where a leader of a country can take his country to war based on lies. Just because there isnt a law for it doesnt mean there shouldnt be somthing in place. So let me ask you then, who do you hold responsible for the million civilian deaths? Or do you just see them as collateral damage? Be honest now...whos responsible? So if there is no law he has broken, do you admit therefore that he has done nothing criminal? " Answer my question please. Who in your opinion was responsible for the million plus civilian deaths? I wont admit hes done nothing criminal. As i have said and will say a third time if he was a leader of a country outside of the UN and did the exact same thing, the west would have tried him for war crimes or took him out. Double standards. Another question.... i see how you are all for i interfering in these middle east countries...why do i never see you mentioning saudi arabia. Their regime is worst in the world but we never interfere..why not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up. Which law did he break? There is no law where a leader of a country can take his country to war based on lies. Just because there isnt a law for it doesnt mean there shouldnt be somthing in place. So let me ask you then, who do you hold responsible for the million civilian deaths? Or do you just see them as collateral damage? Be honest now...whos responsible? So if there is no law he has broken, do you admit therefore that he has done nothing criminal? Answer my question please. Who in your opinion was responsible for the million plus civilian deaths? I wont admit hes done nothing criminal. As i have said and will say a third time if he was a leader of a country outside of the UN and did the exact same thing, the west would have tried him for war crimes or took him out. Double standards. Another question.... i see how you are all for i interfering in these middle east countries...why do i never see you mentioning saudi arabia. Their regime is worst in the world but we never interfere..why not? " How can he be a criminal if he hasn't broken the law? As you can't name the law, you owe me a penny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An ex-Air Force and commercial airline pilot who has experience flying the two United Airlines aircraft that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 claims that the official government version of events is “impossible“ Captain Russ Wittenburg is probably the most qualified man in the whole world to judge whether poorly trained terrorists could have flown hijacked airliners with the extraordinary skill required to pull off such audacious manoeuvres as descending “7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” “I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Here is what Capt. Wittenburg has to say about the official version of events: “Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it. The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” Another example of a pilot saying pentagon plane crash manoeuvre was impossible. " Every bit of documentation and every bit of radar intercepts that were released do not show anything out of the ordinary. As for the "manoeuvre" the aircraft did a long rate 1 descending turn away from the Pentagon in order to lose height and to fly into the building at as close to a horizontal attitude as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An ex-Air Force and commercial airline pilot who has experience flying the two United Airlines aircraft that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 claims that the official government version of events is “impossible“ Captain Russ Wittenburg is probably the most qualified man in the whole world to judge whether poorly trained terrorists could have flown hijacked airliners with the extraordinary skill required to pull off such audacious manoeuvres as descending “7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” “I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Here is what Capt. Wittenburg has to say about the official version of events: “Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it. The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” Another example of a pilot saying pentagon plane crash manoeuvre was impossible. Every bit of documentation and every bit of radar intercepts that were released do not show anything out of the ordinary. As for the "manoeuvre" the aircraft did a long rate 1 descending turn away from the Pentagon in order to lose height and to fly into the building at as close to a horizontal attitude as possible. " You asked for how i got my opinion/view on how the manoeuvre for the pentagon plane crash was considered virtually impossible. I have quoted two pilots that have gave their opinion on this and as i have said there is many others. This isnt me making it up or fabricating it as you like to think. I am going to accept the word of pilots on this and not the narrative from the goverment or media. So im sorry but your not going to change me view on this and i know i wont be changing yours. So can we put this particular subject about pentagon to bed now and just agree to disagree please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up. Which law did he break? There is no law where a leader of a country can take his country to war based on lies. Just because there isnt a law for it doesnt mean there shouldnt be somthing in place. So let me ask you then, who do you hold responsible for the million civilian deaths? Or do you just see them as collateral damage? Be honest now...whos responsible? So if there is no law he has broken, do you admit therefore that he has done nothing criminal? Answer my question please. Who in your opinion was responsible for the million plus civilian deaths? I wont admit hes done nothing criminal. As i have said and will say a third time if he was a leader of a country outside of the UN and did the exact same thing, the west would have tried him for war crimes or took him out. Double standards. Another question.... i see how you are all for i interfering in these middle east countries...why do i never see you mentioning saudi arabia. Their regime is worst in the world but we never interfere..why not? How can he be a criminal if he hasn't broken the law? As you can't name the law, you owe me a penny. " Ill give you your penny when you stop avoiding my question on who do you say was responsible for the million plus civilian deaths from the invasion of iraq under ghe guise that they had wmd. Someone has to be, it wasnt collateral damage because we shouldnt have been there in the first place. My view is that it was tony blair and George bush and they should have been punished for it...you obviously think different and as ive just said to _oo hot in post above this one. I consider what they did criminal, you do not. So again we shall have to agree to disagree because nothing i say will make an iota of difference to you nor anything you say will change my view. So lets just leave it there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for msking up stuff... I think the majority of the population hold blair responsible for the iraq fiasco and the millions of deaths. He took us into war based on lies. Dont be singling me out (i get you dont like me very much) when most of the country feel the same way about blair and believe he should be locked up. Which law did he break? There is no law where a leader of a country can take his country to war based on lies. Just because there isnt a law for it doesnt mean there shouldnt be somthing in place. So let me ask you then, who do you hold responsible for the million civilian deaths? Or do you just see them as collateral damage? Be honest now...whos responsible? So if there is no law he has broken, do you admit therefore that he has done nothing criminal? Answer my question please. Who in your opinion was responsible for the million plus civilian deaths? I wont admit hes done nothing criminal. As i have said and will say a third time if he was a leader of a country outside of the UN and did the exact same thing, the west would have tried him for war crimes or took him out. Double standards. Another question.... i see how you are all for i interfering in these middle east countries...why do i never see you mentioning saudi arabia. Their regime is worst in the world but we never interfere..why not? How can he be a criminal if he hasn't broken the law? As you can't name the law, you owe me a penny. Ill give you your penny when you stop avoiding my question on who do you say was responsible for the million plus civilian deaths from the invasion of iraq under ghe guise that they had wmd. Someone has to be, it wasnt collateral damage because we shouldnt have been there in the first place. My view is that it was tony blair and George bush and they should have been punished for it...you obviously think different and as ive just said to _oo hot in post above this one. I consider what they did criminal, you do not. So again we shall have to agree to disagree because nothing i say will make an iota of difference to you nor anything you say will change my view. So lets just leave it there." You've said yourself Blair didn't break any law. If Blaor didn't break a law, then he can't be a criminal. It's fairly simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An ex-Air Force and commercial airline pilot who has experience flying the two United Airlines aircraft that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 claims that the official government version of events is “impossible“ Captain Russ Wittenburg is probably the most qualified man in the whole world to judge whether poorly trained terrorists could have flown hijacked airliners with the extraordinary skill required to pull off such audacious manoeuvres as descending “7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” “I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Here is what Capt. Wittenburg has to say about the official version of events: “Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it. The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” Another example of a pilot saying pentagon plane crash manoeuvre was impossible. Every bit of documentation and every bit of radar intercepts that were released do not show anything out of the ordinary. As for the "manoeuvre" the aircraft did a long rate 1 descending turn away from the Pentagon in order to lose height and to fly into the building at as close to a horizontal attitude as possible. You asked for how i got my opinion/view on how the manoeuvre for the pentagon plane crash was considered virtually impossible. I have quoted two pilots that have gave their opinion on this and as i have said there is many others. This isnt me making it up or fabricating it as you like to think. I am going to accept the word of pilots on this and not the narrative from the goverment or media. So im sorry but your not going to change me view on this and i know i wont be changing yours. So can we put this particular subject about pentagon to bed now and just agree to disagree, please." But it is the very epitome of fake news and not only have you eaten and digested it - but you want to spit it out all over everyone else as well... Flight 77 flew a 300 knot turn with a 13,000-foot radius at 30-35 degrees of bank. This is standard stuff and below the airframe limit of 350 knots. The highest g reading achieved from simulated playbacks of radar responses was 1.7g which is high for a passenger jet but it was not outside the operating envelope for the aircraft. Yes, the plane was going very fast at the end, but there was no great manoeuvre to produce a high speed stall. Why would this pilot tell such big lies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An ex-Air Force and commercial airline pilot who has experience flying the two United Airlines aircraft that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 claims that the official government version of events is “impossible“ Captain Russ Wittenburg is probably the most qualified man in the whole world to judge whether poorly trained terrorists could have flown hijacked airliners with the extraordinary skill required to pull off such audacious manoeuvres as descending “7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” “I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Here is what Capt. Wittenburg has to say about the official version of events: “Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it. The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” Another example of a pilot saying pentagon plane crash manoeuvre was impossible. Every bit of documentation and every bit of radar intercepts that were released do not show anything out of the ordinary. As for the "manoeuvre" the aircraft did a long rate 1 descending turn away from the Pentagon in order to lose height and to fly into the building at as close to a horizontal attitude as possible. You asked for how i got my opinion/view on how the manoeuvre for the pentagon plane crash was considered virtually impossible. I have quoted two pilots that have gave their opinion on this and as i have said there is many others. This isnt me making it up or fabricating it as you like to think. I am going to accept the word of pilots on this and not the narrative from the goverment or media. So im sorry but your not going to change me view on this and i know i wont be changing yours. So can we put this particular subject about pentagon to bed now and just agree to disagree, please. But it is the very epitome of fake news and not only have you eaten and digested it - but you want to spit it out all over everyone else as well... Flight 77 flew a 300 knot turn with a 13,000-foot radius at 30-35 degrees of bank. This is standard stuff and below the airframe limit of 350 knots. The highest g reading achieved from simulated playbacks of radar responses was 1.7g which is high for a passenger jet but it was not outside the operating envelope for the aircraft. Yes, the plane was going very fast at the end, but there was no great manoeuvre to produce a high speed stall. Why would this pilot tell such big lies? " That pilot and many others.... thats just it, they are not lieing, they feel that particular manoeuvre was virtually impossible for any amateur pilot to perform. End of discusion. (For me anyway) you can carry on if you want to but i wont be debating with you on anything in the future. I find your attitude in debating on these forums very passive aggresive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An ex-Air Force and commercial airline pilot who has experience flying the two United Airlines aircraft that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 claims that the official government version of events is “impossible“ Captain Russ Wittenburg is probably the most qualified man in the whole world to judge whether poorly trained terrorists could have flown hijacked airliners with the extraordinary skill required to pull off such audacious manoeuvres as descending “7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” “I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Here is what Capt. Wittenburg has to say about the official version of events: “Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it. The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” Another example of a pilot saying pentagon plane crash manoeuvre was impossible. Every bit of documentation and every bit of radar intercepts that were released do not show anything out of the ordinary. As for the "manoeuvre" the aircraft did a long rate 1 descending turn away from the Pentagon in order to lose height and to fly into the building at as close to a horizontal attitude as possible. You asked for how i got my opinion/view on how the manoeuvre for the pentagon plane crash was considered virtually impossible. I have quoted two pilots that have gave their opinion on this and as i have said there is many others. This isnt me making it up or fabricating it as you like to think. I am going to accept the word of pilots on this and not the narrative from the goverment or media. So im sorry but your not going to change me view on this and i know i wont be changing yours. So can we put this particular subject about pentagon to bed now and just agree to disagree, please. But it is the very epitome of fake news and not only have you eaten and digested it - but you want to spit it out all over everyone else as well... Flight 77 flew a 300 knot turn with a 13,000-foot radius at 30-35 degrees of bank. This is standard stuff and below the airframe limit of 350 knots. The highest g reading achieved from simulated playbacks of radar responses was 1.7g which is high for a passenger jet but it was not outside the operating envelope for the aircraft. Yes, the plane was going very fast at the end, but there was no great manoeuvre to produce a high speed stall. Why would this pilot tell such big lies? That pilot and many others.... thats just it, they are not lieing, they feel that particular manoeuvre was virtually impossible for any amateur pilot to perform. End of discusion. (For me anyway) you can carry on if you want to but i wont be debating with you on anything in the future. I find your attitude in debating on these forums very passive aggresive." One person says the manoeuvre was 1.7 g, another says it was upto 7 g. Someone is lying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've got president macron (the good liberal) now declaring that we should look again at the Iran deal!... What's Iran done recently for this talk of conflict?. Ooh yes, they stopped using the dollar for oil trading. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Iran, predominantly Shia certainly not the source of sunni jihadi crazies, I wonder where that source is?. Could it be the one propping up the dollar while systematically murdering it's neighbors at wedding venues and hardly making the news?, the same country ploughing money into UK mosques to radicalise our own crazy Islamists, the same country where 17 of the 19 hijackers of 911 came from, the same country buying billions of dollars worth of western arms to slaughter it's own people and it's neighbours. Nah stop being a tin pot foil wearing conspiracist. It's obviously Syria and Iran that are the trouble makers, you know, the democratically elected ones ". And here comes Israels intelligence.... Now I'm either very lucky or I'm ahead of the curve on predicting which country the West will invade next | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've got president macron (the good liberal) now declaring that we should look again at the Iran deal!... What's Iran done recently for this talk of conflict?. Ooh yes, they stopped using the dollar for oil trading. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Iran, predominantly Shia certainly not the source of sunni jihadi crazies, I wonder where that source is?. Could it be the one propping up the dollar while systematically murdering it's neighbors at wedding venues and hardly making the news?, the same country ploughing money into UK mosques to radicalise our own crazy Islamists, the same country where 17 of the 19 hijackers of 911 came from, the same country buying billions of dollars worth of western arms to slaughter it's own people and it's neighbours. Nah stop being a tin pot foil wearing conspiracist. It's obviously Syria and Iran that are the trouble makers, you know, the democratically elected ones .
And here comes Israels intelligence....
Now I'm either very lucky or I'm ahead of the curve on predicting which country the West will invade next "Omg did you see netanyahus presentation on iran called "iran lied" then he pulled back sheets (as if it was a magician act) over a stand full of folders and a stand full of cds. I agree with you dave, looks like irans next for a good ole fist pumping regime change. And i bet i can predict which people on this forum will be banging on their war drums and rubbing their hands together with glee when it does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've got president macron (the good liberal) now declaring that we should look again at the Iran deal!... What's Iran done recently for this talk of conflict?. Ooh yes, they stopped using the dollar for oil trading. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Iran, predominantly Shia certainly not the source of sunni jihadi crazies, I wonder where that source is?. Could it be the one propping up the dollar while systematically murdering it's neighbors at wedding venues and hardly making the news?, the same country ploughing money into UK mosques to radicalise our own crazy Islamists, the same country where 17 of the 19 hijackers of 911 came from, the same country buying billions of dollars worth of western arms to slaughter it's own people and it's neighbours. Nah stop being a tin pot foil wearing conspiracist. It's obviously Syria and Iran that are the trouble makers, you know, the democratically elected ones .
And here comes Israels intelligence....
Now I'm either very lucky or I'm ahead of the curve on predicting which country the West will invade next
Omg did you see netanyahus presentation on iran called "iran lied" then he pulled back sheets (as if it was a magician act) over a stand full of folders and a stand full of cds.
I agree with you dave, looks like irans next for a good ole fist pumping regime change.
And i bet i can predict which people on this forum will be banging on their war drums and rubbing their hands together with glee when it does.". Tadaaa ... For my next trick I'll make Yemen disappear from the media  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've got president macron (the good liberal) now declaring that we should look again at the Iran deal!... What's Iran done recently for this talk of conflict?. Ooh yes, they stopped using the dollar for oil trading. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Iran, predominantly Shia certainly not the source of sunni jihadi crazies, I wonder where that source is?. Could it be the one propping up the dollar while systematically murdering it's neighbors at wedding venues and hardly making the news?, the same country ploughing money into UK mosques to radicalise our own crazy Islamists, the same country where 17 of the 19 hijackers of 911 came from, the same country buying billions of dollars worth of western arms to slaughter it's own people and it's neighbours. Nah stop being a tin pot foil wearing conspiracist. It's obviously Syria and Iran that are the trouble makers, you know, the democratically elected ones .
And here comes Israels intelligence....
Now I'm either very lucky or I'm ahead of the curve on predicting which country the West will invade next
Omg did you see netanyahus presentation on iran called "iran lied" then he pulled back sheets (as if it was a magician act) over a stand full of folders and a stand full of cds.
I agree with you dave, looks like irans next for a good ole fist pumping regime change.
And i bet i can predict which people on this forum will be banging on their war drums and rubbing their hands together with glee when it does..
Tadaaa ... For my next trick I'll make Yemen disappear from the media "https://youtu.be/l1xeGs5D8g4 I just had to watch this again. Its comical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've got president macron (the good liberal) now declaring that we should look again at the Iran deal!... What's Iran done recently for this talk of conflict?. Ooh yes, they stopped using the dollar for oil trading. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Iran, predominantly Shia certainly not the source of sunni jihadi crazies, I wonder where that source is?. Could it be the one propping up the dollar while systematically murdering it's neighbors at wedding venues and hardly making the news?, the same country ploughing money into UK mosques to radicalise our own crazy Islamists, the same country where 17 of the 19 hijackers of 911 came from, the same country buying billions of dollars worth of western arms to slaughter it's own people and it's neighbours. Nah stop being a tin pot foil wearing conspiracist. It's obviously Syria and Iran that are the trouble makers, you know, the democratically elected ones .
And here comes Israels intelligence....
Now I'm either very lucky or I'm ahead of the curve on predicting which country the West will invade next
Omg did you see netanyahus presentation on iran called "iran lied" then he pulled back sheets (as if it was a magician act) over a stand full of folders and a stand full of cds.
I agree with you dave, looks like irans next for a good ole fist pumping regime change.
And i bet i can predict which people on this forum will be banging on their war drums and rubbing their hands together with glee when it does..
Tadaaa ... For my next trick I'll make Yemen disappear from the media
https://youtu.be/l1xeGs5D8g4
I just had to watch this again.
Its comical.
". He's rehearsing for Vegas... Needs a tiger in a cage though or maybe a dancing camel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've got president macron (the good liberal) now declaring that we should look again at the Iran deal!... What's Iran done recently for this talk of conflict?. Ooh yes, they stopped using the dollar for oil trading. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Iran, predominantly Shia certainly not the source of sunni jihadi crazies, I wonder where that source is?. Could it be the one propping up the dollar while systematically murdering it's neighbors at wedding venues and hardly making the news?, the same country ploughing money into UK mosques to radicalise our own crazy Islamists, the same country where 17 of the 19 hijackers of 911 came from, the same country buying billions of dollars worth of western arms to slaughter it's own people and it's neighbours. Nah stop being a tin pot foil wearing conspiracist. It's obviously Syria and Iran that are the trouble makers, you know, the democratically elected ones .
And here comes Israels intelligence....
Now I'm either very lucky or I'm ahead of the curve on predicting which country the West will invade next
Omg did you see netanyahus presentation on iran called "iran lied" then he pulled back sheets (as if it was a magician act) over a stand full of folders and a stand full of cds.
I agree with you dave, looks like irans next for a good ole fist pumping regime change.
And i bet i can predict which people on this forum will be banging on their war drums and rubbing their hands together with glee when it does."Not sure if the USA are finished with Syria yet. Certainly made sure the war there would drag out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. What specific war crimes did he commit? Seeing as he is the only living Labour leader to have won a GE, it kind of disproves your theory that he either is or was trying to sink the party." Specific war crimes: He launched a war, not sanctioned by the U.N. i.e. launching and waging a war of aggression. This is exactly the same charges as we're brought at Nuremburg. Around a million civilians died. A million! Since Corbyn was massively elected, democratically, twice, to lead Labour, all Blair has done is undermine. Also, you have a strange view on what isolationism is. Internationalists are not only the people who are happy to bomb any country they happen to feel like on a whim, without the backing of either their own population or the U.N. Security Council. The words you're looking for are 'war-mongers'. I'd prefer to be isolationist if that's your definition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also true that virtually everybody (apart from the Guardian and a few centrist twonks) despise Blair. The right probably less so than the left. He's a war criminal, intent on sinking his own party. He is not a war criminal. If he was the leader of some other country not associated with the UN, and he did exactly what he did as uk leader you can be sure as hell he would have been imprisoned for war crimes. He is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet I will bet you a shiny new penny that you cannot tell me a specific law of armed conflict that he broke. Sure can. He and bush was responsible for sending in all our military under the false lies that sadamn had wmd. Which resulted in over a million civilisn deaths plus many thousands of our forces. He was the leader, he made the decision, the blood is on his hands. Like i said earlier only reason he isnt locked up or even dead is because he was leader of a country within the UN and allied with the US. if he was leader of any other country (not in the UN), he would be convicted of war crime or desposed off via a "regime change" from countrys in the west. stop defending the indefensable. No one is defending the indefensible. The conspiracy websites and news feeds that you subscribe to are clearly affecting your judgment. Tony Blair has not even been tried as any kind of criminal, let alone charged with being one. Just because you think he should be a war criminal not give you the right to label him as something that he isn't. Think about it logically - you have to be lawfully convicted to be a criminal and he has not even faced charges. Making up stuff and posting it as true is the prerogative of conspiracy websites and news feeds. I guess it is no surprise then that you regurgitate the stuff that you brainwash yourself with. PS - Any word on this "manoeuvre" that the 911 hijackers performed that was "next to impossible"?" Your logic doesn't hold. Just because Blair has never been tried and convicted doesn't mean he hasn't committed crimes. Did Assad, Putin, Netanyahu, Franco, etc etc etc commit horrendous crimes against humanity. Of course. Have they ever been tried and convicted. No. A rigged system doesn't mean crimes weren't committed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war "Plus he accepts people to answers his questions but when asked one in return always avoids answering. Hes not the only one on these forums that loves a good ole "regime changing" war. Yet they claim to be nice and intelligent people. They swallow up any garbage the msm put out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war "Yeah, it's only logical to me, yet strangely every policeman in the country, every prosecutor, and every internationally court has come to EXACTLY the same conclusion as me. Yup, I'm the only one who thinks the way I do!   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war
Yeah, it's only logical to me, yet strangely every policeman in the country, every prosecutor, and every internationally court has come to EXACTLY the same conclusion as me. Yup, I'm the only one who thinks the way I do!
"Ah, the classic "silent majority" explanation... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war
Yeah, it's only logical to me, yet strangely every policeman in the country, every prosecutor, and every internationally court has come to EXACTLY the same conclusion as me. Yup, I'm the only one who thinks the way I do!
Ah, the classic "silent majority" explanation... "OR, he never committed a crime? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war
Yeah, it's only logical to me, yet strangely every policeman in the country, every prosecutor, and every internationally court has come to EXACTLY the same conclusion as me. Yup, I'm the only one who thinks the way I do!
Ah, the classic "silent majority" explanation...
OR, he never committed a crime? "I've told you the crime. Preparing and waging a war of aggression. Read below the following from the Nuremberg trials. Blair and Bush took us into a war on misleading and untruthful grounds. "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CCLC Do you not agree that the Iraq Invasion and war which led to around one million civilian deaths was wrong??" You wont get a reply from him, he never answers a question when he knows the only answer is the one your after. So he will just avoid it over and over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CCLC Do you not agree that the Iraq Invasion and war which led to around one million civilian deaths was wrong??" I don’t think anyone will disagree. The problem is that no-one can see into the future and we all make decisions based on the information that we have to hand. Today we know that the WMD story was flaky (at best) but Blair only knew what he knew and he had to make decisions based on what he knew there and then. I agree that many were against Blair taking action (me included) but I also accept that as a Prime Minister he had to make decisions that were what he thought to be in the best interest of the country. He made his decision and with the benefit of hindsight, we all now know that it was the wrong one. No one goes through life making only correct decisions and Prime Ministers are not exempt either. There is a difference between wilfully misleading Parliament and the people of this country and making a decision based on information that you believed to be true, but which turned out to be flawed. As far as we know, Tony Blair was not willfully prosecuting a war and misleading everyone as a means to execute it. If he did that, I have no doubt that he would have been charged. I was and remain very much an anti-interventionist and I just knew it was the wrong thing to do in Iraq. That said, I believe that Blair did what he thought was right, based on the information that he had at the time and that is why he has not been charged and cannot be labelled a war criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war
Yeah, it's only logical to me, yet strangely every policeman in the country, every prosecutor, and every internationally court has come to EXACTLY the same conclusion as me. Yup, I'm the only one who thinks the way I do!
Ah, the classic "silent majority" explanation...
OR, he never committed a crime?
I've told you the crime. Preparing and waging a war of aggression.
Read below the following from the Nuremberg trials. Blair and Bush took us into a war on misleading and untruthful grounds.
"To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
"The UK has not signed up to any international body or treaty that has a recognised or ratified definition or crime of the war of aggression, and didn't have in 2003 either. You ask a simple question about a complex scenario, but let's break it down. Seeing as there was and is no international crime of a War of aggression, how does it fall with the British legal and constitutional systems. The power to declare was was traditionally the sole preserve of the monarch, this has subsequently transferred to the PM in our constitional monarchy, and is one of the perogative powers (If you don't know what they are, look them up, Brexit is not a perogative power). Seeing as it is a perogative power, Blair could have decided all alone to order the invasion, but instead asked parliament. The decision to go to war with Afghanistan had no parliamentary vote, same for Kosovo, The Gulf War, the Falklands and Suez. None of them had parliamentary votes. Blair however decided to ask parliament, and parliament supported him and the decision to go to war. The UK is a representative democracy, we elect our politicians not to vote the way we tell them, that would make them delegates rather that representatives, but in what they believe are in the best interests of the nation. They voted for war. Had the UK not participated in the Iraq war, should Iraq still be 'strong and stable' with Saddam Hussein at the helm? No. America was going anyway, and they did the heavy lifting in the conflict. The situation Iraq finds itself in today would have been largely the same, regardless of UK involvement. Did it strategically benefit the UK, no, not really. It was not really worth the price in blood and treasure, and has also made politicians wary of intervention for decades. It could be argued that it was a price that has to be paid for our special relationship with the US, however that seems to be less special with each passing decade. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"CLCC logic is only fathomable to him.... Besides secretly he loves a good war
Yeah, it's only logical to me, yet strangely every policeman in the country, every prosecutor, and every internationally court has come to EXACTLY the same conclusion as me. Yup, I'm the only one who thinks the way I do!
Ah, the classic "silent majority" explanation...
OR, he never committed a crime?
I've told you the crime. Preparing and waging a war of aggression.
Read below the following from the Nuremberg trials. Blair and Bush took us into a war on misleading and untruthful grounds.
"To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The UK has not signed up to any international body or treaty that has a recognised or ratified definition or crime of the war of aggression, and didn't have in 2003 either.
You ask a simple question about a complex scenario, but let's break it down.
Seeing as there was and is no international crime of a War of aggression, how does it fall with the British legal and constitutional systems. The power to declare was was traditionally the sole preserve of the monarch, this has subsequently transferred to the PM in our constitional monarchy, and is one of the perogative powers (If you don't know what they are, look them up, Brexit is not a perogative power). Seeing as it is a perogative power, Blair could have decided all alone to order the invasion, but instead asked parliament. The decision to go to war with Afghanistan had no parliamentary vote, same for Kosovo, The Gulf War, the Falklands and Suez. None of them had parliamentary votes. Blair however decided to ask parliament, and parliament supported him and the decision to go to war.
The UK is a representative democracy, we elect our politicians not to vote the way we tell them, that would make them delegates rather that representatives, but in what they believe are in the best interests of the nation. They voted for war.
Had the UK not participated in the Iraq war, should Iraq still be 'strong and stable' with Saddam Hussein at the helm? No. America was going anyway, and they did the heavy lifting in the conflict. The situation Iraq finds itself in today would have been largely the same, regardless of UK involvement.
Did it strategically benefit the UK, no, not really. It was not really worth the price in blood and treasure, and has also made politicians wary of intervention for decades. It could be argued that it was a price that has to be paid for our special relationship with the US, however that seems to be less special with each passing decade."There are two specific points I'd raise here. You say that "The UK has not signed up to any international body or treaty that has a recognised or ratified definition or crime of the war of aggression". Well when the victor sets the rules and laws then what is the point of those laws? How possibly can initiating a war that killed over a million people be fine and legitimate, but a chemical attack (if proven) that killed 20 people be beyond the pale? Do you believe that Nuremberg was wrong then, and that those leading Nazis committed no crimes as they were convicted of crimes that the British state does not sign up to, or do you believe that to start a war of aggression is a legitimate action for a state or leader? Secondly, you say that it could be seen as the price to pay for maintaining the special relationship with the USA. Exactly so. The blood of a million Iraqis is the price we paid. It's the law of the playground bully. We'd better join in his bullying or else we may lose his protection. The worry is that we can all (Well the vast majority) of us can see that Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan etc etc were huge failures of intelligence, humanitarian disasters and leave us hated in the middle East, yet some of us don't learn from our mistakes. We continue to act independently of the U.N. If you are an internationalist and believe in the rule of law, how do you square that with air strikes on Syria and the war in Iraq that went beyind U.N. resolutions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
