Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey, Winston Churchill ordered the use of gas on Kurds

---

Actually, there's no evidence I know of that gas was used during the Kurdish uprising, just that it was suggested.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]

---

Quote:

---

Saddam would have been a camel hump groomer had the big bad USA not come along and force fed him guns and ammo ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
after doing some additional research it is pretty well documented that Churchill requested to use gas on rebellious arab populations...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

---

Quote:

---

I have found a split in sites who state that either use was considered or it actually happened.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Really Chris... you're too funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Saddam would have been a camel hump groomer had the big bad USA not come along and force fed him guns and ammo ?

---

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Rapo, you surprise me! You got to the nub in 30 words or less!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Really Chris... you're too funny.

---

And you are consistently amusing as well.
But really, Citizen nailed it very clearly. Notice he's not saying "America is to blame for all world evils" there. His was an objective, non-partisan analysis of the situation- best listen to and fully digest his fair & thoughtful post, IMO.

The momentarily serious Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office?

---

Quote:

---

Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
...the real power is where the money is...

Puppet theatreisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
after doing some additional research it is pretty well documented that Churchill requested to use gas on rebellious arab populations...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

---

Suggested and Requested mean much the same thing in this context, though requested and actually used are two different things.

Quote:

---

I have found a split in sites who state that either use was considered or it actually happened.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

---

That's the same opinion piece I responded to before. There's still no evidence that gas was actually used or even authorised.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
...the real power is where the money is...

Puppet theatreisall

---

Colonel Sanders ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I found dozens of opinion pieces that say the same thing.....

---

Quote:

---

But the fact he asked for permission to use Mustard and chlorine gas on civilian targets really says something...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

---

See that can of whoopass by your feet AU? Open it.

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I found dozens of opinion pieces that say the same thing.....

---

They're still opinion peices, and without evidence one opinion peice is as good as ten. Consider, it could be just one opinion, they could all be parroting what they heard, and what they heard could have been from the same place. Requested could be misunderstood as used in one account, then picked up and passed around. I'm not saying it defiantly wasn't used, I'm saying it there's no evidence, and it seems fair to say guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:

---

But the fact he asked for permission to use Mustard and chlorine gas on civilian targets really says something...

---

Not really, this was prior to any international bans or treaties on gas, when it was still a valid weapon of war, and had been wielded against and by British troops in the First World War, only a few years previously. Britain was fighting a costly war in an Imperial possession foisted on them by the League of Nations, a war costing the British more than the original British supported Arab uprisings previously. I don't think it's correct to say Churchill was as bad as Saddam or whatever because he wanted to use Gas back then.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Take me a bit to find the link again, but there were treaties. Only they decided that the treaty only applied if they were fighting a " civilized "
enemy. Rebelling indigenous people didn't count as civilized so whatever means to massacre them was okay.

---

Quote:

---

It seems we have hit one of those was Hitler worse than Stalin debates. Hmmm concentration camps vs starvation.....

---

Quote:

---

BTW are you trying to say Britain was forced to try to maintain its empire by the League of Nations ? Not really buying that sorry

---

Quote:

---

In 1925, sixteen of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol, thereby pledging never to use gas in warfare again. Notably, in the United States, the Protocol languished in the Senate until 1975, when it was finally ratified.

---

Quote:

---

Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office? Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office? Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?

---

Rapo, do you know the word "history"? Does your definition extend backwards to anything beyond "but Clinton"?


---------------------------------
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt. But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.

---

Quote:

---

It never ends w/ you, does it? You're assuming I give their grievances any credit, of which I do NOT. Listening to the terrorist about how "unjustly " they've been treated is akin to paying close attention to Hitler rant on about his struggle. Please !

---

Quote:

---

Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt.

---

Quote:

---

But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt. But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.

---

Why?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Take me a bit to find the link again, but there were treaties. Only they decided that the treaty only applied if they were fighting a " civilized "
enemy. Rebelling indigenous people didn't count as civilized so whatever means to massacre them was okay.

---

The only treaties that I know of that went into effect weren't signed until after the Arab uprising. There's the Arms something or other of Washington in 1920, but that didn't go into effect because the French wouldn't sign off on it.

Quote:

---

It seems we have hit one of those was Hitler worse than Stalin debates. Hmmm concentration camps vs starvation.....

---

Not really, comparing Churchill to either is simply assine.

Quote:

---

BTW are you trying to say Britain was forced to try to maintain its empire by the League of Nations ? Not really buying that sorry

---

No, I'm saying that the League of Nations made Iraq (Actually Mesopotamia, which Iraq was a part of) a protectorate of the British Empire, and compelled Britain to maintain and run it, under the Mandate of Mesopotamia. Iraq wasn't 'officially' part of the British empire, Britain took short term control of Iraq to help it toward nationhood after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1930, as it was supposed to under the dictates of the League of Nations Mandate. I don't expect you to buy anything, it's verifiable history.

EDIT:
According to Wikipedia, it wasn't until 1925 that use of Poison gas was outlawed, except the US, which didn't ratify the treaty until 1975:

Quote:

---

In 1925, sixteen of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol, thereby pledging never to use gas in warfare again. Notably, in the United States, the Protocol languished in the Senate until 1975, when it was finally ratified.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas#Interwar_years

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I submit he was willing to use any means to control the Kurdish population, as did Saddam.....

So in short, I compare him to Saddam in his actions...

I'm sure you disagree

impasse

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

---

High horse much, AU?

I'll answer for ya then:

Because we do no intentional wrong, of course. We mean well, even when we arm one side, then the other, back tyrants, schmooze with oppressors and such. These little countries have no business being mad at us, and if they are, we have every right to pre-emptively pull the chain on them.

How's that?

AUisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
C'mon now, this isn't even a serious discussion. I refuse to even acknowledge the basic premise of the concept. Not now, never.

---

Quote:

---

Chris, we don't do anything that any other country isn't trying to do. They might use different means, but their goals are as lofty, or as devious as ours. Point being NONE of that in any way justifies what happened on Sept.11., 01. High horse, you're damn right, Every day and twice on Sunday.

---

Quote:

---

Once you side w/ the terrorist, then there's really nothing you can say when I or anyone else decides they want to rape your daughter or your wife. Hey, they had it comin', don't blame me!

---

Quote:

---

Lieutenant George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Captain Blackadder: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Lieutenant George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [Aside, to Baldrick] Mad as a bicycle!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I submit he was willing to use any means to control the Kurdish population, as did Saddam.....

So in short, I compare him to Saddam in his actions...

I'm sure you disagree

impasse

---

There was nothing cheap about the operations in the region, and Britain had recently been economically crippled, and had nearly and entire generation of young men wiped out in one of the most destructive wars in history.

I would ask, what do you think of the comparison between Mackenzie King and Adolf Hitler?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
and yet they chose to use force to control a people who want to see them off their land.... sorry I think that is something like using the UN resolution to justify anything the US does in Iraq

---

Quote:

---

As for Mackenzie King, he liked Hitler, disliked Asians and Jews. Rumor has it he kept several prostitutes in employ. Did he order the deaths of civilians to maintain power.... not to my knowledge, perhaps you know something I do not?

---

Quote:

---

“I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”.

---

Quote:

---

Chris, we don't do anything that any other country isn't trying to do.

---

Quote:

---

They might use different means

---

Quote:

---

Point being NONE of that in any way justifies what happened on Sept.11., 01.

---

Quote:

---

Once you side w/ the terrorist, then there's really nothing you can say when I or anyone else decides they want to rape your daughter or your wife.

---

Quote:

---

C'mon now, this isn't even a serious discussion. I refuse to even acknowledge the basic premise of the concept.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
and yet they chose to use force to control a people who want to see them off their land.... sorry I think that is something like using the UN resolution to justify anything the US does in Iraq

---

You're still conveniently ignoring the simple fact that Britain wasn't there as part of imperialistic folly, it was carrying out a League of Nations mandate. As such it's more like using the UN intervention in Bosnia to justify bombings carried out by NATO aircraft. It's nothing like using UN resolutions to Justify the Iraq war, because Britain was placed in it's position and compelled to keep order by the order of a League of Nations mandate, the US was not given a UN mandate to invade Iraq. So it's completely and entirely different.

Quote:

---

As for Mackenzie King, he liked Hitler, disliked Asians and Jews. Rumor has it he kept several prostitutes in employ. Did he order the deaths of civilians to maintain power.... not to my knowledge, perhaps you know something I do not?

---

Hitler put civilians in concentration camps, Mackenzie King did likewise.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I do not believe that British actions as part of the League of Nations mandate was selfless as you imply, it very much had to do with imperialism and economic control ( oil - surprise ). Dividing the spoils of the Ottoman empire.

---

Quote:

---

As for concentration camps, are you referring to Japanese internment ?

---

Quote:

---

While not agreeing with the policy do you think conditions in those camps were better or worse than the British concentration camps set up for the Boers, or in India during their independence movement ?

---

Quote:

---

Once again I am still not aware of any deaths being ordered by King

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I do not believe that British actions as part of the League of Nations mandate was selfless as you imply, it very much had to do with imperialism and economic control ( oil - surprise ). Dividing the spoils of the Ottoman empire.

---

I didn't say, nor imply they were, I said they were in compliance with a League of Nations Mandate, which also compelled them to keep order. You said it's all about British imperialism, and that's simply not true. Everything done by nations is on some level self interest, but the fact is at the time Britain wouldn't have been there if the League hadn't mandated it, that is if the League of Nations hadn't put them there, and they could very well have withdrawn from a frankly fucked up situation inherited from the Ottomans if the Mandate hadn't kept them there.

Your dividing the spoils line belies the fact that Iraq was given Independence in 1930, as they were supposed to under the mandate, that you'd have us believe had nothing to do with Britain being there.

Quote:

---

As for concentration camps, are you referring to Japanese internment ?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

While not agreeing with the policy do you think conditions in those camps were better or worse than the British concentration camps set up for the Boers, or in India during their independence movement ?

---

We could go all day about the whose country is worse, but that would just be to ignore the actual point further. Nice dodge though.

Quote:

---

Once again I am still not aware of any deaths being ordered by King

---

Since, despite Churchill requesting it, gas was never used on the Kurds, no deaths resulted from that either. It hasn't stopped you comparing Churchill to Saddam, so by your logic no deaths doesn't stop me comparing King to Hitler. I don't think there's anything to a comparison between Hitler and King, the same as there's no comparison between Saddam and Churchill. However, if you want to jam Churchill into the definition of a mass murdering military dictator who gassed his own people, because Churchill requested to use gas once, I have no problem comparing King to a mass murdering military dictator who interned his own civilian population in camps, because King interned some of his own population in camps once. It's your logic, not mine, if it only works where you want it to work, that indicates it's your logic that's faulty, not mine.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The dodge is yours, are you denying the aerial bombing of civilian targets ?

---

Quote:

---

As for your independence angle, the treaty provided for a "close alliance," for "full and frank consultations between the two countries in all matters of foreign policy," and for mutual assistance in case of war. Iraq granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Al Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country.

---

Quote:

---

I have conceded the point gas was not used a few times, but machinegun and bombings attacks did the trick, and I believe that was the reason gas was b not used.

---

Quote:

---

If you wish to throw King in with Saddam and Churchill, while you have presented no fact of deaths or ordered attacks causing deaths, etc.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The dodge is yours, are you denying the aerial bombing of civilian targets ?

---

No, and the point I was making didn't require it, I'm not even sure who you are talking too now. You dodged the point I was making by going off on a tangent. I on the other hand have tackled everything you've brought up head on.

Quote:

---

As for your independence angle, the treaty provided for a "close alliance," for "full and frank consultations between the two countries in all matters of foreign policy," and for mutual assistance in case of war. Iraq granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Al Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country.

---

Spurred on by your pre-existing bias no doubt, you're making far more of it than there actually was. I never denied the British used the opportunity to gain influence, I said that they were there and were compelled to fight the Arab uprising due to the Mandate. Given the British position at the time they wouldn't have even been there if it wasn't for the Mandate. Rather than tackle that, you simply lie about what I said, bravo you.

Quote:

---

I have conceded the point gas was not used a few times, but machinegun and bombings attacks did the trick, and I believe that was the reason gas was b not used.

---

Believe what you like, fact is gas wasn't used, so you've got no deaths to point to from Gas, which was your big reason for comparison of Churchill to Saddam. Your premise was that Churchill was like Saddam because he used Gas on the Kurds, now that's been conceded you're saying it's because of the aerial attacks, and trying to imply I'm denying they took place. No, I was talking about your original assertion regarding gas, but since we're talking parallels with US policy, it's certainly been the Bush administrations policy to change they're rhetoric then act like that's always what they were saying.

Quote:

---

If you wish to throw King in with Saddam and Churchill, while you have presented no fact of deaths or ordered attacks causing deaths, etc.....

---

Like here for instance. I was only ever arguing against your assertion that Churchill used Gas, you are lying about what I said, and you are lying about what you said. My point never required proof of deaths, my point was just highlighting the absurdity of your logic (or rather illogic). It's you who had to show deaths from Churchill's Gas attacks, and it's you who've been unable to do so. You say you've conceded the point, but you haven't really, you're just trying to use smoke and mirrors to shift the argument, that's called a strawman and a red herring BTW. If you feel you have to lie about what I said and what you said to make yourself appear the 'winner', knock yourself out, it doesn't reflect on my character at all .

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Perhaps we need others to help settle this, Chris ? Rue ?

---

Quote:

---

What would you do? Would you fight? Would you do what you're told? Would you just follow blindly along?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
'Rappy:

You say there are no possible justifications for "the terrorist", without ever stopping long enough to consider what drives one to BECOME a terrorist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad' . Nothing more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad' . Nothing more.

---

Uh, that's nice.

Now can you answer Mike's question please?

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And mine?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
How manys times have I stated I was mistaken saying gas was used ?

---

Quote:

---

I have also said that the weapons used were immaterial whether gas, nuclear, or machineguns and aerial bombing... civilians who didn't fall into line were killed for not bowing down to British authority.

---

Quote:

---

You see no comparison to Saddam beating down the very same people for not bowing down to his authority years later.

---

Quote:

---

You have tried to deflect responsibility to the league of nations for forcing poor Britain to jump in and control the brown man before he gets out of hand, I said bullshit they were there for the cash and pointed to treatys and deals made out of that mess which supports that thought.

---

Quote:

---

You keep hammering on my original post, even after I admitted to being misled by an opinion piece, my argument has evolved, facts corrected, but you want to make this a matter of character.

---

Quote:

---

Prove your point Britain didn't want control of the area, did they try to bring in other league members to form a coalition, have a debate where the government discussed a pull out, anything?

---

Quote:

---

"...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

---

Quote:

---

Eventually, this tutelage was undermined by pressure from the British Parliament and the press to withdraw

---

Quote:

---

Although the revolt in Iraq was suppressed by force, it prompted Iraq and Great Britain to reconcile their differences. In Britain a segment of public opinion wanted to "get out of Mesopotamia" and urged relief from further commitments. In Iraq the nationalists were demanding independence. In 1921 Britain offered the Iraqi throne to Faysal along with the establishment of an Arab government under British mandate. Faysal wanted the throne if it were offered to him by the Iraqi people. He also suggested the replacement of the mandate by a treaty of alliance. These proposals were accepted by the British government, and Winston Churchill, then colonial secretary, promised to carry them out. He was advised by T.E. Lawrence, known for his sympathy for the Arabs.

---

Quote:

---

If this was only about Churchill and the use of gas, you could have stopped several posts ago

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No, because the question is moot. It does not apply to what is going on around the world w/ Islam. It isn't relevant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad'. Not poverty, not the perceived notions of injustice, not the plight of the Palestinians, nor the non existent threat of the Jews against the millions of Arabs who out number them 100 to 1 in the surrounding region. No. it's none of that, nothing other than the twisted, distorted view that Allah is the one true God, and all are to obey , or die. That's all it is, nothing more.

---

Quote:

---

The problem with America is that you are isolationists playing at globalism, you're too inward looking and ideological. You assume things are going to go the way you want, which leads you to be totally blind sided, and say things like "why do these people hate us?", when they don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

---

It's not a ridiculous or absurd question. You made a statement as flat out fact, I asked you to explain your assumption. The fact you seem unwilling or unable to do so only undermines your own premise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No, because the question is moot. It does not apply to what is going on around the world w/ Islam. It isn't relevant.

---

Congratulations, you've perfected the "Us VS. Them" mentality to it highest level, you have expunged empathy from your being, and limited yourself accordingly. You also prove that the message concerning The Operative and his redemption in Serenity is totally lost on you- you simply see a bad guy turn good.

Thus endith the expired equine concussions for me todayisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Other than that, there's little polite that I have to say, so I'll hold my tongue. I still don't believe anyone can hold the position that the US " had it comin' ". I never will. Ever.

---