Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

British extremists use Syria as training

15 posts in this topic

No surprise but the use Pakistan and Afghanistan too for training

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus. If I ruled UK. "Sorry but you cant enter anymore."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus. If I ruled UK. "Sorry but you cant enter anymore."

Like how you can't enter Israel if you've been to Iran?

Works for me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus. If I ruled UK. "Sorry but you cant enter anymore."

Absolutely. The problem is that western governments are too timid and entrapped within their own legal systems to protect themselves in this way..YET... but someday they'll twig to it or be destroyed. I read a book by Tony Blankley a couple of years ago called THE WEST'S LAST CHANCE and he explained some of the VERY undemocratic means that Churchill and Roosevelt used to fight WWII. The people today would absolutely become catatonic over it but that might be what has to happen for our survival.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like how you can't enter Israel if you've been to Iran?

Works for me.

Realy? Didnt know that. But thats good protection policy.

Sorry we are closed. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. The problem is that western governments are too timid and entrapped within their own legal systems to protect themselves in this way..YET... but someday they'll twig to it or be destroyed. I read a book by Tony Blankley a couple of years ago called THE WEST'S LAST CHANCE and he explained some of the VERY undemocratic means that Churchill and Roosevelt used to fight WWII. The people today would absolutely become catatonic over it but that might be what has to happen for our survival.

WW2 was dirty war as any war. We tend to see Nazi Germany as only evil in it. Sure they were. But as many others. For instance, Churchill even screamed at Roosvelt about some threads. They try to use chemical weapons. USA could prevent Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Churchill could prevent ww2 and perhaps eliminate Hitler. USA supported Hitler.

As I said mess. Chaos.

Now why is that? Because UK didnt share interests with USA. USA didnt share interests with Russia. UK with Germany. They all seek for own success.

In the end of ww2 we have had only one pure winner-USA.

Did they used dirty tricks, even diabolical, even to own people? Hell yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

USA agenda of WW2 was to destroy Germany after they bleed out Soviets. Then to weak UK as much as they can. ;)

UK agenda was to weak Germany, Then to destroy Russia.

Germany agenda was to unite with UK (at beging) to destroy Russia.

Russia wanted East Europe and Finland.

People always play and will play dirty. Only EU countries in recent time plays polite. So I ask one question often, will EU go to totalirism again one day?

Edited by Big Bad Voodoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. The problem is that western governments are too timid and entrapped within their own legal systems to protect themselves in this way..YET... but someday they'll twig to it or be destroyed. I read a book by Tony Blankley a couple of years ago called THE WEST'S LAST CHANCE and he explained some of the VERY undemocratic means that Churchill and Roosevelt used to fight WWII. The people today would absolutely become catatonic over it but that might be what has to happen for our survival.

ANY abuse of a constitutional system can be justified that way. If you convince the populace that they're under attack you can pass any law you want so long as you can justify it in the name of defence. It is a dangerous path to walk down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. The problem is that western governments are too timid and entrapped within their own legal systems to protect themselves in this way..YET... but someday they'll twig to it or be destroyed. I read a book by Tony Blankley a couple of years ago called THE WEST'S LAST CHANCE and he explained some of the VERY undemocratic means that Churchill and Roosevelt used to fight WWII. The people today would absolutely become catatonic over it but that might be what has to happen for our survival.

I think behaving badly like that is counterproductive -- most of the time. There may be rare exceptions, such as Hitler and Stalin, but just because you don't like a regime -- no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the wealthy and powerful western countries could, from this point onward start dealing with the middle east and africa with fairness and respect and change the face of our evil and corrupt world. But since that would be bad in the short term for corporate bottom lines that won't happen any time soon, so get ready for WWIII.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANY abuse of a constitutional system can be justified that way. If you convince the populace that they're under attack you can pass any law you want so long as you can justify it in the name of defence. It is a dangerous path to walk down.

Agreed. But there are genuine times when it is necessary to save a nation. It's easy enough to be adamant about this issue but the life of our nation would then depend on the level of "involvement" of average citizens in the world political/military situation. Would you be comfortable with that today? And if we do follow that route and continue to afford EVERYONE on earth our democratic protections then soon enough those democratic protections will be lost to everyone. That's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"“Some of those people are potential terrorists, some of whom may get training, and in some cases may engage in conflict and then potentially return to the UK,” May told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show. "

http://www.presstv.i...a-for-training/

And I have no doubt that when these "potential terrorists" get "home" to the UK, anybody who points finger at them as being a potential terrorist will be stamped on very severely by their police as being "Islamophobic" or "racist" and any number of strange "community leaders" will appear on the media telling people what to think, or else... This May person is, like all those politicians, Janus faced.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. But there are genuine times when it is necessary to save a nation. It's easy enough to be adamant about this issue but the life of our nation would then depend on the level of "involvement" of average citizens in the world political/military situation. Would you be comfortable with that today? And if we do follow that route and continue to afford EVERYONE on earth our democratic protections then soon enough those democratic protections will be lost to everyone. That's just the way it is.

I am a realist in two senses;

First, I understand that situations sometimes require extreme measures. For instance, the publication of Animal Farm was delayed in Britain because of its anti-Soviet slant. Lies are told to preserve morale. War crimes are covered up. People lose some of their civil rights. France, Britain and America did not have spotless records in either WW1 or WW2, but they still didn't descend to the levels of barbarism seen in Germany, the Soviet Union and the Ottoman Empire. I think every measure passed in times of war has to be examined to determine whether it goes too far, otherwise we lose what we're essentially fighting for.

Second, I don't see any convincing evidence that we are in, or approaching a situation like that. I don't imagine another World War for at least a century. When the population reaches the double digit billions, climate change has caused disruptions in food production and resources are starting to get really sparse, we might see another apocalyptic conflict. I like to think that we have the capability to defeat our self-destructive urges, but I am worried that a century isn't nearly enough time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France, Britain and America did not have spotless records in either WW1 or WW2, but they still didn't descend to the levels of barbarism seen in Germany, the Soviet Union and the Ottoman Empire.

To which level of barbarism did the Soviet Union descend to during WW2, other than the "normal" horrors of war effecting all combatants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.