Iraq And Saudi Arabia Flags

[Pezo]

I am still confused. How are city fans waving a al qaeda flag brings any aknowledgement!!! It is not "their flag" I don't understand your line of thought on this. It makes no sense what so ever. Now if it was a group of al qaeda activists maybe your argument may hold up. But it was apparently a bunch of suited and booted city fans.

All very bizarre and not in the least bit funny.

You're looking at them as just City fans - I'm looking at them as just people, some people have sympathy's with how people in the middle east are treated by our country and maybe even how some of them respond and they want to let others know how they feel - why would they care about where or when you do this? Waiving a flag can be done for a number of reasons and your probably over analysing it.

Because they are suited and booted Bristol City fans does not mean they are or are not Al Qaeda activists.

I agree there is nothing funny about what our country does to\in other countries.

[Pezo]

Fair enough mate. There was an anti-Britain tone developing on this thread based on ignorance and a belief no doubt that its cool to knock this country which is quite ironic when most of the world seems to want to live here.

Britain doesnt have a squeaky clean history but the conduct of UK foreign policy over the past 100 years in terms of protecting opressed minorities, standing up to dictators, justice, liberty and so on would stand up rather well against any other country on the planet.

Well I never meant for the post to get anti British (I see what you mean though), I would never talk down our armed forces - my friends that are in the army are the bravest people I have ever met. I do have a problem with our foreign policy and the jingoistic undertones tones of this thread. I was just trying to hypothesising over why there might have been an al Qaeda flag there.

The problem is that our Government might stand up for oppressed minorities but how many people have to die for it? What gives us the right to impose our will on these countries (against the majority)? and why do we only seem to do it when is suits us?

[Red-Robbo]

.

Because they are suited and booted Bristol City fans does not mean they are or are not Al Qaeda activists.

What a lovely anodyne euphemism that is "activists".

"Activists" who want a worldwide Islamic caliphate and think it's OK to crash aeroplanes into buildings, blow up tourist bars and murder people going to work on trains as a means to that end.

I think you mean "terrorists".

I wasn't in favour of our role in Iraq at all, but I think if your posts suggest that the majority of Afghanis want the Taleban back in power again, you are sadly mistaken. (assuming that's an assertion you are advancing)

[NickJ]

Well I never meant for the post to get anti British (I see what you mean though), I would never talk down our armed forces - my friends that are in the army are the bravest people I have ever met. I do have a problem with our foreign policy and the jingoistic undertones tones of this thread. I was just trying to hypothesising over why there might have been an al Qaeda flag there.

The problem is that our Government might stand up for oppressed minorities but how many people have to die for it? What gives us the right to impose our will on these countries (against the majority)? and why do we only seem to do it when is suits us?

With the possible exception of that nutter Haig in WW1 I dont think our country has ever been responsible for deaths which could have been avoided other than by walking away from the very people that we have gone into protect.

I am not aware of a single situation where Britain has imposed our will on the majority where it was not warranted and probably with the support, morally if not militarily, from most other countries in the world.

Britain does not only get involved in my view when it suits us. To use just one example I dont see what we gained from Bosnia other than the knowledge that Britain did its bit to help keep the peace.

[Pezo]

What a lovely anodyne euphemism that is "activists".

"Activists" who want a worldwide Islamic caliphate and think it's OK to crash aeroplanes into buildings, blow up tourist bars and murder people going to work on trains as a means to that end.

I think you mean "terrorists".

I wasn't in favour of our role in Iraq at all, but I think if your posts suggest that the majority of Afghanis want the Taleban back in power again, you are sadly mistaken. (assuming that's an assertion you are advancing)

It wasn't my word - I used it in response. But the people there at the weekend were certainly not terrorists, just because they had an al Qaeda flag doesn't mean they are terrorists, maybe sympathisers or supporters but they didn't attempt to kill anyone as far as I'm aware. There are left wing and right wing activists all across Europe and there are right wing and left wing terrorist all across Europe but if the ETA flag of the UFF flag was there no one would have probably paid any attention.

[Pezo]

With the possible exception of that nutter Haig in WW1 I dont think our country has ever been responsible for deaths which could have been avoided other than by walking away from the very people that we have gone into protect.

So Iraq - we had to get involved to save people there or did we end up killing more people?

So Afghanistan - we had to get involved there or did we end up turning more people to terrorism due to killing their friends and family?

I am not aware of a single situation where Britain has imposed our will on the majority where it was not warranted and probably with the support, morally if not militarily, from most other countries in the world.

So Libya - we did go against the majority of the country that supported Gaddafi. Who cares if it was supported by other countries the majority of Libyan were the ones that have to suffer who supported Gaddafi. Gaddafi could have been dealt with a long time ago but instead we wait.

Britain does not only get involved in my view when it suits us. To use just one example I dont see what we gained from Bosnia other than the knowledge that Britain did its bit to help keep the peace.

So Syria - were not getting involved there because?

Saudi Arabia - brutally put down its uprising, why are we not dropping bombs there? In fact why do we cosy up to that regime?

[Barrs Court Red]

Iraq - I'd agree the aim seems suspect - WMD's and terrorist training. Both turned out false. The invasion operation was surgical and well implemented. The aftermath was a shambles, but it is easy in hindsight to say that. An insurgency wasn't expected. Most of those killed in Iraq were killed by insurgents killing in the name of religion, supported by either Iran or elements of the old regime.

Afghanistan. Life is far better for the vast majority than under the taliban. It's a documented fact that the Taliban were allowing jihadist groups to train there unmolested. British troops and other British forces have been involved in very few documented civilian deaths. Compare that to an enemy that trains boys with special needs to blow themselves up I a crowded market, because the town dared to educate girls.

Libya. Show some facts other than the crap spouted on RT. the fact that support for the regime melted away without a fight tells you how unpopular it was in a country still captivated by tribal loyalty. The country was in a state of civil war and the loyalists were openly ordered to wipe out everyone in Masrattah. If we'd stood by while the tanks ran over children, how happy would you be with that?

Syria - we're not involved because unlike Libya there isn't a civil war, yet, despite the efforts of Sky News to say otherwise. Not only that, Syria still has some very powerfull friends who would probably support a pretty nasty insurrection not unlike what we saw in Iraq.

Saudi - see Syria.

If you want to poke holes in our intervention policy you could of course highlight the genocide in Rwanda or the civil war in the congo. Of course RT never seems to mention these conflicts so it never seems to be mentioned by appeasers.

[Red-Robbo]

It wasn't my word - I used it in response. But the people there at the weekend were certainly not terrorists, just because they had an al Qaeda flag doesn't mean they are terrorists, maybe sympathisers or supporters but they didn't attempt to kill anyone as far as I'm aware. There are left wing and right wing activists all across Europe and there are right wing and left wing terrorist all across Europe but if the ETA flag of the UFF flag was there no one would have probably paid any attention.

Try flying an ETA flag at a Spanish game and see how long you last. You'd be calling for the Policia to eject you from the stadium to save your life!

Why should we tolerate the brandishing or even the sale of an emblem showing support for an organization which has murdered men, women and children on British soil (and continues to attempt to do so)?

I suspect the blokes in suits had no idea what flag it was - in which case they were merely bellends - however it is worrying that you can even get this flag in the UK.

[bywaterred]

Where these guys white English lads?

[Lita For Congo]

Where these guys white English lads?

[City Ben]

Syria - we're not involved because unlike Libya there isn't a civil war, yet, despite the efforts of Sky News to say otherwise. Not only that, Syria still has some very powerfull friends who would probably support a pretty nasty insurrection not unlike what we saw in Iraq.

Saudi - see Syria.

[bywaterred]

Yes.

Bit odd for them to have flags like that. Prob just pissed up and thought it was funny. Prob not wise to bring them into the east en this weekend ?

[Riaz]

Bit odd for them to have flags like that. Prob just pissed up and thought it was funny. Prob not wise to bring them into the east en this weekend ?

Pissed up on the day. But I doubt they were pissed up when they decided to go and buy the flags....

[Red-Robbo]

Guys I am in Saudi right this minute. It's really not that bad. There's no "brutal put downs of insurgents" or such like. Yes it is a different way of governing a country, it's not a democracy and that seems to be widely accepted as just being "wrong". But I don't think I'm being naive to say that, by and large, it works for the Saudis. People here are happy. When the government sensed some sense of unrest it didn't kill people, it announced national holidays and gave public sector employees (quite a lot of the population) massive pay rises. Outstanding.

Most of the unrest has been in parts of Saudi Arabia that are majority Shia, Ben. That's areas of the south-east mainly, not the main places Westerners live in. That's why it has been little reported.

[Pezo]

Guys I am in Saudi right this minute. It's really not that bad. There's no "brutal put downs of insurgents" or such like. Yes it is a different way of governing a country, it's not a democracy and that seems to be widely accepted as just being "wrong". But I don't think I'm being naive to say that, by and large, it works for the Saudis. People here are happy. When the government sensed some sense of unrest it didn't kill people, it announced national holidays and gave public sector employees (quite a lot of the population) massive pay rises. Outstanding.

Im sure its not that bad right now but it was looking rough back in March until they basically bribed everyone with money stolen from them in the first place through the stealing of oil rich land.

If I have the wrong end of the stick please let me know.

[bywaterred]

Pissed up on the day. But I doubt they were pissed up when they decided to go and buy the flags....

Fair play that's a good point. Country flags fair enough but a terrorist group is out of order.