Illuminati-R-Us

Witn 20,000 more infidel troops going to the land of the two rivers and their infidel pentagon commander saying that 92,000 more will be going, is it time for the Mujadeen to give up? In the name of the Most Merciful, it seems like more than the Mujadeen can handle! I ask you, brothers, at what point does fighting in Iraq become too much ?

Give up? lol, now you know that isn't going to happen. Those people are suicidal radicals, they would attack if they were the last one left against a hundred million.

Seriously, I think it might be a mistake for us not to dialog with Syria. I have seen their propaganda videos and news broadcasts. They seem to think the Americans are like the Nazis or an infidel empire getting a foothold in the middle east just like Nazi invading their first country.

They call their Mujadeen wariors "resistance" fighters. "Resistance" is a word those people seem to throw around when they send their kids out to blow themselves up.

Rice is a bright woman but I think this administration is making a huge goof in not trying to explain themselves to Syria.

Syria is pissed, and with good reason. We basically took a big shit on them by supplying Israel with 3 Billion dollars every year along with a multitude of Artillery and Technology. To step into the way of Religion is to step into the ring of fire. We took a big ass flying acrobatic leap.

They want the Golan Heights back, and I'd say until they get it they will refuse to listen.

Bush gave a good speech didn't he? I could hardly see his eyes move as he read the teleprompter. And his snappy lavender tie matched the backdrop perfectly.

Dragon Star wrote:Syria is pissed, and with good reason. We basically took a big shit on them by supplying Israel with 3 Billion dollars every year along with a multitude of Artillery and Technology. To step into the way of Religion is to step into the ring of fire. We took a big ass flying acrobatic leap.

They want the Golan Heights back, and I'd say until they get it they will refuse to listen.

If Syria wanted the Golan Heights so bad maybe they shouldn't have been part of the '67 war. Just a thought. Not that I blindly support Isreal but come on here - they have returned all the captured land to Eygt after the peace treaty - Syria could have done the same thing at any time and has not. They tried to return the West Bank to Jordan but Jordan doesn't want it back.

Hummm... All the more reason why we should talk to them.

Bill EE wrote:

Dragon Star wrote:Syria is pissed, and with good reason. We basically took a big shit on them by supplying Israel with 3 Billion dollars every year along with a multitude of Artillery and Technology. To step into the way of Religion is to step into the ring of fire. We took a big ass flying acrobatic leap.

They want the Golan Heights back, and I'd say until they get it they will refuse to listen.

If Syria wanted the Golan Heights so bad maybe they shouldn't have been part of the '67 war. Just a thought. Not that I blindly support Isreal but come on here - they have returned all the captured land to Eygt after the peace treaty - Syria could have done the same thing at any time and has not. They tried to return the West Bank to Jordan but Jordan doesn't want it back.

I never said they shouldn't...I'm just saying they won't.

Israel wants to be treated as an Independent State, Syria refuses to comply. Syria wants the Golan Heights back, and Israel refuses to return it and talk without being recognized for their independence.

It's like a game of silence between two mute individuals.

Peace between Israel and Egypt was once thought impossible too.

Hope is abandoned only when we choose to abandon it.

It is too bad that Bush is not more like Jimmy Carter.

Bill EE wrote:Not that I blindly support Isreal but come on here - they have returned all the captured land to Eygt after the peace treaty - Syria could have done the same thing at any time and has not. They tried to return the West Bank to Jordan but Jordan doesn't want it back.

Well, all the captured land except the Gaza strip, which Egypt didn't want back. Generally speaking, claims to parts of mandatory Palestine by outside countries have been relinquished.

But commenting not to you but to the thread participants in general, I think it is a serious mistake to consider every militant in the middle east to be an Islamist. One of the highest-ranking PLO officials was a Christian, makes being an Islamic radical a rather neat trick. . .

Interesting. I wonder what his (the Christian's) name is.

This should be public knowledge in the US so that we stop painting people with a broad brush.

And can be used to push us to what must be done. Sooner or later I think the only way out of this mess is to negotiate and discuss the future of the region with Syrian and Iran. Either we do it next month, we do it next year or we do it years from now. It is the only way I see an end coming. And it is better sooner than later so that less lives are thrown away.

Bill_Thompson wrote:Interesting. I wonder what his (the Christian's) name is.

This should be public knowledge in the US so that we stop painting people with a broad brush.

I don't remember his name. Let me see what I can find. Tariq Aziz (the Iraqi foreign secretary under Saddam Hussein) was also a Christian. The lonely voice of the Shiite in the mostly Sunni government of Saddam Hussein was held by the information minister (a.k.a. Baghdad Bob), who was so kind as to pose for my avatar for a while. I think he is in Dubai now, but I'm not sure. . .

Wiki lists Palestinian Christians including Arafat's mother-in-law.

Israel gave back Sinai since it is valueless desert that simply extended their supply line, the Golan Heights overlook northern Israel and are too useful militarily.

See ya . . .

You aren't the only ones with elections coming up. Smug Tony hopes we'll forgive him and his successors are cacking themselves.

Heid the Ba' wrote:See ya . . .

You aren't the only ones with elections coming up. Smug Tony hopes we'll forgive him and his successors are cacking themselves.

Does there seem like there is much possibility his successor will be someone besides Gordon Brown?

There is an outside chance it could be someone else. Broon was the ideal successor five years ago but there is a feeling that his time may have passed. It is difficult to say who else there is though: Blunkett pissed on his chips (twice), Prescott is a sop to old Labour and isn't up to it, Beckett is too female and embroiled in her own scandal, Reid is a lightning rod for Blair etc. etc.

No when Blair is finally prised out of power it will be Brown. By successors I think I meant the party as a whole since Blair came to power on the New Labour personality cult bandwagon and everyone else followed on.

Edit No. 2. From the BBC today

Edit No1. to add:

We're pulling out 1600 troops and sending the Ginger Prince instead.

Heid the Ba' wrote:We're pulling out 1600 troops and sending the Ginger Prince instead.

When was the last time a royal was killed in combat? (Let's say that Battenberg doesn't count.)

Do you mean Mountbatten? Or are you deliberately re-Germaning him? :D

Off the top of my head: Last king of England killed in battle was Richard III at Bosworth in 1485; last King of Scotland was James IV at Flodden in 1513; I can't think of any major royal who has died in battle since, there will be minor royals.

During the Falklands War in 1982 Andrew was a RN helicopter pilot who flew as an Exocet decoy; you hover between your ship and incoming anti-ship missile, as it gets close it locks onto you, you climb sharply to draw it towards you, the missiles don't climb as fast as you so they pass below you and over the ship. He ain't bright but you can't fault his courage.

There was a huge number of nobles who were distantly related to the royal family killed in the Great War, some in the Second World War.

I'll see what I can dig up.

Heid the Ba' wrote:Do you mean Mountbatten? Or are you deliberately re-Germaning him? :D

Heid the Ba' wrote:Off the top of my head: Last king of England killed in battle was Richard III at Bosworth in 1485;

And we know how that happened.

Wasn't battle, but we did have that unpleasantness in 1649. . .

Royals killed in battle:

After pondering this on the train to work this morning, the best I can come up with is:

Prince Eugene Napoleon (son of Napoleon III) was killed in the Zulu War of 1879 while unofficially attached to the British Army. His Auntie Victoria took it badly.

I recall there being a son of the Pretender to the French throne being killed in Algeria in the early 1960s but haven't looked for details. I don't think he was related to our lot.

The former Prussian royal family often ply their trade in the British Army under the name "von Prussen" or similar; a friend thinks one was killed in Korea. Due to the intermarraige of the protestant royal houses they will be related to Betty somehow.

I have the nagging feeling that at least one of the queen's cousins was killed in WW2 but I think in plane crashes rather than action. Probably a Kent or a Gloucester. I also think some of Phil the Greek's family were killed but more likely strung up by the Albanians than in action.

Deleted until I can get the link to work.

Apologies for bumping an old thread, but I remembered this as we were talking about the Ginger One on another forum.

The Queen's cousin the Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942 while a naval officer.

His son the current DoK and his wife (a spectacularly mad German) are the picture perfect example of inbreeding in action.

Is there a time limit to editing posts? I just wanted to add:

Since this happened in the Ginger Prince's regiment, it really wouldn't do to have him killed in a blue on blue.

Looks like now is the answer to our PM who is embroiled in yet another round of scandals.

It'll all be over by Xmas . . .

Heid the Ba' wrote:Is there a time limit to editing posts?

Yes, four hours, I think. This was implemented after Billy Boy had a meltdown and began to remove many of his posts. Something that I understand has recently recurred elsewhere.

Heid the Ba' wrote: I just wanted to add:

Since this happened in the Ginger Prince's regiment, it really wouldn't do to have him killed in a blue on blue.

It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal.