What's the most ridiculous argument you've ever heard??

Carlos Orange · 11-06-2014 12:03PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Can you imagine how mad things would be today if Saddam was still alive?

Any madder than the current state of Iraq?

danniemcq · 11-06-2014 12:12PM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I honestly think Bush believed he was a clear and present threat to at least some extent and feared him aligning with Al Qaeda. (Stranger alliances have occurred in the past- Nazi Germany aligned with everyone from Russian communists, Japanese imperialists and Arabs. All three regarded as inferior races, and communism regarded as much as a threat to Germany as Jewish economic power).

I gotta disagree with the Al-Qaeda/Saddam link. They were opposed in pretty much anyway they could bar their hatred of the west.

Osama offered mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia to defend against Saddam in Gulf War 1

Osama hated Saddam

Hamid Mir, bin Laden's Pakistani biographer, spoke to him in 1997: He condemned Saddam Hussein in my interview. He gave such kind of abuses that it was very difficult for me to write, [calling Hussein a] socialist mother****er. [He said], "The land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is ****ing his mother." He also explained that Saddam Hussein is against us, and he discourages Iraqi boys to come to Afghanistan.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090216031256/http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=233

The founder of the ba'ath party was also Christian which Osama didn't like

Then there was the conflicts where Saddam supported (i guess in Osamas opinion) the wrong side

from wikipedia

during the Lebanese Civil War, he supported Michel Aoun and the Christian Maronite Forces as opposed to Amal Movement or Hezbollah, which were funded by Iran and most other Arab countries.

Saddam had a multi denominational government, abolished Sharia courts and promoted western ideals.

Osama also supposidly supported Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq too.

Whatever differences allies had in WW2 this ran much deeper.

Also whatever hope/chance there was of Iraq not being linked to Al-Qaeda there is this comment

In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he said, "Needless to say, this crusade war is primarily targeted against the people of Islam. Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist [Ba'th] party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad." Bin Laden went on to observe that "socialists are infidels," implying that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim.

So you have the haterd of saddam still but also the willingness to defend Iraq

Shakespeare's Sister · 11-06-2014 12:14PM

"Ireland will be taken over by sharia."

When asked for something to support this claim, its proponents just get all upset and angry.

danniemcq · 11-06-2014 12:24PM

Magaggie wrote: »

"Ireland will be taken over by sharia."

When asked for something to support this claim, its proponents just get all upset and angry.

Was it an EDL march a year ago or something that one of the guys claimed that they had "muslamic ray guns" or something?

wretcheddomain · 11-06-2014 12:25PM

That Sinn Fein would fix the economy and be the only party in the world to adhere to its promises.

Sunglasses Ron · 11-06-2014 12:36PM

danniemcq wrote: »

Was it an EDL march a year ago or something that one of the guys claimed that they had "muslamic ray guns" or something?

Bloke gave off the impression of being an opposition plant in fairness.

They probably do attract a scummier subsection of UK society but they speak a fair few real grievances that many people in these areas have that the established parties simply refuse to deal with. I have honestly never met one person, out of a cross section of people of varying education levels (unskilled, tradesmen, uni graduates) from the likes of Lancashire, Birmingham, Luton and Yorkshire who does not agree with at least a substantial amount of the views of the EDL. Self segregation, full burqas and attitudes towards local women being the top three gripes that keep coming up.

It is just too many people from too much of a cross section of society to write their concerns off as baseless racism.

Again though, as with UKIP, if it hadn't been for the state ordered political correctness of the Blair years the EDL nor UKIP would have ever had any support.

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 12:43PM

JeffKenna wrote: »

You surely don't believe that world super powers can just go in and invade a country based on lies?

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and now he is dead and gone. If the US lied about WMD so they could have an excuse to overthrow him I really don't care. An Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball aka Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi fed the Americans and British the faulty intelligence. He did so deliberately so that Saddam would be overthrown.

Where is the proof of these hundreds of thousands of people that he murdered?

Hundreds of thousands of bodies were dug up after the overthrow of regime. Those were the bodies of men women and children gassed or shot by Saddam's regime and bulldozed into mass graves.

I do realise he murdered people but any figure I heard has not come close to the number of dead following the invasion and the mess the country has been in since.

You clearly haven't an iota of a clue what you are talking about.
The majority of the dead since 2003 were murdered by Sunni and Shia extremists in bomb and gun massacres.
Innocent civilians blown to pieces by suicide bombers and shot or beheaded after being abducted from their homes.

danniemcq · 11-06-2014 12:43PM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Bloke gave off the impression of being an opposition plant in fairness.

They probably do attract a scummier subsection of UK society but they speak a fair few real grievances that many people in these areas have that the established parties simply refuse to deal with.

I wouldn't call him a plant, more of a tulip in fairness.

And I know all EDL supporters aren't the same, and the UKIP parties do make good points and will take a huge percentage of the vote when other parties refuse to discuss what is important to people.

But having watched several documentaries on the group the majority (at least on the streets) of EDL members are exactly like what you would think of when you think EDL.

old hippy · 11-06-2014 12:48PM

EDL/BNP/UKIP types claiming that "they're coming to take our jobs" whilst simultaneously claiming "they're coming to sponge off our welfare" Which is it, lads? You can't have it both ways...

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 12:48PM

psinno wrote: »

Any madder than the current state of Iraq?

Iraq has a democratic constitution, elected President, elected Prime Minister, elected parliament and local government and judicial independence. It has a chance at a free democratic future. Under Saddam the only future was more tyranny and oppression. The bloodshed today is caused by Sunnis and Shias fighting each other for power. There should be international mediation between both sides. There was no chance of Iraq ever moving on under Saddam.

Optimalprimerib · 11-06-2014 12:50PM

I got a punch in the face once for being a rude bastard and not aknowledging him as he skipped the queue.

LorMal · 11-06-2014 12:51PM

Corrk is de reel capitil...

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 12:56PM

danniemcq wrote: »

The issue was never that he wasn't a bad man, that went without saying.

The main issue was we were told lies to start a war. People knew this and didn't want it to happen.

If they wanted they could have said this guy is a dictator and we are going to overthrow him for democracy but then they would also have to do the same to many of their allies and not only them but also Governments that wouldn't have been as easy a walk over as Iraq was.

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

JeffKenna · 11-06-2014 12:58PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

That's laughable. What future do the Iraqis have?? Turn on the news once in a while!

wretcheddomain · 11-06-2014 01:00PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

The consequences of your atrocious post are:

International law means nothing
What about the million dead Iraqi's who have no future and died due to (1) - are they dispensable?
I oppose a complete smoking ban but I don't support smoking so your last point is fallacious to say the least.
You fail to factor in the atomisation of Iraq by forces such as Al Qaeda, assuming they're a more refined way to operate Iraq currently than under Saddam.

Sunglasses Ron · 11-06-2014 01:04PM

old hippy wrote: »

EDL/BNP/UKIP types claiming that "they're coming to take our jobs" whilst simultaneously claiming "they're coming to sponge off our welfare" Which is it, lads? You can't have it both ways...

Different groups provide different reasons for opposition.

Most East European groups would provide more competition in terms of undercutting wages to established tradesmen in the construction sector and the haulage industry. Whether these rates of pay were over charged in the old days is another debate.

Others are competing with the likes of students in the part time sector (i.e. a local student will find it harder to obtain a three nights per week supermarket job when there are five Latvians who will do 60 hours over six days a week).

Like it or not the native student should be allowed to come of age in a society where he can get a few hours work per week the same way those in power making decisions did in their own college days.

Whereas groups like East European Roma and Irish travellers are more likely to come purely to claim welfare and engage in criminality. Both groups having an extremely negligible rate of acquiring employment in any type of real job.

But you already knew that, so why ask?

osarusan · 11-06-2014 01:06PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever.

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 01:07PM

JeffKenna wrote: »

That's laughable. What future do the Iraqis have?? Turn on the news once in a while!

So you think Iraqis are too backward and too uncivilized to run their country for themselves? Arabs should only be ruled by psychopaths like Saddam or Assad or else maniacs like the Muslim Brotherhood? Tens of millions of Arabs want the same freedoms you and I enjoy. You should be supporting them not throwing your hands up in the air or turning your back.

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 01:09PM

osarusan wrote: »

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever.

If the 2003 invasion had not gone ahead Saddam and his sons would still be in power. So if you opposed the war you in effect were giving your support to Saddam. What alternative for the future of the beknighted country was there except to see the back of him? Whatever progress Iraqis can make is only possible now. Bloodshed was all but inevitable as occurred in previous decades in other countries when dictators and tyrants came crashing down.

osarusan · 11-06-2014 01:10PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So if you opposed the war you in effect were giving your support to Saddam.

Still one of the most ridiculous arguments ever.

danniemcq · 11-06-2014 01:11PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

Hah that’s a terrible argument! Can i use that as an example in this thread?

Saying that someone supported Saddam because they were opposed to the worlds largest military power creating blatant lies about WMDs, vague links to the September 11th attacks, and saying that they could launch attacks within X amount of minutes in order to start an illegal invasion against a foreign country.

Not only this but they tried to get the UN involved and when they were told to cop on and didn't get the support they and their best bro Great Britain just went ahead and invaded anyway.

This is the reason I was opposed to the war. I completely agreed that Saddam had to go but don't lie to me like I’m a child. Especially when their other buddies are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. Look at Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Bahrain and even though its not a dictatorship look at the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians from Israel with the direct support of the US.

I don't understand how someone can say "So what if we were told lies to start a war?" That to me is terrifying attitude to have.

brooke 2 · 11-06-2014 01:11PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Full moons do make people mad. It's OK for scientist and their 'confirmation bias' baloney, they don't have to live in the real world.

Ask any nurses who are on night duty when there is a full moon!!

JeffKenna · 11-06-2014 01:14PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So you think Iraqis are too backward and too uncivilized to run their country for themselves? Arabs should only be ruled by psychopaths like Saddam or Assad or else maniacs like the Muslim Brotherhood? Tens of millions of Arabs want the same freedoms you and I enjoy. You should be supporting them not throwing your hands up in the air or turning your back.

But Iraq was a democracy...didn't you see those those elections where Saddam was getting 99% of the votes?
Quite popular by all accounts.

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 01:16PM

I don't understand how someone can say "So what if we were told lies to start a war?" That to me is terrifying attitude to have.

You are jaw droppingly naive.
Do you think World War 2 was really about Poland? Or World War 1 was really about the assassination the the Grand Duke in Sarajevo or the rape of nuns in Belgium by advancing German troops? The "liberation" of Kuwait was really about babies killed in their incubators by Iraqi soldiers?

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 01:16PM

JeffKenna wrote: »

But Iraq was a democracy...didn't you see those those elections where Saddam was getting 99% of the votes?
Quite popular by all accounts.

Give me a break!:rolleyes:

wretcheddomain · 11-06-2014 01:18PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You are jaw droppingly naive.
Do you think World War 2 was really about Poland? Or World War 1 was really about the assassination the the Grand Duke in Sarajevo or the rape of nuns in Belgium by advancing German troops?

Hitler lied continuously to engage in acts of war, so according to your own thesis, you'd have to support Hitler's invasion of Poland.

That's why it's an extraordinarily ridiculous argument you're putting forward.

Moreover, would you feel comfortable if your son was sent to war and died on a false pretext given by government?

sbsquarepants · 11-06-2014 01:20PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

JeffKenna wrote: »

That's laughable. What future do the Iraqis have?? Turn on the news once in a while!

I would hazard a guess that the average Iraqi now pines for the good old days under Saddam. And anybody that thinks either George Bush or Tony Blair gave a flying fúck about the plight of the average Iraqi is about as naïve as it is possible to be. The Kuwaitis and the Saudis are every bit as bad, but somehow they're the good guys.

Azwaldo55 · 11-06-2014 01:24PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Hitler lied continuously to engage in acts of war, so according to your own thesis, you'd have to support Hitler's invasion of Poland.

That's why it's an extraordinarily ridiculous argument you're putting forward.

The British goal in World War 2 was about saving its empire. The French were less interested in resisting Germany than stopping the British and Americans from grabbing their colonies.
The Americans only got involved in the war when its interests were attacked by Japan and when Nazi Germany started to lose to Soviet Russia.
The murder of Jews or the suffering of occupied peoples had nothing to do with why the power elite in Britain and America went to war.

oldyouth · 11-06-2014 01:24PM

Back in the 80's, prior to a divorce referendum, an anti-divorce campaigner and I got in to a heated argument when he insisted that divorce would be compulsory if the legislation was passed

Couldn't get through to him the absurdity of what he was saying

Reekwind · 11-06-2014 01:29PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war?

If you have to tell a lie to start a war then the odds are that you don't have a leg to stand on in the first place.

If, for example, Blair and Bush had stood up in 2003 and told the world that there were no WMDs and that the purpose of the war was purely improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis... well, people might have pointed out the small flaws in that plan. Like the fact that a decade after the war Iraq is still wracked by violence and Baghdad government is still struggling to control much of the country. Or other minor difficulties.

Which may be why the US and UK governments decided to lead with sensationalist lies (did you hear: Saddam was behind 9/11) and sexed up dossiers. And that (ie lying) is nothing less than a perversion of the democratic process.

What's the most ridiculous argument you've ever heard??

Comments