Fabrics Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Qatar? what did they do? They been funding rebels in syria along with Saudi Arabia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 These Rebels he wants to arm want a strict Islamic law in Syria, if ya reject their teachings then ya automatically an infidel which means death, now their is alot of christians in Syria as well as alawites and different branches of muslims who will be killed because they reject Wahabi (I think it's called ) ...this war in syria is not politically motivated its religiously motivated by terrorists but that bald headed bas@ard doesn't realise it or he does realise and is just a terrorist himself, most syrians support Assad, it was very safe under him, now ya got these rebels in who are destroying it so they can have their own stone age law...christianity will be wiped out if they end up taking control I can see it...Hague hasn't got a clue, he shouldn't be foreign secretary, he's too posh to know what really goes on and just listens to what america says and believes it, what a fool Look on liveleaks, they is alot of videos on there, countless civilians saying what is really happening, doesn't Hague see these, coz if he doesn't he should do...if he sends arms to rebels then British public should sue him America, Britain, Qatar, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the real terrorists in this world while Iran, Syria, Palestine and groups Hamas and hezbollah are defenders... America are even stopping Iran from having nuclear power, all Iran want is nuclear for electricity and so on, not for nuclear weapons...America should keep their nose out and stop making things up like pretending Iran wants and is making nukes when it doesn't and isn't..America just want another war...i hope these Rebels though in Syria keep getting blown to bits Assad has recently done an interview saying how can Britain cut suffering if they are going to arm terrorists and said they are naive , hague responded back saying Assad is delusional, it's Hague who is delusional, Assad is right The above post courtesy of your local Jihadist representative for the Firth Park District Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeefisGod Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 When considering Hague's position you have to consider a few matters about his character and his past some might say he is either a drunkard or a liar: As heir to the Rotherham Hague pop empire he worked on deliveries to pubs around Rotherham between the ages of 15 and 21. He later claimed in a magazine interview that he drank 14 pints of ALE a day as he delivered crates of pop. Hague in 2000: "We used to have a pint at every stop and we used to have about 10 stops a day.You worked hard so you didn't feel you'd drunk 10 pints by four o'clock - you used to sweat so much. "Then we would go home for tea and then go out in the evening to the pub. I think when you're a teenager you can do that." However in two town centre pubs The Angel and County Borough (not noted for being Tory haunts) where he used to deliver, he was known as Billy Fizz or Billy the Pop they said he was talking b@ll@cks and he hardly managed a half. So where does the truth lie? and should a liar or drunkard be in such a position of power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Willies? ... i just wanted to highlight the word willies fnarr fnarr errrrrrrrrm A friend had posted the video on Facebook. I agree with what you say except before the 'rebellion' began, was Assad such a bad fellow? I'd not even heard of him really. I think the Syrian government responded to the rebellion much like anyother would have. i just love these threads so funny the bit ive enboldened says it all really, vresistance just likes to go off on one and slag off our nasty little "regime" without knowing the full facts as usual, sees something on youtube and it must be true true true.........forgetting theres two sides to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 So where does the truth lie? and should a liar or drunkard be in such a position of power? why did you have to mention Winston Churchill on a thread like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Let's start with the basics. Q -Can William Hague be trusted to find his own a*se with both hands? A - No. Next question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 i just wanted to highlight the word willies fnarr fnarr errrrrrrrrm i just love these threads so funny the bit ive enboldened says it all really, vresistance just likes to go off on one and slag off our nasty little "regime" without knowing the full facts as usual, sees something on youtube and it must be true true true.........forgetting theres two sides to it. Is asking a question "going off on one" is it? Go on then 'know it all' fill me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Is asking a question "going off on one" is it? Go on then 'know it all' fill me in. Yes when you've already made up your mind when you ask the question - as you have done on a number of threads you've started - John Hill, JFK, Hollie Greig, HAARP, Common Purpose to name a few. The "technique" of JAQing off is well known. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabrics Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The above post courtesy of your local Jihadist representative for the Firth Park District Hardly, I'm just stating what really goes on, unlike you I'm not bias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Hardly, I'm just stating what really goes on, unlike you I'm not bias The expression you are trying to use is, 'I'm not biased'. You clearly are though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.