• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain's Lord Nazir Ahmed Offers £10 Million Bounty for Obama, Bush

Well, considering the source and the location, it still seems very believable to everybody except the confirmed anti-American Islamic extremist bunch.

I'm sure the Labour Party 'investigation' will completely exonerate him however.

Considering the source it looks like a deliberate attempt to degrade Lord Ahmed for political purposes. He did mentioned he expressed his opinion of Gaza.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a Middle Eastern not for profit[1] press monitoring organization with headquarters located in Washington, DC. MEMRI was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist.

Middle East Media Research Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This time it appears Lord Ahmed is confident he can easily show he is being libelled. What surprised him was that people, even initially the BBC believed it.

Looks like we are going to have to watch his back.
 
Aaaaahhhh, the Jews! It's always the Jews with you folks, isn't it?
 
The UN Charter does not, and will never, supercede the Constitution of the United States or the laws. Unlike you in Europe, we will not turn our sovereignty over to a pack of foreigners.

See article 6, paragraph 2 of your constitution.
 
Last edited:
Except its all very relative, isnt it? Was Bush a 'war criminal' for detaining people at GITMO? IS Obama?

No Bush is a war criminal for launching a war of aggression. Gitmo is certainly against U.S law though (and even the lowest standards of human decency)
 
Aaaaahhhh, the Jews! It's always the Jews with you folks, isn't it?

I would not know that Wiggen but you said the source was important and the link i gave you was to the source. Not 'the Jews' but yes, Israel. You were the person who said the source was important and I agree with you. Do not now try to pull the antisemitism card.
 
Well, considering the source and the location, it still seems very believable to everybody except the confirmed anti-American Islamic extremist bunch.

I'm sure the Labour Party 'investigation' will completely exonerate him however.

Where is this supposed bias in favour of Islamic extremism on the part of the Labour party. Their foreign policy was indistinguishable from that of the U.S when they were in power on almost everything regarding the Middle East and South Asia.
 
Last edited:
I would not know that Wiggen but you said the source was important and the link i gave you was to the source. Not 'the Jews' but yes, Israel. You were the person who said the source was important and I agree with you. Do not now try to pull the antisemitism card.

But then we will have to discuss things rationally :(
 
Where is this supposed bias in favour of Islamic extremism on the part of the Labour party. Their foreign policy was indistinguishable from that of the U.S when they where in power on almost everything regarding the Middle East and South Asia.

They have been since Blair became Leader.
 
No Bush is a war criminal for launching a war of aggression. Gitmo is certainly against U.S law though (and even the lowest standards of human decency)

By this post alone you identify yourself as nothing but another anti-American extremist. And no, we do not surrender our national soverignty, especially to that pack of third world bandits in the United Nations. We leave that to folks like you.
 
Where is this supposed bias in favour of Islamic extremism on the part of the Labour party. Their foreign policy was indistinguishable from that of the U.S when they were in power on almost everything regarding the Middle East and South Asia.

Yes, but that was before you decided to get rid of Blair and replaced him with a true 'leftist'.
 
But then we will have to discuss things rationally :(

Anybody who proclaims Bush is a war criminal isn't interested in discussing anything rationally. Nor is anybody who consistantly defends Islamic extremists and constanty engages in anti-American rhetoric of the most infantile kind.
 
I would not know that Wiggen but you said the source was important and the link i gave you was to the source. Not 'the Jews' but yes, Israel. You were the person who said the source was important and I agree with you. Do not now try to pull the antisemitism card.

YOu are one person that nobody ever needs to pull the anti-semitism card on. They just have to read your posts, and more specifically, who you always cite as your sources.
 
By this post alone you identify yourself as nothing but another anti-American extremist. And no, we do not surrender our national soverignty, especially to that pack of third world bandits in the United Nations. We leave that to folks like you.

Article 6 paragraph 2.
 
See article 6, paragraph 2 of your constitution.

Article 6, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution does not give the United Nations any authority over the United States.
 
Yes, but that was before you decided to get rid of Blair and replaced him with a true 'leftist'.

And what have Brown and Miliband done in support of Islamic extremism?
 
Yes, but that was before you decided to get rid of Blair and replaced him with a true 'leftist'.

Ha ha, Ed Miliband, got you scared? Jewish with anti Zionist dad and Mum a member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. His position no one knows.
 
Article 6, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution does not give the United Nations any authority over the United States.

No but it does make the UN Charter, a treaty to which you are a signatory to, a legally binding part of U.S law forbidding acts of aggression against other UN members.
 
Anybody who proclaims Bush is a war criminal isn't interested in discussing anything rationally. Nor is anybody who consistantly defends Islamic extremists and constanty engages in anti-American rhetoric of the most infantile kind.

Show me where i defend them. I spent the last 5 minutes explaining your constitution to you, you could at least return the favor
 
Last edited:
And what have Brown and Miliband done in support of Islamic extremism?

Well, they tolerate Islamic exremists like this 'Lord' in their Party. How did he actually become a member of the House of Lords anyway? I know you have a fine tradition of appointing all sorts of moral degenerates into the House of Lords, but having an actual honest to god terrorist sympathizer takes it one step further.

Still, he and Galloway can at least have somebody of a like mind to talk to.
 
Show me where i defend them.

Well, this entire thread would be one example.

Bush is a war criminal? Straight from the extremist playbook
 
Well, this entire thread would be one example.

Bush is a war criminal? Straight from the UN Charter, which as per article 6 of the U.S charter is a legally binding part of U.S law

Fixed it for you. A number of non-Islamist judges are with me on this also.
 
No but it does make the UN Charter, a treaty to which you are a signatory to, a legally binding part of U.S law forbidding acts of aggression against other UN members.

Listen, if you want to actually believe that the United States is bound by the Charter of the United Nations, then be my guest. No President, no politician would survive for a minute if they publicly announced they were surrendering the soverignty of the United States to a pack of barely literate, anti American foreigners.

But believe what you like.
 
Well, they tolerate Islamic exremists like this 'Lord' in their Party. How did he actually become a member of the House of Lords anyway? I know you have a fine tradition of appointing all sorts of moral degenerates into the House of Lords, but having an actual honest to god terrorist sympathizer takes it one step further.

Still, he and Galloway can at least have somebody of a like mind to talk to.

Suspending an investigating him his hardly tolerating, and Galloway was kicked out of the party long ago for the very reasons i described.
 
Fixed it for you. A number of non-Islamist judges are with me on this also.

How many Americans? The fact that loony left judges agree with you is meaningless. The loony left are bosom buddies of Islamic extremistst. This is hardly ground breaking news.
 
Back
Top Bottom