On the news the other day I saw there was a protest as the Queen had the Saudi King/president over for a spot of lunch. All the markers were put out for the Arabs, to keep a good relationship with SA.
The British sold a small fleet of jet fighter planes to the Saudi's for x-amount of millions/billions.
The protest was held because the people believed how wrong it was to arm an nation with such a terrible human rights record and so on.
Is there too many ethnics?
by 66-1112520797 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:10 am
Last edited by 66-1112520797 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- 66-1112520797
by 66-1112520797 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:11 am
LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?
Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....
Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.
They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.
1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK
China aren't big suppliers, TMK.
Where do you get your facts from.
They are incorrect.
From my source, that list would be correct.
Your source
Speculation right ?- 66-1112520797
by babu » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:11 am
Small note: Yes, UK does suppy arms to Burma, through private (but government contracted suppliers). If ' internecine ' covers repressing democratic protest through violence, then it supplies to at least one country intent internecine warfare (although not cross-border).
Whether or not its a private company, they can't get there without G to G approval & assistance.
All this is beside the point, IMO. I just refering to a particular question.
Whether or not its a private company, they can't get there without G to G approval & assistance.
All this is beside the point, IMO. I just refering to a particular question.
* * * * *
-
babu - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:28 pm
- Location: Malaysia
by LFC2007 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:12 am
peewee wrote:and of course with china being a communist country you have total access to all their files to back up your claim that they do not provide arms.
just speculation dressed up with good grammar does not make it correct
Erm.. well, I haven't yet claimed to know who China supply illegally with arm's.
Only registered arm's transfers that have been disclosed.
It's not speculation, it's research.
-
LFC2007 - Posts: 7706
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm
- Location: London
by 112-1077774096 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:12 am
LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?
Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....
Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.
They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.
1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK
China aren't big suppliers, TMK.
Where do you get your facts from.
They are incorrect.
From my source, that list would be correct.
yeah big tony down the pub is bound to have his finger on the pulse for arms deals.
the fact is one of you know who supplies what and to who they supply it so its all just speculation, and comments like 'my source' are laughable, I am sure even the SIS do not know everything and even if they did i doubt very much they would divulge their information for no reason to anyone.
unless really you are in MI6
- 112-1077774096
by 112-1077774096 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:15 am
LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:and of course with china being a communist country you have total access to all their files to back up your claim that they do not provide arms.
just speculation dressed up with good grammar does not make it correct
Erm.. well, I haven't yet claimed to know who China supply illegally with arm's.
Only registered arm's transfers that have been disclosed.
It's not speculation, it's research.
i never said you knew who the supplied arms to, i am referring to this comment China aren't big suppliers.
the point i am making is really you know nothing about whether china are big suppliers or not. at no point did i say you knew who china supplied arms to
- 112-1077774096
by LFC2007 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:16 am
peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?
Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....
Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.
They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.
1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK
China aren't big suppliers, TMK.
Where do you get your facts from.
They are incorrect.
From my source, that list would be correct.
yeah big tony down the pub is bound to have his finger on the pulse for arms deals.
the fact is one of you know who supplies what and to who they supply it so its all just speculation, and comments like 'my source' are laughable, I am sure even the SIS do not know everything and even if they did i doubt very much they would divulge their information for no reason to anyone.
unless really you are in MI6
No, not 'laughable', just a source. That description would be reserved for accusations against the U.S. gov't of orchestrating 9/11.
-
LFC2007 - Posts: 7706
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm
- Location: London
by Emerald Red » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:16 am
peewee wrote:yeah big tony down the pub is bound to have his finger on the pulse for arms deals.
LOL
I dare say a few in my local would be up to date on the latest there. I'll ask next time I'm in.
-
Emerald Red - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 7289
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:22 pm
- Location: Ireland
by LFC2007 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:18 am
peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:and of course with china being a communist country you have total access to all their files to back up your claim that they do not provide arms.
just speculation dressed up with good grammar does not make it correct
Erm.. well, I haven't yet claimed to know who China supply illegally with arm's.
Only registered arm's transfers that have been disclosed.
It's not speculation, it's research.
i never said you knew who the supplied arms to, i am referring to this comment China aren't big suppliers.
the point i am making is really you know nothing about whether china are big suppliers or not. at no point did i say you knew who china supplied arms to
'TMK'. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, i.e. from the sources I have seen this would not be the case.
Therefore, it may well be the case that China are big arm's suppliers. Just unregistered arm's transfers.
-
LFC2007 - Posts: 7706
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm
- Location: London
by 112-1077774096 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:19 am
LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?
Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....
Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.
They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.
1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK
China aren't big suppliers, TMK.
Where do you get your facts from.
They are incorrect.
From my source, that list would be correct.
yeah big tony down the pub is bound to have his finger on the pulse for arms deals.
the fact is one of you know who supplies what and to who they supply it so its all just speculation, and comments like 'my source' are laughable, I am sure even the SIS do not know everything and even if they did i doubt very much they would divulge their information for no reason to anyone.
unless really you are in MI6
No, not 'laughable', just a source. That description would be reserved for accusations against the U.S. gov't of orchestrating 9/11.
and your source would be the press? the fact is any figures given on arms deals to any publication will not be a true reflection, if anyone thinks that these companies are open with all their dealings are being naive to the extreme. even if you dig up a listed companies records for a company involved in this business they will not show a true reflection of what has been sold and who has dealt with who.
pure speculation, nothing more and nothing less
- 112-1077774096
by 112-1077774096 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:21 am
LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:and of course with china being a communist country you have total access to all their files to back up your claim that they do not provide arms.
just speculation dressed up with good grammar does not make it correct
Erm.. well, I haven't yet claimed to know who China supply illegally with arm's.
Only registered arm's transfers that have been disclosed.
It's not speculation, it's research.
i never said you knew who the supplied arms to, i am referring to this comment China aren't big suppliers.
the point i am making is really you know nothing about whether china are big suppliers or not. at no point did i say you knew who china supplied arms to
'TMK'. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, i.e. from the sources I have seen this would not be the case.
Therefore, it may well be the case that China are big arm's suppliers. Just unregistered arm's transfers.
so 'to your knowledge' this does not make your assumptions correct, and thats all they are assumptions based on something you may have read, and knowing the press are the bastions of truth then it must be correct
- 112-1077774096
by LFC2007 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:22 am
peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?
Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....
Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.
They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.
1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK
China aren't big suppliers, TMK.
Where do you get your facts from.
They are incorrect.
From my source, that list would be correct.
yeah big tony down the pub is bound to have his finger on the pulse for arms deals.
the fact is one of you know who supplies what and to who they supply it so its all just speculation, and comments like 'my source' are laughable, I am sure even the SIS do not know everything and even if they did i doubt very much they would divulge their information for no reason to anyone.
unless really you are in MI6
No, not 'laughable', just a source. That description would be reserved for accusations against the U.S. gov't of orchestrating 9/11.
and your source would be the press? the fact is any figures given on arms deals to any publication will not be a true reflection, if anyone thinks that these companies are open with all their dealings are being naive to the extreme. even if you dig up a listed companies records for a company involved in this business they will not show a true reflection of what has been sold and who has dealt with who.
pure speculation, nothing more and nothing less
Of course there is margin for error, and the stat's are only conservative estimates.
It's not pure speculation, it's research.
-
LFC2007 - Posts: 7706
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm
- Location: London
by Emerald Red » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:23 am
This reminds me of the film Lord Of War. If you haven't seen it, watch it. It's a good show, and very educational. Even though it's Hollywood, it's still based on real events.
-
Emerald Red - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 7289
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:22 pm
- Location: Ireland
by 66-1112520797 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:24 am
babu wrote:Small note: Yes, UK does suppy arms to Burma, through private (but government contracted suppliers). If ' internecine ' covers repressing democratic protest through violence, then it supplies to at least one country intent internecine warfare (although not cross-border).
Whether or not its a private company, they can't get there without G to G approval & assistance.
All this is beside the point, IMO. I just refering to a particular question.
It would make sense to do business this way, Okay like I mentioned before with selling jets to the Saudi's some of it will make news, dare I say it some of it is realised into the spotlight for all to see.
But with the case of Burma and other countries, the government wouldnt nessercerily smeare their name onto/into every militia, freedom fighter or government they deal with.
So they bascially get a privatised company in, and freelance it to sell.
Last edited by 66-1112520797 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
- 66-1112520797
by LFC2007 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:24 am
peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:LFC2007 wrote:peewee wrote:and of course with china being a communist country you have total access to all their files to back up your claim that they do not provide arms.
just speculation dressed up with good grammar does not make it correct
Erm.. well, I haven't yet claimed to know who China supply illegally with arm's.
Only registered arm's transfers that have been disclosed.
It's not speculation, it's research.
i never said you knew who the supplied arms to, i am referring to this comment China aren't big suppliers.
the point i am making is really you know nothing about whether china are big suppliers or not. at no point did i say you knew who china supplied arms to
'TMK'. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, i.e. from the sources I have seen this would not be the case.
Therefore, it may well be the case that China are big arm's suppliers. Just unregistered arm's transfers.
so 'to your knowledge' this does not make your assumptions correct, and thats all they are assumptions based on something you may have read, and knowing the press are the bastions of truth then it must be correct
I don't think I ever said the info was based on press reports, although press reports constitute one source towards the final list.
To my knowledge, i.e. from trusted research institutes, those stat's would be correct.
-
LFC2007 - Posts: 7706
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm
- Location: London
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests
-
- Advertisement