Deploy troops in Iran...!

[Trumble]

Actually they were British Navy personnel (UK Sailors), meaning they were in fact combatants.

I take it then you would have no objections to any Iranian military ships/boats being attacked by British and American ships and planes the moment they leave port? Or even before they do? Surely any Iranian sailors, soldiers, Revolutionary Guards etc must by the same logic also be 'combatants' and therefore legitimate targets?

Have the Iranian military done something to upset you at some stage?!

 

[snakelegs]

Doesn't sound like they hold out much hope of it working though.

no - in fact it looks like it is getting worse. the longer it goes on, the scarier it gets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 

[Trumble]

The fact that we would have been gone in a year if Muslim States and western-hating jihadists would just curb their love of blowing civilians to bits for 5 flaming minuites.

Ironic, isn't it? Quite true, though. If the various Iraqi groups just stopped killing both each other and innocent people for a month, there would be no US troops there after a further month, let alone a year. They would jump at the chance to get out.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

I don't think it's a war on Islam llike Talha states. Though you can see a pattern forming....

As for killing the Navy prisoners, well if they did they'd lose my support then (see how upset they are ) I stand by them for showing defiance and trying to obtain what those that object have. But killing innocent people is not accepted

''President George W Bush has condemned Iran's "inexcusable behaviour" after its capture of 15 Royal Navy personnel.

The US leader added that he would "strongly support" the British government over the crisis''

ooo how lucky we are eh....

 

[Trumble]

As for killing the Navy prisoners, well if they did they'd lose my support then (see how upset they are ) I stand by them for showing defiance and trying to obtain what those that object have. But killing innocent people is not accepted

You don't accept that there is a certain contradiction in applauding Iranian "defiance" while acknowledging that the British hostages/prisoners are "innocent"?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

You don't accept that there is a certain contradiction in applauding Iranian "defiance" while acknowledging that the British hostages/prisoners are "innocent"?

No!

They stand up to the US/UK that's fine. But taking prisoners (though they seem chirpy which you can see from the body language) and killing them as Taha said would be wrong.

 

[Trumble]

No!

They stand up to the US/UK that's fine. But taking prisoners (though they seem chirpy which you can see from the body language) and killing them as Taha said would be wrong.

So killing innocent people is wrong but taking them prisoner is both perfectly acceptable and represents "standing up" to the US and UK?

So say, for example, the Brits send a special forces squad or two into Iran to "arrest" a few Revolutionary Guards who strayed anywhere near the border. The Iranians are then not killed (which obviously would be wrong, as well as counter-productive) but are held prisoner until the Iranians demonstrate a "more moderate approach" to the hostage issue. Would that represent "standing up" to the Iranians? Or are only they allowed to "stand up" while everybody else must lie down?

 

[Cognescenti]

You seem to forget that America empowered Saddam Hussein, helping him build up a massive military and equipping him to invade Iran after the Islamic Revolution. Saddam Hussein indirectly murdered millions of Muslims, including those who resisted him. Where was America then? America was on his side, he was their puppet, just like nearly every other dictator in the Muslim countries. Now America has invaded Iraq, carpet bombed innocent people and tortured their "prisoners" and thinks that it does not deserve to have Muslims resist them. America has their cake and wants to eat it too.

Wow, Talha. Where DO you get your information?

...."Carpet bombing"? That is preposterous.

...."You seem to forget that America empowered Saddam Hussein, helping him build up a massive military and equipping him to invade Iran after the Islamic Revolution." No, I didn't forget that. Do you want to know why? Because I never learned that. Do you want to know why I never learned that? Because it's demonstrably false. Iraq's weapons:

1) Armored vehicles: Russia (USSR)
2) Aircraft: Russia and France, (6-8 unarmed Bell helicopters from the US..the kind traffic reporters use, likely some commercial airliners from the US but I'm not sure about that)
3) Artillery: Russia..they tried to make a super long range gun with smuggled steel but the Israelis assassinated the Canadian gun designer
4) Surface to Surface missiles: Russia and China
5) Surface to Air missiles: Russian and Ukraine
6) Assault rifles: Russia and China
7) Bunker technology: mainly German
8) Chemical weapons: Homemade
9) Nuclear weapons: Tried to make. Never succeeded because the US and the UK stood up to them. French and Russians and Pakistanis tired to help the Iraqis....for a lot of money of course.


You need to read something other than web-based propaganda pages.

 

[Cognescenti]

No!

They stand up to the US/UK that's fine. But taking prisoners (though they seem chirpy which you can see from the body language) and killing them as Taha said would be wrong.

On a more personal level, how would you feel if someone took you hostage purely to make a political point? There is a reason kidnapping has some of the harshest penalties under the law.

Simply being the underdog does not give one a pass on moral behavior

 

[barney]

he built a monument of himself(you prolly seen it being destroyed) Shirk - is such a sin which basicly makes you non-muslim.

Saddam pretended to be muslim like any other Arab nation's leader pretends to be muslim.If carrying 15 foot high placards of your religious leaders is haram then a lot of people would seem to be in deep trouble.

Anyhow, the fact that Saddam was secular himself dosnt change anything about how he ran the country. (apart from the west then have apparently liberated the Muslims from a SECULAR murderous dictator. Sheesh..it just keeps getting better.)

Tell you what. We'll keep protecting and helping the Iraqi people, you keep giving your support to their killers.

Still havnt got a answer? Just keep changing tack to the next standard response, I've heard em all..What about using

"The US wants control of Iraq's oil" next. Thats always a great one. Go on try that!"

 

[Cognescenti]

Saddam pretended to be muslim like any other Arab nation's leader pretends to be muslim.If carrying 15 foot high placards of your religious leaders is haram then a lot of people would seem to be in deep trouble.

Anyhow, the fact that Saddam was secular himself dosnt change anything about how he ran the country. (apart from the west then have apparently liberated the Muslims from a SECULAR murderous dictator. Sheesh..it just keeps getting better.)

Tell you what. We'll keep protecting and helping the Iraqi people, you keep giving your support to their killers.

Still havnt got a answer? Just keep changing tack to the next standard response, I've heard em all..What about using

"The US wants control of Iraq's oil" next. Thats always a great one. Go on try that!"

What he said!

The fact that SH was not a practicing Muslim, an argument I freely accept, even further undercuts this preposterous argument that it is the duty of all Muslims to respond to an attack on their bretheren. If SH were not Muslim and he killed more Muslims even than Joseph Stalin, then where were the jihadists?

They should have been volunteering to walk through Iraqi minefields and be mown down with mustard gas. Aren't former Muslims the worst? After all, average ordinary infidels may simply not have had a chance to find out about Islam. SH was raised under Islam and rejected it. Doesn't that make him an apsotate? He purposely limited its free expression under his reign. Do Arabs get a free pass when they kill Muslims? Is that it? Could someone please explain to us "Westerners" what exactly constitutes a "war on Islam"? I can tell you, it seems very confusing from my perspective. In fact, it seems puerile and transparently self-serving. I can't believe so many Muslims accept this without question.

Note, I am not asking what it says in the Quran. I am asking why the selective application of Islamic values. I seriously doubt there is a theological explanation. I think there are many hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of unsophisticated but fervent Muslims being cynically and cruelly manipulated by alleged "wisemen". It is a vile and ultimately self-destructive game.

 

[barney]

I can imagine this guy sitting there..

"Does....not ....compute...."

"Whole...Ideology.....slipping......"

Ahh never mind Tallah. Just back fighting us because "we're different" that will do , saves you having to think.

Also I beleive Britain sold Iraq 4 helecopters, (lynxes I recall). The Russians sold him 7000 odd Armored Vehicals and 400 jets.

It truely is incredible that people can look at a entire army carrying AKM's and driving in Gaz Trucks and blame it's actions on America. Sure the US backed Saddam Politically. He was against the Ayatolla "Peadeophillia is permissable" Khomeini.

 

[Talha777]

I take it then you would have no objections to any Iranian military ships/boats being attacked by British and American ships and planes the moment they leave port? Or even before they do? Surely any Iranian sailors, soldiers, Revolutionary Guards etc must by the same logic also be 'combatants' and therefore legitimate targets?

Have the Iranian military done something to upset you at some stage?!

In this war there is a good side and an evil side. America is the evil side, the agent of Satan, as is Britain. When the Iranians kill American and British combatants or take them prisoners such as the British sailors, that is 100% justified. When the British and Americans invade Muslim countries, bomb, pillage, rape, torture, and slaughter innocent Muslims, that is never justified. Likewise British or American military counterattacking Muslim resistance is never justified.

The British sailors are not innocent, they are combatants. They signed up and volunteered to join their military which invaded Iraq. I don't support the troops, I think they deserve to die and go to hell. May Allah Taala hasten their deaths, but give the martyrs of His cause everlasting salvation. Ameen.

1) Armored vehicles: Russia (USSR)
2) Aircraft: Russia and France, (6-8 unarmed Bell helicopters from the US..the kind traffic reporters use, likely some commercial airliners from the US but I'm not sure about that)
3) Artillery: Russia..they tried to make a super long range gun with smuggled steel but the Israelis assassinated the Canadian gun designer
4) Surface to Surface missiles: Russia and China
5) Surface to Air missiles: Russian and Ukraine
6) Assault rifles: Russia and China
7) Bunker technology: mainly German
8) Chemical weapons: Homemade
9) Nuclear weapons: Tried to make. Never succeeded because the US and the UK stood up to them. French and Russians and Pakistanis tired to help the Iraqis....for a lot of money of course.

The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks. The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country) and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq. In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.

 

[aamirsaab]

36 pages on this topic. Most word affairs topics are over in 3.

Say adios thread, cus this it's getting locked. Don't whinge, don't complain. Instead, have a break, have a kitkat, do some star jumps.