• 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!

Disgusting behavior of British muslims to troops returning from Iraq

what if 13 (wasn't it more?) crazy americans took out equivalent structures in SA?
do you really think the ME would have taken that lying down?

They would have tracked down the people behind it and stone them in public as a deterrant
 
And how long should Saddam been allowed to skirt the UN mandates on him? Until he successfully got them lifted and pursued his goals? Why was it ok in your mind for Saddam to break international law unchecked, and not ok for anyone else?

No, they took down threats to their own power by killing them. Extremists were just fine if they were in agreement with Saddam and his goals. Remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ;)


j-mac

Because every country in this world has broken some form of international law at one point or another. It's only when it's Iraq did we get all crazy.

The enemy is Afghanistan and Iraq would have been our ally if we were intelligent enough to realise it.
 
We should not have touched Iraq.
Afghanistan should have been our main target but nooo, US and UK attacked Saddam who's enemy was Bin Laden and took down a regime which controlled Extremists by killing them :|

Firstly it would be stupid NOT to go war if it didnt further our interests while securing the lives and freedoms under international law for all those involved (to your earlier comments laila). I agree with you that Iraq was the wrong battlefield and Afghanistan should have been our main target for bringing down terrorists but then again the way saddam was going, by breaking international laws and UN mandates we probably would have taken him out anyway. It was a stupid, stupid error on the part of Bush to open two fronts and the americans are paying for it with there economy, dont worry about that.

I am not the biggest fan of Saudi Arabia but US has no right demanding they take responsibility for 13 crazy people on a plane knocking down a building

If they encouraged it why not?
 
Because every country in this world has broken some form of international law at one point or another. It's only when it's Iraq did we get all crazy.


Oh my, you do know that we were only at a cease fire from the previous ousting of Saddam from Kuwait don't you?



The enemy is Afghanistan and Iraq would have been our ally if we were intelligent enough to realise it.


This is the silliest thing I have ever heard yet....Could you show me where you come up with this?


j-mac
 
O
This is the silliest thing I have ever heard yet....Could you show me where you come up with this?


j-mac

You mean Iraq and Saddam being US/UK ally?

I agree it would be silly .... if it hadn't occured already. Wasn't Saddam our favourite ally before we hated him?
 
It was a stupid, stupid error on the part of Bush to open two fronts and the americans are paying for it with there economy, dont worry about that.

If they encouraged it why not?

Yes they are.
Because Saudi Government did not play a direct role in 9/11. There is no link with the plane and the King so why should they fork out cash?
 
Yes they are.
Because Saudi Government did not play a direct role in 9/11. There is no link with the plane and the King so why should they fork out cash?


Does the Saudi government back the Wahhabi Madrassas that currently operate within the Kingdom?


j-mac
 
You mean Iraq and Saddam being US/UK ally?

I agree it would be silly .... if it hadn't occured already. Wasn't Saddam our favourite ally before we hated him?


There's that pesky enemy of my enemy thingy again.....


j-mac
 
And how long should Saddam been allowed to skirt the UN mandates on him? Until he successfully got them lifted and pursued his goals? Why was it ok in your mind for Saddam to break international law unchecked, and not ok for anyone else?
Then let the U.N. deal with him. Not that the cowards would, but it is hardly our job to play "World Police".
 
Then let the U.N. deal with him. Not that the cowards would, but it is hardly our job to play "World Police".

The UN is a peace keeping force, it is nobodies job to police the world.

Both of you are coming at the situation all wrong.

The fact of the matter was we should had never gotten involved militarily, but we did not have to stay out of the region. If what we were after was a dictator, diplomacy would of done fine. What we were after and what the whole world knows we were after was oil. As China is growing astronomically, we have a new race for fossil fuels.

The Cold War II started, and nobody is talking about it.
 
We do have this strange thing called "freedom of speech" you know.



The regiment being protested against is the Royal Anglian Regiment.

Never claimed protesting should be banned just using my freedom of speech to say they disgust me and if you really hate the country you live in and think its evil why are you living here? If i lived in a country i thought was evil i would leave.

To answer my own question its because those particular people probably think britian is gonna become an islamic state eventually and there wont be freedom of speech then.
 
Never claimed protesting should be banned just using my freedom of speech to say they disgust me and if you really hate the country you live in and think its evil why are you living here? If i lived in a country i thought was evil i would leave.

To answer my own question its because those particular people probably think britian is gonna become an islamic state eventually and there wont be freedom of speech then.

I love this country, if they think its so evil send the ****tard.s off to Iran, they'd get stoned for demonstrating.
 
-- just using my freedom of speech to say they disgust me and if you really hate the country you live in and think its evil why are you living here? If i lived in a country i thought was evil i would leave

They never say Britain is evil - their placards say "Butchers of Basra", "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra," "Anglian Soldiers go to Hell" - one even says "Crusade against Islam."

If you watch this video here on BBC you'll hear them shout "shame on you," there's probably even an "Alahu Akbar" in there but I don't hear them saying they hate the country or think it's evil.

I don't like what they said, certainly from an ex military POV, however we do have freedom of speech and I don't see in your link or the BBC link where they said the UK is evil.
 
Thats because its not evil. These people wouldnt fight for our country given the chance, they dont deserve to be here.

one even says "Crusade against Islam."

You see. When something happens, all of Europe blames the jews. When one terror, hell bent, screwed up, dangerous muslim country is invaded to stop it from destabilizing and spreading its dangerous influence around the region, the muslims make out we are crusading against them. Pathetic, stupid, childish. Been there, heard it all. Let them demonstrate, just ignore them.
 
-- Let them demonstrate, just ignore them.

That's where I agree with you. We can demonstrate back we can show support for the troops but if there is an argument against such people as those protestors - the way to win it is not through putting words in their mouth that they didn't utter.
 
When one terror, hell bent, screwed up, dangerous muslim country is invaded to stop it from destabilizing and spreading its dangerous influence around the region, the muslims make out we are crusading against them.

1. No protester said anything was evil. No need to put words in their mouths.
2. The invasion can be twisted to be seen as a attack on Islam but more importantly it DID destablize the region and ensure a spread of influence.
Iran has further influence than it would ever have recieved under Saddam, that is fact.
Now because of the fact Sunnis were removed from power inside Iraq, it left the field open to the extreme Iran Shia leading to surrounding Sunni Muslims to become increasingly worried about Iran's power.

Oh and i suggest you make yourself clear because 'the Muslims' implies all muslims and that is just incorrect, A minority believe a crusade is occuring.

Thats because its not evil. These people wouldnt fight for our country given the chance, they dont deserve to be here.

So someone has to be willing to fight to be able to live in a country?
 
Last edited:
They never say Britain is evil - their placards say "Butchers of Basra", "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra," "Anglian Soldiers go to Hell" - one even says "Crusade against Islam."

If you watch this video here on BBC you'll hear them shout "shame on you," there's probably even an "Alahu Akbar" in there but I don't hear them saying they hate the country or think it's evil.

I don't like what they said, certainly from an ex military POV, however we do have freedom of speech and I don't see in your link or the BBC link where they said the UK is evil.

They called the troops and government murderers and terrorists.Im pretty sure we can gather their opinions from there.
 
So someone has to be willing to fight to be able to live in a country?

If they wouldnt fight for it chances are they'd dislike it, im not saying force them to leave, im saying stop moaning and leave.

1. No protester said anything was evil. No need to put words in their mouths.

I dont need to. They said the British government was the terrorist government. Enough said.
2. The invasion can be twisted to be seen as a attack on Islam but more importantly it DID destablize the region and ensure a spread of influence.

But iraq is a democracy now, that is stabilizing. When was the last time they held peaceful elections? Never, until now. I dont agree with the war but at least saddams regime is finished. And you might want to reconsider your statement about only a small minority believe we are crusading against them. More like a large minority.

Iran has further influence than it would ever have recieved under Saddam, that is fact.

What?

Oh and i suggest you make yourself clear because 'the Muslims' implies all muslims and that is just incorrect, A minority believe a crusade is occuring.

Laila if i knew the name of every muslim on this planet id pick the exceptions out but we'd be here all day so its easier to say "the muslims", obviously they dont all think the same and have different opinions, so when i say "the muslims" it should go without saying i dont mean all muslims.
 
It amazes me how so called liberals dont believe in liberation.

If you dont see why democracy needs to be made in the middle east its because you cant think long term.
 
It amazes me how so called liberals dont believe in liberation.

If you dont see why democracy needs to be made in the middle east its because you cant think long term.
Who are you to claim that Democracy is needed in the Middle East? Just because it works in the West does not mean that it can make the transition to the East.
 
Who are you to claim that Democracy is needed in the Middle East? Just because it works in the West does not mean that it can make the transition to the East.

So what do you suggest? They keep there dictatorship regimes? There dangerously extremist theocracies? Democracy is a MUST and nothing else. Democracy is good, it peaceful, its fair, it cares for the people and doesnt violate there rights. Its essential for world peace and stability. Even if the ME where a bunch of communists id be like "okay fine at least thats workable", but there not. There mostly monarchy's, dictatorships, and theocracies that promote stoning and torture. Sorry but Democracy is essential for a safe, stabilized regional ME.
 
So what do you suggest? They keep there dictatorship regimes? There dangerously extremist theocracies? Democracy is a MUST and nothing else.
Really? Democracy is a must? How do you figure?

Democracy is good, it peaceful, its fair, it cares for the people and doesnt violate there rights.
A dictatorship is not inherently evil. It is also not inherently violent. "Fair" is subjective. A dictator can care for his people and not violate their rights.

Its essential for world peace and stability. Even if the ME where a bunch of communists id be like "okay fine at least thats workable", but there not.
You honestly believe that if every country was a democracy, we could achieve world peace and stability? :lol:

There mostly monarchy's, dictatorships, and theocracies that promote stoning and torture. Sorry but Democracy is essential for a safe, stabilized regional ME.
If you say so, champ.
 
A dictatorship is not inherently evil. It is also not inherently violent. "Fair" is subjective. A dictator can care for his people and not violate their rights.

Right so name me a dictatorship regime that isnt inherently evil? Democracy can ensure human rights are protected and equality, freedom of speech and other international laws are upheld in society. Can a tyranny ensure freedom of speech? Yeah, maybe while it suits them. It only takes one man to hand the reigns of a dictatorship over to a psychopath which is usually the case, even though he is usually a nut case himself. Then again, EgoffTib, you clearly have complete disregard for international laws. Dictatorships do exactly what it says on the tin; they dictate the people, a free society, an equal society does not exist within dictatorships. They bend the people to suit there will, they play the game by there own rules, regardless of international laws and human rights.

How is a democracy not good? How can there be cases when dictatorship is better? There are all oppresive, evil, good for nothing regimes my friend. If you cant see that, then your blinded by your own ignorance to believe otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom