Iran seizes 15 British troops in Persian Gulf
- Thread starter Mr.Spock
- Start date
I'm sure you must quoted that for someone else's benefit, Sam. By now, you have certainly have realised that I'm as liable to believe that report as I am the Iranian version of events regarding the British sailors captured.
Right?
Muslims have a capital?
Have you heard about the country that was invaded for dublooemdees and converted to a warzone refugee camp?
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
You repeatedly discuss the wrongs of US History yet you claim that the Iranians (see Persians) have never invaded or colonized other people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
They even took over your beloved Lebanon!! The Persians must be Jews in disguise! Where was your ancient Hezbollah when you needed them? :bawl:
not the government of Iran, no. Not since before the Constitutional Revolution.
At whose behest did it become a warzone refugee camp? Who is making that decision?
Is it the US invasion? Uh, of course not.
A lack of proper planning on the part of the invaders, a total lack of organisation as seen again and again in ALL their "liberations"? Nevah!
An abundance of trigger happy troops that shoot everything that moves? No way!
Duh! Found those WMDs yet? Was it worth it?
it's US led. it's a coalition if i remember correctly.
as if you know.
have any evidence our troops are "trigger happy"?
it's been suggested they were moved to syria.
as for being worth it i say nope it wasn't.
The British should start sinking the Iranean Navy, ship by ship, until the soldiers are released. That doesn't work? Start destroying their air force. Next, hit all other military establishments.
If nothing else, this will ensure no further sailors are kidnapped by this criminal regime.
If nothing else, this will ensure no further sailors are kidnapped by this criminal regime.
Thats probably got to be the dumbest thing I've read today. And I've been reading IACs posts!
Thats why the British always get their man and maintain their status quo worldwide, while the Americans run around in circles trying to figure out if their friends are their enemies.
Interesting, Sam. By assuming the burden for re-organisation is on the Americans shoulders, you must operate under the premise that the Iraqis are incapable of doing it themselves. You really don't have much respect for their capabilities, do you?
And that being the case, it would appear that your opposition is more a reason to attack Americans than it is a defence of Iraq. Most here give more a damn for making America look bad than they do about the Iraqis themselves. Certainly, if it had been Iran and Iraq going at it once again, this whole affair would not have dominated world news for nearly as long as it has, nor generated the same amount of discussion on any political forum.
Oh, and just to reiterate once again - the amount of civilian casualties in Iraq caused directly by Americans or coalition troops pales beside that caused by the Iraqis themselves. People have a habit of quoting tens of thousands dead in Iraq while assidiously avoiding any reference to who those "trigger happy troops" actually are.
Certainly, the American soldiers aren't as much under control as those of other coalition countries, but the point is that most here salivate when reading of one American soldier put in jail for an "illegal kill", and gloss over or excuse any atrocities committed by Iraqis.
Spin works both ways, depending on one's particular axe to grind.
Take David Hicks, for example - the Australian in Guantanamo. When he was first captured and taken there, the photos showed in the press were of him with a rocket launcher on his shoulder, pictures taken at a training camp.
Now that he's been there five years, and the popular swing has gone in his favour - those photos shown in news reports are of a unkempt, unshaven , and tired man. I could achieve such a look myself if I wanted to, in order to generate public sympathy. I look much like that some mornings without really trying.
Yet half of Australia would now free him immediately, given the opportunity to do so - and they'd probably throw him a party and the keys to a new mercedes by way of apology. That fact that David Hicks trained with terrorist organisations (yes, yes... allegedly) has become, by and large... forgotten.
Symbiotic, the media and the herd.
And that being the case, it would appear that your opposition is more a reason to attack Americans than it is a defence of Iraq. Most here give more a damn for making America look bad than they do about the Iraqis themselves. Certainly, if it had been Iran and Iraq going at it once again, this whole affair would not have dominated world news for nearly as long as it has, nor generated the same amount of discussion on any political forum.
Oh, and just to reiterate once again - the amount of civilian casualties in Iraq caused directly by Americans or coalition troops pales beside that caused by the Iraqis themselves. People have a habit of quoting tens of thousands dead in Iraq while assidiously avoiding any reference to who those "trigger happy troops" actually are.
Certainly, the American soldiers aren't as much under control as those of other coalition countries, but the point is that most here salivate when reading of one American soldier put in jail for an "illegal kill", and gloss over or excuse any atrocities committed by Iraqis.
Spin works both ways, depending on one's particular axe to grind.
Take David Hicks, for example - the Australian in Guantanamo. When he was first captured and taken there, the photos showed in the press were of him with a rocket launcher on his shoulder, pictures taken at a training camp.
Now that he's been there five years, and the popular swing has gone in his favour - those photos shown in news reports are of a unkempt, unshaven , and tired man. I could achieve such a look myself if I wanted to, in order to generate public sympathy. I look much like that some mornings without really trying.
Yet half of Australia would now free him immediately, given the opportunity to do so - and they'd probably throw him a party and the keys to a new mercedes by way of apology. That fact that David Hicks trained with terrorist organisations (yes, yes... allegedly) has become, by and large... forgotten.
Symbiotic, the media and the herd.
If they had been living under a free democracy, perhaps.
But you forget, oppression breeds reaction. And the US has a tendency to blunder around without a clue, based on random decisions without any real plan.
Forget rebuilding, even maintenance is beyond them. All they keep doing is shooting themselves in the foot wherever they go, and taking everyone else down with them.
And as the US funding of militant Sunni groups in Iran shows, they refuse to learn from their mistakes.
So the fact that the Americans hadn't planned on the fact that tribalist militias would take to the street means that they're responsible for the decision of those same militias to start a civil war? It doesn't come down to the individual groups who make the decision, every day, to keep fighting rather than make peace?
Well, I can't argue with that logic. I can't, because there isn't any.
And trigger happy Yanks are as bad as terrorists who are literally deliberately blasting any civilians they deem necessary to achieve...something. More damage?
"Uh, we meant to destroy the evil Crusaders - evil! evil! we spit on the unbelievers, ptui!! ptui! - but Ahmed saw this bakery along the way and, well...y'know. I hate bagels."
This reminds me of something else - wasn't Saddam trying to buy off-the-shelf nuke missiles from North Korea?
You should try having a conversation with some redneck Americans sometimes. Its mindboggling.
Hadn't planned on it?
Six days or six weeks maximum six months, that's all they planned for.
Wonder if that's what it would be like if the tables were turned.
Too bad he did not succeed then since the US occupation has made him look like the Jolly green giant.
As we all know, the US only blusters if you have a nuke, but keeps off the grass.
Wonder if that's what it would be like if the tables were turned.
Meaning?
Well, perception is everything, Sam. But isn't keeping nukes out of the hands of people like Saddam a good thing?
Meaning that the US lives in a fanciful world where other countries exist merely as resources to be exploited. They've never been invaded or occupied by a foreign power so understanding the basics of oppression is beyond them.
The major problem with the US troops is their complete indifference to the Iraqis and their problems.
Depends on which side of the fence you are. As a country with natural sources and Pakistan as a neighbor, should I be worried more about Iraq or the US?
I would rather the world put pressure on the Americans to disarm. Its the one country in the world that has absolutely no value for life if they are not American and are greedy and selfish enough to wipe out a country for profit.
Your's is all about revenge, isn't it, Sam? You don't care about the present or what to do about it, you only care about placing the blame, preferably on the US, then exacting your idea of revenge.
Seems pretty typcial of Muslims of the world today, wouldn't you say?
"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."
See? That little saying is true, ain't it?
Baron Max