Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Time for British soldiers to leave iraq?

  • 24-09-2005 7:45am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭


    I'm not sure how many here have been following the recent events in Basra but the situation grows more interesting day by day.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4277532.stm
    A judge in the southern Iraqi city of Basra has issued an arrest warrant for two British soldiers.

    off course the British claim that their soldiers have immunity, a wonderful little deal really. Personally, I'd love to see them face the music in Iraq, though I doubt they will. Hopefully this will help hasten an end to the occupation, though at this stage I doubt even that would help the country much after the coalition have made a royal mess of the place.

    Obviously the Iraqis are competent enough to try Saddam Hussain as a war criminal, but not competent enough to try British Soldiers for crimes they may commit while in Iraq.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    While I can see where you are coming from the fact is the police handed these men over to a Shia Militia, therefore I think the British were correct to act like they did to free them. That event alone would leave me to believe that these men would be in extreme danger in Iraq custody.

    That doesn't mean they should not be held to account for their actions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    That whole episode highlights all that has gone wrong over the last few years, the influence of Iran can't be underestimated I think. Its starting to look the thier agents have infiltrated most aspects of local governence.

    When the next elections are fought the biggest party will be looking firmly east to Tehran.

    As for the pull out, its going to happen some day of course. If they go quickly
    then civil war is likely if they go slowly they leave themselves open to increased attack from the Iran backed insurgents. Either way Shia fundmentalism is the big winner.

    Mike.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    mike65 wrote:
    That whole episode highlights all that has gone wrong over the last few years, the influence of Iran can't be underestimated I think. Its starting to look the thier agents have infiltrated most aspects of local governence.

    When the next elections are fought the biggest party will be looking firmly east to Tehran.

    As for the pull out, its going to happen some day of course. If they go quickly
    then civil war is likely if they go slowly they leave themselves open to increased attack from the Iran backed insurgents. Either way Shia fundmentalism is the big winner.

    Mike.

    if somone on these forums suggested that the government was a puppet government, instated and controlled by western powers then it would be a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. I wonder if the opposite also applies?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,785 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The British Army should pull out of any place where they are not wanted especially when they invade a country and prosecute an illegal war.

    The tin-foil hat stupid terminolgy thingy only applies to those liberal do-gooders not the god fearing christians - you should know that already


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39 amp2000


    ffs, this is getting ridiculous.

    Here, this is a classic example of what propoganda achieves!
    gandalf wrote:
    While I can see where you are coming from the fact is the police handed these men over to a Shia Militia, therefore I think the British were correct to act like they did to free them.

    This ones ****ing great
    mike65 wrote:
    That whole episode highlights all that has gone wrong over the last few years, the influence of Iran can't be underestimated I think. Its starting to look the thier agents have infiltrated most aspects of local governence.
    Iran eh, WTF did iran do now, other than all the bull**** in the US media??
    This is basic propoganda, I had a discussion with moriarty months ago in a peak oil thread telling him iran are next on the US's hitlist, I was basically laughed at. Unfortunately it looks like I was correct, mike65 is already repeating the rhetoric.

    From reading your BS it's obvious you have no idea what's gone wrong over the past few years, your basing your argument with lies that have been fed into your head through controlled media.
    You have the internet, use it to inform yourself, for your families sake at least.

    Please people, wake up.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    While it would be nice to see the troops leave and it should be the objective,it's not the right time in my view.
    They should finish what they started assuming their objective is a stable Iraq and take the medicine for having to do so.They should be given a reasonable timeframe to achieve this and if they cant , then it's out time,together with the associated political fall out at home if any.
    Thats a comment on the political masters not the Army.
    I don't think their leaving should be determined by hypocrites who blow their own kind asunder without as much as an afterthought as is now the case in Iraq.

    As regards it being a puppet government,it was an open free election and the government that arose from it only came after a long protracted negotiation,I suspect they still dont agree on most things.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    amp2000 wrote:
    ffs, this is getting ridiculous.

    Here, this is a classic example of what propoganda achieves!


    This ones ****ing great

    Iran eh, WTF did iran do now, other than all the bull**** in the US media??
    This is basic propoganda, I had a discussion with moriarty months ago in a peak oil thread telling him iran are next on the US's hitlist, I was basically laughed at. Unfortunately it looks like I was correct, mike65 is already repeating the rhetoric.

    Slightly confused, I am noteing the malign influence of Iran on Iraq and you say I'm buying into US propoganda which might include setting up the mood music to invade Iran and yet you say thats whats going to happen in the peak oil thread.

    I don't think the US wil attack Iran as they are not able to commit the resouces required, nor would they have any 'coalition of the willing'.

    As for Iranian influence, its does'nt take a geo-political genius to work out that religious/ethnic affiliations cross borders. A majority of the southern Iraqi population is Shia which is the overwhelming religion of Iran. The Iranian establishment would dealy love to have controlling influence over the south of Iraq if only for the oil. That should sound familair to any anti-war poster.

    I do not "buy" into US propaganda I dont even have Fox News! I just use my eyes and ears and form a view based on logic and reason.

    Some reading
    http://hnn.us/articles/1455.html
    Who are the main leaders within the Iraqi Shia?

    Until the Mahdi returns many Shia believe that there will be just ayatollas (a 20th century designation) and other levels of Shia scholars in hawzas (scholarly systems) to help explain the religion. The Hawza Al-Ilimi in Najaf is a socially, politically, culturally, and theologically powerful institution. The ayatollas in Iraq are seen as something like translators of the Koran, the Hadith, sayings of Mohammed, and the lives, words and deeds of the 12 Imams. They are also political leaders. They have massive power in Iraq. Some of them control vast throngs of former and present students, some who have power in Iraq and elsewhere, and control large amounts of financial and other assets - or at least the ability to garner them for what they see as their cause. Some, like Al-Hakim, have their own armies. His is called the Badr Brigade and it may have as many as 40,000 soldiers.

    The main Ayatollahs are Al-Sistani and Al-Hakim. The one who was murdered a couple of weeks ago, Al-Khoie, was from a long line of Ayatollahs from the Al-Khoie family. Their Al-Khoie Foundation also gets about 80 percent of the khums tax (a 20 percent tax of profits of all businesses). This foundation also controls a huge number of prominent scholars, schools, and more. Al-Hakim is the head of SCIRI, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iran. He is supported by the Iranians and has lived in Iran for a couple of decades. He has real clout in Iraq. Al-Hakim was one of the most important voices calling for the 100s of thousands to go to Kerbala a few weeks ago. He also called for the demonstration asking the US to leave Iraq to occur at the end of the event. Sistani is the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq and has massive power in his community. The followers and the family of the slain Ayatollah Al-Sadr also have a significant following. The slain Ayatollah's son Muqtada is their leader. He is only 30 years old, however. In this part of the world age can matter. But time will tell how much.

    http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050906-093816-2656r.htm

    http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/energy/2005/09/20/iraq-iran-oil-cx_daa_0920commentary.html

    Mike.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,786 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    I wouldn't bet on them leaving anytime soon. After all Yanks and the Brits are still occupying bases in Germany.

    Please don't insult my intelligence by saying the Germans want them there. They have no choice, so for the sake of national pride they just smile and swallow down the shít with as much dignity as they can muster. Much like we do for Northern Ireland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    The Germans do want them there though. Not for defence, but they provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and lots of disposeable income from those stationed there into the economy. Never mind any 'rent' payable to the german government.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Its not a question of want. The Germans - the people - accept the presence of the Americans. The only reason anyone would back out of Iraq now is the lack of acceptance by some elements. For that reason, the two are not directly comparable.

    jc


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,786 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Germany has been occupied for 60 years. Thats a long time. Leaving aside possible childhood memories that means anyone under about 65 to 70 has never known anything else. This will form a basis for submission whatever about acceptance.

    Factor in the vast oil wealth involved and its fairly obvious nobody will leave Iraq any time soon.

    Strategically it is a good jump off point for the imminent invasion of Iran.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    It's hardly a good 'jump off point' if they have to use a large proportion of their active duty military force just to secure this jump off point, now is it? Since you seem to know, what exactly are they planning to invade Iran with? The boy scouts?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I notice that the fact that the non-uniformed SAS guys were found in a car wired with explosives and shot at the police. If they weren't in uniform then they are not covered by the geneva convention? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Are Iraq and the UK at war with each other? No. The geneva convention does not apply.

    If Iraq and the UK were at war with each other, the members of the SAS/whatever they were would be covered under the terms of the geneva convention as prisoners of war because they're members of the armed forces of the UK (Article 4.1).

    If you're going to try and create an argument via smoke and mirrors, at least know what you're talking about..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Moriarty wrote:
    Are Iraq and the UK at war with each other? No. The geneva convention does not apply.

    Geneva convention applies in a warzone, regardless of who is attacking who.

    Driving a car rigged to explode and being in plain clothes and attacking police when questioned is smoke and mirrors? :rolleyes:

    For that matter if they had been picked up by the milita first would you expect them to abide by the geneva convention? Or what?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,315 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Iraq can't handle the insurgents. True, they fought and won a large battle, but they "forgot" to mention that the US airforce and tanks also helped.

    If the US pull out now, the insurgents will take over the country again, and Iraq may become part of another country. How? Invasion. Iraq doesn't have much to stop it, without the US.

    As for the puppet goverment: it failed in the elections. The present goverment can't agree on the consitution, and without US influence on the picking of the members of the goverment, there wouldn't be 2 Sunni's in there: there'd be none.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Btw let me clarify the story... They were found in a car wired with explosives, shot at the police, killed a police officer and were dressed as Arabs with disguises on (wigs) and an Iraqi police investigation claims they were planting explosives throughout Basra. Also car bombs two days later were tied to them.

    Of course, its not like we should trust the Iraqi police.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,315 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Hobbes wrote:
    Btw let me clarify the story... They were found in a car wired with explosives, shot at the police and were dressed as Arabs with disguises on (wigs) and an Iraqi police investigation claims they were planting explosives throughout Basra. Also car bombs two days later were tied to them.

    Of course, its not like we should trust the Iraqi police.
    /me looks at RUC collusion with the loylists...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    the_syco wrote:
    /me looks at RUC collusion with the loylists...
    But who plays what role? :confused:

    And guess who the main group of Irish passport holders in Iraq are?
    Memnoch wrote:
    Obviously the Iraqis are competent enough to try Saddam Hussain as a war criminal, but not competent enough to try British Soldiers for crimes they may commit while in Iraq.
    This would assume that Iraq has a single centralised source of power. That is one thing we know doesn't exist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39 amp2000


    I apologise for jumping down your throat, it just really frustrates me watching the world go downhill while most people believe the utter garbage in the mainstream news.
    mike65 wrote:
    Slightly confused, I am noteing the malign influence of Iran on Iraq and you say I'm buying into US propoganda which might include setting up the mood music to invade Iran and yet you say thats whats going to happen in the peak oil thread.

    I don't think the US wil attack Iran as they are not able to commit the resouces required, nor would they have any 'coalition of the willing'.
    I hope your correct but with irans location in the middle east I think it's inevitable, a few tactical nukes will set the ball rolling, again, hopefully I'm wrong.
    mike65 wrote:
    I do not "buy" into US propaganda I dont even have Fox News! I just use my eyes and ears and form a view based on logic and reason.
    You don't need fox news anymore, the same person owns sky news & many others! It's all controlled & nothing of any real significance is broadcasted to the masses unless they have a reason.

    Just my 2 cents...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Update on this.. Rumour going around that the two in question may not have been British at all. Still looking for more information on this but here is a link to get you started.

    http://judicial-inc.biz/Basra_IDF.htm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Reads like a bit of a tinfoil-hat link to me Hobbes.

    I'm not saying that there's something behind it, but the link suggests that the men might not be British, might have had Canadian passports, and then concludes that everything points to them being Israeli commandos.

    How it concludes this, I have no idea, since the word Israeli appears three times on the entire page - once in the title, once in the summation that I've just mentioned, and one other time when it refers to the men as "presumably israeli" or something like that.

    In short, it seems to conclude that they almost-certainly were Israeli because there is some doubt over their British status. You could replace the word Israeli with Irish, Icelandic, or even Martian and the content of the article would be just as "solid".

    Maybe there is more info out there (not in an appropriate location to search right now), but on the basis of that link, I'd be highly skeptical.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭soma


    hmm.. are these rumours trying to suggest that it was israeli involvement with the co-operation of the brittish..? I seriously doubt the brittish would that stupid to risk inflaming the civilian population.

    However if they were suggesting these two were just mossad agents on the ground.. they've pulled off some pretty impressive stunts down thru the years so it'd be well within their ability (Iraq is porous these days).

    Still I dont see anything to suggest the nationality of these two..? You have to remember that often when wierd/unexplained things happen people just tend to point the finger at Israel.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,786 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    soma wrote:
    I seriously doubt the brittish would that stupid to risk inflaming the civilian population.

    They did a fair to middleing job of inflaming the civilian population in Palestine in 1948 when they set up Isreal. So what's new?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 49 breandan


    soma wrote:
    hmm.. are these rumours trying to suggest that it was israeli involvement with the co-operation of the brittish..? I seriously doubt the brittish would that stupid to risk inflaming the civilian population.

    They have invaded a muslim country based on a lie yet you think the British are beyond risking inflaming the local civilian population!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Make no mistake the British are despised by the Shia in the South but are tolerated simply because it suites Sistani's and SCIRI (the biggest Shia party)long term vision for the South as part of a Shia Superstate.

    This will not be a 'one country' superstate (well I cant see it happening, to many different ethnic and tribal groupings), but rather an area heavily influenced by Iran stretching from Northeastern Saudi which has a Shia majority through Southern Iraq, through Iran and into the central mountanious portion of Afghanistan south and west of Kabul where the Shia are in the majority and where Iran is already influencing events on the ground.
    BTW for what its worth while Sistani is the top cleric of the Iraqi Shia he is infact an Iranian.
    soma wrote:
    However if they were suggesting these two were just mossad agent on the ground.. they've pulled off some pretty impressive stunts down thru the years so it'd be well within their ability (Iraq is porous these days).

    Isreal/Mossad is in close coperation with the Kurds in the NE of the country (something I think will come back to haunt the Kurds at a future date) and with the clout the Kurds now have with the Shia and Americans I dont think its tinfoil hat territory to think that Mossad may be using this area to stage operations through out Iraq.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    bonkey wrote:
    Reads like a bit of a tinfoil-hat link to me Hobbes.

    I'm not saying that there's something behind it, but the link suggests that the men might not be British, might have had Canadian passports, and then concludes that everything points to them being Israeli commandos.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/208368.stm

    although granted they have since moved onto new zealand since then..

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1262362,00.html

    It does have a tin hat quality which is why I said rumour. Will wander around some more on it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    breandan, don't you think that all sounds a little far fetched, do you have anything to back-up your Israeli-Kurd connection?
    breandan wrote:
    and with the clout the Kurds now have with the Shia
    The Kurds are largely Sunni, how or why would they need "[clout] with the Shia"?

    Why would the Kurds cooperate with Israel? What with Israel being a Turkish ally?

    Why would the Kurds (politicly) cooperate with [Iranian] Shi'ites? After all, the Kurds are only really interested in self rule within greater Kurdistan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Hobbes wrote:
    I notice that the fact that the non-uniformed SAS guys were found in a car wired with explosives and shot at the police. If they weren't in uniform then they are not covered by the geneva convention? :rolleyes:

    That gives Sadr even more credibility.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 49 breandan


    Victor wrote:
    breandan, don't you think that all sounds a little far fetched, do you have anything to back-up your Israeli-Kurd connection?

    Read a few articles about the training the Isrealis are giving the Kurds, I will try to find them and post the links here.
    Victor wrote:
    The Kurds are largely Sunni, how or why would they need "[clout] with the Shia"?

    They have clout because of the arrangements put in place by Paul Bremer, under which if any three provinces vote against a proposal (the consititutional vote in a couple of weeks being a good example) then that proposal is automatically rejected. The Kurds have three provinces and so the Shia while being dominant need the Kurds if they want to drive anything through Parliament or the courts.
    Victor wrote:
    Why would the Kurds cooperate with Israel? What with Israel being a Turkish ally?

    Because on all sides the Kurds are being pressed, the Turks to the north, the Syrians to the west, the Sunni Iraqi's to the south (and indeed the AShia over the faith of the oil city of Kirkuk) the and the Iranians to the east. As a landlocked country by the four above mentioned countries the Kurds have had to look to the Americans and the Isrealis as they are pretty much hated and feared by all their neighbours.

    Why would the Kurds (politicly) cooperate with [Iranian] Shi'ites? [/QUOTE]

    I didnt say they were if thats the way it came across then I phrased my views incorrectly.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,996 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I notice that the fact that the non-uniformed SAS guys were found in a car wired with explosives and shot at the police. If they weren't in uniform then they are not covered by the geneva convention?

    The GC is careful to allow partisans/guerillas, who mightnt have much in the way of a uniform, to take up arms without being shot immediately as spies if captured. So long as they bore their weapons openly, the Geneva Convention would apply - assuming of course that the SAS and the Iraqi police were at war with each other, as opposed to an incident exceptional enough to be worthy of international news.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Sand wrote:
    The GC is careful to allow partisans/guerillas, who mightnt have much in the way of a uniform, to take up arms without being shot immediately as spies if captured.
    They must also wear an insignia identifiable at a distance (presumably they weren't) and answer to a chain of command (presumably they do, but you never know). Theres one other criteria that I can't think of at the moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Sand wrote:
    The GC is careful to allow partisans/guerillas, who mightnt have much in the way of a uniform, to take up arms without being shot immediately as spies if captured. So long as they bore their weapons openly, the Geneva Convention would apply

    Hmm, tell that to the people who are detained at Gitmo.

    SAS have uniforms. Even so your kind of stretching the BS on this one as they were found in a car wired to explode while dressed up as Iraqis (wearing wigs too) and killed 2 police officers when questioned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    and when the car did explode the attack would probably be blamed on "iraqi terrorists", one has to wonder how many of the "terrorist" bombings in iraq were done by "terrorists" and how many by such covert coalition forces. After all we all know they aren't averse to lying to further their ends, or killing innocent civillians for that matter.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hobbes wrote:

    SAS have uniforms. Even so your kind of stretching the BS on this one as they were found in a car wired to explode while dressed up as Iraqis (wearing wigs too) and killed 2 police officers when questioned.

    The 2 sas guys were in a car wired to explode?? Where did you get that information from? I've seen no reliable reports of that only unsubstantiated reports from surprise surprise... the Shia militia
    And where did you get the information that they killed two police officers whilst in custody? I hope it was from a better source than the Shia militia?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,786 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Memnoch wrote:
    and when the car did explode the attack would probably be blamed on "iraqi terrorists", one has to wonder how many of the "terrorist" bombings in iraq were done by "terrorists" and how many by such covert coalition forces. After all we all know they aren't averse to lying to further their ends, or killing innocent civillians for that matter.

    Dublin & Monaghan bombings ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Earthman wrote:
    The 2 sas guys were in a car wired to explode?? Where did you get that information from? I've seen no reliable reports of that only unsubstantiated reports from surprise surprise... the Shia militia
    And where did you get the information that they killed two police officers whilst in custody? I hope it was from a better source than the Shia militia?

    the shia militia are as good a source as the british or US military, or their political offices.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Memnoch wrote:
    the shia militia are as good a source as the british or US military, or their political offices.
    Please forgive me if I don't share your confidence in that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    And where did you get the information that they killed two police officers whilst in custody? I hope it was from a better source than the Shia militia?

    Iraqi police reported it as such, along with the other information. NOT the Militia.

    http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/28/2005&Cat=14&Num=001

    Various sources listed there to go check up on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Earthman wrote:
    Please forgive me if I don't share your confidence in that.

    really, is it merely prejudice then that causes you to stock so much faith in a coalition that obviously lied while making a case for the war to the international community in the first place. And that have been repeatedly cited by human rights organisations for systemic abuse and for dismissing the geneva convention.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Memnoch wrote:
    really, is it merely prejudice then that causes you to stock so much faith in a coalition that obviously lied while making a case for the war to the international community in the first place. And that have been repeatedly cited by human rights organisations for systemic abuse and for dismissing the geneva convention.
    No it's a wealth of lifes experience actually which allows me to have some perspective about things rather than jump to conclusions based on what one side or another say.
    I've said I dont regard the Shia militia as a reliable source ,you've jumped to the conclusion that at this time I regard the coalition as gospel because of that have you?I dont regard them as uber reliable but at least they are subject to reasonable investigation-the type of which allows you to form your obvious entitlement to a disregard for them
    At this level typed words on a screen wouldnt be quarter enough to put across what perspective I have here in the same way a spoken conversation would.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 49 breandan


    Memnoch wrote:
    the shia militia are as good a source as the british or US military, or their political offices.

    You beat me to it, if you listen to the daily breifings given by the American military regarding miliraey operations and the general state of play in Iraq it would be hard to argue that they are any more reliable or credible than those of a Shia malitia.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 49 breandan


    Earthman wrote:
    I dont regard them as uber reliable but at least they are subject to reasonable investigation-

    It must be remembered that in much of Iraq all we have to go on are the breifings by the American and British military as its simply to dangerous for reporters so I dont think there can be reasonable investigation into many incidents that take place daily across Iraq even if there is the will to do so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭lili


    any update on this story?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 49 breandan


    lili wrote:
    any update on this story?

    The British have today in the most clear fashion accused the Iranians for involvement in every one of the deaths of their troops over the summer months by slupplying arms and training to Shia malitias, in this case most likely followers of Sadr.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    Lets face the facts here.

    These insurgents are misguided scum just like the people that blew up omagh or those kids in Warrington .
    They have no morals, they are just blowing up people right left and centre now for sport in some kind of misguided political or religous fanaticism example

    Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the British and U.S presence there at the moment-one things for certain, they should stay untill theres a reasonable and capable local force to do the job that they are doing now ie combatting these militants.

    I dont know what Iran or the Shia militia must be thinking as they are a majority in parliament and ergo they are secure.Theres no need for the venom. FFS like if (notwithstanding their motives re the oil) Sadam was still in power these guys would be like the marsh arabs and just be basically downtrodden.

    They should have more sense and work to to create stability rather than wrecking it , the result would lead to a quicker exit by foreign troops.
    Those governments would be only delighted to get the troops home anyway by now, its so unpopular at home.

    But instead they murder-what a bunch of hypocrites.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Lets face the facts here.

    These insurgents are misguided scum just like the people that blew up omagh or those kids in Warrington .
    They have no morals, they are just blowing up people right left and centre now for sport in some kind of misguided political or religous fanaticism example

    Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the British and U.S presence there at the moment-one things for certain, they should stay untill theres a reasonable and capable local force to do the job that they are doing now ie combatting these militants.

    I dont know what Iran or the Shia militia must be thinking as they are a majority in parliament and ergo they are secure.Theres no need for the venom. FFS like if (notwithstanding their motives re the oil) Sadam was still in power these guys would be like the marsh arabs and just be basically downtrodden.

    They should have more sense and work to to create stability rather than wrecking it , the result would lead to a quicker exit by foreign troops.
    Those governments would be only delighted to get the troops home anyway by now, its so unpopular at home.

    But instead they murder-what a bunch of hypocrites.

    saying that all iraqi insurgents are hypocritical terrorists scum is the same as saying that all americans are war crime committing greedy fundamentalist christian fanatics that only want to get richer at the expense of the lives of other innocent people.

    But I guess when reason fails it's easier to simply paint those you dislike with a broad brush that you may easily generalise and villainise them, thus by proxy defending the indefensible.

    p.s. it's very hard to sit down and work constructively with an invading army who's only purpose is to plunder and pillage your country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    originally posted by Memnoch
    saying that all iraqi insurgents are hypocritical terrorists scum is the same as saying that all americans are war crime committing greedy fundamentalist christian fanatics that only want to get richer at the expense of the lives of other innocent people.
    No it is not!!! If an insurgent is a person who is using violence to achieve an objective then yes they all are hypocritical terrorist scum as:
    They are hypocrites for claiming to fight a "holy" war,
    They are terrorists as their objectives include terrorising people in Iraq, espec. Ameircan soldiers and Iraqi civilians trying to enlist in the security forces. And blowing up your fellow men and women is a scummy thing to do.

    Obviously, not every American is a bloodthirsty redneck.

    EDIT: The coalition soldiers are not going around shooting and blowing up women and children "for their religion" so I don't see why they (many of whom are reservists) should be regarded as pillagers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    No it is not!!! If an insurgent is a person who is using violence to achieve an objective then yes they all are hypocritical terrorist scum as:

    gotta love the double standards here...
    the coalition of the killing used violence to achieve their objectives.
    They are hypocrites for claiming to fight a "holy" war,

    So every single insurgent fighting in iraq claims to be a part of a holy war? More generalisations please, they lend a lot of credence to your arguement. Holy or not really means very little to me, religion always has been and always will be a tool used by people to further their own ends, ppl who make claims of "holy" war are no different in that respect.
    They are terrorists as their objectives include terrorising people in Iraq, espec. Ameircan soldiers and Iraqi civilians trying to enlist in the security forces. And blowing up your fellow men and women is a scummy thing to do.

    again generalising them all under the same brush. I think next time you reply to one of my posts kindly do me the courtesy of actually READING the post and what it was about. American soldiers are part of an invasion force in another country, they are fair game by any standards. Iraqi "civilians" signing up to security forces run and supported by the americans would be considered collaboraters, just as during the 2nd world war where people who cooperated with the germans were considered collaborators. Collaboraters are considered fair game in a war of independance. I agree that blowing up your fellow men and woman is a scummy thing to do, but pretty much all violence involves blowing people up or shooting them, the insurgents however have had violence forced upon them by the invasion.
    Obviously, not every American is a bloodthirsty redneck.

    obviously, not every Iraqi fighting against them is a hypocritical, terrorist scum. Again I urge you to read my post before replying and dwell on the word "generalisation".
    EDIT: The coalition soldiers are not going around shooting and blowing up women and children "for their religion" so I don't see why they (many of whom are reservists) should be regarded as pillagers.

    They have shot and blown up women and children, and dropped bombs on them. It doesn't matter what their individual motivations are because UNLIKE the iraqi insurgents, the coalition of the killing are part of a singular multinational force with a designated command structure. Hence individuals who are a part of this force share responsibility for atrocities committed by their command. This means that the motivations of their leaders are the only motivations that really can be considered. If they follow orders and kill innocents it doesn't matter if their objectives are to pillage or not, for that is the objective of their leaders and in complying with those orders they are party to the crime.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Firstly, and most importantly, I think you are going way too OTT Menmoch. There are Aunt Sallies everywhere in your post.
    Originally posted by Menmoch
    gotta love the double standards here...
    the coalition of the killing used violence to achieve their objectives.
    It is fair to say that coalition forces use violence to achieve their objectives in many situations however I find it ironic that you generalise when referring to "the coalition of the killing". The term is in itself rather all-inclusive.

    The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents, who would view the maiming and deaths of all coalition troops in Iraq as a victory.
    So every single insurgent fighting in iraq claims to be a part of a holy war? More generalisations please, they lend a lot of credence to your arguement. Holy or not really means very little to me, religion always has been and always will be a tool used by people to further their own ends, ppl who make claims of "holy" war are no different in that respect.
    When you find for me an insurgent group or even a single insurgent in Iraq who do not view the war in Iraq as involving Allah, please tell me.
    again generalising them all under the same brush. I think next time you reply to one of my posts kindly do me the courtesy of actually READING the post and what it was about. American soldiers are part of an invasion force in another country, they are fair game by any standards. Iraqi "civilians" signing up to security forces run and supported by the americans would be considered collaboraters, just as during the 2nd world war where people who cooperated with the germans were considered collaborators. Collaboraters are considered fair game in a war of independance. I agree that blowing up your fellow men and woman is a scummy thing to do, but pretty much all violence involves blowing people up or shooting them, the insurgents however have had violence forced upon them by the invasion.
    This is your most unfair point IMO. Firstly, I read your post so I am glad to say I have shown you the aforementioned courtesy. To say that people, American soldiers or not, are "fair game by any standards" is a total distortion of reality and I can only read that statement as a justification for killing people. I would like to point out at this time that I condemn American soldiers kinning other human beings.
    obviously, not every Iraqi fighting against them is a hypocritical, terrorist scum. Again I urge you to read my post before replying and dwell on the word "generalisation".
    You have given me no reason that I can understand for believing that they are not terrorists so I must apologise as I do not see the obvious.
    They have shot and blown up women and children, and dropped bombs on them. It doesn't matter what their individual motivations are because UNLIKE the iraqi insurgents, the coalition of the killing are part of a singular multinational force with a designated command structure. Hence individuals who are a part of this force share responsibility for atrocities committed by their command. This means that the motivations of their leaders are the only motivations that really can be considered. If they follow orders and kill innocents it doesn't matter if their objectives are to pillage or not, for that is the objective of their leaders and in complying with those orders they are party to the crime.
    Your use of the word "unlike" would suggest that the point following that was a severe condemnation of coalition forces, which would mean that the Iraqis were acting under different circumstances when it comes to their own actions and the only reason I can see for this point is to justify the actions of Iraqi insurgents, whose actions have included the bombing of a school in a poor area of Baghdad with many children dead. And there were no mitilary targets inside.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Firstly, and most importantly, I think you are going way too OTT Menmoch. There are Aunt Sallies everywhere in your post.
    hypocrisy abounds
    It is fair to say that coalition forces use violence to achieve their objectives in many situations however I find it ironic that you generalise when referring to "the coalition of the killing". The term is in itself rather all-inclusive.

    It's not possible to generalise when referring to the coalition because they are a single organisation. Individual soldiers within the organisation all follow the chain of command, so you can actually talk about it as a single force because that's what it is. The "insurgents" on the other hand are made up of countless diverse groups with diverging aims, objectives and modus operandi and as such it's not possible to talk about them as a single group. This is the point I've been trying to make in my last two posts and one you dont' seem to be able to get.
    The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents, who would view the maiming and deaths of all coalition troops in Iraq as a victory.

    It doesn't matter what the bottom of the chain of the command seek, at the end of the day the dropped the bombs and fired the guns and have killed countless iraqis in a war of agression. Being at the bottom of the chain is no excuse as I've said before.
    Also your claims of what the "apparent objectives" of "most insurgents" are completely ludicrous and full of hot air. How do you know what "most insurgents" want? Where is the evidence to support your so called claims?
    When you find for me an insurgent group or even a single insurgent in Iraq who do not view the war in Iraq as involving Allah, please tell me.

    wrong, it is your allegation that ALL insurgents or even a VAST majority are part of this holy war, it is up to you to prove this allegation or withdraw it.
    This is your most unfair point IMO. Firstly, I read your post so I am glad to say I have shown you the aforementioned courtesy. To say that people, American soldiers or not, are "fair game by any standards" is a total distortion of reality

    there is no distortion of reality here. They invaded another country in a war of agression and killed countless number of it's inhabitants, OFF COURSE they are fair game. They started the war and invaded the country, if they die they only have themselves to blame. Following orders is NOT an excuse.
    and I can only read that statement as a justification for killing people. I would like to point out at this time that I condemn American soldiers kinning other human beings.

    I'm glad you condemn american soldiers killing other human beings. I however do not condemn iraqis for defending themselves against the aggression of the coalition of the killing, since they have little other choice.
    You have given me no reason that I can understand for believing that they are not terrorists so I must apologise as I do not see the obvious.

    and still you don't get it? Who is "they"? You seem to somehow be able to lump all the "insurgents" into a single umbrella when there is no such organisation.
    Your use of the word "unlike" would suggest that the point following that was a severe condemnation of coalition forces, which would mean that the Iraqis were acting under different circumstances when it comes to their own actions and the only reason I can see for this point is to justify the actions of Iraqi insurgents, whose actions have included the bombing of a school in a poor area of Baghdad with many children dead. And there were no mitilary targets inside.

    how do u know it was the insurgents that bombed the school? maybe it was an american black ops mission? where is the proof. But even leaving that aside the indisputable fact remains that the americans are on iraqi soil, not vice versa. The iraqi's have a right to defend themselves against this invasion. So yes the iraqi's ARE acting under different circumstances. They are invaded and occupied, not the ones plundering another country.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement