BF2S Forums Great Britain has an Extremist Problem

Fadedsteve wrote:

There are terrorists running Syria right now. . .Hamas is a terrorist organization that got fucking elected in Palestine. . . what r you talking about?? Iran is run by terrorists too!! Terrorists are very active in the political process! For christs sake, Muqtada al-Sadr wants to be the grand ayatollah of Iraq!!! BTW what "terrorist activities" have we been involved in? I mean this is all up to ones "interpretation", but jesus christ are you really gonna go there. . .USA a terrorist state? thats insulting. . .

sorry to bust your bubble, but Hamas, although viewed as a terrorist organization by some, is still a legitimate part of the political process inside Palestine. Iran's current president was elected in free democratic elections.
And as far as US involvement in "terrorist" activities is concerned, recent history is full of examples where the US actively supported groups in countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, with the intent to overthrow the ruling government and install a more US-friendly regime. Does "Operation Ajax" ring a bell ?

this is from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

"In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of the chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate."

Ironically, the US also supported Saddam when he was still fighting the "bad" mullahs in Iran ( remember the cool photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein ? ), and the Taliban, when they were still fighting the "bad" Russians in Afghanistan.

In 1997, a Taliban delegation even spent a couple of days in the US, discussing the proposal to build a gas pipeline. Unocal, anybody ?

One day, you are an ally and potential business partner, the next day you are a terrorist. Funny, how life goes sometimes, isn't it ?
The US has not a clean sheet with regard to state-sponsored terrorism, Steve. No major superpower can claim the moral high ground here.

Fadedsteve wrote:

LOL what tactics are the Europeans using to fight terror??!! All I have seen is appeasement after appeasement, concession after concession.  Why didnt you guys join us in Afghanistan to your fullest extent? If Iraq is quote "illegal" in your eyes, what the fuck is Afghanistan, a paint ball match??. . .cmon!

Afghanistan is a UN-sanctioned operation under NATO command. We have troops over there, doing what our laws will allow us to do. Military actions do not come easily for a country that has been blamed for sparking two world wars. These days, we are careful when sending tanks anywhere, and for good reason.
Germany chose not to participate in the Iraq invasion because our government felt that such action would be unjustified, unnecessary, and  - most importantly - not be covered by our laws and the German constitution.

Now, would you mind explaining to me how exactly Germany "appeases" the terrorists ?
You know, apart from chasing them down and arresting them in Germany ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounir_El_Motassadeq

Fadedsteve wrote:

An example of Europe's lack of action/concession. . .how bout pulling out troops in fear of being re-attacked (thanks Italy and Spain!).  There is no commitment whatsoever, your countries would rather watch us go at it alone, and take verbal pot shots at us.  That is what you are doing. . . THAT IS YOUR TACTICS for dealing with terrorism! Sympathize with them, and talk shit about us!! Am I at all wrong with that assumption as an American? cmon. . .

well, maybe Italy and Spain realized that getting more of their soldiers killed in Iraq does not contribute in any form to fighting terrorism ? Honest answer please: do you seriously believe that there are now less terrorists in Iraq than before 2003 ? Are you telling me the overall security situation in the region has improved since the US invaded ?

Almost 4 years now, Steve, and what have you achieved ?

You know what ? I apologize on behalf of all Europeans. I apologize for not being the willful servants of the US, I apologize for not supporting a war that was started over bullshit reasons, I apologize for not wanting more European soldiers getting killed in some middle eastern shithole without any purpose.

If you think that's appeasement, lack of action, or concession, then so be it.

usmarine2007 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

You know what ? I apologize on behalf of all Europeans. I apologize for not being the willful servants of the US, I apologize for not supporting a war that was started over bullshit reasons, I apologize for not wanting more European soldiers getting killed in some middle eastern shithole without any purpose.

If you think that's appeasement, lack of action, or concession, then so be it.

You know the war technically started in 1991 right?  And, you guys signed the purpose for being over there during the cease fire agreements in 1991.  Nobody forced you guys to go, so blame yourselves for a change.

We ( Germany ) are to blame for the US-lead invasion of 2003 ? Care to elaborate ?

usmarine2007 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

You know the war technically started in 1991 right?  And, you guys signed the purpose for being over there during the cease fire agreements in 1991.  Nobody forced you guys to go, so blame yourselves for a change.

We ( Germany ) are to blame for the US-lead invasion of 2003 ? Care to elaborate ?

Nope, let me clarify.  Nobody forced Germany, UK, or anyone else to go the first or second time.  You guys made a decision, live with it.

Enforcing the ceasefire would mean going in proving the ceasefire was actually being violated.  Since the American members of the UNSCOM team were using the weapons inspection as a front for espionage, it was fair enough to chuck them the fuck out of Iraq.  Saddam agreed to inspections from a more neutral task force which had actually begun inspections before America decided that it would impose it's cock into his arse on some bullshit pretense.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I suggest your government closes its borders and looks at who comes in and what your own citizens do and deal with the matter legally. They're nothing more than common criminals - don't put them up on some pedestal: 'jihadists', very sexy sounding - it makes them sound like legit soldiers with a cause. You fight them with the law and domestic security not bombing the shit out of countries who happen to harbour a couple of hundred of them. Hitting Afghanistan was legit - but not Iraq.

For the hundredth time, Iraq WAS NOT "hit" because of terrorism. It was "hit" because it was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict started in '90...   Terrorism entered Iraq after Saddam fell. Iraq is a front on the war on terror, it isn't the defining battle to win or loose the war on terror. Stop trying to argue that we went to Iraq for terrorism when you know it isn't true Cam.

I know the official reason to go into Iraq wasn't terrorism but as soon as you were in suddenly it became part of the 'war on terror'. And it's the reason Bush bandies about when trying to justify continued occupation. That place ain't gonna calm down and the people there will not be able to harm you if you just go home and close your borders. Heck - 10 Islamic extremists could have crossed the mexican border today for all we know.

Not true Cam and you know it. As soon as Saddam fell and the terrorists starting moving in, preventing a stable govt. from being established, preventing schools, hospitals, power grids, communications etc. from being set up, did the front of the war on terror, settle in Iraq. Iraq is the not do all and be all on the war on terror, it is simply the front line sright now. If it were not bewing fought there, it would be being fought somewhere else. Terrorism does not exist because of Iraq. So please lower the banner you have been toting suggesting terrorism is rampant because the US went into Iraq and made sure the UN resolutions were being upheld.

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

... made sure the UN resolutions were being upheld.

Which U.N. resolution authorised dismantling the government of Iraq?  Because I thought the UN recognised the "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq".

You could compare what actually happened to killing someone who has a restraining order to prevent them violating the terms.

Of my entire paragraph, half of a sentence is all you can debate?? Oh well.

The UN deemed Iraq a security threat to the world. Yet refused to do anything about Iraq for over 10 years, except threaten "serious consequences" if it did not comply with the resolutions. Since the UN didn't act. The US did, on its own behalf, for our own nation security reasons. Security reasons, the rest of the world agreed were real, given the intel of the day.

If Bush senior hadnt of turned back in the early 90s we wouldnt be in this dam position.  I dont agree the UK has a muslim problem, its a group of extremeists who give the rest of them a bad name, like the IRA with catholics, UVF with prodesonts (spelling bah).  I refuse to judge an entire race/culture over the actions of a minute few of mainiacs.  Does seem though, multiculturism is doomed to fail, we always fight with each other, its what we do......

Martyn

lowing wrote:

Of my entire paragraph, half of a sentence is all you can debate?? Oh well.

The UN deemed Iraq a security threat to the world. Yet refused to do anything about Iraq for over 10 years, except threaten "serious consequences" if it did not comply with the resolutions. Since the UN didn't act. The US did, on its own behalf, for our own nation security reasons. Security reasons, the rest of the world agreed were real, given the intel of the day.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.  Which is why the inspections had resumed just before the invasion...

Can I just say; great plan for long term national security, now America is tied up in quagmires on two fronts and everything.

usmarine2007 wrote:

He agreed?  Wonder why I was over there in 1998?  Sight seeing?

Running cover for Clinton's blowjob scandal?

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Of my entire paragraph, half of a sentence is all you can debate?? Oh well.

The UN deemed Iraq a security threat to the world. Yet refused to do anything about Iraq for over 10 years, except threaten "serious consequences" if it did not comply with the resolutions. Since the UN didn't act. The US did, on its own behalf, for our own nation security reasons. Security reasons, the rest of the world agreed were real, given the intel of the day.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.  Which is why the inspections had resumed just before the invasion...

Can I just say; great plan for long term national security, now America is tied up in quagmires on two fronts and everything.

usmarine2007 wrote:

He agreed?  Wonder why I was over there in 1998?  Sight seeing?

Running cover for Clinton's blowjob scandal?

"riiiiiight"?!!......maybe you need to go back and re-read the resolutions and see for yourself that the UN held Iraq as a high threat to world peace.

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Of my entire paragraph, half of a sentence is all you can debate?? Oh well.

The UN deemed Iraq a security threat to the world. Yet refused to do anything about Iraq for over 10 years, except threaten "serious consequences" if it did not comply with the resolutions. Since the UN didn't act. The US did, on its own behalf, for our own nation security reasons. Security reasons, the rest of the world agreed were real, given the intel of the day.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.  Which is why the inspections had resumed just before the invasion...

Can I just say; great plan for long term national security, now America is tied up in quagmires on two fronts and everything.


Running cover for Clinton's blowjob scandal?

"riiiiiight"?!!......maybe you need to go back and re-read the resolutions and see for yourself that the UN held Iraq as a high threat to world peace.

I expect more of the member nations regard Amerca as a bigger threat to world peace.  The only reason there aren't any resolutions against America is the veto system, no-one can get them through.  You won't find any passed resolutions can you find condemning any of the five veto weilding states.

And you can squirm and wriggle all you want to say that it was permitted by UN resolutions, but it wasn't. 

Kofi Annan, BBC, September, 2004 wrote:

"From our point of view and from the Charter point of view it (the war) was illegal."

The coalition were essentially a vigilante lynch mob, and like all lynch mobs it ended up with someone being put in front of a kangaroo court then strung up.

I compliment you on a well presented argument.

I believe the justification was there for force; the other nations just weren't willing to use it.

Oh yeah... I'm noticing that too... which is a bit sad, because I'm from USA (although, mind you the Pacific Northwest... "U.S.Alt.")

I don't know what exactly justifies this type of hatred, but clearly we as a nation have not embraced "An Eye for an Eye makes the Whole World Blind"


and even then... we have nothing to fear from 99 percent of muslims... so it's not really Eye For An Eye...

Last edited by djphetal (2007-01-20 00:13:15)

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Of my entire paragraph, half of a sentence is all you can debate?? Oh well.

The UN deemed Iraq a security threat to the world. Yet refused to do anything about Iraq for over 10 years, except threaten "serious consequences" if it did not comply with the resolutions. Since the UN didn't act. The US did, on its own behalf, for our own nation security reasons. Security reasons, the rest of the world agreed were real, given the intel of the day.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.  Which is why the inspections had resumed just before the invasion...

Can I just say; great plan for long term national security, now America is tied up in quagmires on two fronts and everything.


Running cover for Clinton's blowjob scandal?

"riiiiiight"?!!......maybe you need to go back and re-read the resolutions and see for yourself that the UN held Iraq as a high threat to world peace.

I expect more of the member nations regard Amerca as a bigger threat to world peace.  The only reason there aren't any resolutions against America is the veto system, no-one can get them through.  You won't find any passed resolutions can you find condemning any of the five veto weilding states.

And you can squirm and wriggle all you want to say that it was permitted by UN resolutions, but it wasn't. 

Kofi Annan, BBC, September, 2004 wrote:

"From our point of view and from the Charter point of view it (the war) was illegal."

The coalition were essentially a vigilante lynch mob, and like all lynch mobs it ended up with someone being put in front of a kangaroo court then strung up.

You've got to give Lord Goldsmith and Ambassador Negroponte credit for making the extremely weak argument that 1441 in combination with 678 and 687 became into an fairly persuasive (at least on the surface) argument for the legitimacy of the war. 1441 specifically did not provide any justification for war, if it had done the French would have vetoed it, yet the US and UK legal teams wouldn't be stopped by something as flexible as laws. This manipulation of international law by two of the nations most responsible for upholding those laws makes a mockery of the entire system of international law. It is simply another case of might makes right at the end of the day and no complicated legal spin is going to change that.

Bubbalo wrote:

Ah, so it's some vague, non-descript "they", allowing you to say whatever you like without actually having to be reasonable or logical.

This "they" is really fashionable lately don't you think? As in "they" the terrorists, "they" the enemy. Very Orwellian

Elamdri wrote:

Bell wrote:

If Bush senior hadnt of turned back in the early 90s we wouldnt be in this dam position.

Didn't even read my post did you? Sigh, lemme repost it for you.

Elamdri wrote:

Despite the criticism he received for not attacking Iraq and removing Saddam during Desert Storm, Bush Sr. Actually made the correct decision. He knew that Saddam was not only a stabilizing factor in Iraq, but that Saddam created a buffer between the US and Iran. Bush Sr. also knew that if the fighting moved from the desert  into the cities, we'd start seeing US troops die and give the enemy the advantage.

While people are very critical of the UN (and for good reason), Desert Storm was probably the greatest success that the UN has ever had. Bush masterfully constructed through the UN the Coalition Forces of over 30 countries, including other Muslim countries in the region, which is in itself quite a feat, and successfully expelled Iraq with minimal losses and maximum damage to the Iraqi forces (just look at the destruction of the Hammurabi Armored Division on Highway 80).

In all reality, Bush Jr. made the exact mistake his father was smart enough not to make, and that was to go into Iraq, into the cities, and remove Saddam from power.

I respect your argument, yet that is not to say I agree with it.  For whatever reason this war was for, the objective known to the public was to remove sadam, by force, all Bush seniors delaying tactics and that is all it was couldnt go on forever, sadam had to go, just caused what would of happened in the early 90s in 2003-2007 and probably beyond.

Martyn