Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter
- Thread starter fadetoblack
- Start date
Why only 8 years, is there some kind of international statute of limitation on crimes against humanity?
"hold on chaps, we gotta wait 8 years before we can do this again"...
Anyway during the post war era, he destroyed 95% of the Marsh Arab homelands, ruthlessly put down Kurdish and shi'ite uprisings against the brutality being shown toward them, set up rape rooms and torture rooms for dissident factions and their families.
you said he was a threat to the region....so i asked you to name what he was doing that was so threatening, if you're having to bring up things from 20 years ago that tells me he wasn't a threat anymore.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
because he didnt tolerate these things in his country. yes he tortured the Kurds etc...
any kind of uprising and he came down with an iron fist. something we are not able to do. castiel, you can throw in some faces as much as you want, but you would be advised to go and read the article i pointed to and see what you think
So are many Arab groups with a less than perfect record themselves.
Hezbollah have criticised al-Qaeda in the past and although their are reports of them acting ion concert with al Qaeda on occasion they are unsubstansiated for the most part.
Hassan Nazrallah in an interview with the Washington Post called the Taliban and their al Qaeda backers the biggest danger the Islamic world has ever encountered. The Sunni-Shi'ite sectarianism pretty much rules out any further connection between the two.
Hamas has quashed Al-Qaeda operations in the Gaza Strip on several occasions, and both have been openly critical of each other.
Unfortunately sometimes it seems that politicains need to make connections between dispararate groups for justification of actions against one or the other regardless of the facts.
Last edited:
But then you don't really have a clue what you are talking about outside some liberal rambling about how Sadaam has learnt his lesson so your opinion on the relative threat of someone with a history of invading his neighbours and attacking Israel and crimes against his own people is irrelevent.
Last edited:
So the United States prompted Saddaam to attack Kuwait?
Are you really that mis-informed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,282
The CIA put saddaam in power in the 1st place,lol
But then you don't really have a clue what you are talking about outside some liberal rambling about how Sadaam has learnt his lesson so your opinion on the relative threat of someone with a history of invading his neighbours and attacking Israel and crimes against his own people is irrelevent.
well thats why i asked you to englighten me, so go ahead and please do tell how Saddam was currently a threat at the time we invaded, also how many were being killed that we have saved so many lives ?
if you want go back 20 years then you will just prove my point that he wasn't a threat anymore and we haven't saved lives but caused more deaths.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
well of course, how many men did stalin kill? yet we never invaded his country to stop him...infact we allied with him and then helped his regime as it suited us... and then because we had no more stomach to fight left him to his maniacal abusive practices in countries that we have just gone to war to protect (poland for example) in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Hmm, Would he have got into more or less trouble if he'd infact cut the guys head off fighting? And then used the head to ID him as it was already available to him.
Also, The geneva convention protects dead bodies?
Also, The geneva convention protects dead bodies?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
in hindsight definately yes.
but when the economy appears to be booming...and everyone is happy it sounds like a great time for expansionist strategies to ensure future wealth from oil...
but then the cards collapse from the base and then you realise that over stretching the army in prolonged campaigns when the economy is in real freefall isnt ideal. especially when iraq has elss oil than you'd first imagined.
How did they do that then, in between covering up the assassination of JFK, drug running across Asia during the vietnam war in an attempt to wipe out the poor balck ghettos of America. Organising the fake moon landings, attempting to overthrow the Italian Government, conduction eugenics experients across he world, creating al-Qaeda, bombing the WTC twice, and so on....
Busy people these CIA lot, to be responsible for almost every wrong doing and war since the end of WW2....
I have explained it coherently and sensibly. I am not to blame for your failure to understand that a dictator's historical actions are relevent to the risk he may pose in the future, especially as evidence shows he was becoming more and more beligerent with his rhetoric and actions against the sanctions imposed by the UN and his actions against factions in his own sphere of influence supported this.
The point is that the 2003 war simply finished what should have been finished in 1991. If it had thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites would still be alive today.
If Saddaam had remained in power and continued to become ever more unstable, especially in the face of increased pressure by his neighbours, namely Iran there is every reason to beleive he would have posed an increased threat to the region.
Simply having an Iraq that was susceptable to expansion of Iranian Islamism is a threat to the region, so just becasue Saddaam did not have the weapons he claimed to have does not negate the risk to the region.
Either way you cannot prove that not invading in 2003 would have saved lives in the long run so unless you can prove it your claim is spurious.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
out of curiosity then, who is actually causing the bombings of the country at the moment?
which group, or groups are causing the main threat to the civillians and to the military and what lines would the devisive split of the military be drawn?
And people say we should blindly trust our allies and don't need a nuclear deterrent
He was great friends with Osama Bin Laden also...
Today's ally is tomorrow's enemy.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
If people really can't see the problem with this, they are moronic. While I agree that political correctness and killing are ridiculous bed partners, in a war such as this they need be. This will not only effect the committed Taliban, but also incite normal locals against the soldiers, and possibly even push some of them over to the other side. The defense "its war, deal with it", is mute - If it was the other way around, you sure a hell wouldn't be saying that, yet it would be an equally valid statement.
Look it up. It is is irrelevent to the reasons for the invasion in 1991, or those of 2003.
The mistakes made by all parties in the conduct of the Iraq war are not really under discussion here, the topic is supposed to be about a Gurka who beheaded a Taliban Fighter.
The bold part doesn't make sense.
And people say we should blindly trust our allies and don't need a nuclear deterrent
Today's ally is tomorrow enemy.
Indeed. Such is the world of politics.
That is the thing about world leaders, they generally meet on occasion.
I was not aware they had caught Osama bin Laden recently!