New and shocking footage of British troops torturing Iraqis...

@if ®afiq · 13 Feb 2006 at 18:06

cleanbluesky said:
Let me field this one...

1) Islam is perfect

2) People are bad

Once you understand these two concepts, it all becomes pretty obvious that no blame can be put upon the book

...and so it has begun...

Borris · 13 Feb 2006 at 18:06

singist said:
90% of the ******** are illiterate and wouldn't understand them even IF they had ever seen them..

G'wan - cite a source. I double dare you.

singist said:
Video taken years ago gets published by a **** British rag; the liberal tree huggers go ape **** ... despite the fact that 90% are literate and educated. Result .. people will die.

Luckily, by your definition, anyone who comdemns acts of brutality and violence is a LTH™.

singist said:
Dthese sort of things, and very much worse, have been going on (in your/my/our name) for ever: it's war. (yeah, I know)

Just because it goes on doesn't mean it's acceptable. Applying that particular logic to other activities would be abhorrent.

singist said:
Civilians eh? ..... as none of the cowardly Iraqi/Insurgents seem to actually want to put a uniform on, so it must be a bit tricky picking out the good guys from the bad guys, until they reveal themselves by attacking you.

Ican see it now: I say, towel-headed old bean, would you mind awfully preparing yourself for invasion by wearing easily identifiable clothing.

singist said:
As for why we're there ..... yup.....oil; not SH, not weapons of mass detruction, not any other spurious reason ....just OIL.

Slightly incongruent with the rest of your sentiment, but quite possibly true (at least in part).

cleanbluesky · 13 Feb 2006 at 18:15

@if ®afiq said:
...and so it has begun...

So you dont agree with the principle of what was posted?

Slam62 · 13 Feb 2006 at 18:16

the liberals never get in power though they're too nice, and never do anything nasty

ha ha

singist · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:14

All these pacifists make me smile.

Hypothetical question:

You arrive home to find your son/daughter/loved one being raped by a powerful, rabid (whatever) who's holding a sharp knife to the loved one's throat and you by some chance have a powerful gun in your pocket.

Do you:
1) ask them nicely to disist and try to reason with their good side?
2) put a bullet or two through their brain?

I've yet to meet anyone who choses option 1, pacifist or no.

VIRII · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:21

@if ®afiq said:
The Taliban were extremley strict in the way they followed Islam, to the point of even going against some of the basic i.e. no compulsion is religion. That being said, they bought the much needed stability to the country, and not to mention the near total erradication of poppy production.

I see so beating women for showing their ankles is OK because it brings stability. I think you'll find that the Allied forces are trying to bring not only stability but also freedom to the people so that they can genuinely choose their own destiny instead of having it forced on them at gunpoint by some islamic lunatic from Pakistan.
Strange how you refuse to denounce beatings if the Muslims are doing the beatings.

@if ®afiq said:
Any sources for this? I know they beat people, but not this tanks thing. And what kind of question is it that??

I recall the story pretty clearly, an old man had his legs run over by a tank or large truck for possessing a TV. You might recall that the Taliban made owning a TV illegal. Nice people really, they brought stability so what is the odd beating as long as they are muslims dishing it out you won't denounce it.

@if ®afiq said:
Do you know about the not so recent history of a number of prominent members of the current government? One of them was particulary notorious for strappping afghans to the front of tanks and then blasting them apart. Gulbuddin Hekmatyer (sp?) is the name that springs to mind.

I did not elect the current Government. Are you somehow trying to say that British soldiers beating people is terrible, Taliban beating people is OK and Afghans committing war crimes is terrible. I think you'll find the Taliban committed numerous attrocities. Certainly seems to be a rather biased viewpoint here. Either beatings are bad or they aren't. You stated how terrible it was that some squaddies gave a few lads a bashing. You support stoning Gays to death, don't mind Taliban beatings and executions ....

@if ®afiq said:
I would prefer it if the Iraqi people could dictate their own lives.

Please tell me how this would be possible under Saddam Hussein .....

@if ®afiq said:
It's funny you should mention that as after GW1, the Shi'ite uprising was both encouraged and at the same time helped to be put down by the US government becuase what they wanted was not a populist leader but an "iron fisted junta". I also read an article a week or so ago in which the ex chief of Shin Beth (sp?) stated that he would have preferred Saddam to the madness that they have now. Go figure eh?

Yes the USA did support an uprising and they did utterly let those people down and fail to follow though opting instead to leave SH in power as it was decided that it would be better for long term stability. It was a mistake. Hopefully they will rectify that mistake in time. Any proof that they wanted an "iron fisted junta" or is that a bit of militant islamic press that you've been reading?
Lots of countries have bloody and brutal civil wars on the road to better things. You might recall that this country had one as well.

dirtydog · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:21

singist said:
All these pacifists make me smile.

Hypothetical question:

You arrive home to find your son/daughter/loved one being raped by a powerful, rabid (whatever) who's holding a sharp knife to the loved one's throat and you by some chance have a powerful gun in your pocket.

Do you:
1) ask them nicely to disist and try to reason with their good side?
2) put a bullet or two through their brain?

I've yet to meet anyone who choses option 1, pacifist or no.

What's that got to do with the thread subject. And are you saying that anyone opposed to this incident is a pacifist.

Stringy · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:22

singist said:
All these pacifists make me smile.

Hypothetical question:

You arrive home to find your son/daughter/loved one being raped by a powerful, rabid (whatever) who's holding a sharp knife to the loved one's throat and you by some chance have a powerful gun in your pocket.

Do you:
1) ask them nicely to disist and try to reason with their good side?
2) put a bullet or two through their brain?

I've yet to meet anyone who choses option 1, pacifist or no.

What the hell has this got to do with professional soldiers beating unarmed civilians?

edit: bah, beaten to it (no pun intended)

VIRII · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:25

@if ®afiq said:
Ofcourse not. But it was far better than what they have now and what they will have withint the next 5-10 years. Not all of the Taliban where extreme, there were moderates amongt them - I believe the firegin minister is now in the current government?

Democracy cannot be forced.

You call yourself moderate and approve of stonings. Moderate means nothing in terms of Islamic moderacy.

Democracy cannot be forced? There would not be any force involved if it was not for the islamic lunatics desperate to stop democracy incase the people decide that they don't want the same islamic iron fisted rule that they've been lumbered with for so long.
A minority of people seem to be trying to force the rest of the population to live the way that the gunmen want. Sharia law and islamic militancy.

VIRII · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:27

@if ®afiq said:
Below are three different translations to that Verse:

All 3 involve beating people .....

Sleepy · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:28

dirtydog said:
What's that got to do with the thread subject. And are you saying that anyone opposed to this incident is a pacifist.

I've never been called a pacifist before.

singist · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:32

My post above was a very rough attempt to show that given the right circumstances and someone pressing the right buttons, our so called civilisation flies out of the window.
Just under the surface of nearly all of us is an animal despite what we might want to think.

@if ®afiq · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:41

VIRII said:
I see so beating women for showing their ankles is OK because it brings stability. I think you'll find that the Allied forces are trying to bring not only stability but also freedom to the people so that they can genuinely choose their own destiny instead of having it forced on them at gunpoint by some islamic lunatic from Pakistan.
Strange how you refuse to denounce beatings if the Muslims are doing the beatings.

Where have I said that it is OK to beat women for showing their ankles? Can you please quote that statement for me?

VIRII said:
I recall the story pretty clearly, an old man had his legs run over by a tank or large truck for possessing a TV. You might recall that the Taliban made owning a TV illegal. Nice people really, they brought stability so what is the odd beating as long as they are muslims dishing it out you won't denounce it.

Did I say they were nice? Can you quote that where I have said this? also WHY keep bringing my religion into this subject????

VIRIII said:
I did not elect the current Government. Are you somehow trying to say that British soldiers beating people is terrible, Taliban beating people is OK and Afghans committing war crimes is terrible. I think you'll find the Taliban committed numerous attrocities. Certainly seems to be a rather biased viewpoint here. Either beatings are bad or they aren't. You stated how terrible it was that some squaddies gave a few lads a bashing. You support stoning Gays to death, don't mind Taliban beatings and executions ....

Look, stop trying to twist my words. This is getting beyond annoying.

Where have I said that I don't mind the Taliban betaing people? I am not defending the actions of the Taliban.

VIRII said:
IPlease tell me how this would be possible under Saddam Hussein .....

Give the Iraqi's the chance to do it for themselves. It was very a near certainty at the end of GW1 - but of course, who wants a popular uprising when the control of oil is at stake?

VIRIII said:
Yes the USA did support an uprising and they did utterly let those people down and fail to follow though opting instead to leave SH in power as it was decided that it would be better for long term stability. It was a mistake. Hopefully they will rectify that mistake in time. Any proof that they wanted an "iron fisted junta" or is that a bit of militant islamic press that you've been reading?

I wouldn't exactly classify the New York Times as being "a bit of militant press" - I'm sure they would be more than suprised at being described like that!

VIRIII said:
Lots of countries have bloody and brutal civil wars on the road to better things. You might recall that this country had one as well.

Not many countries have had civil wars under foreign occupation. Leave them to it, they are more than eager to keep their country together and get on with things....but we all know this will never be allowed to happen.

cleanbluesky · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:42

singist said:
My post above was a very rough attempt to show that given the right circumstances and someone pressing the right buttons, our so called civilisation flies out of the window.
Just under the surface of nearly all of us is an animal despite what we might want to think.

Singist is right, if ill expressed.

Violence is in the human character, when faced with specific stimulus it is in our very makeup to become violent and violence does happen a lot more frequently than I am sure we would like.

What is a problem though, is when society condones unorganised random violence, or when society uses violence instead of negotiation

@if ®afiq · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:49

VIRII said:
You call yourself moderate and approve of stonings. Moderate means nothing in terms of Islamic moderacy.

If I recall it was you who was so eager to try and catogorise me. Make of it what you will. If God has prescribed stoning, then I am all for it. End of....but don't we already have a large thread about this in SC?????

VIRIII said:
Democracy cannot be forced? There would not be any force involved if it was not for the islamic lunatics desperate to stop democracy incase the people decide that they don't want the same islamic iron fisted rule that they've been lumbered with for so long.

First of all Saddam Hussein was a rabid seculraist and hated the Islamist.

Secondly, the "islamic lunatics" make up a very small percentage of the Iraqi resistence. I, and many other posters, have stated this many times...but it just seems to go down the memory hole.

A minority of people seem to be trying to force the rest of the population to live the way that the gunmen want. Sharia law and islamic militancy.

The majority of Iraqi's are Shi'ite who are loyal to the Mullah's and therefore want Islamic state. I don't know where you get your information from or if it's just that you just don't understand what you read (as it seems to be evident from the last couple of posts you have made).

Sleepy · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:53

cleanbluesky said:
Singist is right, if ill expressed.

Violence is in the human character, when faced with specific stimulus it is in our very makeup to become violent and violence does happen a lot more frequently than I am sure we would like.

What is a problem though, is when society condones unorganised random violence, or when society uses violence instead of negotiation

And the relevance to this thread is ... ?

cleanbluesky · 13 Feb 2006 at 20:02

@if ®afiq said:
First of all Saddam Hussein was a rabid seculraist and hated the Islamist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/941490.stm

Sorry about the selective quoting, I just couldn't resist using an owl

Dingo · 13 Feb 2006 at 20:05

Originally Posted by @if ®afiq

Homosexuality is illegal under Islamic Law as is beating unarmed civilians[\QUOTE]

Merely responding to your quote that under Islamic Law (in whichever country) it is ILLEGAL to beat unarmed civilians......the reality is quite different is it not. If you wish to attain the moral high ground be sure of your facts first....beatings are regularly given out in Pakistan to protestors who are ALL unarmed.

Islamic Law may say it but clearly the Law is adhered to when it suits, ergo, it is foolish to use it as a yardstick in a discussion when there is irrefutable proof that it is not so.

I trustyou now understand the point?

@if ®afiq · 13 Feb 2006 at 20:07

cleanbluesky said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/941490.stm

Sorry about the selective quoting, I just couldn't resist using an owl

Is it your opinion that he was an Islamist then? (I'm actually quite shocked at the whole blood thing - could it get even more sacraligous!)

@if ®afiq · 13 Feb 2006 at 20:11

Dingo said:
Merely responding to your quote that under Islamic Law (in whichever country) it is ILLEGAL to beat unarmed civilians......the reality is quite different is it not. If you wish to attain the moral high ground be sure of your facts first....beatings are regularly given out in Pakistan to protestors who are ALL unarmed.

Islamic Law may say it but clearly the Law is adhered to when it suits, ergo, it is foolish to use it as a yardstick in a discussion when there is irrefutable proof that it is not so.

I trustyou now understand the point?

Which is what I've been saying all along :confused:

Islamic Law says one thing, but those that rule by Islamic Law do no abide by it, ergo it is not the Law that is at fault.