AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Brits Face Hostile Shiite Militias in Basra
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Back in 2004 when we tore Sadr's militia a new one,Britain stepped aside. I read where some of their soldiers disagreed with the tactic,but at any rate,they did. Now,they pay. They allowed Sadr to take over Basra and now he has consolidated himself down there.

The problem with Britain is it is a totally subjective nation,yet they desire to keep their "special relationship" with us. "kinder and friendlier" soldiers,the Yanks are trigger happy,etc. Got some bad news for Britain,Muslims are Muslims are Muslims. Shiites are as evil as Sunni,you Brits are infidels,keep this in mind.



http//www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.main/index.html
why such hostility to British troops?

this seems to me an blatant attempt to sap the British support for the war.

if i were in Intel, i would quickly "discover" a link between Al Sadr and Zarqawi.

Sadr MUST be removed from the face of this planet before we leave IRaq. failure to do so will only gurantee Iranian dominance in the Middle East for decades.
Oh come now. Nobody this cute could be that bad, right?

[Image: CARI.AlSadr.gif]
G,

Because they are INFIDELS. Get the scales off your eyes,the real religious Muslim of either stripe sees us as human sh.it.

At best. The Shiites further north aren't messing with us because they see us as an assist temporarily and we knocked the snot out of them earlier,but in Basra they need NO assist,there is no Sunni insurgency and the Brits allowed Sadr to reign while we stopped it further north.

You first have to understand the mentality of the fanatical Muslims,then you realize we're all the enemy. While we were assisting Muslims in Afghanistan say in 1985 against the Red Army,the fanatic was conspiring to start the GWOT against us.

To them,we and the Soviet Union were both infidel powers that inhibit the attainment of strategic goals. There was never a qualitative difference as WE saw and see it. Keep that in mind.
ghoullio Wrote:why such hostility to British troops?

this seems to me an blatant attempt to sap the British support for the war.

Possible, but more likely it is a message from Iran. A small demonstration of the mess Iran can easily create.

Quote:if i were in Intel, i would quickly "discover" a link between Al Sadr and Zarqawi.

Uggh, probably none. It is very likely that Iran supported some of the Zarqawi activities for tactical reasons, while Al Sadr is a mullah man; not the same.

Quote:Sadr MUST be removed from the face of this planet before we leave IRaq. failure to do so will only gurantee Iranian dominance in the Middle East for decades.

Would not do much good, there are many Iranian proxies over there. Now, removing Iran (or the regime) from the face of the planet....
For the record,Sadr is NOT a cleric. He's a political actor,but is not a qualified cleric.
We banished the Shinto religion from Japan after WWII... too bad we don't have the backbone to do the same with Islam.
we would have to nuke Mecca as we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

the emperor still wasnt going to surrender, even after the SECOND bombing.

how much blood would be shed in illegalizing Islam? you would first have to conquer the land, then the people.

not saying i dont like the idea, but thats a long bloody road. we can barely stomache 3,ooo deaths in Iraqa lone.
mv Wrote:Now, removing Iran (or the regime) from the face of the planet....

NOW you're cooking with gas.
Quote:the emperor still wasnt going to surrender, even after the SECOND bombing.

He highlights how Emperor Hirohito moved out of his largely ceremonial role to convince his divided government that surrender was necessary, and he describes the attempted coup by members of the military to prevent the civilian government from following through with a surrender. The book contains an appendix of relevant treaties, declarations, and documents.


http://www.doug-long.com/kido.htm
A quick word from the infidel. Wink1

It is interesting how sophisiticated and elaborate you view the Islamic extremists. I doubt that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi knows much about strategic military warfare, let alone read Sun Tzu's Art of War. He is a semi-literate crook from Jordan and has been barely able to muster a resistance in area's of Iraq, hence Osama's desire to have him 'step down'. Communcation is so lousy within Al Qaeda that it was months before Al Zarqawi got this message and a few more before he decided to do anything about it.

Muqtada al-Sadr is different, the tactics of "tearing his militia a new one" have only seen new insurgents and half-baked crooks such as Al Zarqawi pop up in the less extremist areas of Iraq. I do not think that Muslims are intrinsically evil, but if you start treating them as such, the more fundamentalist ones will be happy to oblidge, remember, it serves their purposes for you to think they are.
benjamin Wrote:I do not think that Muslims are intrinsically evil, but if you start treating them as such, the more fundamentalist ones will be happy to oblidge, remember, it serves their purposes for you to think they are.

You are probably right about the "people" Benjamin. However, it is the religion itself, that is the real culprit. Islam means "submission", and followers must submit to a master. Followers are left to live, due to the benevolence of the Master.

Consequently, the religion is led by those who are more apt to apply violent means to enforce their desires. And G-d help those who wish to leave the club. If they do, their heads will suddenly take a walk from the rest of the body.

This reminds me of the Eagles' song "Hotel California". "You Can Check Out, But You Just Can't Leave." I wonder what will happen to the numbers when, and if, free will is allowed in Islam?
never happen. Free Will cannot be allowed in Islam. Islam requires a sub-human nature of its followers.
It will be interesting to see just which way they finally move.
build an economcal wall and let the Chinese crush Islam.
Some of you guys do seem to have a rather interesting view on Islam. I won't really comment on it since I (presumably unlike you) have not read the Koran.

I will say this though; some of the (scandalous) things done in the name of Islam nowadays remind me of some of the (more) scandalous things done in the name of Christianity over the ages. This leads me to believe that it is not Islam that is the problem, nor is it Christianity, it is the belief by any person in any dogma which seeks not only to live your life you, but also impells that same person to 'help' others live their lives for them. That is to say, the problem is with religion. Religion supports the concept that I am right and you are wrong, unless you also share my religion. From here it is only a short step to justifying all sorts of things to 'recitify' your lack of belief.

Of course, you need not be religious to be blinded by the righteousness of your own belief. Many persons the world over manage to convince themselves of how right they are and how wrong people who disagree with them are, most of the time for non-religous reasons. Religion is just the ultimate manifestation of self-righteousness.
Quote: That is to say, the problem is with religion.

Somehow, I just KNEW that you would bring this to the surface.

Quote: Religion is just the ultimate manifestation of self-righteousness.

I don't agree here. Certainly with a select few, but not with most. And clearly Christianity has some who misused it. However, if you read the New Testament, it is full of enjoyning people to love their neighbors, forgive those who transgress, and many other things. I don't see any of this with Islam.

I still contend that Islam, as it stands right now, is a 'gutter' religion. However, it can still pull itself out of that gutter, but it will take a lot of effort.
ah yes, lets blame Christianity for problems 1300 years ago, and give TODAYS "modern" Muslim a pass.

makes perfect sense.
Ben,

Sadr is weak where we fought him,he owns Basra. There's a reason for that and it is not because the UK troopers went after his robots like we did further north.

These people cannot be treated as normal humans,they are NOT.

There is no reason to them except fulfilling their deluded view of what God desires of them.

They cut off the head of a female reporter last week SLOWLY and fimed it for distribution,your view of nuance with them is seen by them as weakness,even if it is not weakness. Normal humans do not get off doing or seeing that and should all be killed that do. Period. In Iraq or anywhere else on earth.
ghoullio Wrote:ah yes, lets blame Christianity for problems 1300 years ago, and give TODAYS "modern" Muslim a pass.

makes perfect sense.

You seem to be missing my point. If Christianity had problems (which is quite a euphimism for the slaughter conducted in its name over the ages) 1300 years ago and it does not have these problems now (which is a contentious statement, but for the sake of arguement lets go with it) how can that metamorphosis have taken place? I mean, since the religion is based on a book written long before the 'problems 1300 years ago' and is patently written long before the relative calm with which it is exercised today, what precipitated this change? And is it not possible that Islam is going through precisely the same sort of thing that Christianity was '1300 years ago'?

Perhaps I was wrong when I said 'the problem is religion'. The problem perhaps is with peoples interpretation of (any) religion, combined with most religions' insistence on being 'the way' - and usually the only way at that.
Pages: 1 2