Liverpool FC Forum

by **kobashi** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:17 pm

I am asking you a question. please tell me how the british fighting in the falklands to stop what they believed to be occupation is somehow okay while fighting occupation in iraq isnt?

again I am not comparing British forces too the Nazi's. I am saying occupation of other people's lands is wrong and that people have a right to resist that. it seems that you think that the british and US forces have every right to be in the middle east and the people should not be fighting back.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:30 pm

kobashi wrote:I am asking you a question. please tell me how the british fighting in the falklands to stop what they believed to be occupation is somehow okay while fighting occupation in iraq isnt?

again I am not comparing British forces too the Nazi's. I am saying occupation of other people's lands is wrong and that people have a right to resist that. it seems that you think that the british and US forces have every right to be in the middle east and the people should not be fighting back.

Because the Falklands was a conflict between state and state, we are not battling a state in Iraq we are battling paramilitary groups, are you that naive to miss out on such a BASIC distinction!

Read up on it.

You like to dumb the argument down and compare the incompatible when there are CLEAR differences.

You were comparing the Nazi occupation to the British and American one - you made a clear comparison that the Britsh forces were occupying in the same vain as the Nazi's - we are not trying to take over the world like they were. You have NO idea about my views on Iraq, if you read my posts you would see that I clearly did not support the invasion of Iraq - go and read up on some history before coming out with sh!t.

by **kobashi** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:41 pm

let me give you an example on the falklands and palestine and how there is similarities

The Falklands was annexed by the British Empire in an imperial swoop in 1833. Argentina attempted to bring the falklands colony back within its own sovereignty in 1982, following this the UK decided to send a naval task force 8,000 miles across to retrieve a piece of land which had about 2,000 people living inside.

Muslims across the world are constantly asked to recognise the state of Israel despite the latter’s annexation of Palestine in 1948. The West demands that political parties like Hamas should recognise Israel as a condition for normal relations. In Britain no one seriously argues that Argentina was right to invade in 1982, nor is sovereignty even on the table when it comes to political discussions with the Argentineans. Why is it the case therefore that Argentina’s occupation of the Islands could not be recognised under any circumstances, yet Israel’s brutal annexation in 1948 is given an official seal of approval by the west?

The Western nations argue that force against Israel is illegal but the response to the Argentinean invasion in 1982, was a violent military one by the United Kingdom. Why was it legal and just to evict Argentina in 1982 yet illegal and barbaric for the Palestinians to engage in any legitimate resistance against Israel?

why was self determination legitimate for the falklands islanders in 1982 on all of their land but self determination for the Palestinians is confined to a small proportion of the land they occupied in 1948?

Onto Iraq, Is your argument is because the Iraqi Army was defeated the population in Iraq should not resist occupation? Is that what you are saying?

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:15 pm

For a start you are making a stupid comparison since there is 125 years of difference.

You are comparing "the west" to the "British", the west is NOT the "British".

Many people in Western countries do NOT recognise or give a seal of approval to Israel's occupation of land, likewise many in Britain do not agree with the British Colonialisn of centuries past.

The people of the Falkland Islands wanted to determine their own future, we fought off the invasion of Argentina as it is a British overseas territory, you cannot change the colonial past, you can only deal with the situation in front of you - the Falkland Islanders did NOT want to be under the sovereignty of Argentina at the time of the invasion. You could argue that every other country in the world with historical colonial links has no right to that land, so let other countries invade them on that basis? Get real.

Israel is a totally separate issue, the comparison is flawed. We handed over control of Palestine under a league of nations agreement, it was multilateral. What happened after we left is not our fault, it was the result of immigration and an acceptance that after the holocaust all Jews should have the right to their own state. The British government accepts their right to exist and co-habit and I don't see a problem with that. I see a problem with the initial seizure of power and the proportion of land Palestinian's have, but it would be silly for a western nation to suggest that Israel has no right to exist.

We didn't evict Argentina, we protected a British overseas territory, the islanders do NOT want Argentinian sovereignty. A violebt military one by the U.K.? Get real, we defended the rights of the falkland islanders. I'll repeat, you CANNOT change the colonial past and if every part of land tha had been colonised 170 years ago was invaded we'd have world war 3, you have to accept it and move on. People in the west don't consider it illegal for a legitimate Palestinian resistance, the Government may do but that is an official position we can do nothing about.

In Iraq, I'm saying that the people who are resiting the occupation are insurgents not day to day Iraqi's. The allied forces are not there to colonise Iraq, they are there to liberate the country from Saddam, the west is not taking over Iraq it is giving the Iraqi's the right to self-determination. I disagree with the invasion, but that is completely different to occupying a country like you are suggesting Israel did. I srael are there to stay, we are not.

by **metalhead** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:00 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
metalhead wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:Funny how it's only the that U.S. takes criticism from you. Iran get away with saying they want Israel wiped off the map, Iran get away with supporting the Iraqi insurgency. Syria and Iran get away with meddling in Lebanon yet you only criticise the U.S.

Saddam is responsible for himself and only himself, the only criticism of the U.S. is that they supplied him weapons in the 80's, nevertheless, the monstrous acts of violence he authorised are down to him alone and only him - not the U.S. The U.S did not create the monster that was Saddam, he created it himself.

As for Sudan, which other countries have been doing much about it? Yet again the U.S. alone get the blame, what about middle-eastern countries, why can't they help out?

So we stay out of Afghnaistan is what you are saying aswell? Let al qaeda breed terrrorists who attack civilization as a whole? You haven't said of an alternative to Afghanistan.

1) There is no evidence that Iran is meddling in Lebanon, NO evidence. The Lebanese government is a U.S puppet! they take orders from the U.S, and actually the Prime minister himself said that lebanon can't do anything without U.S help.

2) LFC2007, whats the difference if you went to afghanistan or not? ok the NATO forces are there, but have they at least wiped out 50% of terrorisim in the region? I think barly 2 or 3%! so what are they waiting for? Al-quada and Taliban are still flourishing and no one is stopping them. I'll say this again, You can't send an army to destroy a terrorist organization! YOU CAN'T! it doesn't work! The only way is to send individuals (secret agents) to infeltrate such organizations. Using secret intelligence you can defeat extremist terrorist organization. Look what happened to Israel, they send a whole army to wipe out hizballah, who aren't terrorists FACT, but a resistance organization, well israel forces failed misrably!

3) Also, you shouldn't call arab government muslim government, they aren't muslim government except for 2 or 3 countries, you can say Arab government.

Everyone is meddling with each other, all of them want whats best for them. This is a U.S-Iran conflict, and they are using small countries to their advantage. I don't want my country to turn into a battlefield.

1) There is evidence that Iran are meddling in Lebanon, Hezbollah has links to Iran, I could say the same about the U.S. and their alleged meddling with Fatah. Some choose to not balance it up since they are so AVIDLY anti-western.

2) Afghanistan was being used as a MASS training camp for terorists, it was well known that many terrorists have been trained there who have subsequently udertaken murderous attacks. You have to stop it. Intelligence will not bring down a terrorist organisation, they are so closely nit and so suspicious of any outsiders that it is almost a non-starter. Maybe in hiomegrown terror groups it's possible to infilitrate, but in Afghanistan their territory - it rarely if ever was going to happen. An army will never destroy Al qaeda, but they will limit the extent to which they can openly train terrorists and breed a terrorist nation in Afghanistan, limiting the spread of terrorism.

3) I shouldn't say Muslim gov't just, a nuance, just like you shouldn't generalise the "west".

1) hizballah are backed by Iran yes, but financially and they aren't controlling hizballah. Hizballah is an independent organization whose sole purpose is defend lebanese lands. Iran aren't telling hizballah what to do with the lebanese government! its hizballah who are choosing what to do with the government. The thing that p!sses me off in my country is that politicians usually blame other politician or other governments without putting evidence in the table (for example a bomb explodes, and one politician blames syria for doing that without proof).

2) Agreed true, but i still think intelligence can infiltrate strong terrorist groups. Do you think the U.S have limited terrorist activity in afghanistan? I don't think so, I think al-quada are still the same 15 years ago, maybe stronger. The U.S should stop thinking about how afghanistan would benefit them economically and start trying to find solutions to exterminate terrorists.

3) I don't usually say the "west" without putting which countries. I usually say "west" (U.S, Britian, etc..). Usually i specify the government, i.e in some posts the U.S.

by **Big Niall** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:14 pm

LFC2007 wrote:For a start you are making a stupid comparison since there is 125 years of difference.

You are comparing "the west" to the "British", the west is NOT the "British".

Many people in Western countries do NOT recognise or give a seal of approval to Israel's occupation of land, likewise many in Britain do not agree with the British Colonialisn of centuries past.

The people of the Falkland Islands wanted to determine their own future, we fought off the invasion of Argentina as it is a British overseas territory, you cannot change the colonial past, you can only deal with the situation in front of you - the Falkland Islanders did NOT want to be under the sovereignty of Argentina at the time of the invasion. You could argue that every other country in the world with historical colonial links has no right to that land, so let other countries invade them on that basis? Get real.

Israel is a totally separate issue, the comparison is flawed. We handed over control of Palestine under a league of nations agreement, it was multilateral. What happened after we left is not our fault, it was the result of immigration and an acceptance that after the holocaust all Jews should have the right to their own state. The British government accepts their right to exist and co-habit and I don't see a problem with that. I see a problem with the initial seizure of power and the proportion of land Palestinian's have, but it would be silly for a western nation to suggest that Israel has no right to exist.

We didn't evict Argentina, we protected a British overseas territory, the islanders do NOT want Argentinian sovereignty. A violebt military one by the U.K.? Get real, we defended the rights of the falkland islanders. I'll repeat, you CANNOT change the colonial past and if every part of land tha had been colonised 170 years ago was invaded we'd have world war 3, you have to accept it and move on. People in the west don't consider it illegal for a legitimate Palestinian resistance, the Government may do but that is an official position we can do nothing about.

In Iraq, I'm saying that the people who are resiting the occupation are insurgents not day to day Iraqi's. The allied forces are not there to colonise Iraq, they are there to liberate the country from Saddam, the west is not taking over Iraq it is giving the Iraqi's the right to self-determination. I disagree with the invasion, but that is completely different to occupying a country like you are suggesting Israel did. I srael are there to stay, we are not.

Good post!

I don't really believe the Falklands is ultimately British but as the people on it have British identities and have been there for so long, and nobody is oppressed, and it isn't a source of greath wealth or anything, then the status quo should remain.

Palestine is a very different proposition, although utlimately i side with the palestinians on the issue.

Many in the west see any violence by palestinians as being "al queda related" or terrorism. I don't believe in blowing up a restaurant or anything but soldiers are fair targets.

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:34 pm

metalhead wrote:1) hizballah are backed by Iran yes, but financially and they aren't controlling hizballah. Hizballah is an independent organization whose sole purpose is defend lebanese lands. Iran aren't telling hizballah what to do with the lebanese government! its hizballah who are choosing what to do with the government. The thing that p!sses me off in my country is that politicians usually blame other politician or other governments without putting evidence in the table (for example a bomb explodes, and one politician blames syria for doing that without proof).

2) Agreed true, but i still think intelligence can infiltrate strong terrorist groups. Do you think the U.S have limited terrorist activity in afghanistan? I don't think so, I think al-quada are still the same 15 years ago, maybe stronger. The U.S should stop thinking about how afghanistan would benefit them economically and start trying to find solutions to exterminate terrorists.

3) I don't usually say the "west" without putting which countries. I usually say "west" (U.S, Britian, etc..). Usually i specify the government, i.e in some posts the U.S.

1) Like people accuse America of interfering with Fatah and Hamas, the same can be said with Iran and Hizballah.

2) I disagree, if Afghanistan was left to its own devices, I think we'd see a growth in terrorism. It was used as a mass training camp and recruitment arena, that arena has been constricted now. Homegrown terrorism is a different and separate issue.

3) Fair enough mate.

by **kobashi** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:10 pm

Big Niall wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:For a start you are making a stupid comparison since there is 125 years of difference.

You are comparing "the west" to the "British", the west is NOT the "British".

Many people in Western countries do NOT recognise or give a seal of approval to Israel's occupation of land, likewise many in Britain do not agree with the British Colonialisn of centuries past.

The people of the Falkland Islands wanted to determine their own future, we fought off the invasion of Argentina as it is a British overseas territory, you cannot change the colonial past, you can only deal with the situation in front of you - the Falkland Islanders did NOT want to be under the sovereignty of Argentina at the time of the invasion. You could argue that every other country in the world with historical colonial links has no right to that land, so let other countries invade them on that basis? Get real.

Israel is a totally separate issue, the comparison is flawed. We handed over control of Palestine under a league of nations agreement, it was multilateral. What happened after we left is not our fault, it was the result of immigration and an acceptance that after the holocaust all Jews should have the right to their own state. The British government accepts their right to exist and co-habit and I don't see a problem with that. I see a problem with the initial seizure of power and the proportion of land Palestinian's have, but it would be silly for a western nation to suggest that Israel has no right to exist.

We didn't evict Argentina, we protected a British overseas territory, the islanders do NOT want Argentinian sovereignty. A violebt military one by the U.K.? Get real, we defended the rights of the falkland islanders. I'll repeat, you CANNOT change the colonial past and if every part of land tha had been colonised 170 years ago was invaded we'd have world war 3, you have to accept it and move on. People in the west don't consider it illegal for a legitimate Palestinian resistance, the Government may do but that is an official position we can do nothing about.

In Iraq, I'm saying that the people who are resiting the occupation are insurgents not day to day Iraqi's. The allied forces are not there to colonise Iraq, they are there to liberate the country from Saddam, the west is not taking over Iraq it is giving the Iraqi's the right to self-determination. I disagree with the invasion, but that is completely different to occupying a country like you are suggesting Israel did. I srael are there to stay, we are not.

Good post!

I don't really believe the Falklands is ultimately British but as the people on it have British identities and have been there for so long, and nobody is oppressed, and it isn't a source of greath wealth or anything, then the status quo should remain.

Palestine is a very different proposition, although utlimately i side with the palestinians on the issue.

Many in the west see any violence by palestinians as being "al queda related" or terrorism. I don't believe in blowing up a restaurant or anything but soldiers are fair targets.

The reason the British fought in 1982 was not to do with protecting several hundred islanders. Other interests, besides sovereignty, were revealed in declassified British Treasury files from the 1970s according to David Leigh on the Guardian website. One of the key reasons why Britain was so keen to keep the islands, the documents state, was because "this territory is one of the few areas outside the UK where we might hope to strike oil."

by **dawson99** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:48 pm

You people are all commies!!!

sometimes the stronger coutries need to go to war to keep a level playing field. Saddam was an evil dictator and needed to be stopped. Who cares why we actually went. we went,. We got rid of him. Its the politics afterwoods that the usa have fecked up.

Falklands was about oil? Feck off it was. Afghanistan should be left alone? Feck off, terrorism is rife and needs to be stamped out, and yes, some innocent people will die.

by **redtrader74** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:05 pm

Yes oil was thought to be in the Falklands, but regardless, when the British territory was attacked, with a population that all believe themselves to be British, obviously we were going to liberate it, mineral possibilities or lack of would not come into the reasoning.

by **redtrader74** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:27 pm

kobashi wrote:I am asking you a question. please tell me how the british fighting in the falklands to stop what they believed to be occupation is somehow okay while fighting occupation in iraq isnt?

again I am not comparing British forces too the Nazi's. I am saying occupation of other people's lands is wrong and that people have a right to resist that. it seems that you think that the british and US forces have every right to be in the middle east and the people should not be fighting back.

Two totally different scenarios. When Saddam was overthrown didn't you see the Iraqis dancing in the Streets?

Didn't you see them smash all the Statues of Saddam?

Didn't you see them raid his Palaces?

Didn't you see the joy on their faces?

The fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with the normal Iraqi,those poor bast@rds are being killed by their own, it is primarily being fought by the remnants of Saddams Ba'ath Party, and by terrorism sponsored by states such as Iran. Why else would normal Iraqis applying for jobs in the Police be blown to bits, by their fellow muslim brother? A blind man can see this. I don't believe we should have gone into Iraq, let Saddam keep doing what he did, and then his sons continue after he dies.

BUT now that we are there, what do you expect the allies to do? If we leave there will be genocide, the country will split into 3, Iran will probably attack, pretending to protect the Shia. Personally i couldn't care less, but there are people in this country who do. So what do you suggest?

Your anti western rhetoric stinks, when Bosnian Muslims were being slaughtered, who were the primary forces in place to save them? YES THATS RIGHT, THE BRITISH, we sided against the Christian Serbs and for the majority muslim Bosnians, who gave them Asylum, yes again the West, no damn Muslim Country said, send them here, we will take care of our brothers.
Get a grip, you complain but offer no help, resources or plausible solutions, i said it before, if you will always side with a muslim against a non muslim, and believe that to be only choice, then you are as bad as any Racist organisation.

by **puroresu** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:58 pm

redtrader74 wrote:
kobashi wrote:I am asking you a question. please tell me how the british fighting in the falklands to stop what they believed to be occupation is somehow okay while fighting occupation in iraq isnt?

again I am not comparing British forces too the Nazi's. I am saying occupation of other people's lands is wrong and that people have a right to resist that. it seems that you think that the british and US forces have every right to be in the middle east and the people should not be fighting back.

Two totally different scenarios. When Saddam was overthrown didn't you see the Iraqis dancing in the Streets?

Didn't you see them smash all the Statues of Saddam?

Didn't you see them raid his Palaces?

Didn't you see the joy on their faces?

The fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with the normal Iraqi,those poor bast@rds are being killed by their own, it is primarily being fought by the remnants of Saddams Ba'ath Party, and by terrorism sponsored by states such as Iran. Why else would normal Iraqis applying for jobs in the Police be blown to bits, by their fellow muslim brother? A blind man can see this. I don't believe we should have gone into Iraq, let Saddam keep doing what he did, and then his sons continue after he dies.

BUT now that we are there, what do you expect the allies to do? If we leave there will be genocide, the country will split into 3, Iran will probably attack, pretending to protect the Shia. Personally i couldn't care less, but there are people in this country who do. So what do you suggest?

Your anti western rhetoric stinks, when Bosnian Muslims were being slaughtered, who were the primary forces in place to save them? YES THATS RIGHT, THE BRITISH, we sided against the Christian Serbs and for the majority muslim Bosnians, who gave them Asylum, yes again the West, no damn Muslim Country said, send them here, we will take care of our brothers.
Get a grip, you complain but offer no help, resources or plausible solutions, i said it before, if you will always side with a muslim against a non muslim, and believe that to be only choice, then you are as bad as any Racist organisation.

The idea of Hezbollah being some kind of paramilitary group is wrong. Hezbollah is the real army in Lebanon. When Israel occupied south Lebanon for 18 years who was it that resisted? Hezbollah. When Israel invaded last summer who resisted and forced Israel out? Hezbollah. The actual 'army' were in the barracks while Hezbollah fighters were on the front line. If I was a citizan of Lebanon I know who I would want to defend my land.

"When Saddam was overthrown didn't you see the Iraqis dancing in the Streets?" Of course the Iraqi people were happy who wouldnt be. However does that equate to wanting to be under occupation?

"Didn't you see them smash all the Statues of Saddam?" You mean the staged US show. Look at this pic and u see there was not thousands of people at all. http://media.consumercide.com/saddamstatue.html

How anyone can describe this war as some sort of liberation is beyond me. Liberation? The so called liberators dont even count the dead bodies of the people they claim to be liberating. No electricity, no water, no security. 4 years on and Iraq is one big mess but thats ok as Saddam is gone and the people have been liberated. No-one can deny the rights of the people to resist occupation. Thats absurd. The people in Iraq have every right to resist the invaders. These are a proud people and history shows they resisted bravely against the mongols let alone the US/UK forces.

"The fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with the normal Iraqi,those poor bast@rds are being killed by their own, it is primarily being fought by the remnants of Saddams Ba'ath Party, and by terrorism sponsored by states such as Iran."

And u know this because? If Britian was invaded would not normal civilians take up arms against the occupier. A few years ago Iraq's interim government recently admitted that the insurgency involves at least 40,000 hardcore fighters & 200,000 active sympathizers.Aa far cry from the isolated 5,000 Baathist remnants & foreign fighters the Pentagon initially claimed to be fighting.

"Why else would normal Iraqis applying for jobs in the Police be blown to bits, by their fellow muslim brother?"

Because anyone seen to be working with the enemy (occupation) becomes the enemy.

"BUT now that we are there, what do you expect the allies to do? If we leave there will be genocide, the country will split into 3, Iran will probably attack, pretending to protect the Shia. Personally i couldn't care less, but there are people in this country who do. So what do you suggest?"

And if the occupation stays what happens then? 4 Years and I dont see much improvement. I just see bloodshed and death and even the great army from the US cant secure Iraq.
All I hear is "stay to the job is done". What does this mean? The job will never be done as an occupied people will always resist an occupation.

"Your anti western rhetoric stinks, when Bosnian Muslims were being slaughtered, who were the primary forces in place to save them? YES THATS RIGHT, THE BRITISH, we sided against the Christian Serbs and for the majority muslim Bosnians, who gave them Asylum, yes again the West, no damn Muslim Country said, send them here, we will take care of our brothers."

The Islamic Worlds response to the bosnian crisis was awful and they did nothing but please dont try and make the British heroe's. If u look at the facts u see that the international community imposed an arms embargo imposed on Bosnia which stopped the bosnian's actually being able to defend themselves. A defenceless people were slaughtered thpusands displaced and they couldnt even fight back.

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:40 pm

puroresu wrote:The idea of Hezbollah being some kind of paramilitary group is wrong.

Enough said, they are a terrorist organisation. The bias shown by some people is just unbelievable.

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:44 pm

kobashi wrote:The reason the British fought in 1982 was not to do with protecting several hundred islanders. Other interests, besides sovereignty, were revealed in declassified British Treasury files from the 1970s according to David Leigh on the Guardian website. One of the key reasons why Britain was so keen to keep the islands, the documents state, was because "this territory is one of the few areas outside the UK where we might hope to strike oil."

Typical anti-western/anti-British sh!t that is posted on this thread.

by **puroresu** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:38 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
puroresu wrote:The idea of Hezbollah being some kind of paramilitary group is wrong.

Enough said, they are a terrorist organisation. The bias shown by some people is just unbelievable.

freedom fighters.

Liverpool FC Forum

Salmon rushdie knighted - (i can see this getting locked)

Who is online