French and Iraqis have a lot in common...

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Foz, Mar 10, 2003.

  1. Foz

    Foz

    <b>3:23PM Iraqi troops offer surrender; told to come back later</b> : London's Mirror reports that terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started. According to the report, the band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise. The stunned paratroopers from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
     
  2. msfe

    msfe

    Foz:`The stunned paratroopers from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.´

    what an extraordinary gallant act of bravery to order the poor chaps `back to their home country´- to their certain execution for defection.
     
  3. "we are here to liberate you from opression. now that you've escaped opression, go back to the oppressive state so we can try to kill you before we liberate you."

    :D
     
  4. PLEASE. If the paras had taken in the Iraqis the two of you would be echoing France, Germany, China, Russia, et al in condemning the "unilateral kidnapping of Iraqi soldiers in violation of international law" and calling it another example of US-Britain aggression.
     
  5. roe

    roe

    hahahahapaboy, you're so funny, hahahahaha

    So sending back defecting soldiers into certain execution is the correct way as otherwise the US and UK might be criticised by some countries?
    Going back in time some 60 years or so, you would have nodded in agreement with Switzerland sending back fugitive Jews into Germany?
    So much for America's moral framework and respect for human rights. Thank you, and please keep up the good work, you "idit"!
     
  6. Fellow "idit," no to sending the Jews back.

    If you cannot differentiate between a persecuted religion and a country we've had hostilities with for over a decade....

    Au revoir, mon frere. Send a postcard from Paris & Berlin.
     
  7. roe

    roe

    Just a couple of facts:
    - by definition the Jews were not persecuted because of their religion, but for their "race": those gangsters who called themselves "National Socialists" did not have a religion, did not care about religion and believed that there are more than one human race
    - the State of Israel did not exist then, hence that question of sending soldiers back could not have arisen. What MSFE was pointing to was the humanitarian side of that defection. Those soldiers, by the way, would most probably be exposed to the typical American religious intolerance that most religious minorities have to go through in the land of the righteous
     
  8. I stand corrected: No to sending the Jews back who were persecuted for their race, not their religion.

    As far as religious persecution goes, there's a long list of other countries you'll have to go through with far less tolerance for religion before you can point the finger at the US.

    One off the top of my head: Iraq.

    Auf Wiederzehn
     
  9. OHLC

    OHLC

    Actually, Iraq allows all religions, its Prime Minister is a christian
    (although he is PM partly because he is christian, but that is another issue).

    OHLC
     
  10. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    The british army are guests in Kuwait, there was absolutely nothing they could do regarding Iraqi soldiers illegaly crossing Kuwaiti border, it is a prerogative of Kuwaiti border authorities to deal with them.

    And surprise surprise, the Kuwait government's policy is to not allow refugees from Iraq. So they would have been sent back by Kuwaities anyway.
     
    #10     Mar 10, 2003