Two people have been arrested following a Muslim anti-war protest staged at a parade for soldiers returning from Iraq.



Scuffles broke out as soldiers from the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, known as The Poachers, paraded in Luton town centre.
A group of Muslim protesters, who were hemmed in by police as the soldiers marched past, waved placards with slogans including: "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra" and "Anglian Soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists".
One also read: "British Government Terrorist Government."
A number of people staged a counter-demonstration, which is when the trouble began.
Bedfordshire Police confirmed two people were arrested for public order offences and taken to Luton Police Station.

 I heard this on the news this morning, and was actually horrified at the fascist comments by the interviewer to the muslim protestors!

I would say that the majority of people share the sentiment of the protestors, but do not think that their protests are well-directed to soldiers who are just "doing their job".  They would do much better to take their protests to Downing Street and the government.

yea, I agree those soldiers who are "just doing their job" are totally "innocent" althought their job includes torturing  and killing Iraqi children.

 Tami....the fact is that protesting to those soldiers will not help.  I did not say those soldiers are innocent, just that their protest is ineffective.  They should direct their protest at the government.  With regards to torturing and killing Iraqi children, you never mention that a great deal of that is done internally by musilms to muslims. 

You are far more interested in maintaining your hate compaign than in fact.

had there been any civil violence in Iraq, before the genocide? It was america and its dogs who caused all the mess in iraq.

can I ask you what were those hundreds of thousands of people killed in the genocide were guilty of?

There was plenty of violence Tami. 

However, as you well know, I agree with you about Iraq and I won´t defend what has happened.  However, you are guilty of tunnel vision when it comes to anything to do with the west - particularly the US or Britain, so to argue with you is pointless. 

Carry on...just don´t start whinging when theH does the same about your country.

 Why are you asking me this question when you are well aware that I do not support the US and UK being in Iraq?

What would you like me to say? 

there was no civil violence in Iraq. unless you can prove there was.

 I never said their WAS civil violence, but the country was hardly peaceful!

ahahaha aha , is your country so peaceful with all the crimes going on in streets? your argument gets more ridiculous, as you keep talking.

 My argument?!?!  This is one little point you picked up on to try and continue this "argument".  I am sure you will find nobody who denies what Sadam Hussain was (even the muslim protestors admit that, but say they would have preferred to have "sorted him out themselves" - and before you start, YES I KNOW that the US are to blame for Sadam). 

What on EARTH does this conversation have to do with crime on the streets?  You are making yourself look ridiculous!

saddam was a close ally of america? what does this conversation have to do with saddam?

Oh yeah, Iraq was just the place to live before the war. A real paradise.  

 Hahaha but you could JUST NOT RESIST!!!

yea what a good excuse for genocide.

 Arguing with you is like arguing with a child.  I accept it was unjust and WRONG what has happened in Iraq.  However, I am quite sure you would much prefer me to disagree with you and live up to the "evil Brit" image that you like to keep intact...

I won´t waste any more of my precious lunchtime on you!

yes, you can always get away with all your barbaric crimes just saying it was wrong. it`s that easy, right?

 And you just deny YOURS?

look who is talking about denial. when will you recognize the genocide you carried out in the americas murdering 20 millions of American natives and India and Iraq, and all around Africa?

Isn´t it now?

I wonder how you´d explain away the murders and geocide commited in Iraq before though? It doesn´t seem to fit well with your idea of Iraq as the peaceful country that you´d like to portray it was before America the Satan invaded it.

Anyway, it´s all black or white with you. Iraq good. America/UK bad. Tami right. You should just tatoo it on your forehead so you don´t forget it if case you´d ever have the despicable urge to look at an issue from all angles.

how do I explain it? easy. it was america who gave saddam the chemicals to kill the kurds. and I never said Iraq was peaceful before the genocide. I just said there was no civil vioelnce, and that is completely true.

Impose curfew, death penalty for criminal offenses and ban on public gatherings and you will have no civil violence anywhere. It´s not an argument for Iraq.

It looks like America is your handy excuse for everything. What a great way to avoid holding anybody accountable for anything. Just blame it on America!

isn`t that the american way? can you tell us how many people get sentenced to death penalty a year in america on average? and what does that have to do with the genocide in Iraq.

I´m confused, not sure if you´re for or against the death penalty now. Or is it ok when Saddam was killing people but not ok if the USA goverment does? Does it all go back to theH´s question that all depends on who does the killing?

And what genocide are you talking about? The Anfal Campaign? Surely you wouldn´t misuse that word to get a more emotional reaction to the current war, would you? Would you like me maybe to provide you with a link that defines genocide? Just so you don´t confuse it with casualties of war?

ahaha yea, when christians kill muslims, it`s never called genocide but "casualties of war".

and I`m not saying death penalty is good. it`s you who says its bad and I`m just saying if it`s bad america is just as bad.

No, when Christians are systematically and deliberately wiping out an entire ethnic group because of their ethnicity or race or another common factor then it´s called genocide, for example the extermination of Jews in WWII or the extermination of Native Americans. When people die during the war, they are casualties of that war. The casualties in Iraq are terrible and unacceptable, but what´s going on over there has nothing to do with genocide. You´re just using that word for the emotional charge it provides. There are other genocides in the history that you can take a look at and compare with what´s going on in Iraq and maybe you´ll get the difference (e.g. the Anfal campaign, the genocide in Rwanda, etc.)

I also never said what my opinion on death penalty was. What I said was that if you had the same kinds of control measure that were present in Saddam´s Iraq (including death penalty, ban on public gatherings, curfews, etc.) then civil violence wouldn´t be an issue. It was my comment on the tyranny of Saddam, not on death penalty itself, and it was in response to your comment about the state of affairs in Iraq before the war.

You can interpret any post the way you want to interpret it and assume whatever you want to assume to fit your pre-conceived notions. You limit only yourself.

right, and the Iraqi`s got killed just for being muslims. you can`t even point out one single reason. even the commander of the army admitted that saying they were crusaders in Iraq. so how come this is not a genocide? I personally know many Americans who say America should nuke the mid east to wipe out all the muslims. is it not genocide?

   so are you saying that 75% of iraqis that were killed by jihadists (from all over the world) were killed for being muslims?

Iraquis are not being killed just for being Muslims. If the USA was conducting genocide against Muslims, don´t you think they´d start with the millions of Muslims in the USA? Or perhaps target Muslims in other countries as well? Iraquis are being killed because USA invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons (real or imagined), but surely not to wipe out the Muslims because they are Muslims. And that´s why it´s not called genocide, it´s war.

Anyway, I´m not going to argue over semantics with you. If you can´t see the difference, then call it genocide, I really don´t care.

And just because some (many? really? how many told you that personally? 1? 3? out of 300+ million, that´s real impressive) people have that sentiment it doesn´t make it reality. After the Pole was killed in Pakistan I was so angry that I personally wanted to drop a nuke on Pakistan. It doesn´t mean that I would ever do it or that I feel the same way now.

Too many times I have to stop and question whether I am reading Turkish Class or a polictical news feed from Islamic country.......

Im sure that would add up to at least tens of millions easily. who votes for republicans? go and ask a redneck living in texas or utah about what they should do to the mid east, and see what he says. there are millions of people like that in america. there was a demand for this genocide at the time, and Bush supplied that. so people voted him to the presidency for the second time. Believe what you want, once america loses its power over the world, it will have to admit these crimes.

Oh I hope the US gets to be held responsible for Iraq, but I still don´t think it´s genocide, no matter how much I don´t agree with what´s going on over there.

Oh so now it´s the opinion of what you think Americans think based on their political orientation? It sounded like you PERSONALLY spoke to MANY people who told you that Muslims should be wiped out. I wonder if it´s really the opinions of average Americans that you seem to present here or perhaps what YOUR opinion is of what Americans think. Just because you think that Americans think a certain way, it doesn´t make it true. Some do, some don´t, like everwhere else. But you can´t seem to get past this ALL OR NOTHING, BLACK OR WHITE thinking of yours. Go ahead, lump people together, make them all your enemy - they are all the same, aren´t they?. That´s how genocides start too, by the way, with that kind of thinking.

Melek, I doubt there´s any point talking to tamiki. You may provide all sensible arguments, prove you´re right and within two weeks you´ll hear a bunch of the same nonsense anyway. He fails to understand that the US is a secular state and the military action has nothing to do with religion. He chooses to ignore the fact that the US army is not a Christian organisation but is comprised of people of many beliefs. Even the fact that all Christian institutions condemned the attack on Iraq and appealed for peace. Until there´s a Christian Church of the USA whose goal is to wipe out Muslims he´ll never be right. He still uses Bush´s "crusade" word as justification of his theory omitting to acknowledge the notion of metaphor. He´s an angry young man using tunnel vision to understand the world, not getting the bigger picture.

there is really no point in arguing with smn who thinks america is a secular state. "in god crusaders trust"!

As is Turkia !!!