MilitaryForums.co.uk

I believe the official reason is that it is as a result of allowing Boyzone to record their own version of Father & Son.

owdun wrote:For every hostage killed, take a prisoner, and execute him in the same manner, if they demand the release of specific people, then those people should die immediately a hostage is killed. Fight fire with fire, it's the only thing they will understand.

And heres me thinking this war was to spread Western values...

Hyperlithe wrote:What was the reason given for refusing him entrance to the US?

Associations with potential terrorists. By the way, the U.S. government doesn't have to prove any of this stuff. Control over one's borders is a sovereign right, and that includes the right to be stupid about it.

There is too much paranoia going around in the muslim and non muslim camps

I feel that the US government's decision in deporting of Cat Stevens has severely dented its good relations with the moderate muslim community in the West and will encourage the youth to become more radicalised.

Agreed. When the FBI took Cat Stevens off that plane they were big burly blokes with shaved heads - I thought the were Hitlers brown shirts to be honest!!!!!!!

Disgusting haviour.........nazi bigots.......

Lets be honest here, we only know what we are told, now why should America take any chances after what happened to them on the 9/11.
If it had happened here we would expect our government to take firm action [well it's a thought] and if they failed to do that then they would be shown the door for years to come if any further incidents happened. Unless we have all the facts on why they did what they did we don't know if they were right or wrong, and as they can't give this sort of information out with out letting the terrorist know just how they got this information, then people like Cats Stevens or our selfs will at times get chucked of planes in America. Don't blame America blame the terrorists.

Hey I'm a big free speech guy, etc etc etc, but the definition of being a country is the right to control your borders. Cat Stephens, or whatever he calls himself these days, is not an American citizen and therefore he has no right to set so much as a toenail in this country if our government doesn't want him here. Sorry, but no tears for Cat.

I agree with Snyder for once,

Ban the f***.

Jeez Snyder,
what is the world coming too?
I agree with you!

(Note to self.First Lew,now snyder,your agreeing with too many people.
That makes two this year!What are you thinking?)
Wholley.
Tonight I seem to be intrigued by the words two and too.
Oh hello staff,yes took my meds.Why would you want to look under my tongue?
Curses!Foiled again.

Marina wrote:There is too much paranoia going around in the muslim and non muslim camps

I feel that the US government's decision in deporting of Cat Stevens has severely dented its good relations with the moderate muslim community in the West and will encourage the youth to become more radicalised.

Good i hope they do, then they can ban their as*es too. They don't like it, take a hike! You or I would get no special treatment in a muslim country, especially if we were under suspicion.

This ridiculous game of trying to sort out the rabble from the potential rabble is PC catering. If this half-assed 'War on Terrorism' is to get anywhere, catering to Islamic 'moderates' is not how its done.

Western intelligence and soldiers have to tippy toe enough with this crap in Iraq, bringing this debate home is just more 'Hanoi Jane 2004'.

F**k em. /rant over

Let's not go too far, Redhand and Wholley. The decision to bar entry to Cat Stevens, or whatever he calls himself, was stupid. Par for the course for Asscroft. But when it comes to border crossings, the U.S. government has the sovereign right to be stupid. Cat Stevens, or whatever he calls himself, will have to be content with Europe.

Whatever Snyder,

Speak for youself. Whether or not these pr**ks choose to be radical or not is THEIR choice, they can't blame it on US homeland policy. They don't make the majority, they hardly make a fraction of the minority.

There was a link on this site showing muslim population percentage worldwide in all countries. They didn't even register as 1% in America i believe. And yet the good ole USofA should cater to them???? Please!!

I presonally tottally agree with Owdun, anybody who has spent a considerable amount of time living in a Middle Eastern, Arabian state, will agree that it is a regional trait, that the people respect only strength and shows of force. Therefore, this enforced walking on egg shells doesn't help things. It is the right thing to do according to certain situations, but sometimes we just need to roll in with the Challengers and obliterate the resistance, in front of the general pop. then see how many of them fancy joining the terrorists after seeing the armour laugh in the face of RPGs! I also think that if we ever knew where Moqtada Al Sadr is or was, we should of taken him out, almost effortlessly e.g. a Hellfire missile or snipers round, as publicly as possible. At the minute, have we shown ourselves to be a strong force capable of steamrollering the terrorists as we steamrollered the Iraqi Army? No, we look weak. Just my opinion, that we're being held back due to Tony's fear of being rejected by Europe & not re-elected.

Come on, Winston Churchill authorised the dropping of chemical weapons on Iraqi rebels in the 1920s and it didnt make much difference to the outcome. Theres no military solution to this conflict. As long as the Arab world sees Western troops occupying a muslim country there'll be trouble.

Ex URN Student, I know that many of the tribes where bombed in the 1920,s by the RAF to try and keep them in line. There was always a leaflet drop some hours before they where bombed, to try and keep casualties to a minimum. The idea was to show them that their life could be changed very quickly, this was introduced as a cost cutting measure, but I never heard of any chemical weapons being used, may be you could tell us just what chemical weapons were used.