# General > General >  Nato strike kills a number of Afghanistan civilians

## Anfield

A "number" is 33 dead
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm

As aAdolf Eichmann once said about holocaust.
"..10 is a lot, 100 more and anything over that is a statistic.." (or words to that effect)

And this was not even in area where NATO is engaged in a large offensive

We reap what we sow

----------


## northener

Innocent people get killed in every conflict across the planet.

----------


## bekisman

> And this was not even in area where NATO is engaged in a large offensive We reap what we sow


"Reap what we sow" - same comment for any war/conflict? 

Don't really understand why you've brought the Nazi holocaust into it!

----------


## ducati

I have a worry here. (Apart obviously from the appalling loss of life).

I am reasonably aware of the many air sorties being carried out across Afghanistan and there nature has been of close air support. So a GR4 or whatever would be called by ground forces for a show of strength or as a last resort a bomb or missile run on a target that was an immediate threat.

Without knowing what was the action being engaged in here, it appears to me that this is more akin to strategic bombing, if NATO are targeting the movement of insurgents.

----------


## bekisman

> Without knowing what was the action being engaged in here, it appears to me that this is more akin to strategic bombing, if NATO are targeting the movement of insurgents.


'A Nato statement said it was thought the convoy contained Taliban insurgents on their way to attack Afghan and foreign military forces.' (From Link above #1)

----------


## ducati

> 'A Nato statement said it was thought the convoy contained Taliban insurgents on their way to attack Afghan and foreign military forces.' (From Link above #1)


Yes thanks for that. So I thought the usual use of air power would be to wait untill they actually were attacking so poss. seeing a shift in tactics?

----------


## Anfield

The connection to Holocaust is to show how immune we have come to the killing of innocent people.
.
The people who died were in three minibuses travelling in convoy in daylight.  I doubt this is how resistance fighters travel

----------


## bekisman

> The connection to Holocaust is to show how immune we have come to the killing of innocent people.
> .
> The people who died were in three minibuses travelling in convoy in daylight. I doubt this is how resistance fighters travel


Holocaust:    Premeditated Murder
Afghanistan: misidentification - unintentional

----------


## DopeyDan

Isn't "news" a funnny thing.

We are now getting a string of headline news stories when there is a civilian death in Afghanistan, yet about 500,000 civilians lost their lives as a result of the Iraq invasion.  Are they the 'un-people' then, and therefore no need to report on them ?

----------


## fred

> Yes thanks for that. So I thought the usual use of air power would be to wait untill they actually were attacking so poss. seeing a shift in tactics?


No, it's the same old tactics, one dead American soldier and there is outcry at home but kill as many Afghani women and children as you like, it aint gonna lose us any votes.

The message to Afghanis is simple, stay at home and you get your house bombed just in case there is  a resistance fighter in there. Try to make it to safety and get your vehicles bombed on the off chance you are resistance fighters on their way to attack us.

----------


## ducati

Ignoring Fred's usual. The BBC news (telly) reported an investigation has been called into whether this strike adhered to rules of engagement.

----------


## fred

> Ignoring Fred's usual. The BBC news (telly) reported an investigation has been called into whether this strike adhered to rules of engagement.


Like the investigation into the rogue missile that killed a Afghani family earlier this month? They found that the missile wasn't faulty, it was aimed at the family, carry on as normal lads.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...2F+Top+News%29

----------


## fred

> Holocaust:    Premeditated Murder
> Afghanistan: misidentification - unintentional


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUhp...layer_embedded

----------


## ducati

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUhp...layer_embedded


I can imagine you cackling away singing I told you so, I told you so.

Actually that link looked interesting but I cant do Video off web.

----------


## ducati

> No, it's the same old tactics, one dead American soldier and there is outcry at home but kill as many Afghani women and children as you like, it aint gonna lose us any votes.
> 
> The message to Afghanis is simple, stay at home and you get your house bombed just in case there is a resistance fighter in there. Try to make it to safety and get your vehicles bombed on the off chance you are resistance fighters on their way to attack us.


I think that is (among many) the most stupid thing you've said.

Hearts and minds is the strategy. This is the last thing needed.

----------


## fred

> I think that is (among many) the most stupid thing you've said.
> 
> Hearts and minds is the strategy. This is the last thing needed.


Then the sooner we realise you don't win hearts and minds with hellfire missiles the better.

----------


## bekisman

> carry on as normal lads.


"Carry on as usual lads" - what an insult coming from you. You've no idea of the mindset of 'these lads' - pity you have no personal experience of 'war' - one tends to think you would not be cackling then..

----------


## sandyr1

You know Fred, I read your posts and in my opinion you do have some good points.
Within the rules of engagement....made up as one goes along... dependent upon the circumstances.
Similar to heavy water released at a Nuke plant, or contaminated air....after 72 hours or so as it has dissipated..now within acceptable limits....
Yes collatoral damage....but why are we there??  Could it be the almighty Oil??
And guess what...we, as the average person will never know.
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...it's too complicated....

----------


## northener

Well, lets' disband the all armed forces and then we won't be able to rampage around the planet deliberately slaughtering thousands of civilians.

There's a simple answer to those who point and shout every time civvies get killed in a conflict that they personally disagree with.

Job done.

 ::

----------


## Anfield

So it's ok to kill someone providing that it is done withing the "Rules  of engagement"   What a completely stupid supposition.

Wars are fought on a simple basis - kill or be killed.

You play to your strengths, We bomb from the air  and the other side use IED's  (improvised explosive device).

----------


## fred

> "Carry on as usual lads" - what an insult coming from you. You've no idea of the mindset of 'these lads' - pity you have no personal experience of 'war' - one tends to think you would not be cackling then..


I have no experience of the mindset of rapists and mass murderers either but that doesn't exclude me from commenting on them. I wasn't a Nazi Storm Trooper in WWII but I don't think that excludes me from any conversations about them.

For over eight years I've been reading about innocent Afghani women and children we've blown to bits, yes the killing of civilians is the norm not the exception.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020403

----------


## The Drunken Duck

*Post Deleted*

----------


## bekisman

> I have no experience of the mindset of rapists and mass murderers either but that doesn't exclude me from commenting on them. I wasn't a Nazi Storm Trooper in WWII but I don't think that excludes me from any conversations about them.
> 
> For over eight years I've been reading about innocent Afghani women and children we've blown to bits, yes the killing of civilians is the norm not the exception.
> 
> http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020403


Oh my God. What a silly response, comparing rapist and mass murderers to our boys in Afghanistan  - It's interesting, not to say telling, to note you seem to actually believe the propaganda of Press TV???!

Come on Fred, calm down. Tell you what, nip down to Inverness to the Recruiting Office (three of my boys did), sign on and get your bum out there and sort 'em out, it's the only way. Best of luck..

----------


## northener

> So it's ok to kill someone providing that it is done withing the "Rules of engagement" What a completely stupid supposition.
> 
> Wars are fought on a simple basis - kill or be killed.
> 
> You play to your strengths, We bomb from the air and the other side use IED's (improvised explosive device).


Yes.

And you point is?

----------


## fred

> Oh my God. What a silly response, comparing rapist and mass murderers to our boys in Afghanistan  - It's interesting, not to say telling, to note you seem to actually believe the propaganda of Press TV???!
> 
> Come on Fred, calm down. Tell you what, nip down to Inverness to the Recruiting Office (three of my boys did), sign on and get your bum out there and sort 'em out, it's the only way. Best of luck..


What did you expect me to believe, that we are killing all these innocent people in Afghanistan looking for the person behind 9/11?

The American invasion of Afghanistan was illegal and based on lies, these innocent women and children are dying as a result. We have no possible claim to self defence, Afghanistan was no threat to us, we are the aggressors.

----------


## fred

> You know Fred, I read your posts and in my opinion you do have some good points.
> Within the rules of engagement....made up as one goes along... dependent upon the circumstances.
> Similar to heavy water released at a Nuke plant, or contaminated air....after 72 hours or so as it has dissipated..now within acceptable limits....
> Yes collatoral damage....but why are we there??  Could it be the almighty Oil??
> And guess what...we, as the average person will never know.
> Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...it's too complicated....


I think there are many reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan not least because American companies had a lot of oil and gas in the Caspian they wanted to get to India.

But I think one of the major reasons for the war in Afghanistan was to give NATO something to do.

----------


## sandyr1

> Oh my God. What a silly response, comparing rapist and mass murderers to our boys in Afghanistan - It's interesting, not to say telling, to note you seem to actually believe the propaganda of Press TV???!
> 
> Come on Fred, calm down. Tell you what, nip down to Inverness to the Recruiting Office (three of my boys did), sign on and get your bum out there and sort 'em out, it's the only way. Best of luck..


And for those of us who know a wee bitty about these things, are we still maligned for not agreeing with your thoughts.
Perhaps we are trying to convert those who have a history of thousands of years of their 'status quo' to look at life as we do.....
Yes perhaps we are trying to bring them Christianity et cetera but have we got to kill them to succeed??
Am not saying the 'war' is wrong/ just opening it all up to thoughts.....and remember the Russians were there for 11 years and then the 'bad guys' were being funded by the US...Wonder who is funding the 'bad guys' now??
Food for thought....

----------


## Anfield

I was not out to make or score points, I was merely making an observation on the futilities and lies of all wars

----------


## Yoda the flump

> As aAdolf Eichmann once said about holocaust.
> "..10 is a lot, 100 more and anything over that is a statistic.." (or words to that effect)


Are you referring to 'One death is a tradgedy, one million deaths is a statistic'?

A quote by a mass murderer, certainly - but attributed to our ally Uncle Joe Stalin.

----------


## Anfield

> Are you referring to 'One death is a tradgedy, one million deaths is a statistic'?
> 
> A quote by a mass murderer, certainly - but attributed to our ally Uncle Joe Stalin.


Thank you for correction.

----------


## bekisman

> And for those of us who know a wee bitty about these things, are we still maligned for not agreeing with your thoughts.
> Perhaps we are trying to convert those who have a history of thousands of years of their 'status quo' to look at life as we do.....
> Yes perhaps we are trying to bring them Christianity et cetera but have we got to kill them to succeed??
> Am not saying the 'war' is wrong/ just opening it all up to thoughts.....and remember the Russians were there for 11 years and then the 'bad guys' were being funded by the US...Wonder who is funding the 'bad guys' now??
> Food for thought....


 No of course not, you can think what you like, I'm not bothered.. bit off track, but don't really think we're trying to bring 'em the teachings of Christ.. but was given to understand that Afghan was a cradle for those folkies who wanted to use the country to train in and then come out and blow us lot to bits..

----------


## Yoda the flump

An excellent post Drunken Duck, certainly helps to have insights like this

----------


## ducati

> *Post Deleted*


Well join in the pointless argument then  ::

----------


## sandyr1

Pray tell me what happened to that post?? Deleted?? By whom. It was quite informative

----------


## sandyr1

> No of course not, you can think what you like, I'm not bothered.. bit off track, but don't really think we're trying to bring 'em the teachings of Christ.. but was given to understand that Afghan was a cradle for those folkies who wanted to use the country to train in and then come out and blow us lot to bits..


 
Actually it was really in relation to your comment to Fred....
I've always felt that to understand death you don't have to experience it....i.e. to be shot & killed doesn't mean you have to have it done to you.

The teachings of christ wasn't meant literally......
I know personally of people who went to Jordan to train the Afganis, and it was beyond that culture to understand our culture. It is like us....the UK and North America taking in Nigerian Boy Soldiers and then thinking that they will adhere to our way of life.....they just don't understand it...interesting article read recently on the teaching of the East..... they are attempting to soften their teachings in newer books, but there is little money to print new books so....they revert back to what their parents/ grandparents were told....because of the old books....am not being critical of anyones comments/ just that there are 'different ways to skin a cat'. Oh gawd now I will be up for cruelty!!!
And I don't condone the killing/ I am aware of someone who was killed.....not nice....
But we shouldn't get the George Bush mentality....'Lets Smoke em'......

----------


## fred

> No of course not, you can think what you like, I'm not bothered.. bit off track, but don't really think we're trying to bring 'em the teachings of Christ.. but was given to understand that Afghan was a cradle for those folkies who wanted to use the country to train in and then come out and blow us lot to bits..





> Between 1963 and 1965, in Fort Benning, the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles received CIA training in explosives and sabotage.
> 
> In 1984, following the signing of the Panama Canal Treaty, the School of the Americas relocated from Fort Gulick (Panama) to Fort Benning. After criticism concerning human rights violations committed by a number of graduates in Latin America, the school was renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
> 
> In 1988 Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier (the Oklahoma City bombing conspirators) met while in training at Ft Benning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Benning

----------


## Stavro

> ... it appears to me that this is more akin to strategic bombing, if NATO are targeting the movement of insurgents.


"Strategic bombing" - otherwise known as indiscriminate slaughter.

Could someone please tell me why Afghanis living in their own country are called "insurgents"?   ::

----------


## sandyr1

Both valid comments....'Do as we say and not as we do'....

----------


## fred

> "Strategic bombing" - otherwise known as indiscriminate slaughter.


We're only trying to win their hearts and minds, we aint too bothered if their arms and legs get blown off so long as we get the hearts and minds.

----------


## Stavro

> We're only trying to win their hearts and minds, we aint too bothered if their arms and legs get blown off so long as we get the hearts and minds.


Yes, and we'll make them grow opium poppies again, such that our democracy (the envy of the world) can keep the hospitals and morgues full of addicts.

And we'll jolly well build that oil and gas pipeline that their government (beastly fellows) had rejected.

----------


## bekisman

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Benning


 
tut tut, wiki again?

----------


## fred

> tut tut, wiki again?


What is it with you?

If I criticise American foreign policy I must hate Americans, if I criticise Israeli war crimes then I must be anti Semitic, if I post a link to press.tv press.tv is biassed and if i post a link to wikipedia wikipedia must be ridiculed.

I don't suppose you've considered the possibility that you might just be wrong?

----------


## golach

> I don't suppose you've considered the possibility that you might just be wrong?


 
Could you possibly be the one who is wrong????

----------


## fred

> Could you possibly be the one who is wrong????


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...spirators.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/480.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Scho...ds-Protest.htm

See, all the information in the wikipedia quote is easily verifiable.

The only reason people like berkisman try to ridicule it is because it makes it too easy for people to show they're talking out of their backsides.

----------


## golach

> The only reason people like berkisman try to ridicule it is because it makes it too easy for people to show they're talking out of their backsides.


 I must be a convert of bekisman, as I think you are the one who has a bad attack of flatulence  ::

----------


## Stavro

> I must be a convert of bekisman, as I think you are the one who has a bad attack of flatulence



You clearly think your comment funny, golach, but there is really no point in coming in to a serious debate like this unless you have a point worth making. Your silly insults do nothing except keep yourself amused.

If you think that Fred (or anyone else, but Fred certainly seems to be the flavour of the month amongst some that seem to want to go around in the dark) is wrong about something, then make your point with your reasoning.

----------


## ducati

> Yes, and we'll make them grow opium poppies again, such that our democracy (the envy of the world) can keep the hospitals and morgues full of addicts.


And you talk about reason??  :: 

Lets hear you evidence for that classic

----------


## fred

> If you think that Fred (or anyone else, but Fred certainly seems to be the flavour of the month amongst some that seem to want to go around in the dark) is wrong about something, then make your point with your reasoning.


They can't, they have no reasoning, all they have is their faith, their belief that we are good and they are evil, whoever tey happen to be at the time.

Let's take a look at their reasons for bringing death and destruction to Afghanistan with their illegal war, let's look at their reasons for killing women, children and babies.




> "We're in Afghanistan to ensure that it cannot once again be a sanctuary for the kind of attacks that were carried out on 9/11,"


Well the fact is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghani, the fact is they didn't learn how to fly a plane in Afghanistan but the facts contradict their beliefs so the facts must be wrong.

Meanwhile those who lost family and loved ones on 9/11 seek justice but they are denied it.




> Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.


The fact is 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the fact is the families of 9/11 victims claimed to have documented evidence that the hijackers were financed by Saudi Arabia but they have been blocked from taking those implicated to court.

----------


## ducati

> They can't, they have no reasoning, all they have is their faith, their belief that we are good and they are evil, whoever tey happen to be at the time.
> 
> Let's take a look at their reasons for bringing death and destruction to Afghanistan with their illegal war, let's look at their reasons for killing women, children and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghani, the fact is they didn't learn how to fly a plane in Afghanistan but the facts contradict their beliefs so the facts must be wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile those who lost family and loved ones on 9/11 seek justice but they are denied it.
> ...


I don't recall anyone accusing the Afghans of terrorism. The Taliban were harbouring AlQeda and refused to stop when asked. The head of Alqueda is a Saudi, everyone knows that.

From a previous thread you don't believe any terrorists were involved in 9/11. Make your mind up.

----------


## golach

> , but there is really no point in coming in to a serious debate like this unless you have a point worth making. Your silly insults do nothing except keep yourself amused.


You call this a *serious* debate? We long term Orgers have had this many times in the past by fred, his continual girnan about the American government and its failings, is old news, and in my eyes are no longer serious. But you are entitled to your opinion, as I am, keep typing stavro, you make my day more amusing with every rant you post  ::

----------


## bekisman

> The only reason people like berkisman try to ridicule it is because it makes it too easy for people to show they're talking out of their backsides.


 

"what is it with me"? - Well, been around a bit, seen a bit, done a bit. 
Of course I  have no objection whatsoever to anyone having an opinion - that really goes without saying. 

But I do find it rather tiresome when you, without an iota of experience, relying on Wiki and Google to not only  give your opinion generated by these sites - which I hasten to add, is perfectly normal, but to ram down our throats your opinions, which are elucidated to as  'facts'. 

I (for example) am a First Aid Instructor but I would not in any way attempt to denigrate a qualified Doctor - I just don't have the experience and certainly not the gall to force my ideas down his throat and tell him he's talking out of his backside. 

To be a world authority on Iran Iraq - indeed anything, you need a certain amount of experience coupled with empathy and a general balanced view to accept that others may differ in their outlook. Yes I may well be wrong, I can admit that.

There are injustices throughout the world, I've seen them, had personal experience of them - that's were I had my formative years. I have no idea what your personal opinions are on our British Forces, but I hope that my sons who served in Bosnia, Croatia, Iraq have helped rebuild that country - as with the Americans in post-war Germany and Japan. 

I know you of old Fred, a previous poster who was actually serving in Iraq and thus 'on the ground' was given the retort by you of:  "Ah you are in Iraq, that explains why you are in denial."

You are not going to persuade anyone on this forum to change their ideas, no matter how many times wiki is invoked, no matter how many times you post, no matter how forcefully you put your opinions. 

This is just a very minor website, where folks exchange ideas, ramming it down peoples throats will make no difference - or don't you know this?

And don't think I missed your Freudian Slip of misspelling 'Berkisman' (shall we call this juvenile?)

This thread was about the accidental death of civilians - terrible, but '' happens.

You seem to be under the illusion that I give you abuse.. Please forgive me Fred, but one would presume by your previous utterances the following belies the point:

"Which just proves the point, the people who have been there are often the people who know least."
"You just don't listen do you?"
"Oh I enjoy intelligent debate, if I can find someone intelligent to debate with".
"Now have you got enough intelligence to open your eyes and see the world as it really is" 
"You seem to be suffering from delusions of grandeur."
"Grow up."
"I don't debate with people who send me threatening and abusive PMs."
"If you can't behave in a civilised manner without becoming abusive I reserve the right not to debate with you."
"I don't take orders from you either."
"Strange how people who can't handle the truth revert to a mental age of twelve."
"I look forward to the trial of Saddam with great interest, I have a feeling if the truth is allowed to be let out people will realise things aren't just as black and white as they have been led to believe"
"Haven't you noticed yet that the news backs up what I say after I've said it"
"How many millions are their lies, greed and lust for power going to kill before the world wakes up."
"Why does nobody care? Why isn't everyone angry?"
"The we is the people of Britain, wasn't that obvious? I'll try and use shorter words for you."

----------


## Anfield

Bekisman.  You state  "..but I hope that my sons who served in Bosnia, Croatia, Iraq have helped  rebuild that country.."
just exactly who rebuilt Iraq,  and how are the Iraqi's paying for this "rebuild" which incidentally,  was mainly caused by Allied bombing.

My original post thread was dismay at 33 civillians killed by gung ho allied troops.  Around the same number are killed in Iraq each day, not all by allies, but these deaths do not even merit a news item anymore

----------


## golach

> My original post thread was dismay at 33 civillians killed by gung ho UN troops. Around the same number are killed in Iraq each day, not all by UN, but these deaths do not even merit a news item anymore


The Allied troops are NATO troops, not UN troops, just a mute point.

----------


## bekisman

> Bekisman. You state "..but I hope that my sons who served in Bosnia, Croatia, Iraq have helped rebuild that country.."
> just exactly who rebuilt Iraq, and how are the Iraqi's paying for this "rebuild" which incidentally, was mainly caused by Allied bombing.
> 
> My original post thread was dismay at 33 civillians killed by gung ho allied troops. Around the same number are killed in Iraq each day, not all by allies, but these deaths do not even merit a news item anymore


 
Might be easier if you put in *'rebuilding Iraq'* into any search engine - there's a LOT of pages on this. My son is a Royal Engineer, building schools, hospitals and roads there, did/doing the same in Bosnia, Croatia - surely you are aware of this.. 

'...major benchmark for international assistance was the Madrid Conference on Reconstruction held in Spain October 23-24, 2003 and attended by representatives from over 25 nations. Funds assembled at this conference and from other sources have been administered by the UN and the World Bank. This assistance has primarily funded large-scale projects..' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq (Wiki so must be true) + In May 2003, following the invasion of Iraq in March of that year, the Central Bank of Iraq-Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) account was created at the U.S.Federal Reserve Bank of New york at the request of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Administrator' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_Fund_for_Iraq

Germany after the war? look up 'Marshall Plan' - oh yes, forgot, we bombed that too

What a pathetic insult; *'Gung ho* *UN Troops'*  - by your statement you must really believe these forces don't give a toss, just go around dropping bombs for the fun of it. I can tell that you have a very closeted view of things on the ground and certainly a disrespect for the professionalism of the Armed Forces - I wonder why. No, don't tell me, I've guessed.. 

Your dismay belittles the insult you have given these UN troops, incidentally thought it was 27 dead not 33?

Of course when Saddam was putting his own folks through mincing machines and gassing Kurds, you were there, fighting for their corner?. Nah, of course not.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Pray tell me what happened to that post?? Deleted?? By whom. It was quite informative


It was my post and I deleted it mate, gave away too much personal information and in hindsight a little too much inside gen on the nature of Close Air Support. I quoted safety distances and operating procedures and the like, showed to a still serving ex colleague who is a current FAC and from what he advised me to delete from it it wasnt really informative anymore. Plus no one seemed to have noticed, everyone was to busy arguing !! Although for those that read it I hope it gave a good insight into the nature of the buisness. That said I have been dismayed at the naive attitudes of some people here towards Close Air Support, ROE and Air Warfare in general. There are terms like strategic bombing being thrown about obviously without any knowledge of what it actually is. Like I said in the now deleted post I did serve in light blue, I was also employed in a role that entailed planning for both British and American aircraft types so I have seen things from boths sides of the coin. And from my experience Gung ho is not an option and is stamped out early in the training process if it appears. We went to massive lengths to avoid bombing civvies. The paperwork is a nightmare for a start. 

I learnt long ago there are those just not willing to listen to what actually goes on, and class all of my former colleagues in uniform as "gung ho" "murderers" and the like and there just isnt any talking to them. In fact I encountered one such type in Wick about twelve years ago after I came back from serving in Kuwait where I was planning raids into Iraq and who called me a baby killer, murderer etc etc and wanted to know why I did it. The real irony was that I was working in a Search and Rescue role (Kuwait was a detachment for me) at the time and not a week before had run a job entailing a Casevac from Thurso using a Lossie chopper but I didnt tell her that. I said nothing. No point. She was going to think what she wanted about me anyway no matter what I said. And these points of view are just as valid as any other at the end of the day. They are just wrong in my view. I only wish that these people were as vocal in the defence of the Kuwaiti's tortured by Iraqi's, our Aircrew tortured in 90/91 by Iraqi's, our guys killed and firebombed by Iraqi civilians who chose this way of showing their gratitude of being free of Saddam. But they wont. Too busy feeling clever and smart about something they actually know zip about. Bekisman I see your view, where your coming from and I agree with you but I just dont bother anymore.

Fred is quite funny though. Is he for real ??

My personal opinion is that Afghanistan is going to end in a stalemate. As the Taliban say "You have the watches but we have the time", they dont need to win they just need us to lose. The longer they string it out and the more casualties they inflict then public opinion will start to waver. It already is. And you cant fight an enemy who is a combantant one minute and a non combatant the next by simply dropping a rifle, not with the current ROE from what I am told. The Afghan people are not helping though as they are playing both sides, its THEIR country but they dont seem to want to firmly take a side. The Taliban terrorise them, we kick them out of the area but dont have the troops to hold the ground. The Taliban come back put a gun to the head of the village elder and tells him not to co-operate with us. Then we come back, kick the Taliban out damage the fields in the process (and thus their livelihood) and promise the earth in reconstruction which we then cant carry out because we dont hold the ground through lack of boots on the ground. Its a vicious circle. Add in Pakistan and their reluctance to take on the Taliban in their country given the nature of their political/relgious system and its a nightmare we should get out of or fund the Operation properly. You cant fight a War on  a peacetime budget.

Sorry for being so serious but I dont do arguing on the Internet.

----------


## Anfield

Bekisman, Despite your outrage,  you failed to answer question of  how is Iraqi "rebuilding" being funded.
As you use search engines for a lot of your answers,  you may find the answer amongst them. Oil,  i.e. Iraq is paying for the damage done by, and I will repeat the phrase, gung ho allied bombing, by the sale of its oil.

You can even attend a conference to ensure that you get a slice of the pie:
http://www.ifpjordan.com/exhibition_overview.php?id=104


So whilst the Royal Engineers make token efforts to justify why they are still there, the big (re)construction projects are carried out by Western construction companies.

The military and the monetary, always present in any recent US led war

You take umbrage at my use of the term "gung ho" yet, according to the military we have weapons which have pin point accuracy, why then is there so much carnage.

----------


## bekisman

> Bekisman, Despite your outrage, you failed to answer question of how is Iraqi "rebuilding" being funded.
> As you use search engines for a lot of your answers, you may find the answer amongst them. Oil, i.e. Iraq is paying for the damage done by, and I will repeat the phrase, gung ho allied bombing, by the sale of its oil. 
> You can even attend a conference to ensure that you get a slice of the pie:http://www.ifpjordan.com/exhibition_overview.php?id=104
> So whilst the Royal Engineers make token efforts to justify why they are still there, the big (re)construction projects are carried out by Western construction companies.
> The military and the monetary, always present in any recent US led war
> You take umbrage at my use of the term "gung ho" yet, according to the military we have weapons which have pin point accuracy, why then is there so much carnage.


'Outrage'? don't get so excited - I said 'pathetic' - sees I was right there.
It will take more than you to 'outrage' me my little friend.. 

OK we all know where Anfield stands; *All coalition troops in Iraq are gung ho..* 

Obviously you are unaware that even 'pin-point' weapons are not 100% - sems rather strange considering the amount of time you must spend perusing the coverage of Iraq/Iran/East Cheam.

Even a moron would know that any country - such as one ravaged by Saddam - must help with rebuilding costs. That's quite normal you know (or maybe you did not).. 

And anyway what's this "and the sale of their oil" - I thought the general concensus was the yanks were going to nick it all?- seems not

----------


## bekisman

> a little too much inside gen on the nature of Close Air Support. I quoted safety distances and operating procedures and the like, showed to a still serving ex colleague who is a current FAC and from what he advised me to delete from it it wasnt really informative anymore. 
> Although for those that read it I hope it gave a good insight into the nature of the buisness. 
> That said I have been dismayed at the naive attitudes of some people here towards Close Air Support, ROE and Air Warfare in general. There are terms like strategic bombing being thrown about obviously without any knowledge of what it actually is.
> And from my experience Gung ho is not an option and is stamped out early in the training process if it appears. We went to massive lengths to avoid bombing civvies.  
> 
> I learnt long ago there are those just not willing to listen to what actually goes on, and class all of my former colleagues in uniform as "gung ho" "murderers" and the like and there just isnt any talking to them. In fact I encountered one such type in Wick about twelve years ago after I came back from serving in Kuwait where I was planning raids into Iraq and who called me a baby killer, murderer etc etc and wanted to know why I did it. 
> 
> The real irony was that I was working in a Search and Rescue role (Kuwait was a detachment for me) at the time and not a week before had run a job entailing a Casevac from Thurso using a Lossie chopper but I didnt tell her that. I said nothing. No point. 
> I only wish that these people were as vocal in the defence of the Kuwaiti's tortured by Iraqi's, our Aircrew tortured in 90/91 by Iraqi's, our guys killed and firebombed by Iraqi civilians who chose this way of showing their gratitude of being free of Saddam. But they wont. Too busy feeling clever and smart about something they actually know zip about. 
> ...


Very Very well written and informative AND it's from the horses mouth!

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> You take umbrage at my use of the term "gung ho" yet, according to the military we have weapons which have pin point accuracy, why then is there so much carnage.


Is there "much carnage" ??, based on your previous claims I take your comments with a truckload of salt.

And its not just Bekisman who takes umbrage at your gung ho claim. With respect, You thought it was a UN operation which says a lot about your knowledge of the subject. You seem to have a political corner to fight so perhaps going out to Iraq to see for yourself might be an option. Wouldn't advise it though, Iraqi civilians have killed aid workers out there. You could end up like that or in a cheap video of a beheading being sold in a scummy bazaar. Ken Bigley did. Nice folks the Iraqi's, you should see what they did to Iranian POW's during the eight year war.

If you looked at the recent incident it was down to bad intelligence and nothing more. The munition (to tragic effect) worked fine. If you look at the amount of munitions dropped and the percentage that cause civilian casualties it is a very very small amount. There are weapons like JDAM which are GPS encoded and will fly to a set set of co-ords on release but they are only as good as the information received and the inputting of that info by a human. Many weapons are laser delivered and lots of factors can affect their emplyment such as air humidity, visibilty and wind speeds. They can also malfunction. Equipment failure on the ground, inaccurate passing of information, pure human error and weather as well as circumstances round the target all factor into it. There is no such thing as a smart bomb, its a myth that came into being after the freeing of Kuwait. They are all targetted by fallible humans. There is one simple fact in warfare. Accidents will, and do, happen.

Good recently released clip here of an laser guided LGB drop, released from an RAF Harrier, being steered away from possible civilian casualties after the ground circumstances changed after bomb release. The vehicle was confirmed Taliban but then entered an area with civilians so the Pilot directed it to empty ground. Bear in mind he was also flying the aircraft, keeping a lookout for other jets etc etc at the same time. Hardly gung ho behaviour in letting the enemy escape. Not to worry though we got him later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUikQt5NdWg

----------


## Anfield

Why do people argue over minute points?
Did you say outrage or did you say pathetic, does it matter
27 dead or 33 dead 

the WHOLE point of thread was to state my sadness that 27/33 people died as a result of an avoidable bombing mission.

----------


## bekisman

> Why do people argue over minute points?
> Did you say outrage or did you say pathetic, does it matter
> 27 dead or 33 dead 
> 
> the WHOLE point of thread was to state my sadness that 27/33 people died as a result of an avoidable bombing mission.


Yes it's very sad these people were killed - this was not by Gung ho pilots - this was an accident, unfortunately by incomplete intelligence.

These things happen in a war zone, as most of us are willing to accept, some on the other hand do not.

Me? it's been interesting, but going to leave the thread and let 'em burble on amongst themselves.. It was maybe a Trolling exercise anyway...

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Have to agree Bekisman. 

(Sorry as an ex crab I just cant let an RE get the last word ..  :: )

----------


## fred

> Yes it's very sad these people were killed - this was not by Gung ho pilots - this was an accident, unfortunately by incomplete intelligence.
> 
> These things happen in a war zone, as most of us are willing to accept, some on the other hand do not.


So why do we keep starting illegal wars of aggression knowing we will be killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, innocent people?

Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan. Neither were any threat to us.

Saying "these things happen" doesn't make it not our fault when our starting the wars is what made it happen.

We have shown utter contempt for international law, we have used cluster bombs we have used depleted uranium with total disregard for the lives of civilians. We have used kidnapping, torture and terrorism.

Building a few schools isn't going to change that, Iraq already had the best education system in the Middle East, provided free, before we invaded. They already had the best health care before we invaded.

You may be willing to accept but the loved ones of over two million Iraqis dead because of us are not willing to accept, the loved ones of an unknown number of Afghanis are not willing to accept. All those maimed because of us are not willing to accept, all those babies born deformed because we used depleted uranium are not willing to accept and neither are their parents.

And I'm not willing to accept either.

----------


## bekisman

> So why do we keep starting illegal wars of aggression knowing we will be killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, innocent people?
> 
> Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan. Neither were any threat to us.
> 
> Saying "these things happen" doesn't make it not our fault when our starting the wars is what made it happen.
> 
> We have shown utter contempt for international law, we have used cluster bombs we have used depleted uranium with total disregard for the lives of civilians. We have used kidnapping, torture and terrorism.
> 
> Building a few schools isn't going to change that, Iraq already had the best education system in the Middle East, provided free, before we invaded. They already had the best health care before we invaded.
> ...


Oh Fred - go away. I have

----------


## Anfield

Fred,
totally agree with everything you say but when the quality of debate degenerates into posts  such as:
"(Sorry as an ex crab I just cant let an RE  get the last word ..  :: ) 		 		  		  		 		  		  		  		  		 			 			 			 			 				"

I know that it is pointless carrrying on thread.

I personally do not find anything remotely funny about this whole sad episode

----------


## Anfield

Bekisman
Who threw your toys back into pram?
"..Me? it's been interesting, but going to  leave the thread and let 'em burble on amongst themselves.. It was maybe  a Trolling exercise anyway... 		 		  		  		 		  		  		  		  		 			 			 			 			 				"

----------


## bekisman

> Fred,
> totally agree with everything you say but when the quality of debate degenerates into posts such as:
> "(Sorry as an ex crab I just cant let an RE get the last word .. )                                                                                                                                                      "
> 
> I know that it is pointless carrrying on thread.
> 
> I personally do not find anything remotely funny about this whole sad episode


Well close it dear boy!...fades away....

----------


## Stavro

> Even a moron would know that any country - such as one ravaged by Saddam - must help with rebuilding costs. That's quite normal you know (or maybe you did not)..


"Ravaged by Saddam"?! What are you talking about? Saddam Hussein united the place; Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and the rest, from what was very much a country of tribes. He was rebuilding libraries, schools and hospitals; restoring historical artifacts (promptly looted by the Americans and shipped to the cesspit called New York). He controlled the country ravaged by obscene sanctions imposed by the West - like preventing medical supplies and food. He had no airforce, the West saw to that. And what did the American regime do? They went on TV to state how the Pretorian Guard was situated in Bhagdad and how those "brave" American boys, facing no enemy aircraft and no enemy fire, were going to drop cluster bombs and "daisy cutters" (obscene name that might appeal to an ex-military man) and "bunker busters" on them (and anything else that was living down there) from 20,000 feet up. Yes, very brave. That is not a "war," that is genocide. That is slaughter. That is a "holocaust."

And all you can say is that Saddam Hussein dropped people down mincing machines and gassed Kurds. Listening to too much Tony Blair and George Bush methinks. Only morons would believe those two genocidal maniacs.





> And anyway what's this "and the sale of their oil" - I thought the general concensus was the yanks were going to nick it all?- seems not


Wake up bekisman. Support our troops - bring them home.

----------


## Stavro

> Fred is quite funny though. Is he for real ??



Now I understand where your username comes from. Can't face being confronted by facts and reality, whether in a drunken state or not, so you resort to rubbishing well-researched and informative posts/posters. Sad. You seem to have been exposed to too much gung-ho military nonsense.

----------


## Stavro

> So why do we keep starting illegal wars of aggression knowing we will be killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, innocent people?
> 
> Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan. Neither were any threat to us.
> 
> Saying "these things happen" doesn't make it not our fault when our starting the wars is what made it happen.
> 
> We have shown utter contempt for international law, we have used cluster bombs we have used depleted uranium with total disregard for the lives of civilians. We have used kidnapping, torture and terrorism.
> 
> Building a few schools isn't going to change that, Iraq already had the best education system in the Middle East, provided free, before we invaded. They already had the best health care before we invaded.
> ...



Very, very well said. And I am not going to accept either.

There is absolutely nothing "brave" or "honourable" about dropping bombs and depleted uranium on our fellow human beings. *Absolutely nothing.*

----------


## bekisman

[quote=Stavro;664788

 and "daisy cutters" (obscene name that might appeal to an ex-military man) 
 Only morons would believe those two genocidal maniacs.

Wake up bekisman. Support our troops - bring them home.[/quote]

My oh my we are excited aren't we?

----------


## Stavro

> My oh my we are excited aren't we?


O, bekisman, are you still here?

----------


## bekisman

> O, bekisman, are you still here?


o' yes, but bit tied up ref another thread.. but not interested in your trolling thread.. bit repetitive..

----------


## sandyr1

Fred is quite funny though. Is he for real ??

My personal opinion is that Afghanistan is going to end in a stalemate.

Sorry for being so serious but I dont do arguing on the Internet.[/quote]
By the Duck on the Lesbian Cloud....


Am trying to figure out why you, a 'new member', would make the above comment about Fred.....he has some decent points!
And I likely agree with the Stalemate comment but if you don't argue on the internet, pls don't slag someone you don't know...
I am and was never a Crab, nor an RE...whatever that means, but I am sure we all have our experiences....I did know people on the ground' in the middle East, and it is not as simple as Bombing the (.....) out of people, who for thousands of years have done the only thing that brought them any money, and that was cultivating a Narcotic. And did we.....the Western World not Finance Sadam for the 7/8 years War against Iran, and then one day decide to take him out/ smoke him/ mission accomplished...et cetera, and I am sure that those people who served on the 'ground' did what was bid of them and I am sure very bravely, but there are more issues than killing.
Take a step back////from a management position is this the right way to go.....food for thought my military men!

----------


## Anfield

Fred & Stavro.
There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. You are wasting your time trying to change the nature of thinking that belong to war supporters.

It does not matter to these people how many are killed,  either enemy or their own, after all Americans voted for Bush twice.

A poll published today showed that 70% of british people think that this "war" in unwinnable.
However some people believe it is their god given right to send their citizens and children to do their bidding, and of course  no government ministers or Windsor family children are on front line,  or anywhere near it

----------


## sandyr1

Yes, and the Dutch and Canadians are leaving the combat situation....

----------


## Stavro

> Fred & Stavro.
> There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. You are wasting your time trying to change the nature of thinking that belong to war supporters.
> 
> It does not matter to these people how many are killed,  either enemy or their own, after all Americans voted for Bush twice.
> 
> A poll published today showed that 70% of british people think that this "war" in unwinnable.
> However some people believe it is their god given right to send their citizens and children to do their bidding, and of course  no government ministers or Windsor family children are on front line,  or anywhere near it


Anfield, you are correct in quoting the words of Christ regarding the willingly blind, but I do no accept that anyone is wasting their time.

If it were just the gung-ho, ex-military-man brigade that we were "debating" with, then yes, but there are a lot of people who will view these posts without contributing and if only one of them starts to reason for themselves and question this heinous slaughter of women, children, babies, men, animals, then it is very worthwhile.

The gung-ho, ex-military-man brigade soon run out of arguments and then do what they are good at - hiding behind ridicule. However, if Johnny Foreigner was playing on a level playing field, then even the tally-ho's might soon wake up sharply.

----------


## Stavro

> Yes, and the Dutch and Canadians are leaving the combat situation....


Excellent news.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7035719.ece

----------


## ducati

Fred, Stavro you have another ally to disseminate your tripe enjoy
 ::

----------


## sandyr1

Pray tell me of your experiences in this World Theatre....
We all have our opinions and they should be respected...

----------


## Anfield

> Excellent news.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7035719.ece


Inevitably they will soon be replaced by more canon fodder.

----------


## Stavro

> Fred, Stavro you have another ally to disseminate your tripe enjoy



"Tripe"?

Here is something that cannot be called "tripe" by any human being, ducati -

WARNING: GRAPHIC PICTURE - DO NOT VIEW IF EASILY UPSET

----------


## Anfield

Stavro,
If I was you I would withdraw picture.  

You are better off on the Org than banned from it.

----------


## bekisman

> "Tripe"?
> 
> Here is something that cannot be called "tripe" by any human being, ducati -
> 
> WARNING: GRAPHIC PICTURE - DO NOT VIEW IF EASILY UPSET


 
You are sick! have you no decency? I'm asking you to delete it

----------


## Anfield

See what I mean.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> "Tripe"?
> 
> Here is something that cannot be called "tripe" by any human being, ducati -
> 
> WARNING: GRAPHIC PICTURE - DO NOT VIEW IF EASILY UPSET


Far from appropriate on this forum, if you get suspended for it you well deserve it.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

As has been pointed out I may be a new member here but I tried to put forward a point of view from someone who was actively employed in the air delivery of weapons.I thought, naively that perhaps a personal perspective on similair events the OP started the thread about might help. Waste of time that in hindsight. Fred hasnt been near a conflict that didnt apparently involve a keyboard. His "views"  on this thread are, in my opinion, the worst type of internet paranoia and therefore I find him amusing, he comes across as a rather angry caricature to me. And someone who is so blinded by his own misinformed prejudice that the is unable to even consider anyone elses point of view even if it might broaden his horizons. There were plainly wrong claims in his last posts but I didnt bother responding. He wouldnt listen anyway. I am not slagging Fred as you say, I just find him funny for the reasons I have stated above. 

As for the Crab comment to Bekisman. That was a light hearted dig at Bekisman and one that he would understand. Being ex Royal Air Force we are known as Crabs (due to being the only service that has no limit to the amount of sideways movements in drill movements) and he had mentioned to me in a PM about the RAF being basically founded by the Royal Engineers. I was joking that I couldnt alow him the last word on that basis. It was friendly jibe between us, nothing more.

Anfield .. Sorry but you are seriously misinformed about what goes on or and the people involved. You showed that by calling Ops in Afghan a UN Operation when its a NATO one. Says it all really. Us "war supporters" as you call it do care, deeply. My username is from a bar in Al Udeid named after the crew badge of former colleagues who went down over Afghan in September 2006, I havent forgotten CXX/3 and never will. Just like I have never forgotten the three civilian casaulties in Ops I was involved in, bothered me then and bothers me still even though their presence was out of our control. During my time in everyone I knew did all in their power to minimise not just casualties but damage to property. Having you, someone who knows zero about it claiming otherwise almost made me angry. Almost.

Stavro .. Are you George Galloway ??, you seem to love Saddam a lot. And any Armed Force NEVER fights fair. It isnt Fencing. 

You lot need to realise something. The Armed Forces of this country do not just decide to go swanning off on Ops on their own, that is decided on a political level. And politicians are voted in by the population. If you want to know who is responsible for what you detest so much have a look in the mirror. You had the power to vote against it, maybe you did I dont know. Maybe you even voted for the current Government and THAT would be ironic. I have never voted Labour in my life so I was there in Kuwait in 98 at the behest of those who did. It might surprise you to know that I dont want our guys in Afghanistan, I didnt want them in Iraq. Both places are best forgotten in my view. But in yet another correction Anfield there has been an MP out there as reservist and the Queens grandson also did time out there as a FAC. Do you EVER get anything right ??

No wonder Bekisman bugged out. Thats my last words on it too. I am all for a debate but you cant talk to people who have made their mind up based on what they are fed by the media.

----------


## Stavro

> See what I mean.


Link deleted.

----------


## Stavro

> You are sick! have you no decency? I'm asking you to delete it



I did not post the picture, only a link to a picture, and rest assured that I have found many of that ilk.

Ask the politicians whether they have any decency. As the military. And ask yourself why this sort of thing (which is going on all the time, whether you like to be reminded of the graphic nature of it or not) is taking place thousands of miles away against human beings who have done nothing to you or I.

----------


## Tubthumper

Just say it DD. But don't forget we signed our attestation papers to ensure Great Britain remained. That includes carrying along all the baggage, including those who actively dislike m'lord War and all his dodgy siblings.

What luck for the peace-lover, that there remain angry violent men who will perform acts of great destruction on his behalf, to ensure he can continue to protest.

And what luck for the angry man that there remain peace lovers who ensure he has a home to return to when his fire is damped.

Or something like that.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Just say it DD. But don't forget we signed our attestation papers to ensure Great Britain remained. That includes carrying along all the baggage, including those who actively dislike m'lord War and all his dodgy siblings.
> 
> What luck for the peace-lover, that there remain angry violent men who will perform acts of great destruction on his behalf, to ensure he can continue to protest.
> 
> And what luck for the angry man that there remain peace lovers who ensure he has a home to return to when his fire is damped.
> 
> Or something like that.


Nicely put. Very, Very nicely put. 

I am happy to carry my baggage. No one forced me after all. And I gained a lot more than I lost ..  ::

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> I did not post the picture, only a link to a picture, and rest assured that I have found many of that ilk.
> 
> Ask the politicians whether they have any decency. As the military. And ask yourself why this sort of thing (which is going on all the time, whether you like to be reminded of the graphic nature of it or not) is taking place thousands of miles away against human beings who have done nothing to you or I.


Talking about decency in others after posting that pic is a bit hollow really. You have found many more you say ??, did they fall into your lap or did you look for them ??

Anyone who had seen anything like that up close would have the respect for that child that you sold out to make a point on an internet forum.

----------


## ducati

I remember when enemy propagandists were hanged

----------


## fred

> Talking about decency in others after posting that pic is a bit hollow really. You have found many more you say ??, did they fall into your lap or did you look for them ??
> 
> Anyone who had seen anything like that up close would have the respect for that child that you sold out to make a point on an internet forum.


Ah another one who flounces and bounces.

You blame the voters for voting for the war but object to them seeing what they are voting for. Seems you prefer people to get their information from the media.

Parade every dead Afghani through Wootton Basset and maybe our politicians would think twice before starting wars.

----------


## Tubthumper

Fred, is it right for 'Jihadists' from Germany to go to Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers?

----------


## fred

> Fred, is it right for 'Jihadists' from Germany to go to Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers?


Look if you want to talk about right then talk about us being right first.

We can't take the moral high ground when we are the worst offenders.

We can't complain about terrorists training in Afghanistan while America is funding terrorists and training them in Afghanistan.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020101

----------


## Tubthumper

> Look if you want to talk about right then talk about us being right first. We can't take the moral high ground when we are the worst offenders. We can't complain about terrorists training in Afghanistan while America is funding terrorists and training them in Afghanistan.


I asked a simple question. Please answer.

----------


## Stavro

> You lot need to realise something. The Armed Forces of this country do not just decide to go swanning off on Ops on their own, that is decided on a political level. And politicians are voted in by the population.
> 
> No wonder Bekisman bugged out. Thats my last words on it too. I am all for a debate but you cant talk to people who have made their mind up based on what they are fed by the media.



DrunkenDuck, you may be new on here, but you should have read enough already to see that it is primarily the politicians and the media that I and others are criticizing. It is the fact that we are not allowing ourselves to be fed by the mainstream media. That is the whole point.

There is a very, very sordid enterprise going on and the Afghanis are paying a very, very heavy price.

bekisman - if you were so offended by the photo, then why did you leave the link in the quote? At least Yoda the Flump removed it. Is it the fact that you do not want people in general to see for themselves exactly what we are trying to draw attention to? And you have the absolute nerve to call others "sick"!

----------


## golach

> Yes, and the Dutch and Canadians are leaving the combat situation....


Wonder if they will leave the Nato Alliance also?

----------


## Stavro

> Anyone who had seen anything like that up close would have the respect for that child that you sold out to make a point on an internet forum.



If it were left to me, that child would never have ended up in that state. You are a hypocrite.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I am happy to carry my baggage. No one forced me after all. And I gained a lot more than I lost ..


They just don't get it, do they... !

----------


## Stavro

> I remember when enemy propagandists were hanged


"Enemy" to whom? Women and children who have done "us" no harm?

----------


## fred

> I asked a simple question. Please answer.


You did not ask a simple question but I answered anyway.

They do not want to make bombs because we are unbelievers, they want to make bombs because we invade their countries and kill them.

If a Muslim country invaded Britain would you not do the same? I know I would, I'd fight them any means I could.

Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan didn't invade us we invaded Afghanistan. They are the injured parties, we are the criminals.

Now I repeat, when we've put our own house in order we can start criticising others.

----------


## fred

> Wonder if they will leave the Nato Alliance also?


We should all leave the NATO alliance.

It was started after WWII when there was a real threat from the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union fell in 1989 and NATO became redundant. We now have to invent threats to give them a reason to exist.

Get rid of them.

----------


## Anfield

Drunken Duck,
I apologise for my mistake (which was corrected) in stating that UN forces were there rather than NATO - dont think the locals know who is bombing them either.

re: " _But in yet another correction Anfield there has been an MP out there as  reservist and the Queens grandson also did time out there as a FAC._"

Yes,  above pair have been to area,  but so to have Blair, Bush, Brown and many many more, but how far away from the killing zones were they?

As for ".._actively employed in the air delivery of weapons_.." which most people know as bombing,  is this another attempt at the sanitisation of a dirty & illegal war.

I abhor violence in any form,  and this includes the genocide of their own people by islamic terrorists.

We will never end the conflict in the middle east by occupation, but what we can do is to try and reduce the suffering to innocent civillians by bringing home *all* foreign troops either UN/NATO or whoever

----------


## fred

> I remember when enemy propagandists were hanged


Do you remember when war criminals were hanged?

----------


## Tubthumper

> They do not want to make bombs because we are unbelievers, they want to make bombs because we invade their countries and kill them. If a Muslim country invaded Britain would you not do the same? I know I would, I'd fight them any means I could. Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan didn't invade us we invaded Afghanistan. They are the injured parties, we are the criminals. Now I repeat, when we've put our own house in order we can start criticising others.


_Sigh..._ When did we invade Germany? (Recently I mean). I asked about German Jihadists, remember?
Yes or No, Fred.

----------


## golach

> .
> 
>  Afghanistan didn't invade us we invaded Afghanistan. They are the injured parties, we are the criminals.


 
I think the Afghan Government asked Nato to come to their aid, they were invited.

----------


## fred

> I think the Afghan Government asked Nato to come to their aid, they were invited.


The Taliban were the Afghan government at the time, they didn't invite us.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I think the Afghan Government asked Nato to come to their aid, they were invited.


I don't want to post the link, but there's a fairly graphic picture of  what became of the last prime minister the Afghans had before the  taleban took over. A lot worse than the previous link that caused so much disturbance...
But hey, that's what people do to each other when they're annoyed.

----------


## fred

> _Sigh..._ When did we invade Germany? (Recently I mean). I asked about German Jihadists, remember?
> Yes or No, Fred.


Germany is part of the "us", they are part of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, they were the ones who called the air strike killing over a hundred Afghani civilians last September.

You just don't get it do you?

----------


## Tubthumper

> The Taliban were the Afghan government at the time, they didn't invite us.


If you're not going to answer my query Fred, could you just remind us about the acheivements of the taleban government when they were in power in Afghanistan?

----------


## Tubthumper

> Germany is part of the "us", they are part of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, they were the ones who called the air strike killing over a hundred Afghani civilians last September. You just don't get it do you?


Re Germany - are their citizens right to train in making IEDs to blow people up in a foreign country? I suppose this includes their own troops who, after all, are some German mother's sons.
You still haven't answered my question.

----------


## fred

> Re Germany - are their citizens right to train in making IEDs to blow people up in a foreign country? I suppose this includes their own troops who, after all, are some German mother's sons.
> You still haven't answered my question.


I have answered your question several times.

It's up to them to decide what is right for them to do.

It is up to us to decide what is right for us to do, they aren't committing any crimes in my name, it's the ones who are I'll criticise.

----------


## fred

> If you're not going to answer my query Fred, could you just remind us about the acheivements of the taleban government when they were in power in Afghanistan?


That is a matter for the people of Afghanistan.

It's what our government does that concerns me.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I have answered your question several times. It's up to them to decide what is right for them to do. It is up to us to decide what is right for us to do, they aren't committing any crimes in my name, it's the ones who are I'll criticise.


No you haven't answered my question. You can't bring yourself to state 'right' or 'wrong' about a foreign jihadist, although you have no hesitation in doing so for a Brit squaddie.
If you are correct in your assertion that it is up to them and to us to decide what is right in what 'we' or 'they' do, then I think that any discussion of who is and isn't committing crimes is  a bit pointless. But it doesn't work like that for you people does it? 
Our country is the sum of its history (all of it, not just the nice bits), the people that live in it now, and all the things it's currently aspiring to.
It will also look after me and you reasonably well, regardless of our opinion.
In the greater scheme of things, like the Yanks say, My country, right or wrong'.

----------


## Tubthumper

Fred, is it right for 'Jihadists' from Germany to go to Afghanistan to  learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers?

----------


## ducati

> No you haven't answered my question. You can't bring yourself to state 'right' or 'wrong' about a foreign jihadist, although you have no hesitation in doing so for a Brit squaddie.
> If you are correct in your assertion that it is up to them and to us to decide what is right in what 'we' or 'they' do, then I think that any discussion of who is and isn't committing crimes is a bit pointless. But it doesn't work like that for you people does it? 
> Our country is the sum of its history (all of it, not just the nice bits), the people that live in it now, and all the things it's currently aspiring to.
> It will also look after me and you reasonably well, regardless of our opinion.
> In the greater scheme of things, like the Yanks say, My country, right or wrong'.


I'd forget it Tubs. These people are Taliban sympathisers spreading propaganda. Thats the problem with the Internet, you don't know who you are talking to. Probably in a cave in Pakistan.

----------


## fred

> No you haven't answered my question. You can't bring yourself to state 'right' or 'wrong' about a foreign jihadist, although you have no hesitation in doing so for a Brit squaddie.
> If you are correct in your assertion that it is up to them and to us to decide what is right in what 'we' or 'they' do, then I think that any discussion of who is and isn't committing crimes is  a bit pointless. But it doesn't work like that for you people does it? 
> Our country is the sum of its history (all of it, not just the nice bits), the people that live in it now, and all the things it's currently aspiring to.
> It will also look after me and you reasonably well, regardless of our opinion.
> In the greater scheme of things, like the Yanks say, My country, right or wrong'.


Afghanistan is the country of the Afghanis, Iraq is the country of the Iraqis.

You say we have the right to be wrong but they don't? You say it's good for us to be patriotic but bad for them?

They didn't invade us, we invaded them, illegally, whatever happens as a result of that is down to us not them.

----------


## golach

> No you haven't answered my question. You can't bring yourself to state 'right' or 'wrong' about a foreign jihadist, although you have no hesitation in doing so for a Brit squaddie.
> If you are correct in your assertion that it is up to them and to us to decide what is right in what 'we' or 'they' do, then I think that any discussion of who is and isn't committing crimes is a bit pointless. But it doesn't work like that for you people does it? 
> Our country is the sum of its history (all of it, not just the nice bits), the people that live in it now, and all the things it's currently aspiring to.
> It will also look after me and you reasonably well, regardless of our opinion.
> In the greater scheme of things, like the Yanks say, My country, right or wrong'.


Here Here Tubs

----------


## Tubthumper

> I'd forget it Tubs. These people are Taliban sympathisers spreading propaganda. Thats the problem with the Internet, you don't know who you are talking to. Probably in a cave in Pakistan.


No they're not, they are valued members of our community, who have the right to have opinions, to express them and to be heard. 
This isn't taliban-governed Afghanistan you know!!

----------


## ducati

> No they're not, they are valued members of our community, who have the right to have opinions, to express them and to be heard. 
> This isn't taliban-governed Afghanistan you know!!


I agree with your sentiment, but I wouldn't expect to meet them at the curry night on Thursday  :Wink:

----------


## Tubthumper

> You say we have the right to be wrong but they don't? You say it's good for us to be patriotic but bad for them?
> They didn't invade us, we invaded them, illegally, whatever happens as a result of that is down to us not them.


What? Did I say anywhere that it's bad for them to be patriotic? No.
We? WE?? Are you claiming to be part of the same collective as me? You, an apologist for Jihadists, who is scornful of the efforts of a poor wee 18 year old Scottish Sojer?

----------


## Tubthumper

Fred, is it right for 'Jihadists' from Germany to go to Afghanistan to  learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers?

----------


## Stavro

So we do not lose sight of the official reason that the West illegally invaded Afghanistan, under the weight of propaganda about "the" Taliban, consider this from The Washington Times -

"A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

" 'In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards,' says *Richard Gage*, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 

"He is particularly disturbed by Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in 'pure free-fall acceleration.' He also says that more than 100 first-responders reported explosions and flashes as the towers were falling and cited evidence of 'multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft. at 60 mph' and the 'mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking.' "

I suppose these questions must make Mr Gage some sort of friend of "the enemy"?

----------


## Tubthumper

> So we do not lose sight of the official reason that the West illegally invaded Afghanistan, under the weight of propaganda about "the" Taliban, consider this from The Washington Times -
> I suppose these questions must make Mr Gage some sort of friend of "the enemy"?


Or an enemy of their friends? Or just another lonely bloke wishing to make an impact??
I thought the 'enemy' was Al Quaeda, and that the taliban government were merely hosting/ supporting/ actively encouraging?
Keep bringing this material forward Stavros, it keeps you busy and gives us an insight.

----------


## Tubthumper

Seeing as Fred has gone (to bed??) Stavros can you tell us, is it right for 'Jihadists' from Germany to go to Afghanistan to   learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers?

----------


## golach

> Keep bringing this material forward Stavros, it keeps you busy and gives us an insight.


Naw Tubthumper Stavro, just gives me dyspepsia and a headache  ::

----------


## Stavro

> Seeing as Fred has gone (to bed??) Stavros can you tell us, is it right for 'Jihadists' from Germany to go to Afghanistan to   learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers?


No, Tub, it certainly is not alright (I suppose you mean) for anyone to go from Germany to Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs.

Funny that they would do that really, I mean Germany being so much more technically advanced than Afghanistan ...

----------


## Tubthumper

> Funny that they would do that really, I mean Germany being so much more technically advanced than Afghanistan ...


Was that a joke? :: 
I meant 'is it right' (i.e. is it not wrong) That's all I asked, is it right or not. Not 'it's alright'.

----------


## Stavro

> Was that a joke?
> I meant 'is it right' (i.e. is it not wrong) That's all I asked, is it right or not. Not 'it's alright'.


Well, whatever. I have answered your question I believe.

As for being a joke, no. But why would anyone need to travel to Afghanistan to learn how to make a bomb?

----------


## Tubthumper

I thought the question was quite simple 'Is it right for 'Jihadists' to travel from Germany to Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers'.
What is wrong with you people - 'yes' or 'no'?

----------


## Stavro

> I thought the question was quite simple 'Is it right for 'Jihadists' to travel from Germany to Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs to kill unbelievers'.
> What is wrong with you people - 'yes' or 'no'?



Strange. Fred answered your question and I answered your question, but you deny that we did. Is it that we did not say, "yes"?




> No, Tub, it certainly is not alright (I suppose you  mean) for anyone to go from Germany to Afghanistan to learn how to make  bombs.
> 
> Funny that they would do that really, I mean Germany being so much more  technically advanced than Afghanistan ...


Note the first word there, Tub. I know it's only two letters long and therefore easy to miss perhaps. Let me give you a clue, the first letter is an "N."

O, what the heck, I'll give you another clue, the second letter is an "O."

Any chance you could answer my question now? To remind you: "Why would anyone need to travel to Afghanistan to learn how to make a bomb?"

----------


## Aaldtimer

First of all can I bid you welcome to the debate drunken Duck. You may notice I don't contribute to this thread as I don't believe in pissing against the wind.

But..."Being ex Royal Air Force we are known as Crabs (due to being the only service that has no limit to the amount of sideways movements in drill movements)"...
I think you are a wee bit misinformed on this matter.
As one who wore the blue/grey for nine years and had friends in the Senior Service, I learned that the expression for us, used by the RN, was "Crabfats", due to the similarity of the colour of the ointment used by their medics to treat their infestations of said critter!

We were also referred to as "Brylcreem Boys" by the Army...but that's another story! :Wink:

----------


## ducati

Taliban, Taliban, Watch the skys - those UAVs are pretty sneeky

----------


## Boozeburglar

Only the worst kind of vile and ignorant idiot would post a picture of a war victim, thinking they were educating or informing anyone.

We could all post such pictures, of Kurds, of servicemen and women. 

The majority are not so weak in their mind to resort to such sensationalism.

Guess what, war and terrorism is always one sided.

There is always one side better at it than the other, there are always more casualties on one side.

Perhaps you removed the link once prompted, but it says everything about you that you put it there in the first place.

Truly pathetic, and beyond the pale.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Strange. Fred answered your question and I answered your question, but you deny that we did. Is it that we did not say, "yes"?
> Note the first word there, Tub. I know it's only two letters long and therefore easy to miss perhaps. Let me give you a clue, the first letter is an "N."O, what the heck, I'll give you another clue, the second letter is an "O." Any chance you could answer my question now? To remind you: "Why would anyone need to travel to Afghanistan to learn how to make a bomb?"


I can't see anything that says 'no' in Fred's posts.
But I made an error. I missed the No in your post. That must me cos i'm just a stupid ex 'cannon -fodder'. Pardon me. You have my permission to feel all warm and squirty.
Why would anyone_ need_ to travel to Afghanistan? I suppose because it makes them feel like they're part of the great effort, which they wouldn't get staying at home. 
If you mean why would they not just stay in Germany and learn - perhaps they don't feel they'd get the right kind of attention, or that it's more satisfying randomly blowing up soldiers, civilians and goats in a place where one can really _be_ someone. After all, in Afghanistan, there's a good chance somebody will treat you as a hero. In Germany, everyone would just hate you.
Maybe getting caught in the process of collecting fertiliser and ending up in the clink for 20 years maybe isn't as appealing? I really don't know.You'd have to ask the guys in the background pushing the buttons how they motivated their believers.

----------


## Stavro

> need[/I] to travel to Afghanistan? I suppose because it makes them feel like they're part of the great effort, which they wouldn't get staying at home. 
> If you mean why would they not just stay in Germany and learn - perhaps they don't feel they'd get the right kind of attention, or that it's more satisfying randomly blowing up soldiers, civilians and goats in a place where one can really _be_ someone. After all, in Afghanistan, there's a good chance somebody will treat you as a hero. In Germany, everyone would just hate you.
> Maybe getting caught in the process of collecting fertiliser and ending up in the clink for 20 years maybe isn't as appealing? I really don't know.You'd have to ask the guys in the background pushing the buttons how they motivated their believers.


Do you really believe that the bombs in, say, market places in Iraq and Afghanistan, or on the London Underground, etc., were fertiliser bombs?

If you are ex-military, then surely you recognise the effects of military grade explosives?

And, if someone were going to Afghanistan to learn how to make a fertiliser bomb, then does seem like a bit of a stupid waste of time.

How many alleged training camps would there be in Afghanistan? 10? 20? 100?

And the British and Americans have been doing the bidding of "Israel" there for how long now?

And how many civilians have died or been maimed there in that time? Forget it, you will not be expected to answer that question, since the figures are deliberately withheld by the British and American regimes.

----------


## Tubthumper

_Do you really believe that the bombs in,  say, market places in Iraq and Afghanistan, or on the London  Underground, etc., were fertiliser bombs?_
I neither know nor care what the nature of the explosives commonly used in Afghanistan is, however I can remember some chaps being caught in the UK recently with a couple of tonne bags of fertiliser in a lock up. Chaps getting nabbed with juice bottles to blow up planes. The Canary Wharf bomb? Fertiliser if I remember rightly. 
And from the perspective of someone having their leg blown off, I suspect it doen't matter much if it's Semtex, P4, gelignite or a claymore mine.

_If you are ex-military, then surely you recognise the effects of  military grade explosives?_ A bloody great hole in the ground and some pink mist where your mate was a moment ago...

_How many alleged training camps would there be in Afghanistan? 10? 20?  100?_ What - now,  or 5 years ago? 

_And the British and Americans have been doing the bidding of "Israel"  there for how long now?_ How would I know? How would you know?
_And how many civilians have died or been maimed there in that time?  Forget it, you will not be expected to answer that question, since the  figures are deliberately withheld by the British and American regimes. 
_Conspiracy, eh?

----------


## Stavro

> I neither know nor care what the nature of the explosives commonly used in Afghanistan is, ...
> 
> _And the British and Americans have been doing the bidding of "Israel"  there for how long now?_ How would I know? How would you know?
> _And how many civilians have died or been maimed there in that time?  Forget it, you will not be expected to answer that question, since the  figures are deliberately withheld by the British and American regimes. 
> _Conspiracy, eh?


Do you just believe what you are told, then? Does the American government never lie? Does the British government never lie? When you were in the military, did you simply follow orders without questioning them? I'm not getting at you, personally, but I am curious, because an awful lot of people seem to be like that and I am trying to figure out why it is that way.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Do you just believe what you are told, then? Does the American government never lie? Does the British government never lie? When you were in the military, did you simply follow orders without questioning them? I'm not getting at you, personally, but I am curious, because an awful lot of people seem to be like that and I am trying to figure out why it is that way.


Nah, I'm becoming more cynical every day, I tend to ask 'where's the money and power issue' of everything now. But what can I do about it? Nowt, so I don't get agitated.
In the miltary? One relies on ones' superiors to give direction & guidance based on information and direction from above. Everyone relies on everyone else at various levels. And what you do is the will of Her Maj, as directed by the duly-elected government of our country. On my behalf and your behalf. You doubt it? Why are you in the military then?
You, Starvos, may consider yourself a maverick, a cynic, a doubter, one who sees all, but one day you'll realise that, kick against the traces all you want, doubt all you want, you just get on with it. Same as the rest of us. By the way, do you really think the powers that be are all that clever?
Try reading 'This Perfect Day' by Ira Levin. Just a good old work of fiction but damnably interesting.

----------


## Stavro

> Only the worst kind of vile and ignorant idiot would post a picture of a war victim, thinking they were educating or informing anyone.
> 
> We could all post such pictures, of Kurds, of servicemen and women. 
> 
> The majority are not so weak in their mind to resort to such sensationalism.
> 
> Guess what, war and terrorism is always one sided.
> 
> There is always one side better at it than the other, there are always more casualties on one side.
> ...


I was not going to bother with your manufactured indignation, boozleburger, but someone pointed out to me that your contrived venom was posted at 11:08 today, whereas my post was edited to remove the link at 21:08 the day before. That is exactly *14 hours* before your posting. You must have had to search around to go and find something to be indignant about, boozleburger.

It also should be pointed out to you that I did not place the photo in front of your delicate eyes, but only gave a link to a photo, together with a very clear warning for anyone who would be genuinely upset at such a sight.

This is a little bit like rheghead's dead fox picture, isn't it - a case of never mind the reality and truth, how dare you upset our tea and biscuits on the lawn.

Grow up and face the world, boozleburger. The image of that poor kid represents the harsh reality of this disceitful, bloody carnage taking place thousands of miles away.

----------


## Stavro

> Nah, I'm becoming more cynical every day, I tend to ask 'where's the money and power issue' of everything now. But what can I do about it? Nowt, so I don't get agitated.
> In the miltary? One relies on ones' superiors to give direction & guidance based on information and direction from above. Everyone relies on everyone else at various levels. And what you do is the will of Her Maj, as directed by the duly-elected government of our country. On my behalf and your behalf. You doubt it? Why are you in the military then?
> You, Starvos, may consider yourself a maverick, a cynic, a doubter, one who sees all, but one day you'll realise that, kick against the traces all you want, doubt all you want, you just get on with it. Same as the rest of us. By the way, do you really think the powers that be are all that clever?
> Try reading 'This Perfect Day' by Ira Levin. Just a good old work of fiction but damnably interesting.


See, you can be serious when you want to be, Tubthumper. Thank you for answering my questions. I know exactly what you are saying.

----------


## bekisman

> When you were in the military, did you simply follow orders without questioning them?


 
eh? now there's a pacifist statement if I've ever seen one

----------


## Stavro

> eh? now there's a pacifist statement if I've ever seen one


I'm a pacifist when no one is attacking us, bekisman, but not otherwise. That is why I believe we have lost sight of what a "defense force" is about, but I do not believe in a "defense force" that is sent all around the globe, usually under the command of an American, by the way, and blows up and/or shoots innocent civilians in another soverign country. OK?

----------


## bekisman

> I'm a pacifist when no one is attacking us, bekisman, but not otherwise. That is why I believe we have lost sight of what a "defense force" is about, but I do not believe in a "defense force" that is sent all around the globe, usually under the command of an American, by the way, and blows up and/or shoots innocent civilians in another soverign country. OK?


The *Israel Defense Forces* (*IDF*) is not sent around the globe..

----------


## Stavro

> The *Israel Defense Forces* (*IDF*) is not sent around the globe..


They are in Haiti. That is certainly a long way from Palestine, where they live.

----------


## fred

> They are in Haiti. That is certainly a long way from Palestine, where they live.


And for merely asking for an investigation into why they are in Haiti Baroness Tonge got sacked by the Liberal party.

Must be an election coming up.

----------


## Stavro

> And for merely asking for an investigation into why they are in Haiti Baroness Tonge got sacked by the Liberal party.
> 
> Must be an election coming up.


Yes, and how wonderful that we have a democracy that is "the envy of the world," where all the parties are, ... well, basically exactly the same. Great to have choice.  :Smile: 

Baroness Tonge is a very intelligent and well-spoken woman. So she does not fit in the Liberal Party (nor the Labour Party, nor the Conservative Party, I suppose).

----------


## bekisman

> They are in Haiti. That is certainly a long way from Palestine, where they live.


That's very good of you Stavro to mention this:

The IDF aid delegation dismantles the field hospital built in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Patients needing further care are transferred to other delegations while tents and beds are taken apart. The head of the medical team, Col. Doc. Itzik Kryce then speaks to the entire delegation during the final roll call. He describes the pride he feels seeing the success of the mission and emphasizes the importance of representing Israel and the IDFs values in Haiti. The roll call ends with the delegation singing the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva, the hope.
To date: *1,111 patients were treated, 317 surgeries were preformed, and 16 births took place at the IDF field hospital*..

An excellent achievement!

----------


## fred

> That's very good of you Stavro to mention this:
> 
> The IDF aid delegation dismantles the field hospital built in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Patients needing further care are transferred to other delegations while tents and beds are taken apart. The head of the medical team, Col. Doc. Itzik Kryce then speaks to the entire delegation during the final roll call. He describes the pride he feels seeing the success of the mission and emphasizes the importance of representing Israel and the IDFs values in Haiti. The roll call ends with the delegation singing the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva, the hope.
> To date: *1,111 patients were treated, 317 surgeries were preformed, and 16 births took place at the IDF field hospital*..
> 
> An excellent achievement!


So why do they go 4,000 miles to a humanitarian crisis when they have one right next door in Gaza?

----------


## bekisman

> And for merely asking for an investigation into why they are in Haiti Baroness Tonge got sacked by the Liberal party. Must be an election coming up.


Nick Clegg said it was ludicrous, offensive, wrong and stupid. It was bizarre for the baroness to suggest that Israel should launch an investigation to prove that a nonsense claim is, well, nonsense, said Clegg. But he insisted that Tonge is not anti-Semitic or racist, or else she wouldnt be a Liberal Democrat. Yet within a couple of days, Clegg gave Tonge the sack

----------


## fred

> Nick Clegg said it was ludicrous, offensive, wrong and stupid. It was bizarre for the baroness to suggest that Israel should launch an investigation to prove that a nonsense claim is, well, nonsense, said Clegg. But he insisted that Tonge is not anti-Semitic or racist, or else she wouldnt be a Liberal Democrat. Yet within a couple of days, Clegg gave Tonge the sack


Considering because people of the Jewish faith are reluctant to carry doner cards, only around 8% of Israelis compared to around 30% in other developed countries has caused an acute shortage of organs in Israel.

Considering the market value of a kidney is $150,000.

Considering Israel was into Haiti with their field hospital faster than a ferret up a drainpipe.

Considering Israel has form for that sort of thing.

Considering Israel isn't exactly famous for their milk of human kindness.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to hold an investigation to show Israel is innocent of the allegations and put everyone's minds at rest?

----------


## bekisman

> Considering because people of the Jewish faith are reluctant to carry doner cards, only around 8% of Israelis compared to around 30% in other developed countries has caused an acute shortage of organs in Israel. Considering the market value of a kidney is $150,000. 
> Considering Israel was into Haiti with their field hospital faster than a ferret up a drainpipe.
> Considering Israel has form for that sort of thing. Considering Israel isn't exactly famous for their milk of human kindness. Don't you think it would be a good idea to hold an investigation to show Israel is innocent of the allegations and put everyone's minds at rest?


Hmm wonder what professional source you got that from Fred. Ah, of course it's from your usual friends in the East:

'The allegation that IDF medics harvested organs from Haitians to use in transplants was published in the *Gaza-based Web site The Palestine Telegraph,* of which Tonge is a patron..'

Seeing that the Gaza Strip is run by a terrorist organisation: Hamas, pretty damn obvious - why do you support terrorist Fred?

----------


## fred

> Hmm wonder what professional source you got that from Fred. Ah, of course it's from your usual friends in the East:
> 
> 'The allegation that IDF medics harvested organs from Haitians to use in transplants was published in the *Gaza-based Web site The Palestine Telegraph,* of which Tonge is a patron..'
> 
> Seeing that the Gaza Strip is run by a terrorist organisation: Hamas, pretty damn obvious - why do you support terrorist Fred?


Which part of my post are you claiming is not true?

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Yes, and how wonderful that we have a democracy that is "the envy of the world," where all the parties are, ... well, basically exactly the same. Great to have choice. 
> 
> Baroness Tonge is a very intelligent and well-spoken woman. So she does not fit in the Liberal Party (nor the Labour Party, nor the Conservative Party, I suppose).


The fact that you and your cohort spend your time here where your protestations against what you see as unjust are futile speaks volumes for your commitment.

I got my ass out and protested and got involved in everything I cared about, and I still do.

It is obvious you and your fellow nutters are arm's length activists; isolated from reality by your lack of experience as well as your lack of real energy.

I need no more evidence than the amount of time you spend here, where your words and intentions are meaningless.

----------


## Stavro

> Hmm wonder what professional source you got that from Fred. Ah, of course it's from your usual friends in the East:
> 
> 'The allegation that IDF medics harvested organs from Haitians to use in transplants was published in the *Gaza-based Web site The Palestine Telegraph,* of which Tonge is a patron..


Such claims have been common in Sweden for a long time. Is that what you mean by "the East"?

Anyway, simple to set up an inquiry to just see the truth or falsity of the claims. That would be the proper way to conduct business, especially given "Israel's" highly dubious record since it was illegally set up in 1948.





> Seeing that the Gaza Strip is run by a terrorist organisation: Hamas, pretty damn obvious - why do you support terrorist Fred?


Democratically elected, old chap. Perhaps not to your taste, but you do not have a vote in Palestine. Of course, they are only "a terrorist organisation" on the word of Netanyahu, Bush, Blair, Cheney, Obama and Co. But this is all you see.

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Of course, they are only "a terrorist organisation" on the word of Netanyahu, Bush, Blair, Cheney, Obama and Co. But this is all you see.


Pray tell what your sources are?

----------


## fred

> Such claims have been common in Sweden for a long time. Is that what you mean by "the East"?


Well now didn't you see what he did there Stavro?

He couldn't fault any of the statements I made so as usual he next decided to attack the source.

Only I didn't give a source so he went and found a source of his own and declared it was the same source as I had used and then proceeded to attack it.

I don't see why he would be objecting to an investigation to prove Israel's innocence in this matter. Unless he thought Israel might be guilty that is.

----------


## Boozeburglar

Why don't you and Stavro get a room, you Commy nail biters.

----------


## Stavro

> Well now didn't you see what he did there Stavro?
> 
> He couldn't fault any of the statements I made so as usual he next decided to attack the source.
> 
> Only I didn't give a source so he went and found a source of his own and declared it was the same source as I had used and then proceeded to attack it.
> 
> I don't see why he would be objecting to an investigation to prove Israel's innocence in this matter. Unless he thought Israel might be guilty that is.



I agree, Fred, and when reality starts overwhelming him, he feigns indignation. (Didn't he say umpteen times that he was leaving this thread?)

----------


## Stavro

> Why don't you and Stavro get a room, you Commy nail biters.


Shouldn't "Commy" be "Commie"?  :Grin:

----------


## bekisman

> I agree, Fred, and when reality starts overwhelming him, he feigns indignation. (Didn't he say umpteen times that he was leaving this thread?)


Well I WAS a wee bit busy with things.. but 'umpteen' ? nah, just a tad over there mate. Another exaggeration. 
I just try and let you burble amongst yourselves, but it's so very very humorous reading the posts of a couple of naive stay at home 'indignant of Tunbridge Wells' posters. Attempting to upset other thread readers with some pathetic picture of some poor kid burnt by some gas explosion, somewhere.

I do try and stand back and watch you kids, but it is difficult, 'cos it's sooooo funny..

Right I'll try again and continue to read your, what is perceived as pro-terrorist support and lack of empathy for our armed forces (aka 'cannon fodder')..

Oh well must go and send an e-bluey to my daughter-in-law in Afghan (you know where that is?) look on a map, it's the closest you will ever get - really wonder why your 'type' (see above) never, ever in a million, zillion years get off their backsides and travel to these 'war zones' and use their efforts to alleviate perceived suffering there instead of indignant spouting on a minor website? 

Come on, tell me why you've not gone to help? take some holiday time...

Nah, it'll never happen.. never mind, as they say in Spoons 'enjoy'...

----------


## superted

Morning all,

I've been reading this thread with great interest.  Having just returned from my second tour in Afghan in 12 months I think I am qualified to speak about this subject.  My tours have been post and pre General McChrystals report, which is key to how ISAF and the US military are taking the fight to the taliban.

Where as ISAF forces have always had a hearts and minds approach to any operation they have been conducting, there has been a massive swing to how this is employed post McChrstals report. This has been clearly visible to myself as an Air Battle Manager. The term ROE has been banded about this thread, and again this is key in the report.

The Taliban are very happy to use woman, children and religious places to protect themselves. This happens daily and never gets reported on. They will use children as human shields, while bombing and planting IEDS. Post the report I have seen this happen more often because the Taliban are getting smart and know we are trying to win hearts and minds. 

Recently I heard on the radio, a base getting mortared. They FACs/JTACS on the ground screaming at the fast air they had in support to help them. All they could do was do were several shows of force and they could not go kinetic(drop bombs) because they could not satisfy the ROE in some way. That is the best example I can give to the way ISAF forces are changing there attitudes.  

We can argue all day if we should be in Afghan, my belief is that we shall be there for many years to come. What I can tell you is that we are making a difference and should be proud of every man and woman out there on ground.

----------


## bekisman

> What I can tell you is that we are making a difference and should be proud of every man and woman out there on ground.


Well said superted..

----------


## ducati

superted, Great to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about.

----------


## golach

> What I can tell you is that we are making a difference and should be proud of every man and woman out there on ground.


Well said superted, a wee question. How do you and your colleagues serving in Afghanistan feel when you see the posts on here posted by Stavro, Fred and their ilk calling you murderers and worse? When they are sitting safely hiding behind a keyboard?

----------


## Anfield

Because we still, despite NEW Labour,  live in a democracy,  Stavro & Fred and others have as much entitlement to post on this thread as anyone else.

As the vast majority (70% in last BBC poll) of Britons want the war in Afghanistan to end,  I would suggest that they are the moral majority and not those  people who want to continue this unjust and illegal war.

----------


## bekisman

> As the vast majority (70% in last BBC poll) of Britons want the war in Afghanistan to end, I would suggest that they are the moral majority and not those people who want to continue this unjust and illegal war.


they don't call em 'cannon fodder' do they ?

----------


## Stavro

"Human shields" yet another media distraction tactic. The _"real story"_ is the invasion of Afghanistan and the tragic loss of innocent lives.

----------


## Anfield

bekisman:
The term canon fodder & collateral damage are interchangeable in this carnage i.e.  if a soldier dies then he is collateral damage, if an Afgan civillian is killed they are canon fodder, the only winner is the war machine.

End War Now

----------


## superted

> Well said superted, a wee question. How do you and your colleagues serving in Afghanistan feel when you see the posts on here posted by Stavro, Fred and their ilk calling you murderers and worse? When they are sitting safely hiding behind a keyboard?


Like I said before we can discuss why we are there for ages, however we are there and we all have a job to do. Not wanting to get into an argument, all I'll say is i worked next to the helipad that brings injured soldiers back 2 or 3 times a DAY. Unfortunately most of these soldiers come back limbless and these are the lucky ones!

----------


## bekisman

> bekisman:
> The term canon fodder & collateral damage are interchangeable in this carnage i.e. if a soldier dies then he is collateral damage, if an Afgan civillian is killed they are canon fodder, the only winner is the war machine. 
> End War Now


You should remember what you wrote:

23rd Feb [Anfield] wrote: "Inevitably they will soon be replaced by more canon fodder."
And that wern't the Afgan's.

"End War Now" - now THAT is a pacifist statement..

----------


## Anfield

As I write it,  is reported that two more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

How many more do you want bekisman, and others, in order to change your view that this is a war that is unwinnable, illegal and wrong

----------


## bekisman

> As i write it, is reported that two more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. How many more do you want bekisman, and others, in order to change your view that this is a war that is unwinnable


Sorry for the delay, but just sent an e-bluey to my daughter-in-law in Lashkar Gah, Helmand (that's in Afghanistan) - you know  -she's one of the 'cannon fodder' you write about - although I do accept she has more b's than you.

Wonder if you would count yourself in with the conscientious objectors in 1939 when that war seemed 'unwinnable' (sic) the white feather brigade. 

Afghanistan was never going to be easy, but if you were happy to leave a group of terrorist to train and arm themselves before being sent out to the world to blow people to bits, then it says an awful lot about you.

My son has also served in Afghanistan, and they know what anti-military comments are posted on forums, being called Cannon Fodder. Are they upset? well no, there are many words in the military diction that describe these type - and by 'type' I do not include those that respect our Armed Forces,but may simply want them home.  Folk that would not in a million years decry with nefarious comments, shouted by those who spout, protest, but do not have the courage of their convictions to get out to Afghanistan et el and help in their own way.

So, when are you off?

----------


## Anfield

Will not dignify your rant with a reply.  
I hope your daughter in law,  and all other soldiers,  return home safely,  very very quickly.

----------


## bekisman

> Will not dignify your rant with a reply. 
> I hope your daughter in law, and all other soldiers, return home safely, very very quickly.


Rant? Dignify?

Never mind. But many thanks for your kind words above. Fiona aka 'cannon fodder' is back c23rd March..

But still, when are you off?

----------


## Anfield

An sold song but the words still ring true:



Captain Collier came home, he's been fighting the war
  And I guess he thought he'd be hailed as a hero and more
  And he walked down the streets of the old home town
  And he saw how it is around here now

  Now Captain Collier had to call
  far too many girls for a date that night
  All the girls had gone out
  with their long haired boys. Captain Collier, he cried
  "What the hell have I been fighting for?"
  Oh, Captain it's for you
  We wanna bring you home
  We wanna hold you in our arms
  Come back and keep us warm.

  P.F.C. Mannie Stein,
  Had been drafted and gone
  He'd been told that only cowards say no.
  He came home and called some old friends,
  They'd resisted the draft
  And they both were in prison
  And their wives and their kids
  Were all skinny and having a bad time
  And P.F.C Stein
  He remembered the men
  Called political prisoners you know where and when.

  And he learned that the lines are tapped all the time now
  And he's wondering if maybe his courage is needed at home now
  Yes soldier we're afraid
  We're not just bein' fools
  We're gassed and beaten here at home
  We've got to change the rules

  Corp'ral Thomas McCann
  Is a three year marine.
  Someone told him he'd better join up,
  It would would make him a man.
  He came home and to the park he went
  And he sat down on a bench

  And a dungaree girl told him he'd been a man all along
  And he looked at the sign that she carried in her hand.
  It said "Stop the war and bring our brothers home"
  And corp'ral McCann he looks into her eyes
  And I believe that he's begun to understand

  Oh soldier, It's for you
  We formed our little bands
  The politicians and the magazines
  They just don't understand.
  Yes, soldier it's for you
  We're riskin' all we have
  We're nailed and jailed the same as you
  Our lives are up for grabs
  Yes soldier it's for you
  We want to bring you home
  We wanna hold you in our arms
  Come back and keep us warm.
  Her bring our brother home,

----------


## Stavro

> Wonder if you would count yourself in with the conscientious objectors in 1939 when that war seemed 'unwinnable' (sic) the white feather brigade.


Ah, the good old white feather of the good old days of Tommy v The Hun. That goes back at least to WWI, bekisman, not WWII. No doubt you would have been in the firing squad had you been in WWI, mindlessly following orders and killing some 17-year-old kid on "your side" who did not want to play the game and run into a machine gun? Aye, them good old days. Bet you'd be right in there in Afghanistan, if you were not too old now? Mindlessly following orders, and not have a clue as to why you were there. Johnny Foreigner is always "the enemy," eh?





> Afghanistan was never going to be easy, but if you were happy to leave a group of terrorist to train and arm themselves before being sent out to the world to blow people to bits, then it says an awful lot about you.
>  ...
> So, when are you off?


Wow, a few "terrorists" and "insurgents" (according to you and the mob), living in caves and traveling on horses and camels. What an "enemy." And how long have the American and British military machines been there? Not very impressive, if your view is correct, but completely predictable from the point of view of reality (as described to you by Anfield, Fred, and others).

Now you can go back to playing with your toy soldiers (and deluding yourself that atrocities are not taking place daily in your name).

----------


## Stavro

> Morning all,
> 
> I've been reading this thread with great interest.  Having just returned from my second tour in Afghan in 12 months I think I am qualified to speak about this subject.  My tours have been post and pre General McChrystals report, which is key to how ISAF and the US military are taking the fight to the taliban.
> 
> Where as ISAF forces have always had a hearts and minds approach to any operation they have been conducting, there has been a massive swing to how this is employed post McChrstals report. This has been clearly visible to myself as an Air Battle Manager. The term ROE has been banded about this thread, and again this is key in the report.
> 
> The Taliban are very happy to use woman, children and religious places to protect themselves. This happens daily and never gets reported on. They will use children as human shields, while bombing and planting IEDS. Post the report I have seen this happen more often because the Taliban are getting smart and know we are trying to win hearts and minds. 
> 
> Recently I heard on the radio, a base getting mortared. They FACs/JTACS on the ground screaming at the fast air they had in support to help them. All they could do was do were several shows of force and they could not go kinetic(drop bombs) because they could not satisfy the ROE in some way. That is the best example I can give to the way ISAF forces are changing there attitudes.  
> ...



An "Air Battle Manager"? Got an impressive air force, have they, the Afghanis?

You could win their hearts and minds easily, superted, by packing your kit bags and leaving them alone.

----------


## Stavro

> ... the white feather brigade. 
> 
> ... My son has also served in Afghanistan, ...  Folk that would not in a million years decry with nefarious comments, shouted by those who spout, protest, but do not have the courage of their convictions to get out to Afghanistan et el and help in their own way.
> 
> So, when are you off?


"COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for   their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to   prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are   to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their   ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of),   and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do soall   to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly   termed 'courageous.'"  
Chaz Bufe, _The Devil's Dictionaries_ ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)

----------


## bekisman

> An sold song but the words still ring true:
> 
> 
> Captain Collier came home, he's been fighting the warCome back and keep us warm - dah dah - Her bring our brother home,


 
What's your point Anfield? apart from pointing out this is from Beverly Sainte-Marie who's Canadian and, yes -of course you'd know: a pacifist.

----------


## Anfield

Wrong again betisman.  Try Buffy.

So you think that being a pacifist is a bad thing?

No more comment needed.

----------


## bekisman

> Ah, the good old white feather of the good old days of Tommy v The Hun. That goes back at least to WWI, bekisman, not WWII. No doubt you would have been in the firing squad had you been in WWI, mindlessly following orders and killing some 17-year-old kid on "your side" who did not want to play the game and run into a machine gun? Aye, them good old days. Bet you'd be right in there in Afghanistan, if you were not too old now? Mindlessly following orders, and not have a clue as to why you were there. Johnny Foreigner is always "the enemy," eh? 
> Wow, a few "terrorists" and "insurgents" (according to you and the mob), living in caves and traveling on horses and camels. What an "enemy." And how long have the American and British military machines been there? Not very impressive, if your view is correct, but completely predictable from the point of view of reality (as described to you by Anfield, Fred, and others).
> 
> Now you can go back to playing with your toy soldiers (and deluding yourself that atrocities are not taking place daily in your name).


Come on Stav - this was Anfield I was replying to, you don't have to hold his hand you know - can't he look after himself?
You ARE getting excited aren't you?.. now I'm all a quiver 
1. mindlessly following orders 2. Mindlessly following orders (again) 3. playing with your toy soldiers 4.deluding yourself that atrocities are not taking place daily in your name..

When you've seen death and destruction - and I don't mean on wiki or TV then I might start taking some notice of your hysteria as mentioned above 1 - 4
Anyway enough of this nonsense, please answer when are you off to Afghanistan/Iraq to help the folkies there? - I've asked a number of times now you know

----------


## bekisman

> Wrong again betisman. Try Buffy.
> 
> So you think that being a pacifist is a bad thing?
> 
> No more comment needed.


Try Beverly Sainte-Marie AND it's B-e-k-i-s-m-a-n  Fred did this too - try taking a deep breath and typing slower - it helps I understand.

'Pacifist':  antiwar demonstrator, conscientious objector, dove, passive resister, peacemaker, peacemonger, peacenik OK? whch one are you? :Wink: 

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pacifist

----------


## Anfield

All of them.

----------


## Anfield

Below are details of _some_ of the UK soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.
If our Government had not entered this illegal war,  and instead listened to the people they would be still alive,  and no doubt thanking the pacifists in our ranks.

We should also not forget the horrendous number of Afghan civillians who have also perished in this dirty war:

 2-18-2010Dalzell, DouglasLieutenant271st Battalion Coldstream GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandHamstead Marshall, BerkshireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackBabaji area of Nahr-e Saraj (central Helmand)Afghanistan 2-18-2010Walker, David "Davey" Lance Sergeant361st Battalion Scots Guards (1 Grenadier Guards Battle Group)British ArmyScotlandGlasgowHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad-e-Ali (central Helmand Province)Afghanistan 2-15-2010Mellors, GuySapper2036 Engineer Regiment ( Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Task Force)British ArmyEnglandCoventryHostile - hostile fire - IED attackPatrol Base EZARAY (near), to the north-east of Sangin District CentreAfghanistan 2-14-2010Dawson, SeanKingsman 19 The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (2 LANCS)British ArmyEnglandAshton-Under-Lyne, ManchesterHostile - friendly fire - small arms fireMusa Qal'ah districtAfghanistan 2-14-2010Marshall, MarkRifleman296th BATTALION, THE RIFLESBritish ArmyEnglandExeterHostile - hostile fire - IED attackForward Operating Base INKERMAN (near Sangin)Afghanistan 2-13-2010Greenhalgh, DaveLance Sergean251st Battalion Grenadier GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandIlkeston, DerbyshireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackNad 'Ali districtAfghanistan 2-11-2010Hicks, DarrenLance Corporal291st Battalion Coldstream GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandMousehole in CornwallHostile - hostile fire - IED attackBabaji district (central Helmand province)Afghanistan 2-08-2010Markland, DavidWarrant Officer Class 23636 Engineer RegimentBritish ArmyEnglandEuxton, LancashireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackNad 'Ali districtAfghanistan 2-07-2010McDonald, SeanPrivate26The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (1 SCOTS)British ArmyCanadaTorontoHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSanginAfghanistan 2-07-2010Moore, JohnCorporal22The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (1 SCOTS)British ArmyScotlandBellshill, Lanarkshire Hostile - hostile fire - IED attackSanginAfghanistan 2-01-2010Shaw,GrahamLance Corporal273rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (3 YORKS)British ArmyEnglandHuddersfieldHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMalgir (near)Afghanistan 2-01-2010Riley, LiamCorporal213rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (3 YORKS)British ArmyEnglandSheffieldHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMalgir (near)Afghanistan 1-24-2010Cooper, DanielLance Corporal 213rd Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandHerefordHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSanginAfghanistan 1-22-2010Aldridge, Peter Rifleman194th Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandFolkestone, KentHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSanginAfghanistan 1-15-2010Farmer, LukeRifleman193rd Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandWest YorkshireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 1-15-2010Brownson, Corporal LeeCorporal303rd Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandBishop AucklandHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 1-11-2010Read, DanielCaptain3111 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps,British ArmyEnglandKentHostile - hostile fireMusa Qala (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 1-03-2010Hayes, RobertPrivate191st Battalion The Royal Anglian RegimentBritish ArmyEnglandCambridgeHostile - hostile fire - IED attackNad e Ali district (Helmand province)Afghanistan 12-31-2009Watson, DavidSapper3333 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), Royal EngineersBritish ArmyEnglandWhickham, Newcastle-upon-TyneHostile - hostile fire - IED attackPatrol Base Blenheim (vacinity of), near SanginAfghanistan 12-28-2009Howell, AidanRifleman193rd Battalion, The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandSidcup, KentHostile - hostile fire - IED attackKajaki area of Helmand ProvinceAfghanistan 12-22-2009Brown. TommyLance Corporal0The Parachute RegimentBritish ArmyNot yet reportedNot yet reportedHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 12-21-2009Roney, ChristopherLance Corporal233rd Battalion, The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandSunderland, Tyne and WearHostile - hostile fire - small arms firePatrol Base Almas (near Sangin, central Helmand Province)Afghanistan 12-20-2009Pritchard, Michael DavidLance Corporal22The Royal Military PoliceBritish ArmyEnglandMaidstone, KentHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 12-19-2009Hornby, SimonCorporal292nd Battalion The Duke of Lancasters RegimentBritish ArmyEnglandLiverpoolHostile - hostile fire - IED attackNad-e-Ali area, central Helmand ProvinceAfghanistan 12-15-2009Kirkness, David LeslieLance Corporal343rd Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandWakefield, West YorkshireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 12-15-2009Brown, James StephenRifleman183rd Battalion, The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandFarnborough, HampshireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 12-07-2009Drane, Adam PaulLance Corporal231st Battalion The Royal Anglian RegimenBritish ArmyEnglandBury St EdmundsHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad e-Ali district (central Helmand province)Afghanistan 11-30-2009Amer, John PaxtonSergeant301st Battalion Coldstream GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandSunderlandHostile - hostile fire - IED attackBabaji area (central Helmand province)Afghanistan 11-18-2009Loughran-Dickson, Robert DavidSergeant334th Regiment, Royal Military PoliceBritish ArmyNot Yet ReportedNot Yet ReportedHostile - hostile fire - small arms firePatrol Base Wahid (Nad-e-Ali District)Afghanistan 11-15-2009Marlton-Thomas, Loren Owen ChristopherCorporal2833 Engineer Regiment, Royal EngineersBritish ArmyEnglandNot yet reportedHostile - hostile fire - IED attackGereshk (Patrol Base Sandford,)Afghanistan 11-15-2009Fentiman, AndrewRifleman237th Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandCambridgeHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 11-08-2009Bassett, John SamuelRifleman201 Platoon, A Company, 4th Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandPlymouthHostile - hostile fire - IED attackHelmand provinceAfghanistan 11-07-2009Allen, PhilipRifleman202nd Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandDorsetHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 11-05-2009Scott, Phillip Serjeant303rd Battalion The RiflesBritish ArmyEnglandMalton, North YorkshireHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSangin (Helmand Province)Afghanistan 11-03-2009Webster-Smith, NicholasCorporal24Royal Military PoliceBritish ArmyEnglandSaundersfoot, PembrokeshireHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad e Ali District in Helmand ProvinceAfghanistan 11-03-2009Chant, DarrenWarrant Officer Class 1391st Battalion The Grenadier GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandLovage Way, HorndeanHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad e Ali District in Helmand ProvinceAfghanistan 11-03-2009Major, JamesGuardsman181st Battalion The Grenadier GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandCleethorpes, LincolnshireHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad e-Ali district of Helmand provinceAfghanistan 11-03-2009Boote, StevenActing Corporal22Royal Military PoliceBritish ArmyEnglandBirkenheadHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad e-Ali district of Helmand provinceAfghanistan 11-03-2009Telford, MatthewSergeant371st Battalion The Grenadier GuardsBritish ArmyEnglandGrimsby, South HumbersideHostile - hostile fire - small arms fireNad e-Ali district of Helmand provinceAfghanistan 10-31-2009Schmid, Olaf Sean GeorgeStaff Sergeant30Royal Logistics CorpsBritish ArmyEnglandTruro, CornwallHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSanginAfghanistan 10-25-2009Mason, ThomasCorporal27The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of ScotlandBritish ArmyScotlandBellshill, GlasgowHostile - hostile fire - IED attackSelly Oak Hospital (Birmingham, UK)England 10-22-2009Oakland, JamesCorporal26Royal Military PoliceBritish ArmyEnglandNew Moston, ManchesterHostile - hostile fireGereshk 

Above  are details of _some_ of the UK soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.
If our Government had not entered this illegal war,  and instead  listened to the people they would be still alive,  and no doubt thanking  the pacifists in our ranks.

We should also not forget the horrendous number of Afghan civillians who  have also perished in this dirty war:

----------


## bekisman

> All of them.


 
So Anfield, at least we now know exactly what you are:
Antiwar demonstrator, 
Conscientious objector, 
dove, 
passive resister, 
peacemaker, 
peace monger, 
peacenik  
At least I know where you stand - you post trying to elucidate a response to your anti-war rhetoric.
Presumably it makes you feel better publishing the names of those who have died. I have no idea why you have done this, it will make not one jot of difference. 
Did you do one for WWI, WWII, Korea, and the rest of them; a list of those who died 'for their country' which you cheapen by 
*your sick gimmick*

----------


## superted

> An "Air Battle Manager"? Got an impressive air force, have they, the Afghanis?
> 
> You could win their hearts and minds easily, superted, by packing your kit bags and leaving them alone.


Like I said...If you can be bothered to read, I'm not getting into an argument about if we should be there or not. What I said was a statement of fact!!!

----------


## Anfield

You are only allowed to post 10,000 characters per post.
the list, of just UK sodiers, I published is 40,000 characters,  so only 1/4 of UK deaths shown.

Just imagine how lond it would have been if *ALL* casualities of this illegal and immoral war was listed.  I am sure that I could easily double this if I include the war in Iraq.

As for WW1, WW2 etc etc,  if it was not for people like you, i.e soldiers who obey orders, then there would be no lists to compile.
The "football match" of WW1 showed that the everyday soldiers of both sides did not want to fight, they were ordered to.

Do you honestly think that every soldier who participates in war wants to see action and cause death?  If you do then you are very deluded my friend.

----------


## Tubthumper

Don't get sucked in, SuperTed. All people of this Country have a right to believe or not to believe in something, including whether we should be at war in Afghanistan. 
Very quick to exert their right are these folk, not so quick at accepting that others have that same right. Keen on democracy, and on ripping the guts out of it when it doesn't meet their warped requirements.
They don't usually see a wider picture, but are easily attracted to whispered tales of cover-up and subterfuge, especially when it involves government or big business. Conversely, they will immediately denounce any claim that an elected government is capable of actually governing, which might seem a bit strange. And you usually find that they have no hesitation in descending to the foul and abusive to prove whatever point they're trying to make. In some ways they're not that different from those who support the terrorists/ freedom fighters they make excuses for.
You're arguing with citizens who live their lives through their keyboards. They get a kick out of getting reactions. Their opinions are second-hand, picked up from whatever outrage.com website they can find. They don't contribute much, either to the life of their community or to the Country they live in, in fact in many ways they're actually 'anti-people'.
However that's what you signed up for, to defend these people and others who hate you and yours, who would destroy all that you value and replace it with greyness and misery. 
Except they're usually nowhere to be found when anything actually needs done..

----------


## Anfield

So free speech is off agenda now

----------


## bekisman

> You're arguing with citizens who live their lives through their keyboards. They get a kick out of getting reactions. Their opinions are second-hand, picked up from whatever outrage.com website they can find. They don't contribute much, either to the life of their community or to the Country they live in, in fact in many ways they're actually 'anti-people'.Except they're usually nowhere to be found when anything actually needs done..


Again you are right Tubthumper - at least I've uncovered what Anfield is, so maybe this time I'll just ignore the self-serving ego seeking, conchie.. Pathetic, every one of those names he put up was a 'willing volunteer' who knew exactly what they were doing. My Grand father was killed in WW1 - my uncle in WW2 thank GOD we had courageous *MEN* (I emphasise men) to protect us and not those who put up the white flag and gave in. 
But then I doubt if Anfield accepts that his freedom was purchased by the deaths of my forebears.. no, on second thoughts, I won't bother answering these cowards..

----------


## Stavro

> Come on Stav - this was Anfield I was replying to, you don't have to hold his hand you know - can't he look after himself?
> You ARE getting excited aren't you?.. now I'm all a quiver 
> 1. mindlessly following orders 2. Mindlessly following orders (again) 3. playing with your toy soldiers 4.deluding yourself that atrocities are not taking place daily in your name..
> 
> When you've seen death and destruction - and I don't mean on wiki or TV then I might start taking some notice of your hysteria as mentioned above 1 - 4
> Anyway enough of this nonsense, please answer when are you off to Afghanistan/Iraq to help the folkies there? - I've asked a number of times now you know


No, i'm not being hysterical. I find it all sad that masses of people can be so easily herded about by politicians, to serve a desire that most of them will go through their entire lives not even knowing about.

You think you are on the side of "right," I do not doubt it, but I do not have to have been collecting pieces of human beings (and animals - it is probably difficult to determine which is which after a "daisy-cutter") into body bags in order to question the legitimacy, legality, reason, cause, morality of it all. In that respect, you are simply wrong.

----------


## Tubthumper

Bekisman - remember that everyone has the right to express their opinions, that's what you signed up for.

----------


## Stavro

> Like I said...If you can be bothered to read, I'm not getting into an argument about if we should be there or not. What I said was a statement of fact!!!


I notice you ignored a simple question. Do the Afghanis have an impressive air force? Your grand-sounding job title definitely implies that they do.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Do you honestly think that every soldier who participates in war wants to see action and cause death?  If you do then you are very deluded my friend.


How very apt, I think that is the point that Bekisman and others are trying to make.  No NATO soldier wants to see action and cause death.

How the deluded are deluded!

----------


## Stavro

> Don't get sucked in, SuperTed. All people of this Country have a right to believe or not to believe in something, including whether we should be at war in Afghanistan. 
> Very quick to exert their right are these folk, not so quick at accepting that others have that same right. Keen on democracy, and on ripping the guts out of it when it doesn't meet their warped requirements.
> They don't usually see a wider picture, but are easily attracted to whispered tales of cover-up and subterfuge, especially when it involves government or big business. Conversely, they will immediately denounce any claim that an elected government is capable of actually governing, which might seem a bit strange. And you usually find that they have no hesitation in descending to the foul and abusive to prove whatever point they're trying to make. In some ways they're not that different from those who support the terrorists/ freedom fighters they make excuses for.
> You're arguing with citizens who live their lives through their keyboards. They get a kick out of getting reactions. Their opinions are second-hand, picked up from whatever outrage.com website they can find. They don't contribute much, either to the life of their community or to the Country they live in, in fact in many ways they're actually 'anti-people'.
> However that's what you signed up for, to defend these people and others who hate you and yours, who would destroy all that you value and replace it with greyness and misery. 
> Except they're usually nowhere to be found when anything actually needs done..


O dear, the rantings of another ex-military-man. And just when I thought you were becoming strangely open to debate.

"Anti-people"!!  Ha ha, what the heck are they?  ::

----------


## Stavro

> Again you are right Tubthumper - at least I've uncovered what Anfield is, so maybe this time I'll just ignore the self-serving ego seeking, conchie.. Pathetic, every one of those names he put up was a 'willing volunteer' who knew exactly what they were doing. My Grand father was killed in WW1 - my uncle in WW2 thank GOD we had courageous *MEN* (I emphasise men) to protect us and not those who put up the white flag and gave in. 
> But then I doubt if Anfield accepts that his freedom was purchased by the deaths of my forebears.. no, on second thoughts, I won't bother answering these cowards..


"Uncovered what Anfield is" ... "self-serving ego seeking, conchie" ... "those who put up the white flag and cave in" ... "these cowards."

Now who's getting hysterical, bekisman?

The real man stands up for what he believes is right and just, in the face of the mindless mob who are baying for "the enemy's" blood.

----------


## bekisman

> "Uncovered what Anfield is" ... "self-serving ego seeking, conchie" ... "those who put up the white flag and cave in" ... "these cowards."
> 
> Now who's getting hysterical, bekisman?
> 
> The real man stands up for what he believes is right and just, in the face of the mindless mob who are baying for "the enemy's" blood.


Are YOU a pacifist too Stav?

----------


## Stavro

> Are YOU a pacifist too Stav?


Why? You going to send me a white feather, beks?

----------


## bekisman

> Bekisman - remember that everyone has the right to express their opinions, that's what you signed up for.


Of course others can have an opinion, don't really bother me, just find them, well, amusing. But been an interesting week; Was there when an old friend passed on, and a few minutes ago learnt I'm a granddad again, I think that's ten or is it 11, more blinking birthday and Christmas pressies... ::

----------


## bekisman

> Why? You going to send me a white feather, beks?


Come on Stav - well are you? (no white feather; honest!)

----------


## Anfield

".. My  Grand father was killed in WW1 - my uncle in WW2.."

I am very sad to hear this bekisman.

There was a scene in the film "Forrest Gump" which the American Colonel was abusive to Mr Gump because he (Forrest) has saved him from being killed and taken him to the evacuation helicopter and was  protesting that Forrest Gump had "..stolen his destiny of dying in a war.."

I don't want ANYONE to die. (Full stop)

----------


## Stavro

> ... a few minutes ago learnt I'm a granddad again, I think that's ten or is it 11, more blinking birthday and Christmas pressies...


Congratulations to you and your family!  :Smile:

----------


## Anfield

"..But been an interesting week; Was there when an old friend passed on,  and a few minutes ago learnt I'm a granddad again.."

Congratulations, have you registered child for a regiment yet?

----------


## bekisman

> Congratulations to you and your family!


Thanks Stav.. hopefully they'll stop breeding, can't aford it! ::

----------


## northener

> "COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do soall to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly termed 'courageous.'" 
> Chaz Bufe, _The Devil's Dictionaries_ ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)


S'funny. OED doesn't say that.

----------


## bekisman

> But been an interesting week; Was there when an old friend passed on, and a few minutes ago learnt I'm a granddad again,
> 
> Congratulations, have you registered child for a regiment yet?


 
You are a bit of a sicko Anfield - no sense of humour either, you just can't leave it can you.

----------


## Anfield

> You are a bit of a sicko Anfield - no sense of humour either, you just can't leave it can you.


What is your problem with that?

----------


## superted

> I notice you ignored a simple question. Do the Afghanis have an impressive air force? Your grand-sounding job title definitely implies that they do.


I can't believe I'm answering this, but here goes. I added my job title because I wanted to give some credence to my statement. To answer your ridiculous question, of course the afghans don't have an airforce( however they are starting to build one) however around the main airfields in afghan is some of the busiest airspace you will see. Infact bastion is as busy as Luton airport. They also don't have an area radar, and that's where I come in. Google is your friend ;-)

----------


## Yoda the flump

> You are a bit of a sicko Anfield - no sense of humour either, you just can't leave it can you.


I would expect nothing less considering Anfield's posts

----------


## ducati

> Are YOU a pacifist too Stav?


Sounds like Haw Haw to me

----------


## Stavro

> ... of course the afghans don't have an airforce( however they are starting to build one) ... They also don't have an area radar, ...


Thank you for answering the question, superted, though why it was "ridiculous," given that you and others are claiming this to be a "war," is unclear to me.

The Iraqis did not have an air force either, did they?

Dropping bombs and missiles on human beings who have a method of defending themselves is bad enough, but dropping on them on human beings who have no method of defending themselves is indiscriminate slaughter and genocide.

----------


## Stavro

> Sounds like Haw Haw to me


Hello ducati, good of you to pop out of the woodwork.

Any chance you can answer the question from your troublemaker thread "This Forum" now, please? To remind you: *when was "war" declared and against whom?*

----------


## superted

> Thank you for answering the question, superted, though why it was "ridiculous," given that you and others are claiming this to be a "war," is unclear to me.
> 
> The Iraqis did not have an air force either, did they?
> 
> Dropping bombs and missiles on human beings who have a method of defending themselves is bad enough, but dropping on them on human beings who have no method of defending themselves is indiscriminate slaughter and genocide.


1...I did not claim it to be a war.

2...The Iraqis did have an Airforce.

3...How about people planting IEDs so humans can lose limbs and lives???

Your Credibility is slowly going out the window my friend. :Wink:

----------


## Stavro

> 1...I did not claim it to be a war.
> 
> 2...The Iraqis did have an Airforce.
> 
> 3...How about people planting IEDs so humans can lose limbs and lives???
> 
> Your Credibility is slowly going out the window my friend.



1. So you do not accept your leaders when they tell you it is a "War on Terror"? Well, at least we have something in common. If it is not a war, then what are you doing there?

2. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly since the first "Gulf War" in 1991. It was declared a "No Fly" zone by the invading army.

3. I agree, that is disgustingly evil.

----------


## ducati

> 1. So you do not accept your leaders when they tell you it is a "War on Terror"? Well, at least we have something in common. If it is not a war, then what are you doing there?
> 
> 2. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly since the first "Gulf War" in 1991. It was declared a "No Fly" zone by the invading army.
> 
> 3. I agree, that is disgustingly evil.


_Random quote_

Do you know, I've seen a hell of a lot of complaining about the current situation on this and other threads by Stavro and his (Taliban) brothers. 

But no practical suggestions on how to actually stop the war and bring the girls and boys home.

Why don't we address this? I'll start:

We call all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We stand them shoulder to shoulder around the UK to keep out the suicide bombers (or do you expect them to just forget it?)

Of course then we have the problem of the population. Obviously we would have to end immigration completely. Then we have to intern or deport everyone in the UK of Mid East or Asian appearance. Otherwise how would we know who the terrorists were?

In the meantime while this is the happy situation at home, the Taliban have moved back into Kabul and hanged/burned/beheaded Kalzai and his government, then welcomed Alqeda back with open arms. (doesn't bother us we are now impregnable). Oh, not sure about Iraq I think we have left a bit of a vacuum there but hey Iran will probably just take over. But thats OK not our problem and they are a just and peaceful bunch. 

Apologies if this sounds flippant but I can't really see another scenario.

What do you guys think?

----------


## ducati

> Hello ducati, good of you to pop out of the woodwork.


I know this is your job but it isn't mine

----------


## Stavro

> I know this is your job but it isn't mine


Answering simple questions isn't your forte either, by the seem of things.

I don't want to bog you down with too many questions (one seems more than enough to stump you), but here is just one more -

I am fascinated by your logic. If women and children are being murdered by allied bombs in Afghanistan (and men, too, because I do not know why they are always left out), with our boys away from home, then why would we need to boot all Asians and Arabs out when our boys are back and Afghanistanis are not being murdered by Allied bombs?

(By the way, even the BBC has admitted that "Al Queda" does not exist and never has done. "Al Queda" was created by the CIA. And as for Bin Laden, well ... it seems to be taking an awful lot of time and lives to find him.)

----------


## DopeyDan

> By the way, even the BBC has admitted that "Al Queda" does not exist and never has done. "Al Queda" was created by the CIA.


.......source ?

----------


## Stavro

> .......source ?



There were several articles on this a couple of months ago.

The following video gives the story fairly well -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfF...layer_embedded

----------


## DopeyDan

> The following video gives the story fairly well -
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfF...layer_embedded


There's a rather large leap to saying something doesn't exist, just because it's been given a widely adopted brand monicker by a third party.

That's like saying the British Raj never existed.  Or that there is no such place as the "Far North" (which incidentally I hate that term, but it seems to have adopted by the media and councillors to conveniently refer to anything north of Dornoch).  Or that there are no such people as Orgers.

----------


## ducati

> Answering simple questions isn't your forte either, by the seem of things.
> 
> I don't want to bog you down with too many questions (one seems more than enough to stump you), but here is just one more -
> 
> I am fascinated by your logic. If women and children are being murdered by allied bombs in Afghanistan (and men, too, because I do not know why they are always left out), with our boys away from home, then why would we need to boot all Asians and Arabs out when our boys are back and Afghanistanis are not being murdered by Allied bombs?


You do expect them to just forget it?

As far as Alqeda is concerned *Shrug* (thanks Brandy). Someone means us harm, I don't really care what they are called.

You may wonder how I worked out you were Taliban. It came to me the other day. If I wanted to spread propaganda in the UK, what better way than to infiltrate local Forums? It’s easy and cheap and the strategy can be adapted and developed over a long period of time. I assume you don't single out the org? If you do your geography needs a brush up. (although my knowledge of the Pakistan, Afghan border isn't great to be honest).

You gravitate to this sort of thread for preference but do take part in the uncontroversial discussions as well, very clever.

The "This Forum" thread was a great example, you and Fred were the only ones to take it seriously. (although I did get good repped so it must have had resonance elsewhere).

You gave yourself away though; babies on bayonets (or a variation thereof) is an absolute classic propaganda tool.

You mentioned the This Forum Thread was trouble making, not so, the law enforcement monitoring reference was perfectly true. I've been in the IT industry for 30 odd years and I have sold several police forces the systems to do exactly that.

Incidentally, Fred is making a pretty poor fist of unravelling our legal system on another thread, can I suggest he needs a bit more training?

----------


## ducati

> Or that there are no such people as Orgers.


 ::  There arent?

----------


## ducati

> Any chance you can answer the question from your troublemaker thread "This Forum" now, please? To remind you: *when was "war" declared and against whom?*


Why? I understand you have a "killer" response rehearsed, but why is it so important to you?

----------


## superted

> Don't get sucked in, SuperTed. All people of this Country have a right to believe or not to believe in something, including whether we should be at war in Afghanistan. 
> Very quick to exert their right are these folk, not so quick at accepting that others have that same right. Keen on democracy, and on ripping the guts out of it when it doesn't meet their warped requirements.
> They don't usually see a wider picture, but are easily attracted to whispered tales of cover-up and subterfuge, especially when it involves government or big business. Conversely, they will immediately denounce any claim that an elected government is capable of actually governing, which might seem a bit strange. And you usually find that they have no hesitation in descending to the foul and abusive to prove whatever point they're trying to make. In some ways they're not that different from those who support the terrorists/ freedom fighters they make excuses for.
> You're arguing with citizens who live their lives through their keyboards. They get a kick out of getting reactions. Their opinions are second-hand, picked up from whatever outrage.com website they can find. They don't contribute much, either to the life of their community or to the Country they live in, in fact in many ways they're actually 'anti-people'.
> However that's what you signed up for, to defend these people and others who hate you and yours, who would destroy all that you value and replace it with greyness and misery. 
> Except they're usually nowhere to be found when anything actually needs done..


 Taking your advice...lol  :Wink:

----------


## northener

> Don't get sucked in, SuperTed. All people of this Country have a right to believe or not to believe in something, including whether we should be at war in Afghanistan. 
> Very quick to exert their right are these folk, not so quick at accepting that others have that same right. Keen on democracy, and on ripping the guts out of it when it doesn't meet their warped requirements.
> They don't usually see a wider picture, but are easily attracted to whispered tales of cover-up and subterfuge, especially when it involves government or big business. Conversely, they will immediately denounce any claim that an elected government is capable of actually governing, which might seem a bit strange. And you usually find that they have no hesitation in descending to the foul and abusive to prove whatever point they're trying to make. In some ways they're not that different from those who support the terrorists/ freedom fighters they make excuses for.
> You're arguing with citizens who live their lives through their keyboards. They get a kick out of getting reactions. Their opinions are second-hand, picked up from whatever outrage.com website they can find. They don't contribute much, either to the life of their community or to the Country they live in, in fact in many ways they're actually 'anti-people'.
> However that's what you signed up for, to defend these people and others who hate you and yours, who would destroy all that you value and replace it with greyness and misery. 
> Except they're usually nowhere to be found when anything actually needs done..


Tubthumper, that is possibly one of the best asessments I've seen anywhere yet.

Thankyou.

----------


## Stavro

> You may wonder how I worked out you were Taliban. It came to me the other day.


Now I know that you have ceased taking your medication.





> Incidentally, Fred is making a pretty poor fist of unravelling our legal system on another thread, can I suggest he needs a bit more training?


Well you had better tell him that. As far as I've seen, he is trying to explain to you the difference between Admiralty Law and Common Law. If it is above your head, then that figures. You are unable to answer the simple question put to you so many times now, that I doubt you will even begin to understand the workings of the legal system.

----------


## Stavro

> There's a rather large leap to saying something doesn't exist, just because it's been given a widely adopted brand monicker by a third party.


Here are just a few more "third party" sources, some of which may surprise you (just the very tip of the iceberg, there are a lot more) -

"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such     as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David     Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now     moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years.     They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."      -- Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D., former German defense ministry     official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner ...

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about     what we Bushs have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the     streets and lynched." George Bush Sr. 1992 

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea     and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."     - GW Bush, March 13, 2002

"The high office of President has been used to foment     a plot to destroy the Americans freedom, and before I leave office I must     inform the citizen of his plight." --  JFK

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used     as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward     in The Final Days, 1976

----------


## Anfield

"Several" (as described on BBC teletext) more afghanistanis killed today as a result of suicide bomb.

Several = 17, this does not include the UK soldier killed.

How many more before we end this senseless slaughter by all sides in this illegal war

----------


## Anfield

This is the ruling given by the presiding judge over claims that the UK assisted in the torture of an english citizen:

"The SyS [Security Service, MI5] were making it clear in March 2005,  through a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee that 'they  operated a culture that respected human rights and that coercive  interrogation techniques were alien to the Services' general ethics,  methodology and training' indeed they 'denied that [they] knew of any  ill-treatment of detainees interviewed by them whilst detained by or on  behalf of the [US] Government'. 
*"Yet that does not seem to be  true: as the evidence in this case showed, at least some SyS officials  appear to have a dubious record when it comes to human rights and  coercive techniques, and indeed when it comes to frankness about the  UK's involvement with the mistreatment of Mr Mohammed by US officials.*
"I  have in mind in particular witness B, but it appears likely that there  were others. 
"The good faith of the Foreign Secretary is not in  question, but he prepared the certificates [applications to withhold  information in the name of national security] partly, possibly largely,  on the basis of information and advice provided by SyS personnel. 
"Regrettably,  but inevitably, this must raise the question whether any statement in  the certificates on an issue concerning such mistreatment can be relied  on, especially when the issue is whether contemporaneous communications  to the SyS about such mistreatment should be revealed publicly. 
"Not  only is there an obvious reason for distrusting any UK Government  assurance, based on SyS advice and information, because of previous  'form', but the Foreign Office and the SyS have an interest in the  suppression of such information." 
*THE FIRST JUDGEMENT*
*That paragraph was originally replaced by a much shorter one that  makes some general remarks about how the Foreign Secretary relied on  advice from MI5 and that it was not clear whether Witness B, an officer  under police investigation, had any involvement in Mr Mohamed's  mistreatment.*
*THE FINAL PARAGRAPH*
*On Friday 26 February, Lord Neuberger issued a final opinion on  the matter.*
In effect, he uses the same language and makes the  same observations - but he confines his criticisms to the specifics of  Mr Mohamed's case - rather than a broader attack on the reputation of  the secret intelligence agencies and their respect for human rights. He  also removes the reference to "previous form". 
*This is the  final version of Paragraph 168:*
"The Security Services had  made it clear in March 2005, through a report from the Intelligence and  Security Committee, that 'they operated a culture that respected human  rights and that coercive interrogation techniques were alien to the  Services' general ethics, methodology and training', indeed they 'denied  that [they] knew of any ill-treatment of detainees interviewed by them  whilst detained by or on behalf of the [US] Government'. 
*"Yet,  in this case, that does not seem to have been true: as the evidence  showed, some Security Services officials appear to have a dubious record  relating to actual involvement, and frankness about any such  involvement, with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the  behest of US officials.*
"I have in mind in particular witness  B, but the evidence in this case suggests that it is likely that there  were others. 
"The good faith of the Foreign Secretary is not in  question, but he prepared the certificates partly, possibly largely, on  the basis of information and advice provided by Security Services  personnel. 
"Regrettably, but inevitably, this must raise the  question whether any statement in the certificates on an issue  concerning the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed can be relied on, especially  when the issue is whether contemporaneous communications to the Security  Services about such mistreatment should be revealed publicly. 
"Not  only is there some reason for distrusting such a statement, given that  it is based on Security Services' advice and information, because of  previous, albeit general, assurances in 2005, but also the Security  Services have an interest in the suppression of such information."

----------


## ducati

> "Several" (as described on BBC teletext) more afghanistanis killed today as a result of suicide bomb.
> 
> Several = 17, this does not include the UK soldier killed.
> 
> How many more before we end this senseless slaughter by all sides in this illegal war


Puts all the pointless bickering in perspective doesn't it?

----------


## bekisman

> This is the ruling given by the presiding judge over claims that the UK assisted in the torture of an english citizen: "


*He was Not blinking english!*

----------


## fred

> "Several" (as described on BBC teletext) more afghanistanis killed today as a result of suicide bomb.
> 
> Several = 17, this does not include the UK soldier killed.
> 
> How many more before we end this senseless slaughter by all sides in this illegal war


In 2009 NATO troops are known to have killed 153 children in Afghanistan, 131 in air strikes, 22 in night time raids. They were averaging 3 a week last year, likely to be more this year.

----------


## bekisman

For the umpteenth time,* he's not British*. He's not even a *British 'resident'.* 
He is an Ethiopian national who lived here for a few years before choosing to move to Afghanistan, where he is said to have attended an Alky Ada training camp. 
At the time of his arrest, he was attempting to board a plane in Pakistan using *a forged passport*. 
Frankly, he is not our responsibility. We owe him nothing. Why would anyone in their right mind want him back? 
British intelligence officers are accused of colluding in his alleged torture on the basis of supplying a few pertinent questions to his interrogators about what he got up to while he was living here. 
That's their job, for heaven's sake. They would be failing in their duty if they didn't make every attempt to glean information from suspected terrorists who want to do us harm. 
No one is actually accusing any British officer of physically torturing him, merely of turning a blind eye. There is a legitimate debate as to whether he was tortured at all, in the true sense of the word. 

While at Gitmo, he was shackled and deprived of sleep - practices approved at the time by the White House. He is also said to have suffered severe mental stress over threats that he would be removed from U.S. custody and transferred to a more cruel regime. 
OK, so the Americans put the frighteners on him, but if they hadn't cared less whether he lived or died, they wouldn't have had him on suicide watch. 
His treatment wasn't pretty, but it has to be put in context of the 3,000 people killed in the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 
As to his claims to have suffered genital mutilation while in CIA custody in Morocco, there has never been any firm evidence produced. 

Binyam Mohamed maintains he went to Afghanistan not to train with the Taliban, but *to confront his addiction to drugs and alcohol*. 
Most people would have signed up to AA (Alcoholics Anonymous, not Alky Ada) or checked themselves into The Priory. He travelled halfway round the world *to one of the most inhospitable, tyrannical countries on Earth*. 
*For a man said to have been in mortal terror of being tortured, he appears to have had no problem moving to a jurisdiction which would have cheerfully beheaded him or stoned him to death for taking a sip of alcohol. 
*The inconsistencies in his story are glaring, yet he has found a *gullible audience for his fairy tales, i*ncluding a fawning 'interview' on the BBC. 
The prime movers behind this case appear to be motivated as much by *rampant anti-Americanism* as any concern about the Binman's 'yuman rites'.

----------


## Tubthumper

> The inconsistencies in his story are glaring, yet he has found a gullible audience for his fairy tales, including a fawning 'interview' on the *BBC.*


Ah. That's where you've gone wrong. You see, if the interview was on the BBC then it must have been part of the great Government cover-up...

Or was it... :: 

WoooooOOOOOOoooooo!

----------


## bekisman

Oh I forgot, Ref #200 "Are YOU a pacifist too Stav?  (For the record I am not).. just interested where you stand...

----------


## fred

> For the umpteenth time,* he's not British*. He's not even a *British 'resident'.* 
> He is an Ethiopian national who lived here for a few years before choosing to move to Afghanistan, where he is said to have attended an Alky Ada training camp. 
> At the time of his arrest, he was attempting to board a plane in Pakistan using *a forged passport*. 
> Frankly, he is not our responsibility. We owe him nothing. Why would anyone in their right mind want him back? 
> British intelligence officers are accused of colluding in his alleged torture on the basis of supplying a few pertinent questions to his interrogators about what he got up to while he was living here. 
> That's their job, for heaven's sake. They would be failing in their duty if they didn't make every attempt to glean information from suspected terrorists who want to do us harm. 
> No one is actually accusing any British officer of physically torturing him, merely of turning a blind eye. There is a legitimate debate as to whether he was tortured at all, in the true sense of the word. 
> 
> While at Gitmo, he was shackled and deprived of sleep - practices approved at the time by the White House. He is also said to have suffered severe mental stress over threats that he would be removed from U.S. custody and transferred to a more cruel regime. 
> ...


In case anyone is a little confused after reading that.

Binyam Mohamed had British Resident status.

He was arrested in 2002, spent 2 years in "black sites" and four in Guantanamo Bay, there is evidence he was tortured.

He has not been tried for any offence, the charges against him were dropped.

All that aside, what sort of people are we to condone the use of torture? There is no doubt whatsoever that the American government routinely used torture and it is looking like the British government were complicit in it. Can we call ourselves civilized and not express outrage?

----------


## bekisman

> In case anyone is a little confused after reading that.
> 
> Binyam Mohamed had British Resident status.
> 
> He was arrested in 2002, spent 2 years in "black sites" and four in Guantanamo Bay, there is evidence he was tortured.
> 
> He has not been tried for any offence, the charges against him were dropped.
> 
> All that aside, what sort of people are we to condone the use of torture? There is no doubt whatsoever that the American government routinely used torture and it is looking like the British government were complicit in it. Can we call ourselves civilized and not express outrage?


 *gullible audience for his fairy tales*

----------


## Anfield

> *gullible audience for his fairy tales*


Well done bekiman for another masterpiece on how to make a constructive contribution to the intellectual debates on this forum.

As you seem to be incapable of making valid points I will make it easier for you.

More than 17 Afghanis dead today, killed by suicide bomb - fact
1 UK soldier dead today, cause of death at time of post unknown  - fact


The facts won't go away, people are being killed because people like you bury your head in the sand.  Wake up and smell the coffee

----------


## M R

Is it time for a tea break ?

Would like to ask,   if anyone debating topic so furiously  watched the series: *Generation Kill ??   * and what were there thoughts on the series ?
I personally thought this was a brilliant,  yet saddening program showing what the modern day soldiers role in Iraq \ Afghanistan.  Based on 90% true events.


Made me think,   wtf is our force doing there !

Time to pull out and leave them to it i think and move on to Argentina.

----------


## DopeyDan

> Made me think,   wtf is our force doing there !



Indeed.  Or how the most technically advanced military nations in the world seem unable to overcome a bunch of cave-dwelling medieval-throwbacks armed with rusty old Soviet machine guns.

----------


## M R

> More than 17 Afghanis dead today, killed by suicide bomb - fact



Who's fault is this ????  Uk ?  US ?  or crazy Islamic sadistic bombers  ?

----------


## Yoda the flump

> The facts won't go away, people are being killed because people like you bury your head in the sand.  Wake up and smell the coffee


Well mate, what's the alternative?

Pull out and leave Afghanistan to its fate?  Its a mess there and yeah, we have a lot of responsibility for that - but can you imagine the alternative?  Do you want to?

Pull out all NATO troops and then what?  Watch the Afghan nation pull itself apart in a bloody civil war and then what - Pakistan aint the most stable of states and then have nuclear weapons.

Unless you have a strong Pakistan then NATO has to stay in Afghanistan and try and give the country stability.

NATO out and the conflict will spread to Pakistan, and then Israel and India might just feel obliged to get involved.

It aint great there mate, but the alternatives are even worse at the moment.

----------


## bekisman

> Wake up and smell the coffee


That will be Nescafe for me please.

----------


## ducati

> Well mate, what's the alternative?
> 
> Pull out and leave Afghanistan to its fate? Its a mess there and yeah, we have a lot of responsibility for that - but can you imagine the alternative? Do you want to?
> 
> Pull out all NATO troops and then what? Watch the Afghan nation pull itself apart in a bloody civil war and then what - Pakistan aint the most stable of states and then have nuclear weapons.
> 
> Unless you have a strong Pakistan then NATO has to stay in Afghanistan and try and give the country stability.
> 
> NATO out and the conflict will spread to Pakistan, and then Israel and India might just feel obliged to get involved.
> ...


No good, I've tried all that Yoda-just gets ignored. They are only interested in outrage not any practical notion.

And personally I'd like all my terrorists thoroughly tortured thanks. Find out where the next "controlled demolition" will be.

----------


## Anfield

> Well mate, what's the alternative?
> 
> Pull out and leave Afghanistan to its fate?  Its a mess there and yeah, we have a lot of responsibility for that - but can you imagine the alternative?  Do you want to?
> 
> Pull out all NATO troops and then what?  Watch the Afghan nation pull itself apart in a bloody civil war and then what - Pakistan aint the most stable of states and then have nuclear weapons.
> 
> Unless you have a strong Pakistan then NATO has to stay in Afghanistan and try and give the country stability.
> 
> NATO out and the conflict will spread to Pakistan, and then Israel and India might just feel obliged to get involved.
> ...


We have to accept that some situations do not have an easy solution (India/Pakistan/West Bank etc) and that by trying to find one,  all we do is make things worse.

Solutions to difficult conflicts can be found e.g. we just might have found a solution to end 700 years of bloodshed in Ireland. But it takes time,  and all sides of any conflict need to sit down and open a dialogue

Your suggestion of a strong Pakistan will not find favour with India.

If I had a solution I would gladly offer it up to UN/NATO but I think the first priority is to try and reduce the number of deaths on all sides.

----------


## Yoda the flump

To be fair to you Anfield I will re phrase that - A stable Pakistan.

----------


## Tubthumper

> If I had a solution I would gladly offer it up to UN/NATO but I think the first priority is to try and reduce the number of deaths on all sides.


Now we're starting to make sense!

----------


## Anfield

> To be fair to you Anfield I will re phrase that - A stable Pakistan.


It depends on the definition of stable.
If you mean a stable democratically (untainted by western "observers")  elected government,  well yes that would be a start.
Couple this with the withdrawal of ALL foreign troops from Arab lands and we might just have the start of a process.

If stable means a puppet government controlled by the west then I am afraid that would not be a good idea

----------


## Yoda the flump

> It depends on the definition of stable.
> If you mean a stable democratically (untainted by western "observers")  elected government,  well yes that would be a start.
> Couple this with the withdrawal of ALL foreign troops from Arab lands and we might just have the start of a process.
> 
> If stable means a puppet government controlled by the west then I am afraid that would not be a good idea


This might disappoint you somewhat but I am on record in this forum of stating that I consider Iran to be a stable country - I might not agree with what they stand for, but stable they are. 

I also would not argue the point that Iraq was more stable under Saddam and that the USSR was a stable country under Stalin. (that does not necessarily mean that I agree that the populations were better off under them, but they were stable).

----------


## Anfield

Interesting in choice of countries.

Irag had a "regine"  change forced on it
Iran will no doubt have one soon
and
USSR was liberated by the CIA backed "free world",  thus introducing its citizens to the delights of Starbucks, Macdonalds and Coca Cola etc.

Plenty of   billionaires   in Russia now and a lot of unhappy people

----------


## sandyr1

Did any of you see the interview with Ahmidinejad and Larry King...CNN.
He had some interesting points, and said he was being straight with the World, and that the US had supported Saddam for the 7/8 year war against Iran!
Quite a well spoken person/ interpreter of course......
And it would appear that it takes a strong person with the support of the Gov't and Military, to control those in the Eastern Countires....I am putting it nicely.....

----------


## sandyr1

Just read the most recent posts.....'Stable' is the word....

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Interesting in choice of countries.
> 
> Irag had a "regine"  change forced on it
> Iran will no doubt have one soon
> and
> USSR was liberated by the CIA backed "free world",  thus introducing its citizens to the delights of Starbucks, Macdonalds and Coca Cola etc.
> 
> Plenty of   billionaires   in Russia now and a lot of unhappy people


The point you seem to have missed is that a stable country does not have to be western backed, but ho hum.

However, I am sure that the Marsh Arabs and Kurds are not upset by Saddam being forced out and the Ukrainians, Cossacks and Baltic states don't have too fond a memories of Uncle Joe

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Did any of you see the interview with Ahmidinejad and Larry King...CNN.
> He had some interesting points, and said he was being straight with the World, and that the US had supported Saddam for the 7/8 year war against Iran!
> Quite a well spoken person/ interpreter of course......
> And it would appear that it takes a strong person with the support of the Gov't and Military, to control those in the Eastern Countires....I am putting it nicely.....


Agreed, from what I have seen of him he certainly seems competent and is certainly not stupid.

Much of what he says is aimed at the middle east audience and so is not always taken well in the west.

----------


## Anfield

If he was not so anti-  semitic   he could be a good statesman in Middle East.

----------


## Stavro

> Did any of you see the interview with Ahmidinejad and Larry King...CNN.
> He had some interesting points, and said he was being straight with the World, and that the US had supported Saddam for the 7/8 year war against Iran!
> Quite a well spoken person/ interpreter of course......
> And it would appear that it takes a strong person with the support of the Gov't and Military, to control those in the Eastern Countires....I am putting it nicely.....



I saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in one interview with Larry King, where Mr King tried to trap him on a "holocaust" question. It went something like:

Mr K: Do you deny the holocaust?
Dr A: Where did this alleged thing take place?
Mr K: In Europe.
Dr A: OK. And who is alleged to have perpetrated this?
Mr K: Germany. The Germans.
Dr A: Then what has it to do with the Palestinians?

Larry King was completely thrown off guard and left floundering! Wonderful to behold.  :Smile:

----------


## Stavro

> If he was not so anti-  semitic   he could be a good statesman in Middle East.


I do not agree that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an "anti-semite," Anfield. He is anti-Israel, yes, but then plenty of Jews, too, are anti-Israel (plus, semites are Arabs).

----------


## ducati

> If he was not so anti- semitic he could be a good statesman in Middle East.


His problem is he has no power and too many looneys in the background tellin him what to do

----------


## Anfield

> I do not agree that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an "anti-semite," Anfield. He is anti-Israel, yes, but then plenty of Jews, too, are anti-Israel (plus, semites are Arabs).


semite/semitic, it does not matter about semantics used

_ALL_ forms of racism are abhorrent

----------


## Stavro

> semite/semitic, it does not matter about semantics used
> 
> _ALL_ forms of racism are abhorrent


It most certainly does matter. "Anti-semite" is a label used to blacken someone's character.

Since Arabs are semites, why do you call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an "anti-semite"?

As I said, he is anti-Israel and anti-Zionism. "Israel" and "Zionism" are political entities. (By the way, there are plenty of Jews who live in Iran and are very happy to remain there.)

----------


## Anfield

> It most certainly does matter. "Anti-semite" is a label used to blacken someone's character.
> 
> Since Arabs are semites, why do you call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an "anti-semite"?
> 
> As I said, he is anti-Israel and anti-Zionism. "Israel" and "Zionism" are political entities. (By the way, there are plenty of Jews who live in Iran and are very happy to remain there.)


Whilst you are correct in saying that Arabs are semites, the vast majority of  people would define anti-semitism as a dislike for Jewish people.

But we are digressing away from the main line of thought in this thread,  in that people of all religions and race are dying in this illegal and amoral carnage

----------


## fred

> It most certainly does matter. "Anti-semite" is a label used to blacken someone's character.
> 
> Since Arabs are semites, why do you call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an "anti-semite"?
> 
> As I said, he is anti-Israel and anti-Zionism. "Israel" and "Zionism" are political entities. (By the way, there are plenty of Jews who live in Iran and are very happy to remain there.)


Not only is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a semite, he's Jewish, both his parents were Jews who converted to Islam.

----------


## Stavro

> Not only is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a semite, he's Jewish, both his parents were Jews who converted to Islam.


I think that story has been debunked, Fred. If I remember, it centred around his name, but the storytellers did not research Farsi enough.

----------


## bekisman

> (By the way, there are plenty of Jews who live in Iran and are very happy to remain there.)


Stav's right you know: 

"Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel. 
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5367892.stm

----------


## Yoda the flump

What he personally thinks of the jews we are unlikely to know.

What he says in public is for the Iranian public, he is a politician after all.

----------


## sandyr1

It has been said that the CIA & other Intel missed the boat, in that Ahmidinejad was one of those that was involved in the US hostage taking in 1979...
I read about it somewhere but cannot remember the place

----------


## Anfield

> Stav's right you know: 
> 
> "Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel. 
> About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots."
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5367892.stm


Which just shows that left to their  their own devices that people on opposite sides of conflicts can live together peacefully.

Get all foreign forces out of Afghanistan now and let it happen there

----------


## bekisman

> Which just shows that left to their their own devices that people on opposite sides of conflicts can live together peacefully. Get all foreign forces out of Afghanistan now and let it happen there


 

 'Jews faced intermittent persecution in Iran for centuries but flourished with the ascent of the pro-western Pahlavi dynasty in the 1920s. 

Since Israel's creation in 1948, more than 40,000 Iranian Jews have moved to the Israel, with the last big wave arriving after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran'.

----------


## Anfield

"..Op Moshtarak is just the initial phase, and the clear phase went extraordinarily well, and it was a professionally-executed operation that went very smoothly. Our forces performed superbly.."
Jock Stirrup
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8541268.stm

3 UK soldiers killed in this operation alone and god knows how many more from other NATO countries and Afghan deaths.

Well done Jock on a superb show, another medal for your chest eh

----------


## Tubthumper

Anfield - I would love to see you sharing your brand of sympathy with a few of those poor sojers in a pub somewhere. 
Every one of them is a volunteer. They are doing what they believe to be right. And one more keyboard hero bumping his gums on here about the rights and wrongs of the war does nothing for anyone.
You have stated your opinion repeatedly. The message hes been received and understood. You think it's wrong. Don't feel you need to get more and more controversial to get some attention - most of us care a lot for our sojers, but don't very much about your ongoing rant.

----------


## Yoda the flump

I would give up if I were you Tub,  guys obviously a troll.

----------


## bekisman

> "..Well done Jock on a superb show, another medal for your chest eh


What an obscene statement, but then you admit you are a  conscientious objector from your earlier post - it's good to know that those who have laid down their lives have given you the right to mock them. 

Me thinks you have parachuted into the Org, not to discuss 'General' chit chat - you have already mocked [Tunnocks wafers thread] but to try and ram down our throats your own point of view of cowardliness.. we are aware you know; witnessed by the near complete silence from the rest of the Org. 

I - along with others are sadly amused by your repeated and repeated statements about the illegal war, the poor Iraqis and your mocking of our men and woman who have stood up to be counted. 
Don't worry mate, your waffling has no effect whatsoever, it's pathetic and very very naive - as would be expected by a non-worldly person, not your fault.

May I respectfully suggest you parachute into someone elses forum and try there? (but then you may not have a platform to spout your bile) - personal attacks by name upon myself gives the lie to your totally one-sided view on life. Balance? nah 'fraid you don't.

Never mind, thump a few more keyboards, whilst I go off and play scrabble and see if I can make up 'pacifist'.. ::

----------


## bekisman

Well, whilst Anfield  the one who does not have the courage to even put his location on his details, pounds those keys I'll kick him into touch, taken a while, but then it was fascinating to watch (for a while).. so promise, even when he comes back with more venom, I won't post here - now how do I push the 'ignore' button?

----------


## Anfield

> Anfield - I would love to see you sharing your brand of sympathy with a few of those poor sojers in a pub somewhere. 
> Every one of them is a volunteer. They are doing what they believe to be right. And one more keyboard hero bumping his gums on here about the rights and wrongs of the war does nothing for anyone.
> You have stated your opinion repeatedly. The message hes been received and understood. You think it's wrong. Don't feel you need to get more and more controversial to get some attention - most of us care a lot for our sojers, but don't very much about your ongoing rant.


Some soldiers and their families do see the futility of  this war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...anistan-london

http://www.mfaw.net/

----------


## sandyr1

May I respectfully suggest you parachute into someone elses forum and try there? (but then you may not have a platform to spout your bile) - personal attacks by name upon myself gives the lie to your totally one-sided view on life. Balance? nah 'fraid you don't.

Never mind, thump a few more keyboards, whilst I go off and play scrabble and see if I can make up 'pacifist'.. :: [/quote]

I for one have never demeaned the soldiers, but do wonder if we are on the right track/ should we blindly go and attempt to change those people's way of life and dictate to Countries how they should be run..Iran..The Shaw, Panama..Noriega??, Iraq..... Saddam, fund the Taliban against the Russians.... for I think 12 years...
Yes it was the US, but the Brits were also involved...The Canadians stayed out of the Iraq fiasco, to which we were chastised greatly but it turned out they were right, but now we are in Afghanistan.....
I am not a coward but there just seems so many soldiers killed and wounded for ?????
Also was recently in Southern Fla and near a US base, and you should see the number of youngsters with limbs/faces missing etc, trying to get some solace on the beach and begging in the intersections...then there are the Vietnam Vets....still begging on the streets/ and yes they never complain because ' They served their Country!....awful!

----------


## Anfield

> Anfield - I would love to see you sharing your brand of sympathy with a few of those poor sojers in a pub somewhere. 
> Every one of them is a volunteer. They are doing what they believe to be right. And one more keyboard hero bumping his gums on here about the rights and wrongs of the war does nothing for anyone.
> You have stated your opinion repeatedly. The message hes been received and understood. You think it's wrong. Don't feel you need to get more and more controversial to get some attention - most of us care a lot for our sojers, but don't very much about your ongoing rant.


------------------------------------------------------------------
I would love to take part in a meeting with some soldiers in a pub, providing you and your fellow pro war friends join me.

Let us look at it from a soldiers perspective.

PRO WAR ASPECT
They are sent to a far off land to fight with unsuitable equpment,  against an enemy who, because they do not wear regulation uniform,  they can not identify.
Each day they are faced with the prospect of death or maiming either by snipers or by roadside bombs or even by their own side. If it does not happen to them it will possibly happen to a friend.
When they finish their "tour" of duty they will return to the UK for a few months,  and then they may have to return to this hell on earth.

ANTI WAR VIEW
They do not go to Afghanistan and get killed or maimed. 

Who do you think the soldiers would buy a drink for?

----------


## gleeber

It's not as simple as that though anfield. 
Whats become obvious to me through this thread and the 9/11 thread is that the purpose of the war on terror has been lost because of the distractions about the complicity of the American government in the whole affair.
Don't ever forget when and why this war started. That seems to be a forgotton issue and those soldiers, whether you accept it or not, have kept the streets of our cities safer by their sacrifice.

----------


## golach

> --------------------------------------
> Let us look at it from a soldiers perspective.
> 
> 
> ANTI WAR VIEW
> They do not go to Afghanistan and get killed or maimed. 
> 
> Who do you think the soldiers would buy a drink for?


It is very obvious you have no idea of the majority of our Servicemen and Women. They see its as doing their job to the best of their abilities.

----------


## Anfield

> It is very obvious you have no idea of the majority of our Servicemen and Women. They see its as doing their job to the best of their abilities.


How do you know what the majority of our forces think?  Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

If we assume that our soldiers are normal everyday UK people then the vast majority (73%) will want to end war and come home
*
"..*                                      By                                                                                Channel 4 News                                                                                                 Updated on 05 November 2009

                          Seventy three per cent of people wanting British  troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, a YouGov survey for Channel 4  News reveals. YouGov president Peter Kellner breaks down the results.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Opposition to the war in Afghanistan has risen sharply in the past  fortnight. Two weeks ago, 42 per cent of the British public thought the  Taliban could be defeated, while 48 per cent thought they could not.
*Click* *here  to see the full results (.xls).*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Now, following the deaths of five  British soldiers yesterday and President Karzi's much-challenged  victory in the recent election, just 33 per cent think the war can be  won, while a clear majority, 57 per cent think victory is no longer  possible.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  As a result, 35 per cent now think all British troops should be  withdrawn immediately – compared with 25 per cent two weeks ago.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Only 20 per cent think they should remain in the country "as long as  Afghanistan’s government wants them there" – down from 29 per cent two  weeks ago.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Women are especially keen to see British troops come home: 40 per cent  think they should be withdrawn immediately, while just 13 per cent think  they should stay as long as they are needed. Men divide more evenly: 31  per cent want them home immediately; while 28 per cent think they  should stay as long as they are needed.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  These figures are likely to concern MPs. Public opinion lacks the power  to force Parliament to end Britain’s involvement; however, no Government  likes to commit troops to an extended conflict, and a rising death  toll, with so little public support.."

----------


## golach

> How do you know what the majority of our forces think? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
> 
> If we assume that our soldiers are normal everyday UK people then the vast majority (73%) will want to end war and come home
> 
> *"..* By Channel 4 News Updated on 05 November 2009
> 
> Seventy three per cent of people wanting British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, a YouGov survey for Channel 4 News reveals. YouGov president Peter Kellner breaks down the results.
> 
> Opposition to the war in Afghanistan has risen sharply in the past fortnight. Two weeks ago, 42 per cent of the British public thought the Taliban could be defeated, while 48 per cent thought they could not.
> ...


You consider *that* evidence?
I live in a garrison city and have relatives who are serving service personnel and meet them all around the city,I have spoken to none who think like you, thank goodness  :: .

----------


## Tubthumper

I kind of saw the answer from Anfield there through your quote Golach. Can you say to Mr/ Ms Field (I've got them on 'ignore') that our servicemen, as volunteers, could vote with their feet and hand in their notice if they weren't happy with their lot. Does he maybe think our 'cannon-fodder' aren't able to think, or are somehow different to himself?
Also he might like to explain why, if everyone in the country's so unhappy with the war, there's a huge queue to join up?
Don't know who he/ she is, but I don't think much of them.

----------


## ducati

> I kind of saw the answer from Anfield there through your quote Golach. Can you say to Mr/ Ms Field (I've got them on 'ignore') that our servicemen, as volunteers, could vote with their feet and hand in their notice if they weren't happy with their lot. Does he maybe think our 'cannon-fodder' aren't able to think, or are somehow different to himself?
> Also he might like to explain why, if everyone in the country's so unhappy with the war, there's a huge queue to join up?
> Don't know who he/ she is, but I don't think much of them.


Heard enough pish, click anfield ignore

----------


## Anfield

You consider *that* evidence?
I live in a garrison city and have relatives who are serving service  personnel and meet them all around the city,I have spoken to very few  who think like you, thank goodness 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What part of *that* evidence? do you object to?  the fact that it is independent,  or because it does not give the answer that agrees with your way of thinking.

I am glad that a "few" of your relatives think like me, this reaffirms my point that not all "serving service  personnel" are in favour of this war

As to the people queuing to join armed forces, again any evidence to back this up?

----------


## fred

> It's not as simple as that though anfield. 
> Whats become obvious to me through this thread and the 9/11 thread is that the purpose of the war on terror has been lost because of the distractions about the complicity of the American government in the whole affair.
> Don't ever forget when and why this war started. That seems to be a forgotton issue and those soldiers, whether you accept it or not, have kept the streets of our cities safer by their sacrifice.


No they haven't, they have made the streets of our cities far more dangerous, they have given Muslim extremists one more reason to hate us.

The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11, it was planned and prepared for well before 9/11. You don't think they could plan and put into operation a full blown invasion in four weeks do you. 9/11 just came along as a "convenient" excuse right on queue. On 9/11 the papers authorising the invasion of Afghanistan were on George Bush's desk ready to be signed.

----------


## gleeber

> No they haven't, they have made the streets of our cities far more dangerous, they have given Muslim extremists one more reason to hate us.
> 
> The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11, it was planned and prepared for well before 9/11. You don't think they could plan and put into operation a full blown invasion in four weeks do you. 9/11 just came along as a "convenient" excuse right on queue. On 9/11 the papers authorising the invasion of Afghanistan were on George Bush's desk ready to be signed.


Sorry fred. I have no defense against nonsense.

----------


## golach

> You consider *that* evidence?
> I live in a garrison city and have relatives who are serving service personnel and meet them all around the city,I have spoken to very few who think like you, thank goodness 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am glad that a "few" of your relatives think like me,


If I had relatives who think as you do, I would disown them  ::

----------


## Yoda the flump

> No they haven't, they have made the streets of our cities far more dangerous, they have given Muslim extremists one more reason to hate us.
> 
> The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11, it was planned and prepared for well before 9/11. You don't think they could plan and put into operation a full blown invasion in four weeks do you. 9/11 just came along as a "convenient" excuse right on queue. On 9/11 the papers authorising the invasion of Afghanistan were on George Bush's desk ready to be signed.


Of course 9/11 came along at the right time Fred, the CIA, NAS and Pentagon do talk to each other you know.

You don't half write some drivel on times.

----------


## fred

> Sorry fred. I have no defense against nonsense.


Nonsense?




> We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term.
> 
> It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.
> 
> Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.


Are you calling the report of the Joint Intelligence Committee nonsense?

----------


## gleeber

> Nonsense?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you calling the report of the Joint Intelligence Committee nonsense?


Anyone ever call you slippery?  :: 
When did you ever pay any attention to official papers from the American Government? 
I was calling your conspiracy theory nonsense.

----------


## Anfield

Er Golach, it was you who originaly stated that they had relatives that disagree with war  (post 283) which went along the lines of..
"You consider *that* evidence?
I live in a garrison city and have relatives who are serving service  personnel and meet them all around the city,I have spoken to very few  who think like you, thank goodness.."

----------


## Anfield

> Anyone ever call you slippery? 
> When did you ever pay any attention to official papers from the American Government? 
> I was calling your conspiracy theory nonsense.


So you agree that we and UN should not have paid any interest to "The Dossier of WMD" and therefore our entry into Iraq was illegal?

----------


## fred

> Anyone ever call you slippery? 
> When did you ever pay any attention to official papers from the American Government? 
> I was calling your conspiracy theory nonsense.


Oh I pay attention to everything.

----------


## gleeber

> So you agree that we and UN should not have paid any interest to "The Dossier of WMD" and therefore our entry into Iraq was illegal?


 I dont know where you plucked that idea from.  ::

----------


## Stavro

> ... was recently in Southern Fla and near a US base, and you should see the number of youngsters with limbs/faces missing etc, trying to get some solace on the beach and begging in the intersections...then there are the Vietnam Vets....still begging on the streets/ and yes they never complain because ' They served their Country!....awful!


Very strong point that puts a lot of the silly denial posts into perspective.

Were they defending their country? No. Their country was not under attack by any foreign power.

Were they doing the bidding of megalomaniacs? Yes. Those same politicians and bankers whose kids go off to Harvard and Yale, whilst the American youth who are not of the "elite" go off to slaughter and be slaughtered. Leaving behind the depleted uranium and Agent Orange that ensures horrendous birth defects for decades or even centuries. Against a people who had done no harm. Very, very evil and sick.

----------


## Anfield

> I for one have never demeaned the soldiers, but do wonder if we are on the right track/ should we blindly go and attempt to change those people's way of life and dictate to Countries how they should be run..Iran..The Shaw, Panama..Noriega??, Iraq..... Saddam, fund the Taliban against the Russians.... for I think 12 years...
> Yes it was the US, but the Brits were also involved...The Canadians stayed out of the Iraq fiasco, to which we were chastised greatly but it turned out they were right, but now we are in Afghanistan.....
> I am not a coward but there just seems so many soldiers killed and wounded for ?????
> Also was recently in Southern Fla and near a US base, and you should see the number of youngsters with limbs/faces missing etc, trying to get some solace on the beach and begging in the intersections...then there are the Vietnam Vets....still begging on the streets/ and yes they never complain because ' They served their Country!....awful!


-------------------------------------------------------------------

A very refreshing post, hopefully to be read by all the "pro war"  members of this forum.  
If it makes one of them think "Why" then you have succeeded where a lot of people  have failed.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A very refreshing post, hopefully to be read by all the "pro war"  members of this forum.  
> If it makes one of them think "Why" then you have succeeded where a lot of people  have failed.


Why do you think that there is a 'Pro War' group in this forum?  There are certainly many that support our soldiers that are doing the duty they willingly signed up to.

Nobody is 'pro war', but we do accept that there is a war and that there is no easy solution to it, regardless of who started it.  Bailing out at a minutes notice is not the answer.

Your inane wittering is starting to get very boring.

----------


## Anfield

Read some of the posts and read the abuse which some people have had to take

If you do not like the thread, don't follow it

----------


## sandyr1

> Why do you think that there is a 'Pro War' group in this forum? There are certainly many that support our soldiers that are doing the duty they willingly signed up to.
> 
> Nobody is 'pro war', but we do accept that there is a war and that there is no easy solution to it, regardless of who started it. Bailing out at a minutes notice is not the answer.
> 
> Your inane wittering is starting to get very boring.


Before you chastise...Just think.....7700 dead
Perhaps 100,000 wounded and these wounds are bad..IED's... legs and other lower parts....
approx 18 suicides a day with the US troops.... 
1.3M Iraqies killed...some by their own people..I admit.
Of course they are brave and I congratulate them and if I was sent I would go...But we, in my opinion, just should not go blindly into something... have you ever thought....We shouldn't fight a war we cannot win...Even in everyday life we practice that///at my job anyway.
I don't know the answer But...lets think a wee bit...
regards........

----------


## Stavro

> Before you chastise...Just think.....7700 dead
> Perhaps 100,000 wounded and these wounds are bad..IED's... legs and other lower parts....
> approx 18 suicides a day with the US troops.... 
> 1.3M Iraqies killed...some by their own people..I admit.
> Of course they are brave and I congratulate them and if I was sent I would go...But we, in my opinion, just should not go blindly into something... have you ever thought....We shouldn't fight a war we cannot win...Even in everyday life we practice that///at my job anyway.
> I don't know the answer But...lets think a wee bit...
> regards........



Well said, sandyr1.

----------


## fred

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A very refreshing post, hopefully to be read by all the "pro war"  members of this forum.  
> If it makes one of them think "Why" then you have succeeded where a lot of people  have failed.


The "why" for the recent troop increase and the new offensive is clear. After over eight years the brainwashing is starting to wear off on the American people. They need the odd victory here and there, no matter how small, to keep their support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022104201.html

Children are being killed, people are being maimed in the name of Public Relations.

----------


## golach

> Er Golach, it was you who originaly stated that they had relatives that disagree with war (post 283) which went along the lines of..
> "You consider *that* evidence?
> I live in a garrison city and have relatives who are serving service personnel and meet them all around the city,I have spoken to very few who think like you, thank goodness.."


Please amend  very few to " Zero"

----------


## Anfield

"..Nato says four of its troops have been killed in three attacks in  Afghanistan.."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8542420.stm

This  report also mentions that 11 civillians were killed by a roadside bomb  yesterday.  I don't recall seeing this in news*

So at least  another 15 lives are added to the massive carnage taking place in  Afghanistan
*

----------


## fred

> "..Nato says four of its troops have been killed in three attacks in  Afghanistan.."
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8542420.stm
> 
> This  report also mentions that 11 civillians were killed by a roadside bomb  yesterday.  I don't recall seeing this in news*
> 
> So at least  another 15 lives are added to the massive carnage taking place in  Afghanistan
> *


Another British soldier has been killed as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544458.stm

----------


## Stavro

> Another British soldier has been killed as well.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544458.stm



And all for what?

If it was for closing alleged training camps for alleged terrorists, then why have they not done that by now? How many years has this been going on for?

If, however, this is going on such that the banking families can restore and maintain the opium trade, as well as protect the oil and gas pipelines that were built (both having been denied by the government - Taliban - that George W. Bush was negotiating with until they said that they were not going to be bought with his money), well ... then the jigsaw starts to fit together.

Support the troops (and the Afghanis) - bring the troops home and keep them here to defend us against any real attack.

----------


## Anfield

A member of the Winsdor family visited Afghanistan yesterday,  on the same day that yet another UK soldier was killed.

Guess who got most headlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544574.stm

His death means that he is the 267th UK soldier to die in this conflict.
* 
                             TROOPS HOME NOW*

----------


## bekisman

> A member of the Winsdor family visited Afghanistan yesterday, on the same day that yet another UK soldier was killed.
> 
> Guess who got most headlines
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544574.stm
> 
> His death means that he is the 267th UK soldier to die in this conflict.
> 
> TROOPS HOME NOW


Be careful - you can get done for 'shouting'

----------


## Anfield

> Be careful - you can get done for 'shouting'


Bekiman: I thought that you had stopped following this thread (again).  
You may notice that since you stopped,  the level of debate has risen,  with a number of people sharing some interesting thoughts about this  awful war.

If you have nothing useful to contribute, then please refrain from  posting inane comments.

Thank you

----------


## bekisman

> Bekiman: I thought that you had stopped following this thread (again). You may notice that since you stopped, the level of debate has risen, with a number of people sharing some interesting thoughts about this awful war.If you have nothing useful to contribute, then please refrain from posting inane comments.Thank you


 
What! here I am a chap who's trying his utmost to stop you getting infraction points for shouting, what an ungrateful way to react!, Might as well let you dig your own hole. 'interesting thoughts'? what; about this 'awful war', just 'cos you weren't in the WRACs no need to get shirty, lighten up! :Wink:

----------


## Anfield

"..lighten up..?"

As I type this,  I am reading about the 268th UK soldier to have died in this war.  I feel so sad for you being the type of person being able to "lighten up" whilst this carnage is taking place,

* 					Soldier of 3rd Batallion The Rifles dies in Afghanistan 				*






*A soldier from 3rd Battalion The Rifles  has died in Afghanistan, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence has  said.*
He was killed by small arms fire near Sangin, Helmand  province, the MoD added. Next of kin have been informed. 
Spokesman  for Task Force Helmand, Lt Col David Wakefield, said: "He will be  sorely missed by us, his comrades." 
His death, which was not  connected to Operation Moshtarak, takes the number of UK military  personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 268. 
Lt  Col Wakefield said the soldier came under fire at a vehicle checkpoint  he was manning alongside Afghan soldiers. 
"He died protecting the  people of Sangin," Lt Col Wakefield added. 
"We will remember  him." 
The latest death came after another soldier from from 4th  Battalion The Rifles, serving with the 3 Rifles Battle Group, was shot  dead on a foot patrol north-east of Sangin on Monday

----------


## bekisman

> "..lighten up..?"
> 
> As I type this, I am reading about the 268th UK soldier to have died in this war. I feel so sad for you being the type of person being able to "lighten up" whilst this carnage is taking place,
> *Soldier of 3rd Batallion The Rifles dies in Afghanistan* 
> *A soldier from 3rd Battalion The Rifles has died in Afghanistan, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence has said.*


Hmm.. (quote) 'nice of you to feel sad for me' - but considering that I was once called a baby killer in my Forces days - whoops, I mean soldier for 15 years and three of my sons were/are in forces AND my daughter-in-Law - I don't really think a peace woman has any need to tell me in any way what I should feel. Honestly, you'd never make a squaddie (too serious).. 
Look:
1. Soldiers are grown up adults and are volunteers
2. Any soldier can give notice to leave if they so wish
3. Army recruiting is up; *
4. No need to go on and on, (see above). 

Of course you have the right to state what ever your feelings are - so have I. But please don't waffle about the carnage dealt to our chaps out there, when it's tainted with your coments; "the killing of innocent people." "dismay at 33 civillians killed by gung ho allied troops" "Inevitably they will soon be replaced by more canon fodder" "people like you bury your head in the sand" "Get all foreign forces out of Afghanistan now" "Well done Jock on a superb show, another medal for your chest eh" And of course the shouted: End War Now and TROOPS HOME NOW (sic)
Your postings will make no difference whatsoever (honest) but carry on as you wish, perfectly ok.Just could not resist looking in for a refresher..

Oh yea, you'll get done for shouting again, if you're not careful :Wink: 

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4740309/Army-faces-recession-recruiting-surge.html and * http://www.hr-topics.com/wire-uk/british-army.htm

----------


## Aaldtimer

..."Any soldier can give notice to leave if they so wish"...
Since when could a soldier hand in his notice? ::

----------


## Tubthumper

> ..."Any soldier can give notice to leave if they so wish"...
> Since when could a soldier hand in his notice?


The point is that most squaddies, (and remember that includes more than the infantry) who deploy, return, then deploy again. Some enjoy it. Some find action the high point of their lives. The ones who find they really hate it will pack it in quickly enough. The long term AWOL list is apparently as low as it's been for a long time.
If they were that demoralised they'd be signing off in droves.

----------


## Anfield

> The point is that most squaddies, (and remember that includes more than the infantry) who deploy, return, then deploy again. Some enjoy it. Some find action the high point of their lives. The ones who find they really hate it will pack it in quickly enough. The long term AWOL list is apparently as low as it's been for a long time.
> If they were that demoralised they'd be signing off in droves.



Do you have any facts to back up claim that:
(a) "..most squaddies deply, return, then deploy again.."
(b) "..The long term AWOL list is apparently as low as it's been for a long  time.."

Also I thought you had to enlist for a fixed term, if this is correct, how do you sign off mid  term.

----------


## bekisman

> ..."Any soldier can give notice to leave if they so wish"...
> Since when could a soldier hand in his notice?


 
Hi Aaltimer, see you're retired (like me!). Years ago a soldier could 'buy himself out'.. but (I think) in 1992 it changed and a soldier can 'put in his notice', giving 12 months notice - but can be longer (see below)..

A soldier enlisted on this engagement has a statutory right to leave after four years reckoned from the 18th birthday or from three months after attestation, whichever is the later, subject to giving 12 months notice of intention to leave and providing the soldier is not restricted from leaving in any way. Certain employments, particularly those involving a lengthy training, carry a time bar which requires a longer period before soldiers have the statutory right to leave. 
For the initial period after joining the Army individuals are able to be 'Discharged As Of Right' (DAOR). There is no obligation to stay during this time. The length of the period of DAOR is six months for under 18s and three months for over 18s after turning up at the Army Training Regiment. Individuals after this time are committed to serve for a minimum engagement of four years. There are of course allowances made for medical and exceptional compassionate circumstances. 

Things changed since my day:  Red and yellow cards were given to recruits to warn Training Staff of 'overbearing' behaviour.
It did not work, and  has since been dropped. (how times changed!)


http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0139.html

----------


## bekisman

> (b) "..The long term AWOL list is apparently as low as it's been for a long time.." .


Sorry 'Tub - just off for me supper, couldn't resist:

British troops are standing firm together, with the fewest going absent without leave for almost 10 years.Ministry of Defence figures show 2,063 men went Awol in 2009, despite the war in Afghanistan making it the bloodiest year since 1982. That figure was down 9.4% on 2008, and is made up of 1,998 Army personnel, 59 from the Royal Navy and six RAF people. 
Support groups and families said it is no surprise absences are falling, because troops would not leave their comrades in times of need..

(but then peace women would not know this would they?)

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/123474

----------


## Anfield

Another way of leaving army, if you are American that is, is to get pregnant which is now a Court Martial offence
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/army-maj-ge...ory?id=9391242

Wonder how many UK women soldiers are doing that to get away from the carnage in Afghanistan and other places

----------


## Tubthumper

Wish I was young enough to sign up again. I'm about as fit as I was 20 years ago, I can still shoot straight, I'm more sober and sensible and know clearly why I want to go.
'Sno fair, these young guys have all the fun.

----------


## golach

> Another way of leaving army, if you are American that is, is to get pregnant which is now a Court Martial offence
> http://abcnews.go.com/WN/army-maj-ge...ory?id=9391242
> 
> Wonder how many UK women soldiers are doing that to get away from the carnage in Afghanistan and other places


That is below the belt Anfield, you deserve a yellow card at least for that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8382575.stm

----------


## bekisman

> Another way of leaving army, if you are American that is, is to get pregnant which is now a Court Martial offence
> http://abcnews.go.com/WN/army-maj-ge...ory?id=9391242
> 
> Wonder how many UK women soldiers are doing that to get away from the carnage in Afghanistan and other places


Why on earth put an American link here. You seem to be able to find things on Google, so why not Google your last question? it's easy you know :: .

----------


## Tubthumper

> Ministry of Defence figures show 2,063 men went Awol in 2009, despite the war in Afghanistan making it the bloodiest year since 1982. That figure was down 9.4% on 2008, and is made up of 1,998 Army personnel, 59 from the Royal Navy and six RAF people. 
> Support groups and families said it is “no surprise” absences are falling, because troops would not leave their comrades in times of need.


More folk go AWOL when its peacetime soldiering because they get bored. Knowing squaddies, the above will include a large number of short term AWOLs who were drunk & uncatchable (ie on the spree) or who have fallen in love and are rendered incapable of movement outside the bedroom. Also some who aren't very reliable and have just wandered off.
A mate of mine went AWOL and ended up with a burd in the States for 3 months, on the holiday of a lifetime. When he finally came back he got marched, busted & jailed. And the CSM said 'I wish I'd done that when I was your age!'

----------


## Anfield

> That is below the belt Anfield, you deserve a yellow card at least for that.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8382575.stm


A better link would have been:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8545227.stm

which gives details on the inquest on a female soldier killed in Afghanistan
whilst travelling in a defective vehicle.  She was one of 30+ people who have died whilst in this type of vehicle in different incidents.

In the article you will see how a serving UK major showed what he thought of this incident:
 "..The incident also attracted a lot of criticism, with one SAS major  resigning his commission in protest.."

----------


## Anfield

> Why on earth put an American link here. You seem to be able to find things on Google, so why not Google your last question? it's easy you know.


Did you not link to an American website last night,   a site which glorifies  the tearing apart of innocent animals by hounds?  I will remind you......

"The MFAA Website states: "In Britain the goal is to kill the fox.  populations of fox are extremely high and fox are considered vermin""

(

----------


## bekisman

> That is below the belt Anfield, you deserve a yellow card at least for that.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8382575.stm


Very brave girl Golach: 


'A medic from Devon, who is the first woman in the Royal Navy to be awarded the Military Cross, has been presented with her medal by Prince Charles. Able Seaman Class 1 Kate Nesbitt has been recognised for braving Taliban fire to tend to a soldier shot during a gun battle in Afghanistan'  
- pity 'our' peace woman won't [can't] answer. But that's the nature of 'em

----------


## bekisman

> "The MFAA Website states: "In Britain the goal is to kill the fox. populations of fox are extremely high and fox are considered vermin""
> (


'spect they are, I don't hunt em - do you? some folk have hens so the Fox can be a pest, and they are considered vermin, last time I checked, but then I don't really have time to do 89% of my posts on this particular thread.

----------


## bekisman

> More folk go AWOL when its peacetime soldiering because they get bored. Knowing squaddies, the above will include a large number of short term AWOLs who were drunk & uncatchable (ie on the spree) or who have fallen in love and are rendered incapable of movement outside the bedroom. Also some who aren't very reliable and have just wandered off.
> A mate of mine went AWOL and ended up with a burd in the States for 3 months, on the holiday of a lifetime. When he finally came back he got marched, busted & jailed. And the CSM said 'I wish I'd done that when I was your age!'


Of course you're right Tub, knew one who was due to go to Aden, got drunk, jumped on a train back to the Barrack town - wrong train ended up on Danish border.. Had an understanding CO, kick up the bum and all's fine..

----------


## Commore

I have a nephew, who is currently trying to decide whether or not to stay in the army, he has been in for seven years thus far,
he's a bright young man, has a young wife and family, and he has his own misgivings, about wars in foreign lands, as I suspect all our young lads do.

Recently, I asked him what will you do, will you stay in or get out?
he's keeping quiet, avoiding my question, 
bottom line is, he joined the forces, he fights and he kills as he is instructed to do, and what if anything is incentive enough to keep our young men at "home" where there is so much trouble and strife??

I think that at least in the army, he has discipline, purpose, family, friends,
on the streets of Scotland / uk, he has nothing not even his self respect.

----------


## Commore

> Very brave girl Golach: 
> 
> 
> 'A medic from Devon, who is the first woman in the Royal Navy to be awarded the Military Cross, has been presented with her medal by Prince Charles. Able Seaman Class 1 Kate Nesbitt has been recognised for braving Taliban fire to tend to a soldier shot during a gun battle in Afghanistan'  
> - pity 'our' peace woman won't [can't] answer. But that's the nature of 'em


I am lost, who is peace woman?

----------


## fred

> As I type this,  I am reading about the 268th UK soldier to have died in this war.  I feel so sad for you being the type of person being able to "lighten up" whilst this carnage is taking place,


And those who get killed could be some of the lucky ones, I was just reading yesterday about an American soldier who got half his head blown of but has survived. Just talking of those who die sanitises war, there are many more who will wish they had died.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I think that at least in the army, he has discipline, purpose, family, friends, on the streets of Scotland / uk, he has nothing not even his self respect.


Sound points Commore. Comradeship, security, purpose, opportunities...

----------


## Commore

> Sound points Commore. Comradeship, security, purpose, opportunities...


Yes and so much more!
I do despair for the young people, many of them have little or no hope for their futures, regardless of their own dreams and ambitions, somehow, they are being held to ransom through unseen powers.

I am too young to have witnessed the atrocity of war, however, I have every respect for those who did, fought and died for, 

My nephew, will be fine, his comrades looking out for him.

----------


## fred

> My nephew, will be fine, his comrades looking out for him.


I sure as hell hope so because his government aren't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8545227.stm

----------


## bekisman

> And those who get killed could be some of the lucky ones, I was just reading yesterday about an American soldier who got half his head blown of but has survived. Just talking of those who die sanitises war, there are many more who will wish they had died.


You would know this of course?

----------


## bekisman

> Yes and so much more!
> I do despair for the young people, many of them have little or no hope for their futures, regardless of their own dreams and ambitions, somehow, they are being held to ransom through unseen powers.
> 
> I am too young to have witnessed the atrocity of war, however, I have every respect for those who did, fought and died for, 
> 
> My nephew, will be fine, his comrades looking out for him.


Best of luck to him Commore - he'll be a better man because of it, give him balance, make him worldly wise, less naive. My own three sons grew immensely - one is still in (20 years), one of the others is an IT Manager in Preston the other a building boss in Toronto. Proud of 'em all.

----------


## Anfield

Bekiman,
Thank you for amending the defamatory post you made about me.

----------


## bekisman

> Bekiman,
> Thank you for amending the defamatory post you made about me.


Just back from Inverness, Can you elucidate for me please?

----------


## Anfield

> Just back from Inverness, Can you elucidate for me please?



Memory fading again?

You know perfectly well what post I am referring to.

----------


## bekisman

> Memory fading again?
> 
> You know perfectly well what post I am referring to.


O go on....

----------


## Commore

> Best of luck to him Commore - he'll be a better man because of it, give him balance, make him worldly wise, less naive. My own three sons grew immensely - one is still in (20 years), one of the others is an IT Manager in Preston the other a building boss in Toronto. Proud of 'em all.


And so you should be! well done.

My young nephew, is only in his early twenties, barely just a man, but has so much in front of him and we are all proud of him. :Smile:

----------


## fred

> Yes and so much more!
> I do despair for the young people, many of them have little or no hope for their futures, regardless of their own dreams and ambitions, somehow, they are being held to ransom through unseen powers.
> 
> I am too young to have witnessed the atrocity of war, however, I have every respect for those who did, fought and died for,


Here you are, some of the atrocities of war for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8548707.stm

I despair for young people too.

----------


## Stavro

Yes, and we should, as a society, be very proud indeed of any young man who, despite his few years, sees warmongering politicians for what they really are and turns his back on doing their dirty work for them thousands of miles away from home.

----------


## Anfield

On the day that Gordon Brown is giving evidence about why he agreed with starting an illegal war Iraq,  it emerges that a UK soldier has been sentenced to 9 months in gaol for refusing to return to the carnage in Afghanistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8551245.stm

To see what 430+ people were expecting Brown to say during Chillcott grilling see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyours...om_the_ir.html

----------


## Commore

> On the day that Gordon Brown is giving evidence about why he agreed with starting an illegal war Iraq,  it emerges that a UK soldier has been sentenced to 9 months in gaol for refusing to return to the carnage in Afghanistan
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8551245.stm
> 
> To see what 430+ people were expecting Brown to say during Chillcott grilling see:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyours...om_the_ir.html


Our boys are afraid, they fear the taliban because they cannot see them, they fear their equipment because it's not as it should be fit for purpose,
they fear not coming back.
our politicians should be made to answer to the "crime" they are accused of, which is sending so many of our young off to die in what is apparently an illegal war,

----------


## bekisman

> On the day that Gordon Brown is giving evidence about why he agreed with starting an illegal war Iraq, it emerges that a UK soldier has been sentenced to 9 months in gaol for refusing to return to the carnage in Afghanistan


 Oh you mean Glenton, joined up in 2004, (when a couple of wars were going on, so would expect to be in a war zone) went to Afghanistan - not as a front line soldier, but in September 2006 after using a forklift truck to move sealed coffins of the RAF personnel who died in a Nimrod - does a runner to the Far east for a couple of years. Might understand if he had actually seen carnage and death and actually faced the enemy.. Bottom line: Coward who dropped his mates in it. Whoops, that's opened a can of worms. Here comes the Outraged:

----------


## Stavro

> Coward who dropped his mates in it.


Politician: Banker-controlled puppet and coward who drops us all in it.  :Smile:

----------


## Anfield

> Politician: Banker-controlled puppet and coward who drops us all in it.


Similar to "The Booze Brothers" , make an appearance at a photo shoot,  far far away from where people are dying in an appalling number and manner, even further back than where the "coward" referred to above was stationed.

Coward,  or Sheep to the slaughter, I know what I would prefer to be,  and I can think of 268  families (at last count)  who would agree with me.

----------


## Stavro

> Similar to "The Booze Brothers" , make an appearance at a photo shoot,  far far away from where people are dying in an appalling number and manner, even further back than where the "coward" referred to above was stationed.
> 
> Coward,  or Sheep to the slaughter, I know what I would prefer to be,  and I can think of 268  families (at last count)  who would agree with me.



Yes, bekisman slipped in "a couple of wars going on," before referring to a bright young man as a "coward," but neither he nor ducati nor anyone else has been able to answer: when was war declared, against whom and for what reason?

No doubt this young man did not join the armed forces in order to go and kill innocent human beings and animals on the say-so of the likes of Bush, Cheney, Blair and Straw. Well done to him for having nothing more to do with it. Definitely not a coward.

----------


## ducati

> Yes, bekisman slipped in "a couple of wars going on," before referring to a bright young man as a "coward," but neither he nor ducati nor anyone else has been able to answer: when was war declared, against whom and for what reason?
> 
> No doubt this young man did not join the armed forces in order to go and kill innocent human beings and animals on the say-so of the likes of Bush, Cheney, Blair and Straw. Well done to him for having nothing more to do with it. Definitely not a coward.


Instead of just complaining about the current situation (which is all you have done for the last 2 months as this argument has raged over several threads) and latching on to every single incident that you can taunt people with. Why don't we start examining what the solutions could be? I don't recall anyone offering any practical advice to our leaders on what to do now. Other than the completely impractical and catastrophic call to bring our troops home today.

----------


## fred

> Yes, bekisman slipped in "a couple of wars going on," before referring to a bright young man as a "coward," but neither he nor ducati nor anyone else has been able to answer: when was war declared, against whom and for what reason?
> 
> No doubt this young man did not join the armed forces in order to go and kill innocent human beings and animals on the say-so of the likes of Bush, Cheney, Blair and Straw. Well done to him for having nothing more to do with it. Definitely not a coward.


Time and time again the military has shown that their loyalty is to themselves not to the people. As on 30th January 1972 when the British army turned their guns on an unarmed group of British citizens who's only crime was to ask for equal rights. Then when they could have admitted what they had done and saved a lot of British people's lives they tried to cover it up, their loyalty was to themselves, they lied and they fabricated evidence to protect their "mates". We are still waiting for the report from the inquiry into that incident, after 38 years we are still waiting.

Today it is the people of Afghanistan who are the enemy, ordinary people who never did any of us any harm but tomorrow it could just as easily be the people of Britain. As you can see from their writings here they live in an us and them world and it doesn't really matter much who the "them" is.

----------


## bekisman

> Time and time again the military has shown that their loyalty is to themselves not to the people.


Oh you mean Glenton

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Oh you mean Glenton, joined up in 2004, (when a couple of wars were going on, so would expect to be in a war zone) went to Afghanistan - not as a front line soldier, but in September 2006 after using a forklift truck to move sealed coffins of the RAF personnel who died in a Nimrod - does a runner to the Far east for a couple of years. Might understand if he had actually seen carnage and death and actually faced the enemy.. Bottom line: Coward who dropped his mates in it. Whoops, that's opened a can of worms. Here comes the Outraged:


Absolutely spot on Beks.

I dont see why he was so upset, I worked with and knew a few of the crew of XV230 lost on 02/09/06 but I dont have PTSD over it. I flew on that frame and my username is a homage to their crew badge and the previous CXX/3 who were killed in Canada during an Airshow Display exactly ten years to the day previously. So I would like to know just why he was so cut up. Sounds like a militairy version of the grief trains we see every day wailing for celebrities they never knew like they were close family members.

 Joe Glenton joined up knowing the risks, no one forced him. He did a tour and could have left at the end of it but instead legged it like a coward and left his mates in it. If he had left the Army because he didnt agree with the war then I could respect for him that. But he didnt. He skulked off like a coward. Then after almost two years he comes back, suddenly decides that he is against the war and the anti war crowd love him because he suits their purposes. He thinks "Result, I can play the anti war card". They will quickly forget him now he doesnt serve their purpose. But I bet his former comrades wont. Are you, like me, having a wry smile at the thought of him being processed through MCTC Colchester ??

----------


## fred

> Oh you mean Glenton


Have you considered the possibility that when he joined up he still believed all the lies about the wars being just? That it was only after he found out the wars were not only illegal but immoral as well that he decided he wanted no part of it?

----------


## bekisman

> Have you considered the possibility that when he joined up he still believed all the lies about the wars being just? That it was only after he found out the wars were not only illegal but immoral as well that he decided he wanted no part of it?


Are you stating that when he joined up he thought "um, now is this war just?" he was 27, he was a volunteer, goes out to Afghan - never served on the front line, says "don't like this as it's an illegal war and unjust - dammit, I'll refuse to go next time, and nip off to the Far East for a couple of years with me tail between me legs?" 

If he had any inkling that the war being unjust, he'd think "nope, I'll stay in my civvie job".. you takes the Queen's shilling and do the bidding of your Government - OR if you don't like it - don't join.. 

I personally have no sympathy for those who desert - the basic truth is someone else had to go in his place, So he was not just saving himself, he was endangering others by his action.  It's not like those First World War Conchies; they were not volunteers - but at least they had the guts to be stretcher bearers on the front line, unarmed too. He moved a few sealed coffins around on a fork lift truck. 
His defence lawyer said 'Glenton had never been a pacifist', so this clicked in after his first tour?..

Just an addenda, earlier a poster; 'Some join up as an alternative to an unhappy lifestyle they have' like me? - very unhappy lifestyle, but at 18 when I 'joined up' I had worked for three years and was quite able to sling my abuser through the window if I so wished..  Oh yea, after the brutality of the Armed Forces, I did a stint of over a decade as a Fire Fighter to get meself rehabilitated before being crippled.

----------


## fred

> Are you stating that when he joined up he thought "um, now is this war just?" he was 27, he was a volunteer, goes out to Afghan - never served on the front line, says "don't like this as it's an illegal war and unjust - dammit, I'll refuse to go next time, and nip off to the Far East for a couple of years with me tail between me legs?" 
> 
> If he had any inkling that the war being unjust, he'd think "nope, I'll stay in my civvie job".. you takes the Queen's shilling and do the bidding of your Government - OR if you don't like it - don't join.. 
> 
> I personally have no sympathy for those who desert - the basic truth is someone else had to go in his place, So he was not just saving himself, he was endangering others by his action.  It's not like those First World War Conchies; they were not volunteers - but at least they had the guts to be stretcher bearers on the front line, unarmed too. He moved a few sealed coffins around on a fork lift truck. 
> His defence lawyer said 'Glenton had never been a pacifist', so this clicked in after his first tour?..
> 
> Just an addenda, earlier a poster; 'Some join up as an alternative to an unhappy lifestyle they have' like me? - very unhappy lifestyle, but at 18 when I 'joined up' I had worked for three years and was quite able to sling my abuser through the window if I so wished..  Oh yea, after the brutality of the Armed Forces, I did a stint of over a decade as a Fire Fighter to get meself rehabilitated before being crippled.


As we decided at Nuremberg, just following orders is no defence. International law and the basic laws of humanity must come higher than military discipline. Otherwise whatever we claim to be fighting for we have already lost.

This thread is about women and children losing their lives in a horrific way because of the illegal actions of our country and other countries. I for one am glad I wasn't a part of that.

----------


## bekisman

> As we decided at Nuremberg, just following orders is no defence. International law and the basic laws of humanity must come higher than military discipline. Otherwise whatever we claim to be fighting for we have already lost.
> 
> This thread is about women and children losing their lives in a horrific way because of the illegal actions of our country and other countries. I for one am glad I wasn't a part of that.


"following Orders" hmm.. you are a card Fred, no really..

Do you have a check list? let me see, taking 6 million Jews, shove them into death camps, starve them to death, conduct inhuman experiments on children - need I go on? and that's the same as Afghanistan? - Does your opinion hold good for ALL wars? - a valid question - or are some ok to kill woman and children..

----------


## fred

> "following Orders" hmm.. you are a card Fred, no really..
> 
> Do you have a check list? let me see, taking 6 million Jews, shove them into death camps, starve them to death, conduct inhuman experiments on children - need I go on? and that's the same as Afghanistan? - Does your opinion hold good for ALL wars? - a valid question - or are some ok to kill woman and children..


We will have to see just how many people are killed by our DU pollution before we finish, could be we come out ahead of Hitler.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> As we decided at Nuremberg, just following orders is no defence.


Believe you will find that the Reichswehr stated that in 1923 long before Nuremberg.

----------


## Anfield

> Instead of just complaining about the current situation (which is all you have done for the last 2 months as this argument has raged over several threads) and latching on to every single incident that you can taunt people with. Why don't we start examining what the solutions could be? I don't recall anyone offering any practical advice to our leaders on what to do now. Other than the completely impractical and catastrophic call to bring our troops home today.


I did post my thoughts on this, see 248 onwards

----------


## Stavro

> Instead of just complaining about the current situation (which is all you have done for the last 2 months as this argument has raged over several threads) and latching on to every single incident that you can taunt people with. Why don't we start examining what the solutions could be? I don't recall anyone offering any practical advice to our leaders on what to do now. Other than the completely impractical and catastrophic call to bring our troops home today.


OK, let's start examining them (although some have already been mooted).

"Our leaders" are actually our servants. Public servants, elected to serve we the people. The people do not want soldier boys killing women and children (nor men, for that matter) thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, whether deliberately or accidentally, for whatever lies our public servants have dreamed up.

The solution is therefore clear - pull the soldier boys out and station them around Britain in case anyone should ever attack us.

Then we should pay Afghanistan reparation money for a very long time, to assist them in overcoming the terrible things that we have done to their people and to their land.

Volunteers could be flown over, paid for by the Treasury (instead of spending money on more and more bombs), to assist in restoring order and stability.

We could help them, for instance, destroy the poppy fields and plant worthwhile crops.

----------


## ducati

> OK, let's start examining them (although some have already been mooted).
> 
> "Our leaders" are actually our servants. Public servants, elected to serve we the people. The people do not want soldier boys killing women and children (nor men, for that matter) thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, whether deliberately or accidentally, for whatever lies our public servants have dreamed up.
> 
> The solution is therefore clear - pull the soldier boys out and station them around Britain in case anyone should ever attack us.
> 
> Then we should pay Afghanistan reparation money for a very long time, to assist them in overcoming the terrible things that we have done to their people and to their land.
> 
> Volunteers could be flown over, paid for by the Treasury (instead of spending money on more and more bombs), to assist in restoring order and stability.
> ...


Possibly missed something here but I thought that was what we were doing.

----------


## Stavro

> 6 million Jews, ...


The "official" toll at Auschwitz has been marked down from 4 million to 1.5 million.

Hence, 6,000,000 - 2,500,000 = 3,500,000

----------


## fred

> Possibly missed something here but I thought that was what we were doing.


Hell no, if we destroyed the poppy fields the CIA would have to go cap in hand to Congress every time they needed some money for a covert operation.

----------


## Stavro

> Hell no, if we destroyed the poppy fields the CIA would have to go cap in hand to Congress every time they needed some money for a covert operation.


Yes, then even ducati, bekisman and Drunken Duck would see the real meaning of "friendly fire."

----------


## Yoda the flump

> The "official" toll at Auschwitz has been marked down from 4 million to 1.5 million.
> 
> Hence, 6,000,000 - 2,500,000 = 3,500,000



Possibly not....

http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/...e.asp?gate=5-3

----------


## Stavro

> Possibly not....
> 
> http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/...e.asp?gate=5-3



I know that Hilberg's 5.1 million was prior to the Auschwitz mark down of 2.5 million, perhaps the others are, too.

Thus Hilberg revised would be :    5,100,000 - 2,500,000 = 2,600,000

----------


## Anfield

> Possibly not....
> 
> http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/...e.asp?gate=5-3


Please let us not split hairs here. It does not matter whether it was 4 million or 1.5 million.  
We have to ensure that it does not happen again,  either in Europe or anywhere else in world.

----------


## Stavro

> Please let us not split hairs here. It does not matter whether it was 4 million or 1.5 million.


It matters a great deal.

----------


## bekisman

> The "official" toll at Auschwitz has been marked down from 4 million to 1.5 million.
> 
> Hence, 6,000,000 - 2,500,000 = 3,500,000


 
Where's your link Stav?

There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.595.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million.http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/...e.asp?gate=5-3

----------


## bekisman

> Yes, then even ducati, bekisman and Drunken Duck would see the real meaning of "friendly fire."


What you quoting me for Stav? have I upset you or something?

----------


## Stavro

> What you quoting me for Stav? have I upset you or something?


Sorry bekisman, but you do seem a bit biased on the "us" v "them" aspects of military opinion. You have not upset me, no; in fact you are always polite and often display a sense of humour (in my opinion).

As for your other question: "It was previously thought that four million died at the camps. More recent research has revealed the figure to be closer to 1.5 million."  (New York Times, 17th June, 1992.) The plaque at the former labour camp was changed several times as the figure was revised downward. The odd 6,000,000 figure was never amended though. But we digress.

----------


## bekisman

> Sorry bekisman, but you do seem a bit biased on the "us" v "them" aspects of military opinion. You have not upset me, no; in fact you are always polite and often display a sense of humour (in my opinion).
> 
> As for your other question: "It was previously thought that four million died at the camps. More recent research has revealed the figure to be closer to 1.5 million." (New York Times, 17th June, 1992.) The plaque at the former labour camp was changed several times as the figure was revised downward. The odd 6,000,000 figure was never amended though. But we digress.


Thanks Stav - very decent of you.. military opinion? Nah not really, I'm on the right and you are on the left. So be it, we can all live together - no doubt if I met you somewhere and we kept certain things vetoed, we'd have a fine old time.. This is simply a place where robust views can be exchanged.. it's like Fred, I don't dislike him, I've been known to congratulate him in fact, I just think we must try and not be too personal and take it to heart and all will be fine..

----------


## fred

> Thanks Stav - very decent of you.. military opinion? Nah not really, I'm on the right and you are on the left. So be it, we can all live together - no doubt if I met you somewhere and we kept certain things vetoed, we'd have a fine old time.. This is simply a place where robust views can be exchanged.. it's like Fred, I don't dislike him, I've been known to congratulate him in fact, I just think we must try and not be too personal and take it to heart and all will be fine..


Then stop saying things like "it's like Fred" all over the forum, I don't do it to you or anyone else so why do you feel you have to do it to me?

I haven't even entered the discussion about how many died in the holocaust but you manage to drag my name into it.

----------


## Anfield

> It matters a great deal.


Why does it matter how many died?  

This sounds like my opening thread:
""..10 is a lot, 100 more and anything over that is a statistic.."

All deaths matter, the numbers don't

----------


## Yoda the flump

> It matters a great deal.


Indeed it does, read the source Stav, especially the bit about Nazi documentation and then see where it leaves estimate on the on the death toll.

----------


## Stavro

> Indeed it does, read the source Stav, especially the bit about Nazi documentation and then see where it leaves estimate on the on the death toll.





> Why does it matter how many died?



Let's just agree to disagree, as they say, because this is going way off topic.  :Smile:

----------


## Anfield

It has just been reported on news that at least 60 people have been killed in fighting between rival groups in Afghannistan.

Yesterday the 269th British soldier was killed.

When will this carnage end?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8554050.stm

----------


## Yoda the flump

> It has just been reported on news that at least 60 people have been killed in fighting between rival groups in Afghannistan.
> 
> Yesterday the 269th British soldier was killed.
> 
> When will this carnage end?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8554050.stm


TBH mate, it will end when the human race is extinct.  Its in our nature.

----------


## Anfield

The coroner at an inquest into the death of four British soldiers in a  blast in Afghanistan has pointed to "inadequacies" in their bomb  training.

Verdicts of unlawful killing were recorded for Cpl Sarah Bryant and SAS  reservists Cpl Sean Reeve, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Pte Paul Stout. 

If this had happened in a commercial environment,  the people in charge (politicians and forces hierarchy)  would have been prosecuted under corporate manslaughter scharges.

As it is, nothing will happen to people responsible,  and they will continue to let UK soldiers needlessly die

Six UK soldiers have been killed in Sangin area since 1 March. 

Some  *272* UK service personnel have died in Afghanistan since operations  began in 2001.

----------


## bekisman

> The coroner at an inquest into the death of four British soldiers in a blast in Afghanistan has pointed to "inadequacies" in their bomb training.
> 
> Verdicts of unlawful killing were recorded for Cpl Sarah Bryant and SAS reservists Cpl Sean Reeve, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Pte Paul Stout. 
> 
> If this had happened in a commercial environment, the people in charge (politicians and forces hierarchy) would have been prosecuted under corporate manslaughter scharges.
> 
> As it is, nothing will happen to people responsible, and they will continue to let UK soldiers needlessly die
> 
> Six UK soldiers have been killed in Sangin area since 1 March. 
> ...


 
We do see the news you know, no need to keep trying to ram it down our throats.  ::

----------


## fred

> We do see the news you know, no need to keep trying to ram it down our throats.


But does the news tell the entire story? Britain is supposed to be a democracy so when deciding who is going to be running the country the people need to be informed. However once the election has been called there will be a news blackout, on bad news that is, from Afghanistan. Reporters will be barred from the front lines, officers will be barred from making speeches, soldiers will not be able to voice their opinions on MOD web sites.

Some news will get through of course.




> "It is acceptable during purdah to continue to provide factual information. The MoD recognises that it is vital to continue to tell the public about the efforts and achievements of our forces in Afghanistan during this period and has agreed principles with the Cabinet Office that allow this."


Said an MOD spokesman.

We will get told about the efforts and the achievements we just won't get to hear about any of the failures.

----------


## ducati

> Some news will get through of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Said an MOD spokesman.
> 
> We will get told about the efforts and the achievements we just won't get to hear about any of the failures.


Jolly good! Good for moral and all that  :Smile:

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Fred .. Excellent point on the news blackout. I totally agree. Smells  like New Labour "burying bad news again" as the Voters being informed of troops dying through their decision to be there just wont do. 

Anfield .. The Snatch Land Rovers are inadequate against IED's, that has been known for years. And the training is never going to be perfect as IED's are a nightmare to defend against, its why they are so effective. You could try disciplining the Officer Commanding of these troops but the man RESIGNED in disgust over this issue and the deaths of his people, just like good leaders like Col Tootal of 3 PARA have because of meeting nothing but a wall of silence and PR drivel from the MOD and Government Spin Doctors when trying to reverse the years of deliberate underfunding and neglect. The way Brown turns up in Afghan for PR photo op's makes me sick. Although I totally agree with you in that its time to get our guys and girls out of there.

Gordon Brown has underfunded our Forces for years both as Chancellor and Prime Minister ..

----------


## golach

> Gordon Brown has underfunded our Forces for years both as Chancellor and Prime Minister ..


Drunken Duck, to be honest we could say that about all the previous Chancellors and Prime Ministers, just look at Maggie's record in the Falklands sending ships and aircraft down there with no defense against the Exocet missile, why? They were the main ship to air defense the Brits had, now who would think those sneaky Argies would mount the Exocet on to their aircraft, and our allies who manufactured the Exocet never told us, damn Frenchies  ::

----------


## Anfield

> "..Although I totally agree with you in that its time to get our guys and girls out of there.."


Thats all some of them are Drunken duck, just boys and girls.  Pawns in a chess game played by leaders far far away.

----------


## sandyr1

In the post George Bush era in the United States, it has been determined that no Country was properly prepared for the Iraq War.
Not only was the equipment not up to scratch, but in the Western US, small towns didn't have sufficient fire trucks to fight their fires after Tornados as they had been sent overseas....How sad is that..And many States, particularly California are closing schools as they have no money/ that money being spent on 2 wars!
And Canadians were peace keepers, and now we are in it (at war) with the Taliban where there are no holds barred.
Ill prepared for all involved, thus the many lives lost.
Yes, Pawns in a very nasty game.

----------


## golach

> And Canadians were peace keepers, and now we are in it (at war) with the Taliban where there are no holds barred.
> Ill prepared for all involved, thus the many lives lost.
> Yes, Pawns in a very nasty game.


Sandyr, Canada is a member of Nato, and as such must bear their share of the conflict, such as the British, Danish, German, Netherlands, Spainish. Portugese, etc.
You cannot pick and choose Sandyr, the Afghan government asked for help, Nato has given it.

----------


## Anfield

> Sandyr, Canada is a member of Nato, and as such must bear their share of the conflict, such as the British, Danish, German, Netherlands, Spainish. Portugese, etc.


Golach, The NATO constitution states that it is  a system of collective *defence*,    
"..whereby its member  states (1) agree to mutual *defence* in response to an attack by any  external  party.."

It does state not in constitution that they will act as aggressors in an *Asian* country nor bomb innocent civilians

(1) Member staes can be found here.   http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm

----------


## sandyr1

Of course Canada must bear as others bear/ I agree/ my point being that all Countries are suffering for a conflict, that No One was properly prepared for!
And I am sure that there will more controversy at the end of this year as several Countries are pulling out of Afghanistan, one being Canada.
Right or wrong, this is the way things are going.
We nowadays seem to accept...oh well another 3 soldiers were killed today by an IED...etc.etc.
99.9% of the people don't know what an explosive device does to the body. Its just another fact.. If only they knew...
99% of the people never saw a dead body after violence to it. Am quite sure that if the graphic pictures that are banned were shown there would be a definite change in the public's attitude....
Trust me I am not a 'Peacenik', but when talking of these conflicts all sides should be addressed....Not just the Ra..Ra.. lets kill people. Only my opinion I must admit!

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Thats all some of them are Drunken duck, just boys and girls.  Pawns in a chess game played by leaders far far away.


They are all volunteers, if you dont like it then you leave by the proper procedure.

Golach your spot on .. The Tories were just as bad.

----------


## golach

> (1) Member staes can be found here. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm


How dare you try to tell me who are the member states of Nato, I worked for the RNR and NATO for 27 years. You on the other hand come across as a bleeding hearted liberal conshie. Get some time in and then I maybe just maybe listen to you.  ::

----------


## Anfield

> How dare you try to tell me who are the member states of Nato, I worked for the RNR and NATO for 27 years. You on the other hand come across as a bleeding hearted liberal conshie. Get some time in and then I maybe just maybe listen to you.


Calm down golach, it is not only you who reads posts!!
Link was intended for people who do not know the make up of N.A.T.O. and who might have been under the impression that Afghanistan and Iraq were members.

----------


## John Little

The real trouble is that Democracies never are ready for war.  They can't be.
It's the essence of democracy to try to deliver the best standard of living to their peoples.  If they do not then they get voted out.

A soldier is expensive.  He has to be kitted, trained, fed, housed, clothed etc but is not, in time of peace a producer of economic gain.  The money we spend on the armed forces is therefore pared to the bone and channeled into roads, schools and the NHS.

In controlled economies they spend more on preparation for war - guns not butter as the Nazis had it.

And Broon is not remarkable in this - all governments do it.
Which is why we are unprepared and brave men and women pay with their blood for the deficiency.

Which is a strong argument for not going into wars we are not ready for.  But nothing changes.

"Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
 _Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll..._

----------


## fred

> Of course Canada must bear as others bear/ I agree/ my point being that all Countries are suffering for a conflict, that No One was properly prepared for!
> And I am sure that there will more controversy at the end of this year as several Countries are pulling out of Afghanistan, one being Canada.
> Right or wrong, this is the way things are going.
> We nowadays seem to accept...oh well another 3 soldiers were killed today by an IED...etc.etc.
> 99.9% of the people don't know what an explosive device does to the body. Its just another fact.. If only they knew...
> 99% of the people never saw a dead body after violence to it. Am quite sure that if the graphic pictures that are banned were shown there would be a definite change in the public's attitude....
> Trust me I am not a 'Peacenik', but when talking of these conflicts all sides should be addressed....Not just the Ra..Ra.. lets kill people. Only my opinion I must admit!


As I said earlier in this thread I believe one of the reasons we started the war in Afghanistan was to give NATO something to do. NATO was formed after WWII to defend western countries from the Soviet Union, with the collapse of the Soviet Union there is absolutely no need to have NATO, by rights it should have been disbanded. It was created to stop Russia building an empire not help America build one.

----------


## Phill

> It was created to stop Russia building an empire not help America build one.



I quite agree.

----------


## Aaldtimer

Intersesting verse John Little, is it your own?
If not you could maybe quote the author.
Not Kipling by any chance?
...wouldna have thought so wi' the "going large" bit, but you never know. ::

----------


## sandyr1

[quote=Aaldtimer;673933]Intersesting verse John Little, is it your own?
If not you could maybe quote the author.

I concur.

----------


## golach

> Time and time again the military has shown that their loyalty is to themselves not to the people. As on 30th January 1972 when the British army turned their guns on an unarmed group of British citizens who's only crime was to ask for equal rights.


Fred you conveniently, seem to forget that the British Army was over in Northern Ireland to try and defend the UK Nationals, because thats what those in Northern Ireland are, but when you get the likes of this happening, you say nothing. I wonder why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/no...ews/152156.stm

----------


## Tubthumper

This one's particularly close to my heart.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3891055.stm
Were these guys poor victims (as per today in Afghanistan) or demons in green uniforms wearing big moustaches and murdering innocent civilians (as per Bloody Sunday)?
They surely can't be both?

----------


## fred

> Fred you conveniently, seem to forget that the British Army was over in Northern Ireland to try and defend the UK Nationals, because thats what those in Northern Ireland are, but when you get the likes of this happening, you say nothing. I wonder why?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/no...ews/152156.stm


Well one thing because it is totally irrelevant to the discussion, that is if the British army will turn their guns on British citizens to protect the elite.

For another thing that was as a result of British soldiers turning their guns on British citizens on Bloody Sunday.

But now you bring it up at least one of the team which planted the bomb was a serving member of the British army and the services and Irish police had plenty of warnings the bombing was going to take place but did nothing to prevent it.

----------


## Tubthumper

> But now you bring it up at least one of the team which planted the bomb was a serving member of the British army and the services and Irish police had plenty of warnings the bombing was going to take place but did nothing to prevent it.


And you wonder why we laugh at you for your conspiracy theories?? Once again Fred, where is your evidence? On www.davidicke.com?
Facts, Fred, facts!

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Well one thing because it is totally irrelevant to the discussion, that is if the British army will turn their guns on British citizens to protect the elite.
> 
> For another thing that was as a result of British soldiers turning their guns on British citizens on Bloody Sunday.
> 
> But now you bring it up at least one of the team which planted the bomb was a serving member of the British army and the services and Irish police had plenty of warnings the bombing was going to take place but did nothing to prevent it.


You are a sick little man arent you Fred ??, just a sad little attention whore trolling for a bite. Whether its good or bad matters not just as long as you get some attention. I imagine you are a right sad case in real life. If you hate the country so much go and live in the dynamic kingdoms of Iraq or Afghanistan you seem to love so much, maybe then your dewey eyed view of the world would sharpen up a bit.

You shouldnt be worried about that nasty lot with guns turning them on you, you dont have a heart to hit and aiming between your eyes wouldnt do any good as there is even less there to target.

----------


## Anfield

Can I remind people that whilst they are taking cheap swipes at other people,  that people are still dying in Afghanistan.

Last weekend 30+ civillians were killed in a series of suicide bombs,   and today a UK soldier died of wounds received in Afghanistan.

Please keep your posts to the point and show some respect

----------


## fred

> And you wonder why we laugh at you for your conspiracy theories?? Once again Fred, where is your evidence? On www.davidicke.com?
> Facts, Fred, facts!


You are the only one who reads David Ike, my information on the ignored warnings comes from the Ombudsman's report.

The serving member of the British armed forces who was on the bomb team was known as Kevin Fulton. He was a British government spy in the Real IRA. It has been said that the warnings were ignored to protect his cover.

----------


## Stavro

> You are a sick little man arent you Fred ??, just a sad little attention whore trolling for a bite. Whether its good or bad matters not just as long as you get some attention. I imagine you are a right sad case in real life. If you hate the country so much go and live in the dynamic kingdoms of Iraq or Afghanistan you seem to love so much, maybe then your dewey eyed view of the world would sharpen up a bit.
> 
> You shouldnt be worried about that nasty lot with guns turning them on you, you dont have a heart to hit and aiming between your eyes wouldnt do any good as there is even less there to target.


Well, having complained last night about Tubthumper's exceptionally spiteful and vindictive "thread," which has now disappeared, it seems that I have to do the same with your drunken diatribe, Ducky.

How pathetic your post is.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Can I remind people that whilst they are taking cheap swipes at other people,  that people are still dying in Afghanistan.
> 
> Last weekend 30+ civillians were killed in a series of suicide bombs,   and today a UK soldier died of wounds received in Afghanistan.
> 
> Please keep your posts to the point and show some respect


This thread had very little point to begin with and that rapidly disappeared. Its a bit late calling for respect now, didnt hear many calls for it when it was fair game to openly claim that air assets in Afghan target women and children on purpose. As ex light blue I found that not only disrespectful but downright insulting but apparently that was fair game. In that respect I stand by what I said about Fred. In fact I held back. But I have had my say and he has now slipped beneath my contempt. 

You should lock this thread Anfield and bin it, its now been resurected by Fred for god knows what. Its not just off topic, its off the planet.

----------


## Stavro

> this thread [has] now been resurected by Fred for god knows what. Its not just off topic, its off the planet.


It was actually brought back by golach (post number 399), after having gone quiet for 5 and a half days.

----------


## fred

> It was actually brought back by golach (post number 399), after having gone quiet for 5 and a half days.


I think truth and facts are wasted on him Stavro, all he's interested in is hurling personal abuse at anyone who dares to tell the truth about the women and children we are killing in Afghanistan. That's how the org bullies work, no facts, no truth, just abuse insults and intimidation.

----------


## Yoda the flump

Come on guys, let this go - it is getting beyond a joke (so to speak).  ::

----------


## golach

> That's how the org bullies work, no facts, no truth, just abuse insults and intimidation.


This is how fred works, if anyone dares disagree with his diatribe, he then seeks sympathy by saying the Org bullies are after him, and are abusing him.
Because I disagree with you fred does not make me a bully, I am not a member of a clique/gang or what ever you wish to call me. I have never abused or intimidated you........just disagreed with you and you policies  ::

----------


## Anfield

> You should lock this thread Anfield and bin it, its now been resurected by Fred for god knows what. Its not just off topic, its off the planet.


The killing in Afghanistan, by all sides, continues so thread is still current news.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

----------


## fred

> This is how fred works, if anyone dares disagree with his diatribe, he then seeks sympathy by saying the Org bullies are after him, and are abusing him.
> Because I disagree with you fred does not make me a bully, I am not a member of a clique/gang or what ever you wish to call me. I have never abused or intimidated you........just disagreed with you and you policies


Well no.

You haven't added anything to the debate, you just posted to make a personal attack against me, that's all you ever do.

If I raise a point you can't answer you just say "ah but why haven't you said anything about...". Like you did when I raised the point of Bloody Sunday, instead of dealing with that issue you come back with "why haven't you said anything about the Omagh bombings?". There were a lot of things I hadn't said anything about, I hadn't said anything about just about everything except Bloody Sunday.

Yes you are a bully, you always try to turn the subject of discussion round to be me with your "why haven't you...". You are incapable of discussing the issues raised, you just try to bully your warped views onto others.

----------


## golach

> you just try to bully your warped views onto others.


And what are you trying?  To bullying your warped views on here.

----------


## Boozeburglar

Fred.

Just a little perspective.

I had a friend once, he slept on the canal under the flyover.

I passed him on my way to work every day several times, I was co-ordinating palliative care for a number of clients in the Notting Hill area and needed to go to and from all day every day.

I spent a month getting to know him, and trying to guide him into taking some help in terms of housing. 

He ranted about a lot of things, but I had one agenda. I could not let myself get drawn into his perspective.

Just because someone does not want to talk about your subject matter does not mean they don't know about it, nor does it mean they don't have something to add.

Perhaps they are just not prepared to get drawn into a conversation where their role is always going to be as the wall making the echo, rather than a voice.

----------


## fred

> Fred.
> 
> Just a little perspective.
> 
> I had a friend once, he slept on the canal under the flyover.
> 
> I passed him on my way to work every day several times, I was co-ordinating palliative care for a number of clients in the Notting Hill area and needed to go to and from all day every day.
> 
> I spent a month getting to know him, and trying to guide him into taking some help in terms of housing. 
> ...


I don't mind if someone doesn't want to be drawn into my subject matter.

But surely the thing to do then is to say nothing?

----------


## golach

> But surely the thing to do then is to say nothing?


If I did as you suggest fred, you may think that I agree with you....Aye Right!!!

----------


## Boozeburglar

> I don't mind if someone doesn't want to be drawn into  my subject matter.
> 
> But surely the thing to do then is to say nothing?


Maybe.

But your voice is perhaps not so neutral.

Perhaps people feel a need to point out they don't concur, even if they don't expound their own position.

----------


## fred

> The killing in Afghanistan, by all sides, continues so thread is still current news.
> 
> If you don't like it, don't read it.


Yes the killings continue, I read about them every day even though there have to be a lot of them, or it be westerner killed, to make the British papers.

The Afghanis themselves were trying to end the fighting, the Afghani government were holding peace talks with the Taliban unfortunately peace is not what the American government wants.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...R5EHAD9EFAOPO4

----------


## fred

> Maybe.
> 
> But your voice is perhaps not so neutral.
> 
> Perhaps people feel a need to point out they don't concur, even if they don't expound their own position.


Well no, I'm not neutral, I think anyone who reads this forum will have realised by now that I am anti torture, anti paedophiles, anti the killing of innocent civilians especially women and children.

But I think those who are in favour of these things should really present their arguments rather than just trying to shout me down with personal abuse.

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Well no, I'm not neutral, I think anyone who reads this forum will have realised by now that I am anti torture, anti paedophiles, anti the killing of innocent civilians especially women and children.
> 
> But I think those who are in favour of these things should really present their arguments rather than just trying to shout me down with personal abuse.


I spent my life opposing these things. 

Perhaps you will make your own journey more fruitful if you moderate your technique thus assuaging the general public's need for standard reasoning.

----------


## ducati

> Well no, I'm not neutral, I think anyone who reads this forum will have realised by now that I am anti torture, anti paedophiles, anti the killing of innocent civilians especially women and children.
> 
> But I think those who are in favour of these things should really present their arguments rather than just trying to shout me down with personal abuse.


I really don't think anyone here is in favour of any of these things, you really believe this?

----------


## Phill

> ...... I am anti torture, anti paedophiles, anti the killing of innocent civilians especially women and children.


You don't stand alone there.




> But I think those who are in favour of these things should really present their arguments rather than just trying to shout me down with personal abuse.


I don't think there is anyone here who is in favour of torture, paedophiles or the killing of innocent civilians, there isn't an argument to present.
There just appears to be a repost of stating it's bullying or personal abuse when a statement or opinion is questioned.

----------


## fred

> I spent my life opposing these things. 
> 
> Perhaps you will make your own journey more fruitful if you moderate your technique thus assuaging the general public's need for standard reasoning.


I see, all my fault. I'm the one getting personal abuse hurled at him every day by the org bullies but it's all my fault.

Look I present my arguments without making personal remarks about other posters, I state the facts and I give the evidence. There is nothing wrong with my technique.

Perhaps you should be talking to those who don't present any argument, don't state facts, don't present any evidence, those who only post to make personal attacks about their technique?

----------


## fred

> I really don't think anyone here is in favour of any of these things, you really believe this?


Well I'm against them and there seems to be a few people trying hard to shut me up. Can't think why they would be doing that if they were against them too.

----------


## Boozeburglar

Fred, you are drifting into the doldrums.#

You cannot set up the rest of the world as supporting all the things that are evil just because it supports your isolationist position.

We ALL hate these evil things!

Let us all be one voice on that at least, and bicker about the less important things.

----------


## fred

> Fred, you are drifting into the doldrums.#
> 
> You cannot set up the rest of the world as supporting all the things that are evil just because it supports your isolationist position.
> 
> We ALL hate these evil things!
> 
> Let us all be one voice on that at least, and bicker about the less important things.


I'm not setting up the rest of the world as supporting all these things that are evil.

I was just talking about the people so desperate to stop me speaking against them on this forum.

----------


## Boozeburglar

> I'm not setting up the rest of the world as supporting all these things that are evil.
> 
> I was just talking about the people so desperate to stop me speaking against them on this forum.


Well I am not against discussing these things.
 Never have been. I would never have taken myself off to study Human Rights Law if I was opposed to the debate.

However, I do have a problem with people preventing serious debate by giving standard unthinking responses.

----------


## fred

> Well I am not against discussing these things.
>  Never have been. I would never have taken myself off to study Human Rights Law if I was opposed to the debate.
> 
> However, I do have a problem with people preventing serious debate by giving standard unthinking responses.


The people who just attack the person instead of debating the issue you mean?

----------


## Stavro

> The people who just attack the person instead of debating the issue you mean?


Yes, I think that is what he means.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Well no, I'm not neutral, I think anyone who reads this forum will have realised by now that I am anti torture, anti paedophiles, anti the killing of innocent civilians especially women and children.
> 
> But I think those who are in favour of these things should really present their arguments rather than just trying to shout me down with personal abuse.


Eh ??

I did remember. I posted up a load of info about the nature of CAS and the use of air assets in Afghan and Iraq. My views were rubbished despite being a lot closer to the actaul events than the "truth" and "facts" than the rubbish Fred, Stavro and Anfield posted up about it. What would I know about it though ??, I just did it for over a decade. You say you want to debate but you didnt debate with me, you just rubbished my views based on my experiences because it didnt fit your paranoia. You are a rich one to complain about being insulted when on the Birth Defect thread I pointed out that a former neighbour who was a Doctor had said that since no records had been made of birth defects before the 2003 war how could an increase be claimed above a baseline no one knew. What happened there ??, you implied I was a Liar by saying that I hadnt met him and then his views and his abilities was subjected to personal ridicule by Anfield and yourself. His views, which I agreed with, were called "bovine excrement" I believe from your lofty perch as a self claimed medical expert. You then took the same tack with the Hollie thread of posting up "facts"  and then crying like a spoiled child when people dared to disagree or even question them. You are highly amusing, when you through out a topic and people dont fall into line in talking abour what you want and how you want it then out got the teddies.

You are big enough to insult and belittle people when it suits but when its dished out you play the victim. I stand by all I said earlier as my opinion of you.

You are a Troll. Your actions fit the profile perfectly. And your entertainment factor is slipping.

----------


## fred

> Eh ??


Did you ever have a discussion with a paedophile? I have, back in the early days of the internet we didn't have these fancy web forums, forums were just like emails sent to a lot of people, they were totally unregulated, totally anonymous and there were plenty of paedophiles about on it. They used to tell stories about their personal experiences, about 12 year old girls seducing older men so that they could blackmail them things like that, in fact if you were to believe everything they said you would end up thinking that children were all evil and paedophiles were all saints.

But you don't believe everything they say even though they themselves believe it, you know that they are paedophiles and like everyone else they have to justify the things they do,.

----------


## roadbowler

actually, they've been taking records of birth defects in iraq since the mid to late eighties depending on what part of iraq yer speaking about.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Did you ever have a discussion with a paedophile? I have, back in the early days of the internet we didn't have these fancy web forums, forums were just like emails sent to a lot of people, they were totally unregulated, totally anonymous and there were plenty of paedophiles about on it. They used to tell stories about their personal experiences, about 12 year old girls seducing older men so that they could blackmail them things like that, in fact if you were to believe everything they said you would end up thinking that children were all evil and paedophiles were all saints.
> 
> But you don't believe everything they say even though they themselves believe it, you know that they are paedophiles and like everyone else they have to justify the things they do,.


What on earth are you on about ??

Go back and read the rest of that post after the "eh??", it had NOTHING to do with blinking paedophiles. 

It was about the fact that you start going about how people should post facts up and debate. I was pointing out that when I did you and certain cronies rubbished both me and them because they dont fit in with your views, despite me knowing a helluva lot more about the subject being discussed. And also the irony of playing the victim when you get a dig back after calling me a liar and calling my views "bovine excrement" etc etc", but I can see why you ignored it. CEP was zero on it and that didnt sit well.

You have totally lost the plot and are now wandering from subject to subject dribbling away.

Roadbowler ..  the BBC article about the defects stated that the authorities in Fallauja had said they had not been keeping records of defects in that area. There were no records there to form a comaprison. Therefore my contention was that if people were claiming a rise of a certain percent how could they possibly know that if they didnt know what a normal rate was beforehand.

Its like a guy saying "I bake 45% more pies than I did ten years ago" .. "Really ??, how many pies did you bake ten years ago ??" .. "Dont Know" ..  :: 

Anyway I am off to the pub now. The sun is out and its time to forget about this garbage.

----------


## Anfield

Whilst some members are bickering about old posts, and who said what about what.  It has been reported that another *2* UK soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan today.  This brings the total killed so far to *275* plus an unknown number of civillians and other NATO soliders.

Wonder if they would have cared about some of the petty posts we have on this thread.

----------


## northener

> Whilst some members are bickering about old posts, and who said what about what. It has been reported that another *2* UK soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan today. This brings the total killed so far to *275* plus an unknown number of civillians and other NATO soliders.
> 
> Wonder if they would have cared about some of the petty posts we have on this thread.


They wouldn't give a monkeys.

And that's the problem, we can drag out our soapboxes, bluster, rant, counter-argue, accuse and sulk all we want. It won't change a damned thing.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I see, all my fault. I'm the one getting personal abuse hurled at him every day by the org bullies but it's all my fault.


That's right, it's all your fault.



> Look I present my arguments without making personal remarks about other posters, I state the facts and I give the evidence. There is nothing wrong with my technique.


You've made plenty of personal remarks about other posters you old rogue! And for 'evidence' as potsed by Fred, read a link to either a dodgy blog site or a newspaper report that merely quotes claims & allegations. For 'facts' read the same.



> Perhaps you should be talking to those who don't present any argument, don't state facts, don't present any evidence, those who only post to make personal attacks about their technique?


You disregard every question posted about your evidence, resort to abuse yourself, then when people unite against your nonsense, start crying and claiming the bullies have hijacked you again. 
Don't bother to deny it.

----------


## Anfield

> They wouldn't give a monkeys.
> 
> And that's the problem, we can drag out our soapboxes, bluster, rant, counter-argue, accuse and sulk all we want. It won't change a damned thing.


Not when you get people like the poster above (tubthumper) .  If this person spent as much energy helping society,  as what he does in his petty disputes with other org members.  then the world (and org) would be a better place

----------


## Tubthumper

> Not when you get people like the poster above (tubthumper) .  If this person spent as much energy helping society,  as what he does in his petty disputes with other org members.  then the world (and org) would be a better place


Any suggestions as to what I could do Anfield? 
I don't expend much energy doing this stuff by the way, and it never takes long. It might seem like that to you though... ::

----------


## sandyr1

> Any suggestions as to what I could do Anfield? 
> I don't expend much energy doing this stuff by the way, and it never takes long. It might seem like that to you though...


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......that last comment! AND

Change the subject......Latest US News....

Obama will try to do a 'regime change' in Israel...Yes a headline, but..............

----------


## fred

> What on earth are you on about ??
> 
> Go back and read the rest of that post after the "eh??", it had NOTHING to do with blinking paedophiles.


Well no, it was what is known as an analogy.

Some people commit abuse of children, some people commit other forms of abuse, such as this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-mousa-inquiry

In both cases those who commit the abuse will always think of ways to justify it, no one wants to think of themselves as being an abuser.

Which is why if you are discussing the abuse of children the best source of information is not a paedophile and if you are discussing the killing of innocent women and children the best source of information is not a British serviceman.

----------


## Boozeburglar

Many substantiated accounts of the killing of innocents in wars came from servicemen themselves.

----------


## fred

> Many substantiated accounts of the killing of innocents in wars came from servicemen themselves.


As have many denials. and cover ups.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Many substantiated accounts of the killing of innocents in wars came from servicemen themselves.


Servicemen, being exposed to the horrors of what humanity can get up to in the name of righteousness, have been known to react in unpredictable ways. Just like ordinary people I suppose. Which they are.

----------


## Anfield

> Servicemen, being exposed to the horrors of what humanity can get up to in the name of righteousness, have been known to react in unpredictable ways. Just like ordinary people I suppose. Which they are.


Do you not think that Soldiers (on both sides) are responsible for causing the horror of war in first place?

----------


## ducati

> Do you not think that Soldiers (on both sides) are responsible for causing the horror of war in first place?


Only governments can cause the horror of war. Soldiers just have to die in them

----------


## northener

> ...... 
> .....Which is why if you are discussing the abuse of children the best source of information is not a paedophile and if you are discussing the killing of innocent women and children the best source of information is not a British serviceman.


I was going to respond to this.


But I really can't be bothered any more.

----------


## Anfield

> Only governments can cause the horror of war. Soldiers just have to die in them


Disagree, "just carrying out orders" is not a valid defence.
Bush/Blair/Brown never asked airmen to bomb houses and other civillian targets, thus killing innocent civillians, which incidentally this thread is about)

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Disagree, "just carrying out orders" is not a valid defence.
> Bush/Blair/Brown never asked airmen to bomb houses and other civillian targets, thus killing innocent civillians, which incidentally this thread is about)


So you now confidently state that our airmen "bomb houses and other civilian targets", got a lot of inside knowledge on current Air Ops in Afghan  do you ??, because I have and we dont. There will be always be bad intel, equipment malfunction, and pure dumb bad luck that will result in civilian casualties but every conceivable measure to lessen that risk is taken. As has been said earlier on the thread. Often. I know, been there, done it and if anything those measures are even more stringent now than in my day. 

But hang on .. werent you the guy who stated the Ops In Afghan were being run by the UN at the start of this thread ??, says a lot for your knowledge of the subject doesnt it that someone had to point out it was a NATO Op.

Stop embarrassing yourself. You havent the first clue what you are talking about.

----------


## Anfield

> There will be always be bad intel, equipment malfunction, and pure dumb bad luck that will result in civilian casualties but every conceivable measure to lessen that risk is taken.


Hands up time first, yes I did get mixed up with UN/NATO,  just like I am sure most of the population is.  IT DOES NOT MATTER who is bombing them, the fact remains that people in Afghanistan are dying at an appalling rate.

On another thread,  you are defending the Intelligence service, now you are saying that sometimes they give you "bad" reports.  Bit late for all the people killed as a result of this "bad" intelligence.

How is a risk evaluated to ensure that mistakes are not made? and is "pure dumb bad luck"  acceptable for causing multiple deaths?  I think not.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Hands up time first, yes I did get mixed up with UN/NATO,  just like I am sure most of the population is.  IT DOES NOT MATTER who is bombing them, the fact remains that people in Afghanistan are dying at an appalling rate.
> 
> On another thread,  you are defending the Intelligence service, now you are saying that sometimes they give you "bad" reports.  Bit late for all the people killed as a result of this "bad" intelligence.
> 
> How is a risk evaluated to ensure that mistakes are not made? and is "pure dumb bad luck"  acceptable for causing multiple deaths?  I think not.


Nice backtrack. You stated one post back that airmen are bombing "houses and civilian targets" but when someone pops up able and qualified to call you on it it suddenly becomes "IT DOES NOT MATTER", and you push the focus onto me. Whats the matter ??, cant back up your grandoise statements ??

As for the "Intelligence Services" I never said they gave us "bad reports". I said that there are occasions when you receive bad intel. I didnt say who from. Targetting intel doesnt come from M15 or MI6 unless its an HVA or HVI. 99.9% of targets are picked locally from local assets and information. An assessment is done and the head honcho's in theatre will then compile an Air Tasking Order. ONLY after the assesment is a plan to hit that target prepped. The format of assessment is not to be discussed on an open forum (I am sure I signed a bit of paper about that) and anyway there are so many variables dependent on what it is. And it will be done over a period of time using assets like say Recce pods, UAV's and Informers on the ground to build up a pattern of what and when to hit. It takes time. For instance if you see goats in the area in the morning and evening that indicates a Shepherd so you hit them at midday when its clear of civvies. That said, no system is ever perfect. Fact of life in ANYTHING.

And as for "pure dumb luck" causing multiple deaths, how on earth would you know ??, ever seen it ??, I have seen a laser guided bomb have its lock broken by a vehicle driving unannounced into the area between the designator and the target the laser was marking. That second or two of reflection of "laser splash" from the vehicle window caused the seeker head to try and steer the bomb towards the new "splash" from the vehicle. While the seeker head tried to steer the bomb rapidly via the tail fins it re-acquired the laser hitting off the original target as the vehicle moved clear. It then tried to re-acquire that "splash" and it was just too much input and the bomb went out of control. Luckily no one was hurt on that occasion but it happens. Who could have predicted that vehicle would appear ??, and even if it had done so when the bomb was much higher it would have had more time to respond, settled down and tracked towards the original target and it would not have mattered. It was pure dumb luck the vehicle appeared. It was pure dumb luck that it didnt twenty seconds earlier when it wouldnt have mattered. Lots of things can affect an outcome. "Pure Dumb Luck" kills people every day in lots of ways.

But hey, dont let things like that get in the way of your assumptions about things you know nothing about. Whatever I say you are going to stick your assumption that civilians are being hit on purpose.

----------


## rich

I's surely time to cut this thread. Correct me if I lost the point in all the nonsense but I have a question and a summing up of Blair and Bush.
The question is why isn't anyone talking about Sadam's genocidal gas attacks on the Kurds?
And here's Blair and Bush: 
Blair is Jeeves and Bush is Bertie Wooster. Blair is looking for a way to save the day and Bush has the bit between his teeth. The only question remaining is where is the Drones' Club - perhaps at the White House, possibly with a franchise at the Caithness Org.
Good night, all!

----------


## ducati

> Disagree, "just carrying out orders" is not a valid defence.
> Bush/Blair/Brown never asked airmen to bomb houses and other civillian targets, thus killing innocent civillians, which incidentally this thread is about)


Go and boil your head

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Hands up time first, yes I did get mixed up with UN/NATO,  just like I am sure most of the population is.


I don't think most of the population are so ignorant.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I don't think most of the population are so ignorant.


That's right, and most of those who wish to discuss issues make an effort to find out about them before offering their input.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I was going to respond to this. But I really can't be bothered any more.


But that's exactly what 'they' want, Northener!  ::

----------


## fred

> I's surely time to cut this thread.


That is easy for you to do, just don't click on it.

----------


## Stavro

> Disagree, "just carrying out orders" is not a valid defence.


Exactly.

And, as United States General Peter Pace said,
*"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."*

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Exactly.
> 
> And, as United States General Peter Pace said,
> *"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."*


Yes, and as I have said before the German Army stipulated that in 1923.

Are you aware of what orders the NATO forces have?  If not, how do you know they are illegal (apart from your opinion that the war is illegal)?

NATO forces have in the past, and will continue to be prosecuted for any crimes that they commit, can you see the Taliban doing the same?

----------


## Stavro

> Are you aware of what orders the NATO forces have?  If not, how do you know they are illegal (apart from your opinion that the war is illegal)?
> 
> NATO forces have in the past, and will continue to be prosecuted for any crimes that they commit, can you see the Taliban doing the same?


The title of this thread is, "*Nato strike kills a number of Afghanistan civilians."*I would consider any indiscriminate air-strike that carries the strong possibility and likelihood of killing or maiming civilians to be both illegal and immoral.

And you are correct, my opinion is that this whole genocidal slaughter (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), which you refer to as a "war," is illegal. It is also, in my considered opinion, immoral.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> The title of this thread is, "*Nato strike kills a number of Afghanistan civilians."*I would consider any indiscriminate air-strike that carries the strong possibility and likelihood of killing or maiming civilians to be both illegal and immoral.
> 
> And you are correct, my opinion is that this whole genocidal slaughter (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), which you refer to as a "war," is illegal. It is also, in my considered opinion, immoral.


And your proof that NATO are launching 'indiscriminate air-strikes' is.....?

In the same vain would you support the idea that a certain ex ruler in the area undertook a genocidal campaign against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, in which they certainly DID use WMD.

And the proof that NATO are committing genocide in Afghanistan is?

----------


## Stavro

> And your proof that NATO are launching 'indiscriminate air-strikes' is.....?


The dropping of bombs is, by its very nature, indiscriminate carnage.





> In the same vain would you support the idea that a certain ex ruler in the area undertook a genocidal campaign against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, in which they certainly DID use WMD.


Sorry, but I do not believe that to be true.





> And the proof that NATO are committing genocide in Afghanistan is?


"The Convention on the Prevention       and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entered into force,       1951) is binding on all states including the 26 member states       of NATO. The Genocide Convention is _jus cogens_, the law from       which no derogation is allowed. It provides no exceptions for       any nation or any organization of nations, such as the United       Nations or NATO, to commit genocide. Nor does the Convention       allow any exceptions to genocide 'whether committed in time       of peace or in time of war.' Even traditional self-defense       - let alone preemptive self-defense, a deceptive name for aggression        cannot be invoked to justify or excuse the crime of genocide.       
In murdering the Taliban, NATO       armed forces systematically practice on a continual basis the       crime of genocide that consists of three constituent elements       - act, intent to destroy, and religious group. The crime, as       defined in the Convention, is analyzed below: 
1. Act. The Convention lists       five acts, each of which qualifies as genocide. NATO forces in       Afghanistan are committing three of the five acts. They are killing       members of the Taliban. They are causing serious bodily harm       to members of the Taliban. They are deliberately inflicting on       the Taliban conditions of life calculated to bring about their       physical destruction in whole or in part. Any of these three       acts committed one time constitutes the crime of genocide. NATO       combat troops have been committing, and continue to commit, these       acts through multiple means and weapons. 
2. Intent to Destroy. The crime       of genocide is a crime of intent. It must be shown that NATO       combat troops and the high command ordering these troops carry       the requisite intent to destroy the Taliban. Mere negligent killings       do not qualify as genocide. The statements of NATO's Secretary-General       Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and those of NATO spokesmen leave no doubt       that the NATO conducts military operations to 'hunt and       destroy' the Taliban. Preemptive strikes to kill the Taliban       are sufficient proof that NATO troops and commanding generals       have specific intent to destroy as many Taliban members as they       can find. The weekly murderous planning and intelligence gathering       to locate and eliminate the Taliban leaders and members further       demonstrate that the killings in Afghanistan are not negligent,       accidental, or by mistake. For all legal purposes, NATO's incessant       and deliberate killings of the Taliban are powered with the specific       intent to destroy a religious group. 
3. Religious Group. The Genocide       Convention is far from universal in that it does not protect       all groups from genocide. Its protection covers only four groups:       national, ethnic, racial and religious. (Political groups are       not protected). The Convention does not require the complete       eradication of a protected group as a necessary condition for       the crime of genocide. Even part destruction of a protected group       constitutes the crime. It is no secret that the Taliban are a       religious group. (They may also qualify as a national (Afghan)       or ethnic (Pushtun) group). The Taliban advocate and practice       a puritanical version of Islam. The Convention does not demand       that the protected group advocate and practice a form of religion       acceptable to the West or the world. The questionable beliefs       and practices of a religious group are no reasons to destroy       the group. That the Taliban are armed or support terrorism or       oppress women are unlawful excuses to commit genocide.*
*


"It may, therefore, be safely       concluded that NATO combat troops and NATO commanders are engaged       in murdering the Taliban, a protected group under the Genocide       Convention, with the specific intent to physically and mentally       destroythe group in whole or in part. This is the crime of genocide." 



(Source: Professor Ali Khan,  http://www.counterpunch.org/khan01302008.html )

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Sorry, but I do not believe that to be true.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...645847464.html

Or this?  We know that you have a problem with genocide, your opinions on the holocaust show that?

Don't you have a problem with countries that use Sarin?

----------


## ducati

> "It may, therefore, be safely concluded that NATO combat troops and NATO commanders are engaged in murdering the Taliban, a protected group under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to physically and mentally destroythe group in whole or in part. This is the crime of genocide." 
> 
> 
> 
> (Source: Professor Ali Khan, http://www.counterpunch.org/khan01302008.html )


Might as well quote Osama B N

----------


## Yoda the flump

> (Source: Professor Ali Khan,  http://www.counterpunch.org/khan01302008.html )


I am well aware of what Genocide is and what constitutes it.  

Just have a look at that site, hardly an impartial site is it? If that was on the UN site then I would give it more credence, if that is your only source of info then don't bother posting when asked for facts to prove your 'theories'

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Stavro.

I dont who the daftest one is there. The guy Khan who wrote it or the guy who believed it and quoted it. You drop bombs on a specific target, therefore the very defintion of "not idiscriminate", god, its like trying to inform a brick wall.

NATO arent chasing the poor Taliban and killing them without mercy, that's Genocide. Often their lo0cations are known but they NOT airstriked because to do so would result in civvy casualties. The Taliban are staging a sustained militairy campaign against NATO, and thats by their own admission. If they gave up tomorrow it would all be over. And by the way the Taliban use mines regularly, and they are against International Law. Wheres the outrage about that ??

And as for "not believing it to be true" that the Iraqi's didnt use WMD against the Kurds how do you explain the well documented and Internationally recognsied attacks against Halabja using Choking Agent that killed 7000 in the late eighties ?? Or the attacks reported by Iran from as early as 1980 during their war ??

You claim that NATO are commiting Genocide in a campaign in fighting a very tenacious and determined ARMED enemy yet refuse to acknowledge acts of Genocide against civilians that the everyone else on the planet knows about ??

Up your medication. Seriously.

----------


## Stavro

> Might as well quote Osama B N


What do you base your judgement on, ducati?





> We know that you have a problem with genocide, your  opinions on the holocaust show that?


I suppose that this is a question, since you do not know my opinions in areas where I have not expressed an opinion? However, your question makes no sense.

----------


## Stavro

> I am well aware of what Genocide is and what constitutes it.  
> 
> Just have a look at that site, hardly an impartial site is it? If that was on the UN site then I would give it more credence, ...



Always "us" and "them" isn't it?!

The article is more impartial than you are, and it is the article that I quoted, not the web site in general. If you do not want references that contradict your closed-eye view of the world, then simply don't ask for them.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Always "us" and "them" isn't it?!
> 
> The article is more impartial than you are, and it is the article that I quoted, not the web site in general. If you do not want references that contradict your closed-eye view of the world, then simply don't ask for them.


Sorry old boy, was not meant to be a question, ? was a typo, I will correct.  

It is certainly easy to find an article that backs up your view, or mine.  What I am suggesting to you is that your references would help your cause if they came from an impartial site, rather than one that has an obvious political stance.

----------


## Stavro

> And by the way the Taliban use mines regularly, and they are against International Law. Wheres the outrage about that ??


I agree that landmines are against international law. (Britain was a major manufacturer of these things before Princess Diana's campaign to ban them. Took a public campaign by a woman, note; the politicians and the military were doing nothing to stop making them otherwise.) 





> And as for "not believing it to be true" that the Iraqi's didnt use WMD  against the Kurds how do you explain the well documented and  Internationally recognsied attacks against Halabja using Choking Agent  that killed 7000 in the late eighties ?? Or the attacks reported by Iran  from as early as 1980 during their war ??
> 
> You claim that NATO are commiting Genocide in a campaign in fighting a  very tenacious and determined ARMED enemy yet refuse to acknowledge acts  of Genocide against civilians that the everyone else on the planet  knows about ??


I never said anywhere that I disbelieved the use of biochemical weapons by Iraq against Iran (weapons that the West supplied to Iraq). It is the alleged attack against the Kurds of northern Iraq that I doubt. Please don't try to tell me that the attack happened and was ordered by Saddam Hussein because you saw it on BBC News.

----------


## Stavro

> It is certainly easy to find an article that backs up your view, or mine.  What I am suggesting to you is that your references would help your cause if they came from an impartial site, rather than one that has an obvious political stance.


I accept what you say, except that I was not pointing you to a web site, except for completeness and fairness to the site, but to a scholarly article on a web site. The article was scholarly, since it was written on the topic of law, by a professor of law.

Anyway, let's not forget why I quoted from the article: you asked me a perfectly legitimate question and I supplied you with a perfectly legitimate response.

To say that we are back where we started, each holding our respective positions, is stating the obvious.

----------


## fred

> The Taliban are staging a sustained militairy campaign against NATO, and thats by their own admission. If they gave up tomorrow it would all be over. And by the way the Taliban use mines regularly, and they are against International Law. Wheres the outrage about that ??


The Taliban have not invaded Britain, the Taliban have not invaded America, the Taliban have not invaded any NATO country, they are not attacking NATO NATO is attacking them.

If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan under false pretences it would never have started.

The Taliban are the ones defending their country against foreign invaders, we are the foreign invaders.

----------


## Boozeburglar

The Taliban are killers, just the same as any others. They terrorize the very people they claim to represent.

They murder and kill.

Nothing noble about them.

Nothing.

----------


## fred

> The Taliban are killers, just the same as any others. They terrorize the very people they claim to represent.
> 
> They murder and kill.
> 
> Nothing noble about them.
> 
> Nothing.


But we did invade their country didn't we? They didn't invade our country did they?

----------


## Stavro

> The Taliban are killers, just the same as any others. They terrorize the very people they claim to represent.
> 
> They murder and kill.
> 
> Nothing noble about them.
> 
> Nothing.



The Afghanis did not have this carnage when they were being ruled by the Taliban.

Neither did they have an occupying army safeguarding an oil/gas pipeline that did not exist.

Neither did they have an occupying army safeguarding  poppy fields that supply most of the world's illicit drug trade.

----------


## ducati

> What do you base your judgement on, ducati?


Would have been from a less biased source.

I don't know why you think NATO is in Afghanistan?

A certain person (he doesn't like to be named and I respect that) thinks it is to give NATO something to do.

I think it is because NATO needs to respond to extremists who's ultimate aim is the complete destruction of anything other than a certain type of Islamic society

The OP thinks it is because we are murdering psychopaths

(these are very simplistic, but I have a short attention span)

Others on the thread have their own thoughts presumably.

----------


## fred

> I think it is because NATO needs to respond to extremists who's ultimate aim is the complete destruction of anything other than a certain type of Islamic society


But it is NATO who is in their country trying to destroy their type of society isn't it?

The Taliban are not here trying to destroy our type of society are they? They have never left their own country, Afghanistan. We invaded their country didn't we? They didn't invade our country did they?

----------


## golach

> But it is NATO who is in their country trying to destroy their type of society isn't it?
> 
> The Taliban are not here trying to destroy our type of society are they? They have never left their own country, Afghanistan. We invaded their country didn't we? They didn't invade our country did they?


Even the Afghanistan people do not want the Taliban, they want to live in the 21 century not the 6th, the Taliban rule worse than the Saudis.

----------


## ducati

> But it is NATO who is in their country trying to destroy their type of society isn't it?
> 
> The Taliban are not here trying to destroy our type of society are they? They have never left their own country, Afghanistan. We invaded their country didn't we? They didn't invade our country did they?


You keep saying variations of that, but it isn't the point at all.

You know very well I am referring to a whole campaign of which Afghanistan is a part. I believe we will never end this campaign because the forces that appose will never give up. I believe the best we can hope for is to keep taking the fight to them on all fronts militarily and covertly, in the hope of limiting their activities on a global scale.

To quote a recent interview of a fairly disinterested looking Taliban bloke "Why would we talk? When they are Muslims, then we can talk"

This is not a conventional "war" and it will never be won, In my lifetime at least, I expect our forces to be in action somewhere in the world.

Maybe, in 50 years, Islam will go the same way as Christianity and the fundamentalists will be relegated to the lunatic fringe, but don't count on it

----------


## Stavro

> Would have been from a less biased source.


And was the source "biased," in your view because of his name (Prof Khan), or because of his religion (which I do not know, but assume to be Islam), or because of the colour of his skin, or because he was flawed on a point of law or on a point of fact?





> I don't know why you think NATO is in Afghanistan?


To reinstate and then protect the interests of a small number of international banking families whose livelihoods were being diminished by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

"War" is good for these families, no member of which you will find on any battlefield. It always has been - which is why they started WWI and WWII, to name but two.

Next, they desire to destroy Iran.

----------


## ducati

> And was the source "biased," in your view because of his name (Prof Khan), or because of his religion (which I do not know, but assume to be Islam), or because of the colour of his skin, or because he was flawed on a point of law or on a point of fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To reinstate and then protect the interests of a small number of international banking families whose livelihoods were being diminished by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
> 
> "War" is good for these families, no member of which you will find on any battlefield. It always has been - which is why they started WWI and WWII, to name but two.
> ...


Just because of the obvious "slant" I detected.

and As good a reason as any of the others I guess.

and I wouldn't disagree that Iran may well be next on the agenda.

----------


## fred

> You keep saying variations of that, but it isn't the point at all.


Yes it is, of course it is the point.

The Taliban never did anything to harm the people of Britain and have never threatened to do anything to harm the People of Britain. Britain had no assets or nationals in Afghanistan to protect. We started a war of aggression, that is a crime.

These are the facts, the relevant facts.

----------


## ducati

> Yes it is, of course it is the point.
> 
> The Taliban never did anything to harm the people of Britain and have never threatened to do anything to harm the People of Britain. Britain had no assets or nationals in Afghanistan to protect. We started a war of aggression, that is a crime.
> 
> These are the facts, the relevant facts.


Well if you read the rest of the post you will realise I don't think it is the point, for the reasons stated

----------


## fred

> Well if you read the rest of the post you will realise I don't think it is the point, for the reasons stated


The rest of your post said nothing of importance, it was just the usual lies to try and justify the unjustifiable.




> To quote a recent interview of a fairly disinterested looking Taliban bloke "Why would we talk? When they are Muslims, then we can talk"


The Taliban have been talking, senior Taliban leaders have been having talks with the UN to try and achieve a peace deal. America and Pakistan have deliberately sabotaged the talks.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020403

We are the aggressors, the Taliban never did anything to harm us, we invaded them, those are the facts. The blood of all those Afghani innocents is on our hands.

----------


## ducati

> The rest of your post said nothing of importance, it was just the usual lies to try and justify the unjustifiable.


In your opinion, lets discuss it in 50 years and see

----------


## ducati

> The Taliban have been talking, senior Taliban leaders have been having talks with the UN to try and achieve a peace deal. America and Pakistan have deliberately sabotaged the talks.
> 
> http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020403
> 
> We are the aggressors, the Taliban never did anything to harm us, we invaded them, those are the facts. The blood of all those Afghani innocents is on our hands.


The link clearly blames the Pakistan leadership for arresting senior Taliban members in Pakistan for scuppering the talks.

----------


## Tubthumper

> You know very well I am referring to a whole campaign of which Afghanistan is a part. I believe we will never end this campaign because the forces that appose will never give up. I believe the best we can hope for is to keep taking the fight to them on all fronts militarily and covertly, in the hope of limiting their activities on a global scale.
> To quote a recent interview of a fairly disinterested looking Taliban bloke "Why would we talk? When they are Muslims, then we can talk"
> This is not a conventional "war" and it will never be won, In my lifetime at least, I expect our forces to be in action somewhere in the world.
>  Maybe, in 50 years, Islam will go the same way as Christianity and the fundamentalists will be relegated to the lunatic fringe, but don't count on it


'They' think they just need to keep on steadily pushing on all fronts, nipping away, waiting for the opposition to get tired and disillusioned and give up. Win by default, a bit like certain aspects of the Org, eh?

I like the reference to the lunatic finge as well. Is that some mad kind of haircut worn to accomodate the tinfoil hat?

----------


## bekisman

Just dropped in to see how it's going.. dunno what it is, but someone keeps repeating a certain statement, _over and over and over,_ don't know why, it's as if it's a fixation or something?..  
I'm off to watch channel 515* on Sky+ and peruse the Guardian during the breaks, before heading south to Inverness..

'Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan'.

'The American invasion of Afghanistan was illegal and based on lies, Afghanistan was no threat to us, we are the aggressors.' 

'So why do we keep starting illegal wars of aggression' 

'Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan. Neither were any threat to us.'

'Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan didn't invade us we invaded Afghanistan'.

'They didn't invade us, we invaded them, illegally'

'The Taliban have not invaded Britain, the Taliban have not invaded America', 

'But we did invade their country didn't we? They didn't invade our country did they?' 

'We invaded their country didn't we? They didn't invade our country did they?' 

'We are the aggressors, the Taliban never did anything to harm us, we invaded them,'



*Nick Ferrari, a leading British radio presenter, quit his show on [Iranian Press TV] the station yesterday in protest at the regime crushing dissent fter the Iranian elections, Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, is investigating a complaint that Press TV has breached its duty to be accurate and impartial, and many Iranians living in Britain are appalled that it can operate so freely. 
“They’re the mouthpiece of a vicious regime. Their motto is, ‘We give voice to the voiceless’. In fact, they give voice to liars and murderers,” says Potkin Azarmehr, a popular blogger. “Why should foreign journalists be unable to report on the crimes taking place in Iran when Press TV poisons the minds of young Muslims here without any hindrance?”

----------


## fred

> The link clearly blames the Pakistan leadership for arresting senior Taliban members in Pakistan for scuppering the talks.


The raid was a joint operation, Pakistani government forces helped by American intelligence. America told the Pakistani government who to arrest and where they were.

----------


## ducati

> The raid was a joint operation, Pakistani government forces helped by American intelligence. America told the Pakistani government who to arrest and where they were.


Wow, American Intelligence not a contradiction in terms then?

I seriously doubt there is much enthusiasm for talking to the Taliban at this stage. The object is to reduce their influence below the level that they will be able to destabilise the Afghan government once they (NATO) move on to the next objective. 

And I know, the Taliban was the government bla bla however they lost that position as a result of their own intransigence re the support in kind of anti west terrorist organisations. (I bet they are regretting that!)

----------


## fred

> Wow, American Intelligence not a contradiction in terms then?
> 
> I seriously doubt there is much enthusiasm for talking to the Taliban at this stage. The object is to reduce their influence below the level that they will be able to destabilise the Afghan government once they (NATO) move on to the next objective. 
> 
> And I know, the Taliban was the government bla bla however they lost that position as a result of their own intransigence re the support in kind of anti west terrorist organisations. (I bet they are regretting that!)


If the Afghani government want to be influenced by their fellow countrymen in the Taliban who the hell are we arrogant westerners to tell them we can't.

Considering the number of innocent Afghani women and children we have killed and are going to kill in our illegal and immoral war I don't think you have any room complaining about the Taliban, who weren't intransigent in their support of the terrorist groups formed, armed and trained by America and Saudi Arabia. We were the ones who were intransigent.

----------


## Tubthumper

If one strongly believes in a position, ideology, political or religious standpoint or principle, the answer is surely to influence policy and strategy and engender change.
But how does one do that? In our democratic and liberal society, how does one make the move from faceless rantings on an insignificant & irrelevant website in the boondocks, to being able to actually DO something?
Discuss...

----------


## ducati

> terrorist groups formed, armed and trained by America and Saudi Arabia.


Intrigued about this bit, do tell?

----------


## Tubthumper

I just had a thought. Without Western prompting the taleban former government of Afghanistan used torture and restricted the liberties of their subjects.
Their followers today continue to use unspeakable methods of exerting control/ taking revenge on individuals in pursuit of their aim. 
Can someone ask the clique if that means they are OK people, about their suitability to govern, and the prospects for the people of Afghanistan if/ when the taleban get what they want (ie NATO security and western-funded development assistance out)?

----------


## fred

> Intrigued about this bit, do tell?


Al Qaeda, formed, financed, armed and trained by America and Saudi Arabia to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and then to do America's dirty work in a few other places as well.

Where do you think Al Qaeda got those stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters from?

----------


## ducati

> Al Qaeda, formed, financed, armed and trained by America and Saudi Arabia to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and then to do America's dirty work in a few other places as well.
> 
> Where do you think Al Qaeda got those stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters from?


Oh yes, I know all that, old news. However, when we fell out with them and they started blowing up buildings in New York and Mr Bush asked the Taliban to stop giving them room to train, recruit and operate from, they were intransigent (said no). History hey? You couldn't make it up ::

----------


## golach

> I just had a thought. Without Western prompting the taleban former government of Afghanistan used torture and restricted the liberties of their subjects.
> Their followers today continue to use unspeakable methods of exerting control/ taking revenge on individuals in pursuit of their aim. 
> Can someone ask the clique if that means they are OK people, about their suitability to govern, and the prospects for the people of Afghanistan if/ when the taleban get what they want (ie NATO security and western-funded development assistance out)?


 Just look at how the Taliban treat the females of Afghanistan, torture and stoning to death are common punishments, but this is ok according to fred and his cronies, the taliban are the Saviour's of Afghanistan.

----------


## fred

> Oh yes, I know all that, old news. However, when we fell out with them and they started blowing up buildings in New York and Mr Bush asked the Taliban to stop giving them room to train, recruit and operate from, they were intransigent (said no). History hey? You couldn't make it up


The Taliban offered to hand anyone in Afghanistan including Bin Laden over to America if they could present evidence they were connected to 9/11 or over to a neutral country to stand trial if they couldn't.

America refused the offer.

In any case the invasion of Afghanistan was planned and prepared for well before 9/11.

----------


## Stavro

> 'Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan'.
> 
> 'The American invasion of Afghanistan was illegal and based on lies, Afghanistan was no threat to us, we are the aggressors.' 
> 
> 'So why do we keep starting illegal wars of aggression' 
> 
> 'Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan didn't invade us, we invaded Afghanistan. Neither were any threat to us.'
> 
> 'Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan didn't invade us we invaded Afghanistan'.
> ...


You are now in possession of the relevant facts, beks - undeniable, since you have quoted them - how you act upon those facts is your responsibility, of course, though it seems to me that you could not care less about them.  :: 





> Theyre [blar, blar, blar], says Potkin Azarmehr, a popular blogger.


Ha ha ha. You are trying to be funny, right?  :Grin: 

Gung-ho, tally-ho, let's go and drop great big bombs all over Iran, killing and maiming God knows who, on the basis of a rant from Potkin, the "popular blogger."

Please, please tell me that you are kidding.  :Grin:

----------


## ducati

> The Taliban offered to hand anyone in Afghanistan including Bin Laden over to America if they could present evidence they were connected to 9/11 or over to a neutral country to stand trial if they couldn't.
> 
> America refused the offer.


Ah but that wasn't what was asked of them.

I have given you my humble analysis of what is, and is likely to happen. You dismissed it. I don't really have anything to add. Lets wait and see.

----------


## fred

> Ah but that wasn't what was asked of them.


Seems like a reasonable offer to me if accepting it would have saved the lives of NATO servicemen and countless innocent Afghani women children and babies.

But as I said, the invasion of Afghanistan was nothing to do with 9/11, 9/11 was just a convenient excuse. Before that it was the "War on Drugs" which was going to be the excuse but the Taliban did what we asked and eradicated the poppy, cut opium production to nil. So they found another excuse and this time got the invasion under way before the Taliban had any chance to do what we asked again.

Of course the first thing America did after invading was put the drug barons in the government ensuring the kids on the streets of New York got a regular supply of heroin. Afghanistan has enjoyed record opium crops ever since and now, for the first time, has industrial scale heroin factories in the country.

----------


## ducati

> Seems like a reasonable offer to me if accepting it would have saved the lives of NATO servicemen and countless innocent Afghani women children and babies.
> 
> But as I said, the invasion of Afghanistan was nothing to do with 9/11, 9/11 was just a convenient excuse. Before that it was the "War on Drugs" which was going to be the excuse but the Taliban did what we asked and eradicated the poppy, cut opium production to nil. So they found another excuse and this time got the invasion under way before the Taliban had any chance to do what we asked again.
> 
> Of course the first thing America did after invading was put the drug barons in the government ensuring the kids on the streets of New York got a regular supply of heroin. Afghanistan has enjoyed record opium crops ever since and now, for the first time, has industrial scale heroin factories in the country.


This being the case, why does USA spend so much trying to stop drugs coming from South America. Is it a quality control issue?

----------


## Stavro

> This being the case, why does USA spend so much trying to stop drugs coming from South America. Is it a quality control issue?


The United States controls Afghanistan, so just ask yourself why they have not kept the poppy production there at next to zero (where it was under the legitimate government of Afghanistan).

Why is it, on the contrary, now at an all-time high?

----------


## fred

> This being the case, why does USA spend so much trying to stop drugs coming from South America. Is it a quality control issue?


The CIA wasn't trying too hard to stop drugs coming from South America when the money was being spent on supplying arms to the Contras now were they? The cocaine was coming in on the same plane the arms went out on.

America uses drugs as an excuse to build bases in South America and intervene in South American domestic politics, meanwhile there is more cocaine on the streets of New York than there has ever been.

----------


## ducati

> The CIA wasn't trying too hard to stop drugs coming from South America when the money was being spent on supplying arms to the Contras now were they? The cocaine was coming in on the same plane the arms went out on.
> 
> America uses drugs as an excuse to build bases in South America and intervene in South American domestic politics, meanwhile there is more cocaine on the streets of New York than there has ever been.


But why does America want the drugs? I thought they wanted the Oil.

----------


## fred

> But why does America want the drugs? I thought they wanted the Oil.


You lost me with that one, don't follow your logic at all.

----------


## ducati

> You lost me with that one, don't follow your logic at all.


You and S just said that America was aiding poppy production in Afghanistan and not trying to stop imports from South America.
Why do think they are?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Please .. Please .. Just Stop.

Its gone past the point of being ridiculous now.

Even Picard and Riker think so. And they're not even real.

----------


## fred

> You and S just said that America was aiding poppy production in Afghanistan and not trying to stop imports from South America.
> Why do think they are?


In Afghanistan America would rather have the country controlled by drug barons than the Taliban. In south America they wanted the Contras to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.

----------


## scotsboy

> The CIA wasn't trying too hard to stop drugs coming from South America when the money was being spent on supplying arms to the Contras now were they? The cocaine was coming in on the same plane the arms went out on.
> 
> America uses drugs as an excuse to build bases in South America and intervene in South American domestic politics, *meanwhile there is more cocaine on the streets of New York than there has ever been.*


Really? Things must have changed in the last few months then:

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/905139973

----------


## ducati

> In Afghanistan America would rather have the country controlled by drug barons than the Taliban. In south America they wanted the Contras to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.


Oh' right, so they don't actually want the drugs then?

----------


## Anfield

> Go and boil your head



Is this another form of torture practised by Intelligence Services,  or just you expressing your profound knowledge of the English Language

----------


## Anfield

> Stop embarrassing yourself. You havent the first clue what you are talking about.


 "..New statistics released by the UN mission showed that 2009 proved to be the deadliest year yet for civilians since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.

On Feb. 21 2009 in Oruzgan Province, a small Special Operations forces unit heard that a group of Taliban were heading their way and called for air support. Attack helicopters killed 27 civilians in three trucks, mistaking them for the Taliban.

Military video appeared to show the victims were civilians, and no weapons were recovered from them. “What I saw on that video would not have led me to pull the trigger,” one NATO official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in line with his department’s rules. “It was one of the worst things I’ve seen in a while.”

Feb. 12 2009, in a village near Gardez, in Paktia Province, Afghan police special forces paired with American Special Operations forces raided a house late at night looking for two Taliban suspects, and instead killed a local police chief and a district prosecutor when they came out, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, to investigate. Three women who came to their aid, according to interviews with family members and friends, were also killed; one was a pregnant mother of 10, the other a pregnant mother of 6.

Dec. 26 2009,  in Kunar Province, a night raid was launched on what authorities thought was a Taliban training facility; they later discovered that they had killed all nine religious students in a residential school. Admiral Smith said United States Special Operations forces were nearby at the time, but not directly involved in the attack, which was carried out by an Afghan unit.

And of course there is the attack which started this thread,  when at least 33 civillians died in Uruzgan province when Nato aircraft opened fire on three vehicles.

 Admiral Smith  Director of Communication, Strategic Communication Directorate International Security Assistance Force and 
United States Forces Afghanistan confirmed that all three events, which took place outside of any larger battle, involved Special Operations forces. But he said that General McChrystal’s unified command initiative was not in response to those events.."


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2010/03/19/civilian-killings-atrocities-us-forces-afghanistan-taken-lightly-united-nations

DD, you do post some good stuff,  but then spoil it at the very end by making silly personal comments.

]

----------


## scotsboy

> Is this another form of torture practised by Intelligence Services,  or just you expressing your profound knowledge of the English Language


Not too far from the truth there Anfield. According to Craig Murray in his tome Murder in Samarkand he had photographic evidence of the boiling to death of two victims of state torture in Uzbekistan.

----------


## northener

> The United States controls Afghanistan, so just ask yourself why they have not kept the poppy production there at next to zero (where it was under the legitimate government of Afghanistan).
> 
> Why is it, on the contrary, now at an all-time high?


Because if you eradicate the poppy crop, you remove the source of income from the local Afghans.

Remove the source of income and you create even harsher economic conditions for the Afghans.

Create a harsher economic climate for these Afghans and you open the doors for the Taliban to say "See? We told you these people do not want to help you, they are happy to see you starve".

This has been covered quite a few times in the past. 

Idealism says we should eradicate the poppies to safeguard our own (drug abusing) people and to show these jolly ignorant Afghans the error of their ways.

Reality says we can handle the drug problem back home...we've lived with it a long time. Reality says 'doing the right thing' will be extremely counter-productive in Afghanistan for Afghanis until alternative support/income can be arranged.

IIRC the Taliban were commended many years ago for trying to eradicate the poppy harvest...then they realised they had no viable alternative to give their people an income.

So, at least on one issue the West is thinking the same as Tommy Taliban.

----------


## Tubthumper

> ...Even Picard and Riker think so. And they're not even real.


I have personally seen a web blog that states categorically that Star Trek is real. There just isn't enough room for us all in the Enterprise, so we have to stay here until we figure it out, then we'll get microchipped and transported. 
The Federation is a benign and considerate authority, with our best interests at heart. It's those pesky Klingons that cause all the bother - worse than the taleban they are!
_


Live long and prosper_

----------


## sandyr1

Ducati says 'Go boil your head'.




> Is this another form of torture practised by Intelligence Services, or just you expressing your profound knowledge of the English Language


Listen Guys.....In Caithness it's 'Go Bile yur Heed'! Smarten up for goodness sake!

----------


## fred

> Not too far from the truth there Anfield. According to Craig Murray in his tome Murder in Samarkand he had photographic evidence of the boiling to death of two victims of state torture in Uzbekistan.


Have you also read what Craig Murray has to say about the opium trade in Afghanistan?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...ported_af.html

Or here where he says British troops are dying to protect the drug barons?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...ghanistan.html

----------


## bekisman

> You are now in possession of the relevant facts, beks - undeniable, since you have quoted them - how you act upon those facts is your responsibility, of course, though it seems to me that you could not care less about them. 
> Ha ha ha. You are trying to be funny, right?  
> Gung-ho, tally-ho, let's go and drop great big bombs all over Iran, killing and maiming God knows who, on the basis of a rant from Potkin, the "popular blogger." Please, please tell me that you are kidding.


Hi Stav, 
Just back from Inverness - stopped at Helmsdale for chippies - really nice..

Anyway, I'd rather believe a local than someone who has most likely not set-foot outside Scotland and thinks this little community website is the worlds mouthpiece (It's not you know - honest!)

http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/
*For a democratic secular Iran. For peace and prosperity in the Middle East*. 
'This weblog was created to act as a platform for the voice of secular pro-democracy activists in and outside Iran who are struggling against the religious dictatorship of the Islamic clerics in Iran. My favourite quote: "Evil only prevails when the good stay silent" - [read that somewhere?]
"And meanwhile hapless UK academics and gutless UK students play their part in making Islamic Republic look like a respectable government abroad without raising an eyebrow against the plight of their counterparts in Iran". [Sounds familiar?] 



Anyway, all seems rather pointless just burbling on this miniscule site, as nobody is changing anyone's opinion, either way, it would really mean something if certain people could put their money where their mouth is and get off their bums, leave the keyboard alone and GO! - just to help here is the link for flights to Kabul: http://www.skyscanner.net/flights/uk/kbl/cheapest-flights-from-united-kingdom-to-kabul.html?utm_campaign=AFF_NTW_00014&utm_content=  00001&utm_source=link&utm_medium=integration&rtn=1 These are from Glasgow International to Kabul - flights leaving Saturdays and Sundays..


Now, when you get there Christian Peacemaker Teams are looking for help there, even got an address for you: 
*CANADA:* 
25 Cecil St, Unit 307
Toronto ON M5T 1N1
Tel. 416-423-5525
Fax. 416-423-7140 
E-mail: canada@cpt.org and the website is here: 
http://www.cpt.org/ 


So go one, off you go - do 'something'!

----------


## fred

> *For a democratic secular Iran. For peace and prosperity in the Middle East*.


But didn't Iran used to be a democracy? Till 1953 when the British and American governments overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a ruthless dictator to run the place for them?

----------


## fred

> Because if you eradicate the poppy crop, you remove the source of income from the local Afghans.


So pay the farmers to grow something else, that's what they do everywhere else including Britain. You give the farmers a subsidy on what you want them to grow and no subsidy on what you don't want them to grow.

----------


## Stavro

This thread is definitely improving, because we are now able to answer genuine questions without the name-calling that usually greets us in response.




> So go one, off you go - do 'something'!


But I have done something, beks. I have refused to join a military machine that, rather than protect this country, actually now exists to do the dirty work of politicians and protect the interests of a few international banking families. By this positive action, I have ensured that *I have not been responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the death or injury of a single Iraqi or Afghani.* Neither have I in any way condoned the military/monetary/political monster that rampages about slaughtering women, children, babies (and men - why does no one ever mention them?!  :Grin:  ). I'm very proud of this fact.





> Hi Stav, 
> Just back from Inverness - stopped at Helmsdale for chippies - really nice.


Well you could have brought a few back. Deployed them via laser-guided rocket launcher or something. No, on second thoughts, who knows where they would have ended up.  ::

----------


## Phill

> ....... actually now exists to do the dirty work of politicians and protect the interests of a few international banking families.



Who are these banking families and how does all this protect their interests?

----------


## Stavro

> Who are these banking families and how does all this protect their interests?


Rather than answer that directly, I respectfully suggest that you research the central banks (Bank of England, Federal Reserve, etc.) and see how they operate and who owns them. In particular, the way that "money" is introduced as a debt.

----------


## Phill

> Just back from Inverness - stopped at Helmsdale for chippies - really nice..


Sit in or take out?
We had a sit in yesterday, felt a little let down, fish wasn't as good as usual.

----------


## Stavro

The general public believes the BBC to be unbiased, but a little edit here and there by the BBC can produce something which is very biased -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuF...layer_embedded

 ::

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Rather than answer that directly, I respectfully suggest that you research the central banks (Bank of England, Federal Reserve, etc.) and see how they operate and who owns them. In particular, the way that "money" is introduced as a debt.


Nah, come on Stav enlighten us, I really wanna know why we go to war.

----------


## Phill

> Rather than answer that directly, I respectfully suggest that you research the central banks (Bank of England, Federal Reserve, etc.) and see how they operate and who owns them. In particular, the way that "money" is introduced as a debt.



Sorry Stavro, please don't take this the wrong way but I can't be bothered right now....any linkies?

I can see where certain corp's would benefit and various other organisations but I'm not seeing the 'family' link.

Are Coutts & Co involved?

----------


## Yoda the flump

> The general public believes the BBC to be unbiased, but a little edit here and there by the BBC can produce something which is very biased -
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuF...layer_embedded


I certainly would not go that far but I would certainly suggest that they are not as biased as most of the sources that you normally quote.

BTW, do you like the signature, certainly one of Sir Winston's better insights.

----------


## northener

> So pay the farmers to grow something else, that's what they do everywhere else including Britain. You give the farmers a subsidy on what you want them to grow and no subsidy on what you don't want them to grow.


To do that you would need to first identify a market that the Afghanis who are affected could sell into. 
Then work out whether the growing conditions in the poppy regions are the right ones for the crop (or possibly 'tother way round), create an infrastructure to supply equipment to sow, grow and harvest, provide storage and transport facilities to get the goods to whatever market is taking them and come up with a central control to distribute the funds. And pacify the drug overlords who have suddenly lost their status and income (and probable support for one side or the war or the other...that could be interesting).

Which is exactly why the Taliban went off the boil when it came to curbing production - they knew it was a mammoth task. If they couldn't do it in a relatively peaceful environment - then there's not a snowballs of any of it happening in the middle of an all-out war.

Which is a bloody great pity, really. But like I said, economical, political and military reality won't allow it to happen in the present climate.

----------


## northener

> But I have done something, beks. I have refused to join a military machine that, rather than protect this country, actually now exists to do the dirty work of politicians and protect the interests of a few international banking families. By this positive action, I have ensured that *I have not been responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the death or injury of a single Iraqi or Afghani.* Neither have I in any way condoned the military/monetary/political monster that rampages about slaughtering women, children, babies (and men - why does no one ever mention them?!  ). I'm very proud of this fact....


 
I'm seeing Rik out of the Young Ones again, Stav. :Wink:  ::

----------


## rich

If you pay your taxes you are contributing to the war. Ideally you should hold back a portion of your income. If you get in touch with the Quakers they may be able to help.

----------


## fred

> To do that you would need to first identify a market that the Afghanis who are affected could sell into. 
> Then work out whether the growing conditions in the poppy regions are the right ones for the crop (or possibly 'tother way round), create an infrastructure to supply equipment to sow, grow and harvest, provide storage and transport facilities to get the goods to whatever market is taking them and come up with a central control to distribute the funds. And pacify the drug overlords who have suddenly lost their status and income (and probable support for one side or the war or the other...that could be interesting).
> 
> Which is exactly why the Taliban went off the boil when it came to curbing production - they knew it was a mammoth task. If they couldn't do it in a relatively peaceful environment - then there's not a snowballs of any of it happening in the middle of an all-out war.
> 
> Which is a bloody great pity, really. But like I said, economical, political and military reality won't allow it to happen in the present climate.


But the Taliban didn't go off the boil, during the 2001 season there was no opium grown in the vast majority of Afghanistan they controlled. I don't believe nothing grows but poppies in Afghanistan, I know that land that will grow one crop will always grow another. The war lords and drug barons had been forced into a small area of northern Afghanistan by the Taliban, it was us who reinstated them and gave them jobs in the government.

We have had eight and a half years to offer the Afghani farmer a better alternative, create new farming methods and markets. I know hemp grows exceptionally well in Afghanistan and is one of the best crops for biofuels you can get. In these days of dwindling oil supplies that would be one option which could have been implemented.

First we are told that America planned organised and implemented an invasion of Afghanistan between 11th of September and 7th of October 2001 but then we are told that in eight and a half years we couldn't offer the Afghani farmer a better deal than the drug barons.

----------


## bekisman

> Well you could have brought a few back. Deployed them via laser-guided rocket launcher or something. No, on second thoughts, who knows where they would have ended up.


No way, they would get blown to chips!  :Wink:

----------


## Stavro

> BTW, do you like the signature, certainly one of Sir Winston's better insights.


I had noticed your signature a few days ago and was doing my best to ignore it. So nice of you, Yoda, to bring it to my attention.  :Smile: 

You would not require three guesses as to whether I like it or not, but let's just say that I much prefer Churchill's one moment of realism: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."  :Smile:

----------


## Yoda the flump

> I had noticed your signature a few days ago and was doing my best to ignore it. So nice of you, Yoda, to bring it to my attention. 
> 
> You would not require three guesses as to whether I like it or not, but let's just say that I much prefer Churchill's one moment of realism: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."


Indeed, the winner always writes the history!  :Smile:

----------


## bekisman

> Sit in or take out?
> We had a sit in yesterday, felt a little let down, fish wasn't as good as usual.


What we normally do is take-out, then drive further up the Strath to a place which has a yellow *'no overnight parking*' sign (do you know it?) park up there, - open the windows a little, put on Classic FM and admire the view. BUT horror of horrors, someone else was parked up in 'our' spot (also eating chips)!!.. had to drive on another half mile. Sat and watched a local, drive by at a million miles an hour - with a trailer - until almost out of site, when we espied  a lot of blue smoke - later we passed the area and there was at least a 30 yard skid mark. Well he's almost hit a logging lorry coming south! - interesting.. (Lovely chips too and only £1.50 a box)  ::

----------


## Stavro

> No way, they would get blown to chips!


Very good.

But when the chips are down, the going gets tough.  :Smile:

----------


## Yoda the flump

Rather Radio 3 to Classic FM

----------


## bekisman

> If you pay your taxes you are contributing to the war. Ideally you should hold back a portion of your income. If you get in touch with the Quakers they may be able to help.


Well said!

----------


## Stavro

> Well said!


Not quite. We have no say in where the government spends the taxation revenue - that is entirely their decision.

----------


## bekisman

> Not quite. We have no say in where the government spends the taxation revenue - that is entirely their decision.


 
You could try this:?
"A University lecturer faces a visit from the bailiffs for refusing to pay what she calls government "war tax".Dr Birgit Vollm, a 38-year-old psychiatrist at Manchester University, has been hauled before a court for failing to hand over income tax from freelance work. She claims 10 per cent of her taxes go on military spending, and as a pacifist she should not have to pay."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/74/74890_war_tax_protest_lecturer_faces_the_bailiffs.  html

----------


## Stavro

> You could try this:?
> "A University lecturer faces a visit from the bailiffs for refusing to pay what she calls government "war tax".Dr Birgit Vollm, a 38-year-old psychiatrist at Manchester University, has been hauled before a court for failing to hand over income tax from freelance work. She claims 10 per cent of her taxes go on military spending, and as a pacifist she should not have to pay."
> 
> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/74/74890_war_tax_protest_lecturer_faces_the_bailiffs.  html


Well I agree with her. To spend our tax money keeping her warm, dry and well fed in prison seems to me to be a much better usage of the money than killing and maiming human beings and animals in Afghanistan.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Well I agree with her. To spend our tax money keeping her warm, dry and well fed in prison seems to me to be a much better usage of the money than killing and maiming human beings and animals in Afghanistan.


Well man, do the decent thing and make the stand!  :Smile:

----------


## Anfield

Sorry to try and bring this thread back on track, but I do not think that people looking at this thread really want to know what members had for tea.

We have discussed in detail the number of UK Soldier deaths, and the thousands of civillians killed in this carnage.  

One group of people who do seem to be overlooked when we have discussed deaths, are the rest of the Nato countries.

As of March 3, 2010, there have been 1,599 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operation since theI illegal invasion in 2001


In addition to these deaths in Afghanistan, another 28 U.S. and one  Canadian soldier were killed in other countries while supporting  operations in Afghanistan. Also, 62 Spanish   soldiers returning from Afghanistan died in Turkey on May 26, 2003, when  their plane crashed.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaliti...in_Afghanistan )

----------


## Aaldtimer

I wonder just how many Afghan civilians have died as a result of their own suicide bombers?
anyone got any numbers on that? ::

----------


## fred

> I wonder just how many Afghan civilians have died as a result of their own suicide bombers?
> anyone got any numbers on that?


There were no suicide bombings before we invaded, there had only been one suicide bombing in the history of Afghanistan till we invaded.

----------


## bekisman

> Did you ever have a discussion with a paedophile? I have, back in the early days of the internet we didn't have these fancy web forums, forums were just like emails sent to a lot of people, they were totally unregulated, totally anonymous and there were plenty of paedophiles about on it.


I've just really noticed this one Fred, I most certainly hope you reported this to the Police at that time - it is very serious - it was your duty to get this investigated!

----------


## fred

> I've just really noticed this one Fred, I most certainly hope you reported this to the Police at that time - it is very serious - it was your duty to get this investigated!


Which police force do you think I should have reported it to?

The police were well aware of usenet and the things which were said on there but they were powerless to do anything about it, it was impossible to tell even which country a person was posting from. Servers like Altopia offered complete anonymity for a small price. Some of us tried hard to get Altopia UDPd but we never succeeded.

----------


## scotsboy

> Have you also read what Craig Murray has to say about the opium trade in Afghanistan?
> 
> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...ported_af.html
> 
> Or here where he says British troops are dying to protect the drug barons?
> 
> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...ghanistan.html


Not read it yet Fred, but I'll get round to it. Actually just went on his site and ordered the Caholic Orangemen of Togo, tried previously but the paypal wasn't working. I like Murray's style, and he certainly has no problem in talking straight (not usual amongst the diplomatic corps :Smile: ), he certainly has flaws (who doesn't) but is brave enough to not try and hide them..............he obviously has a "bit"of an axe to grind, but not so that you would question his integrity. Pretty sure I recall him mentioning links between the Uzbek president (hos brother) and Afghan drug barons in Murder in Samarkand...............which is a book I really would recommend to anyone with an interest in diplomacy, International affairs etc.

----------


## bekisman

> Not read it yet Fred, but I'll get round to it. Actually just went on his site and ordered the Caholic Orangemen of Togo, tried previously but the paypal wasn't working. I like Murray's style, and he certainly has no problem in talking straight (not usual amongst the diplomatic corps), he certainly has flaws (who doesn't) but is brave enough to not try and hide them..............he obviously has a "bit"of an axe to grind, but not so that you would question his integrity. Pretty sure I recall him mentioning links between the Uzbek president (hos brother) and Afghan drug barons in Murder in Samarkand...............which is a book I really would recommend to anyone with an interest in diplomacy, International affairs etc.


Hi Scotsboy -
Was there not a problem with this book? "I have been obliged to self-publish my new book, The Catholic Orangemen of Togo and Other Conflicts I Have Known, because legal threats from mercenary commander Tim Spicer scared off my publisher:" A free download:?

http://www.oldholborn.net/2009/01/ca...free-copy.html

----------


## scotsboy

Threats of legal action from Spicer, but it is avaialble on Amazon and direct from the author. I have a free download, but it does not work well on the ereader I have, and I dont like reading that much on the laptop...............anyway dont grudge paying the author for his time and effort.

----------


## Phill

Colonel Tim eh, now that's a can of worms!

At least he's doing well out of Iraq.   ::

----------


## scotsboy

> Colonel Tim eh, now that's a can of worms!
> 
> At least he's doing well out of Iraq.



I have actually been waiting for the stuff to hit the fan after the release of Simon Mann from Equatorial Guinea............Mark Thatcher, Fredrick Forsyth et al must be a wee bit on edge :Smile:

----------


## fred

> Colonel Tim eh, now that's a can of worms!
> 
> At least he's doing well out of Iraq.


Not nearly as well as some are.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020601

----------


## Stavro

> Not nearly as well as some are.
> 
> http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020601



"In a further revelation, a classified memo from Blair to former US President Bush showed the full extent of his support for the toppling of Saddam Hussein. 

"The personal note shows that Blair wrote eight months before the Iraqi invasion: 'You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'm with you.' "

Now, lo and behold, Blair is £20,000,000 richer. Let me see now, that would be equivalent to about £15 for every dead Iraqi.

----------


## rich

Fred, Anfield et al: the time for you to answer the question is now. Are you willing to withhold a portion of your income tax and redirect it to a pacifist charity? If you are not prepared to do this then you are being inconsistent. Even, dare I say it - hypocrtical.

 If the worst came to the worst a spell in jail would enhance your moral standing immeasurably. I'd even send you a cake - but without a file included(I am what you would call a warmonger!)

I await your reply with interest.

----------


## fred

> Fred, Anfield et al: the time for you to answer the question is now. Are you willing to withhold a portion of your income tax and redirect it to a pacifist charity? If you are not prepared to do this then you are being inconsistent. Even, dare I say it - hypocrtical.
> 
>  If the worst came to the worst a spell in jail would enhance your moral standing immeasurably. I'd even send you a cake - but without a file included(I am what you would call a warmonger!)
> 
> I await your reply with interest.


We want to talk about the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

If you want to talk about us find someone else to do it with.

Why do you pro war people always have to make it personal? Why did you feel you had to call us "hypocritical"? Can't you just debate the issues?

----------


## rich

Fed, I enclose a useful contact number for you.
I fail to see how you can say I have launched a personal attack on you.
Because I mentioned a cake? With a file?
Fred, that was a joke. I guess I'm not very good at jokes. Bear with me as I hone my skills.
I take it then from your last post that basically this thread is a place to vent.
I had thought you were more of an action man!
After all, these are important issues. Hence the URL below. Note that it is a Scottish site - I am not sure what side of the border you hail from, but that can be sorted out.
Also I think I may be able to get you a lawyer who specializes in defending pacificists who are about to be ground down under the heel of the state. (And that's no joke!)

http://www.peaceandjustice.org.uk/

----------


## Stavro

> Sorry Stavro, please don't take this the wrong way but I can't be bothered right now...


I'm not bothered, Phill. You asked me a question and I gave you an answer that required just a little effort on your part. That you can't be bothered to investigate possible root causes for the slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq is your problem, not mine.

----------


## bekisman

> We want to talk about the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
> 
> If you want to talk about us find someone else to do it with.
> 
> Why do you pro war people always have to make it personal? Why did you feel you had to call us "hypocritical"? Can't you just debate the issues?


Am I classed by you as "pro war people" - if I am, you are making it personal.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Am I classed by you as "pro war people" - if I am, you are making it personal.


Mate you are wasting your time. We have tried to debate the issue to no avail. I have tried to add to the debate and its gets ignored or ridiculed, after all what would I know about it ??, If they wanted to debate they have had plenty opportunities to do so, they just want to keep throwing out their, quite frankly hilarious, "truths" on this subject to get a response. Lets just move along and leave them to their own conclusions, judgements and whatever. Because if we do this thread will die the death it should have done long ago. Nothing you, I or anyone else can say is going to make a bit of difference.

Sometimes we do actually target civilians though, its just not in the way they think ..  ::

----------


## ducati

> Sometimes we do actually target civilians though, its just not in the way they think ..


Wow! It's good to see that the £600 million this bit of kit cost to develop is put to good use  :: 

With all those buttons and switches how the hell do you find Terry Wogan?

And is the vent pull doobry in case you have a trouser moment?

----------


## bekisman

It continues: 

*Ten people have been killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province, officials say.* The victims were civilians, killed as a suicide bomber targeted an Afghan army convoy on a bridge, a spokesman for the provincial government said. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8578637.stm

----------


## Stavro

> It continues: 
> 
> *Ten people have been killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province, officials say.* The victims were civilians, killed as a suicide bomber targeted an Afghan army convoy on a bridge, a spokesman for the provincial government said. 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8578637.stm



The BBC _assumes_ it was a suicide bomber. There would be no way of proving that.

----------


## bekisman

> The BBC _assumes_ it was a suicide bomber. There would be no way of proving that.


*IslamOnline*: At least ten civilians were killed and seven injured in a suicide bomb attack Sunday that targeted an army convoy in southern Afghanistan, officials said. 

"It was a suicide bomber who detonated a motorcycle as an Afghan National Army (ANA) vehicle was passing by," Daud Ahmadi, spokesman for the Helmand provincial government, told AFP.

He said the driver of the three-wheeled motorcycle blew himself up after the ANA vehicle had crossed a bridge beneath which crowds were picnicking to celebrate the traditional Zoroastrian new year of Nowruz.

"The blast killed ten civilians and injured seven others," he said, adding that it took in the Gereshk district of Helmand province, a cauldron of Taliban insurgent activity.

The convoy was not hit by the blast, he said.

http://islamonline.com/news/articles...ghanistan.html

----------


## Stavro

> "It was a suicide bomber who detonated a motorcycle as an Afghan National Army (ANA) vehicle was passing by," Daud Ahmadi, spokesman for the Helmand provincial government, told AFP.


Is the Helmand provincial government set up by the Americans, like the rest of Afghanistan? If so, a spokesman will say what he is told to say.

As I said, there is no way of proving this, because the alleged suicide bomber might have been simply another civilian victim.

"Suicide bombers" are well and truly in the psyche of the Western population, but such creatures may be very few and far between, *or perhaps not even exist at all.*

How often have we been told that a supposed "suicide bomber" has blown up women and kids in a marketplace, when occupation targets such as "Israelis" or Americans or British have not been touched. Has Hollywood, for example, ever suffered at the hands of a "suicide bomber"? Nope.

Anyway, I think that enough points have been made on this thread now for anyone who is in the slightest bit interested to do a little thinking for themselves.

No one is saying that the Afghanis are saints and that the invading forces are demons, but only that Afghanistan was no military threat to Britain, nor to the United States, and that, therefore, this illegal invasion, carnage (genocide) and continuing occupation has another reason behind it and that the sooner people wake up to this undeniable (in my opinion) fact, the better.

Over and out, Squadron Leader.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/13...urgency-Tactic

----------


## Boozeburglar

> "Suicide bombers" are well and truly in the psyche of the Western population, but such creatures may be very few and far between, *or perhaps not even exist at all.*


It gets no better than this. ROFL!

----------


## golach

> No one is saying that the Afghanis are saints and that the invading forces are demons, but only that Afghanistan was no military threat to Britain, nor to the United States, and that, therefore, this illegal invasion, carnage (genocide) and continuing occupation has another reason behind it and that the sooner people wake up to this undeniable (in my opinion) fact, the better.
> 
> Over and out, Squadron Leader.


Nato did not invade Afghanistan, they were asked by the democratially elected Afghan government of the day for help.

Over to you Captain Ijiit!!!!!!

----------


## ducati

> "Suicide bombers" are well and truly in the psyche of the Western population, but such creatures may be very few and far between, *or perhaps not even exist at all.*


I don't even know where to start with such rubbish, so I wont.

Why do you post such things?

----------


## bekisman

A couple of Arab ones?
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Bomb-Attack-Kills-10-in-Southern-Afghanistan.html


http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=130236&language=en

----------


## fred

> Nato did not invade Afghanistan, they were asked by the democratially elected Afghan government of the day for help.
> 
> Over to you Captain Ijiit!!!!!!


Afghanistan was invaded by America and Britain, without UN resolution, in October 2001 in operation Enduring Freedom who's purpose was said to be to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and destroy terrorist training camps.

The NATO forces entered Afghanistan in early 2002 with a UN resolution to aid the Northern Alliance to secure Kabul.

The first invasion, being without UN resolution or legal basis, was illegal.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> A couple of Arab ones?
> http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Bomb-Attack-Kills-10-in-Southern-Afghanistan.html
> 
> 
> http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=130236&language=en


Or maybe http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=216303

or maybe http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article...834&type=World

----------


## Tubthumper

Was it illegal under contract law or statute?

----------


## fred

> A couple of Arab ones?
> http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Bomb-Attack-Kills-10-in-Southern-Afghanistan.html
> 
> 
> http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=130236&language=en


It looks a lot like the same report from the same source printed in different papers.

Here is a different report possibly about different incidents.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020403

----------


## Tubthumper

You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you.

----------


## bekisman

> It looks a lot like the same report from the same source printed in different papers.
> 
> Here is a different report possibly about different incidents.
> 
> http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020403


 Come on F. stick to the incident, are you saying the aforementioned Arab News sites are lying?

----------


## Phill

> The BBC _assumes_ it was a suicide bomber. There would be no way of proving that.


Unless there is a video of an alleged suicide bomber stating their intentions beforehand.......

----------


## Stavro

> "Suicide bombers" are well and truly in the psyche of the Western population, but such creatures may be very few and far between, *or perhaps not even exist at all.*
> 
> How often have we been told that a supposed "suicide bomber" has blown up women and kids in a marketplace, when occupation targets such as "Israelis" or Americans or British have not been touched. Has Hollywood, for example, ever suffered at the hands of a "suicide bomber"? Nope.
> 
> http://www.sott.net/articles/show/13...urgency-Tactic


boozeburglar, golach, ducati - Did you not like being reminded of the SAS men tied up and looking rather sheepish?

Or maybe -

"Remote controlled bombings masquerading as 'suicide bombings' that are carried out by the US, British and Israeli occupation forces fit these principles very neatly. By detonating bombs on a daily basis across Iraq and Afghanistan and via the propaganda organs touting them as being the work of Iraqi/Afghani 'suicide bombers' belonging to the insurgency, the occupying military hopes to achieve several goals: 

 "cut off the widespread support base that the insurgency have amongst the Iraqis  

 "create tensions between religious lines, especially by ascribing the  faked 'suicide attacks' to either Shias or Sunnis.  

 "In other words divide and conquer." 

(Source - http://www.sott.net/articles/show/13...urgency-Tactic )


How many "suicide bombers" were there when the Russians invaded the place?

----------


## fred

> Come on F. stick to the incident, are you saying the aforementioned Arab News sites are lying?


I am saying that all the reports look remarkably the same wording and are therefore probably all copied from the same source so there was only any need to post one of them.

The article I posted a link to looks remarkably different though at this time we have no way of knowing if it refers to the same incident or not.

----------


## Phill

> Mate you are wasting your time. We have tried to debate the issue to no avail. I have tried to add to the debate and its gets ignored or ridiculed, after all what would I know about it ??, If they wanted to debate they have had plenty opportunities to do so, they just want to keep throwing out their, quite frankly hilarious, "truths" on this subject to get a response. Lets just move along and leave them to their own conclusions, judgements and whatever. Because if we do this thread will die the death it should have done long ago. Nothing you, I or anyone else can say is going to make a bit of difference.
> 
> Sometimes we do actually target civilians though, its just not in the way they think ..


I notice Send Image is highlighted, how do I get put onto that email group?

----------


## Tubthumper

> 


Was that taken in Thurso? Is that a thong I can see? Could it be...

----------


## John Little

"nor to the United States..."

Stavro - this is not the case. I remember well that the cells that carried out 9/11 had their origins in Afghanistan.  I also remember that the US gave the Taleban government an ultimatum to expel Al Quaeda from Afghanistan.  The Taleban called a Loya Jurga and decided not to expel Al Quaeda.

Since they had carried out what was, by any definition, an act of war against the US they were, logically a threat.

To the United States.

What puzzles me is why the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, an organisation with its roots in the Western European Union should be the force to carry out the occupation of Afghanistan

The US had a legitimate Casus beli with the Taleban.  We did not.
And nobody did with Iraq.

So I can see why American troops were sent into harms way in Afghanistan.

But not our men.

If Bohemia to Bismark was not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier then how much less is Afghanstan worth the life of a single British soldier?

----------


## Stavro

Once again, the gullible (Tubthumper, Phill, DrunkenDuck, etc.) have no response and thus resort to juvenile rubbish.

----------


## Stavro

> "nor to the United States..."
> 
> Stavro - this is not the case. I remember well that the cells that carried out 9/11 had their origins in Afghanistan.  I also remember that the US gave the Taleban government an ultimatum to expel Al Quaeda from Afghanistan.  The Taleban called a Loya Jurga and decided not to expel Al Quaeda.
> 
> Since they had carried out what was, by any definition, an act of war against the US they were, logically a threat.
> 
> To the United States.
> 
> What puzzles me is why the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, an organisation with its roots in the Western European Union should be the force to carry out the occupation of Afghanistan
> ...


John, 9/11 was an inside job. There were no "cells," nor OBL's lurking in caves.

----------


## ducati

> boozeburglar, golach, ducati - Did you not like being reminded of the SAS men tied up and looking rather sheepish?
> 
> Or maybe -
> 
> "Remote controlled bombings masquerading as 'suicide bombings' that are carried out by the US, British and Israeli occupation forces fit these principles very neatly. By detonating bombs on a daily basis across Iraq and Afghanistan and via the propaganda organs touting them as being the work of Iraqi/Afghani 'suicide bombers' belonging to the insurgency, the occupying military hopes to achieve several goals: 
> 
> "cut off the widespread support base that the insurgency have amongst the Iraqis 
> 
> "create tensions between religious lines, especially by ascribing the faked 'suicide attacks' to either Shias or Sunnis. 
> ...


So yet another anti American source but fair enough.

What I was slightly perplexed about was the possibity you put forward no such thing as a SB.

Tell that to victims of 9/11 and the London bombings, plenty of eye witnesses there. Oh and Glasgow Airport and the failed Chicago attack etc. etc.

----------


## John Little

"John, 9/11 was an inside job."

That is rather.... definite.

----------


## Stavro

> Tell that to victims of 9/11 and the London bombings, plenty of eye witnesses there. Oh and Glasgow Airport and the failed Chicago attack etc. etc.


There certainly were plenty of eye witnesses to the London Underground bombings - all saying that the bombs were *underneath* the carriages. Does the "suicide bomber" also walk through metal floors in your blinkered view?

----------


## ducati

> John, 9/11 was an inside job. There were no "cells," nor OBL's lurking in caves.


You see, I keep falling into the trap of believing you're not a (word that describes someone who needs urgent help).

----------


## John Little

My wife heard the bomb go off in Gordon Square.  Her boss, a doctor went out to help.  He came back in tears because the walls of the British Medical Association were spattered with blood and there were bits of people on the road. The top of the bus had been blown to bits.

I do assure you that the bus bomb was on the upper deck, as announced in the news.
And the stuff I read had eyewitnesses seeing the bomber with a pack.  One woman saw him a few feet away and is still alive and crippled for life - a miracle of deliverance.


What have you been reading?

----------


## ducati

> There certainly were plenty of eye witnesses to the London Underground bombings - all saying that the bombs were *underneath* the carriages. Does the "suicide bomber" also walk through metal floors in your blinkered view?


You have mentioned that before. But you are wrong.

----------


## Stavro

> My wife heard the bomb go off in Gordon Square.  Her boss, a doctor went out to help.  He came back in tears because the walls of the British Medical Association were spattered with blood and there were bits of people on the road. The top of the bus had been blown to bits.
> 
> I do assure you that the bus bomb was on the upper deck, as announced in the news.
> And the stuff I read had eyewitnesses seeing the bomber with a pack.  One woman saw him a few feet away and is still alive and crippled for life - a miracle of deliverance.
> 
> 
> What have you been reading?


I did not mention the bus. I was talking of the Tube trains. I have no doubt that a young Muslim man was killed on that bus, along with many other innocent people.

My comments were about the Tube trains.

----------


## Stavro

> You have mentioned that before. But you are wrong.


But what if you are wrong, ducati? What would you conclude then?

----------


## ducati

> But what if you are wrong, ducati? What would you conclude then?


I'm not. Don't be silly.

----------


## John Little

I should be clearer in my language.  The eyewitness was in the underground train.

----------


## Stavro

> But what if you are wrong, ducati? What would you conclude then?


"The words of 7/7 survivor Bruce Lait, who was just yards from the explosion when it happened, cannot be taken out of context. 

"Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing, described to the _Cambridge Evening News_ how he and his partner were sitting nearest to the bomb when it detonated.  "We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now," he said. 

He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. 

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. *The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag*," he said."In his statement, Lait makes clear four things - according to what he witnessed, there was no suicide bomber, there was no rucksack or backpack that could have contained a bomb, there was nobody around the location where the bomb exploded, *and the bomb appeared to have been placed underneath the train*. 

"The fact that the policeman had to warn them of a 'hole' as they were being led out to safety obviously suggests that the hole was in the floor and therefore a potential hazard to them exiting the train."

(Source - http://www.sott.net/articles/show/18...Official-Story )

----------


## Stavro

> I should be clearer in my language.  The eyewitness was in the underground train.


The eyewitness to the bus bomb was in an Underground train?

----------


## fred

> "nor to the United States..."
> 
> Stavro - this is not the case. I remember well that the cells that carried out 9/11 had their origins in Afghanistan.  I also remember that the US gave the Taleban government an ultimatum to expel Al Quaeda from Afghanistan.  The Taleban called a Loya Jurga and decided not to expel Al Quaeda.
> 
> Since they had carried out what was, by any definition, an act of war against the US they were, logically a threat.
> 
> To the United States.


Even if what you say were true it would still not be justification for an invasion. Would a terrorist once having lived in Britain be justification for another country to invade? America wasn't attacked by Afghani forces, none of the hijackers were Afghani, even if they were it would still not be a legal basis for an invasion.

If Bin Laden had been in Britain we could not have legally extradited him to America after Bush had made his "wanted dead or alive" speech. They could have tried but the proceedings would have taken years not the days the Taliban were given.

As I have pointed out before, the invasion of Afghanistan was already planned and prepared for before 9/11, you can't plan and prepare for and undertake an operation of that size in 26 days. The invasion was going ahead 9/11 or no 9/11 so that can't be given as the reason.

----------


## ducati

> "The words of 7/7 survivor Bruce Lait, who was just yards from the explosion when it happened, cannot be taken out of context. 
> 
> "Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing, described to the _Cambridge Evening News_ how he and his partner were sitting nearest to the bomb when it detonated.
> "We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now," he said. 
> 
> He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. 
> 
> "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. *The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag*," he said. "In his statement, Lait makes clear four things - according to what he witnessed, there was no suicide bomber, there was no rucksack or backpack that could have contained a bomb, there was nobody around the location where the bomb exploded, *and the bomb appeared to have been placed underneath the train*. 
> 
> ...


You begger belief, just because you read it doesn't mean it was true (You are always telling me that). The simple fact, tragically, is that the many people sitting nearest the bomb are dead.

----------


## Tubthumper

Unbelievable. How can these people be allowed out of their houses?

----------


## John Little

Fred;

"Even if what you say were true it would still not be justification for an invasion"

Not so.  The terrorists who killed the Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 were Bosnians, not Serb nationals.  Nonetheless the fact that the Serbian secret service wa supporting and running a terrorist organisation was the cue for an Austrian ultimatum to Serbia- cue WW!.

If a government harbours terrorists and foments attacks on other countries then it seems to me reasonable to see that as a cause for war. Terrorists living in Britain a cause for war against us?  Yes it would be if they were funded, supported and trained by us - a legimate one.  Countries harbouring terrorists and then being declared war on by other countries is quite common- sometimes it is even manufactured as an excuse for war.

As to the invasion being preplanned- why on earth should the USA want Afghanistan?
Actually don't bother answering... I have no doubt at all you will tell me something about gas pipelines...

The US invaded Iraq.  They bombed Afghanistan and their contingent of troops was not sufficient to finish the job. They can't have wanted it very badly. They should just have carried on funding Hekmatyr if that was the case.

Stavro.  You are right - I was thinking of Daniel Obachike whom I confuted with Gill Hicks.  But Ducati is correct too - anyone close enough to the boms would be very unlikely to survive. The eyewitness in the train did not see the bomber- she saw the explosion and then blacked out.

I don't go for conspiracy stuff.  It's filed away with the moon landings never happening, British intelligence sinking the Lusitania, UFOs, Kennedy being killed by the Mafia/ Cubans/ Russians/CIA, Hoover because he was a trannie not wanting to be exposed/ the military industrial complex.  I don't buy that stuff.

----------


## northener

> "The words of 7/7 survivor Bruce Lait, who was just yards from the explosion when it happened, cannot be taken out of context. 
> 
> "Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing, described to the _Cambridge Evening News_ how he and his partner were sitting nearest to the bomb when it detonated.
> "We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now," he said. 
> 
> He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. 
> 
> "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. *The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag*," he said. "In his statement, Lait makes clear four things - according to what he witnessed, there was no suicide bomber, there was no rucksack or backpack that could have contained a bomb, there was nobody around the location where the bomb exploded, *and the bomb appeared to have been placed underneath the train*. 
> 
> ...


 
Apart from the actual quote from Bruce Lait the rest of this 'statement' is nothing more than ridiculous supposition and horseshit wrapped up as some sort of truth.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Once again, the gullible (Tubthumper, Phill, DrunkenDuck, etc.) have no response and thus resort to juvenile rubbish.


Nothing juvenile about them .. Full bloodied hotties to my eyes. Now they ARE worth fighting for.

As for YOU calling ME gullible then if you think that will bother me then try harder chum. Like I have said many time before I actually have over a decade's knowledge of how air support works as well as practical experience in sandy places. I didnt get my knowledge from Tinfoil Hat Wearer Monthly. But I have learned that you have your opinion set in stone and it does not matter what anyone says you will think what you want. I dont know why you are bothered about "my response" because you havent taken much notice of it before !!, I have offered plenty of repsonses and it hasnt made a whit of difference.

 But as for being "gullible" here's a thought for you. If the SAS men you were on about earlier were carrying out bomb attacks in Iraq where were the explosives, timers and detonators ??, surely they would have needed them to make things go bang ?? Why werent they paraded in the photo's along with them and their kit that was captured ??,  I will help you with this one .. Because there were none. More conspiracy garbage. Still we later drove a tank through the Prison and rescued them. Good result all round. Here is some more believable background on the incident .. http://www.infowars.com/articles/gov...ing_on_dr.html

And just because you implied I am juvenile I will post another photo of our aircrew keeping their eye on the target .. 



Go Get 'em Boys ..  :: 

EDIT .. Blimey .. Now we are onto the bombings in London ?? .. Its hard to keep up.

----------


## fred

> Not so.  The terrorists who killed the Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 were Bosnians, not Serb nationals.  Nonetheless the fact that the Serbian secret service wa supporting and running a terrorist organisation was the cue for an Austrian ultimatum to Serbia- cue WW!.


And if America and Britain had invaded Afghanistan in 1914 it may have been legal, but they didn't, they invaded in 2001 and we have had the United Nations Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court since then.




> If a government harbours terrorists and foments attacks on other countries then it seems to me reasonable to see that as a cause for war. Terrorists living in Britain a cause for war against us?  Yes it would be if they were funded, supported and trained by us - a legimate one.  Countries harbouring terrorists and then being declared war on by other countries is quite common- sometimes it is even manufactured as an excuse for war.


No, it isn't reasonable, under international law the only legitimate reasons to start a war are self defence, if your country is being invaded or is about to be invaded. Humanitarian, to stop genocide, or if you have a resolution from the UN Security Council authorising it.




> As to the invasion being preplanned- why on earth should the USA want Afghanistan?


Why did the Soviet Union want Afghanistan?

----------


## Tubthumper

> 


Fwoaaarrrr! Is that an F111? Lovely bit of stuff!!

----------


## Stavro

> You begger belief, just because you read it doesn't mean it was true (You are always telling me that). The simple fact, tragically, is that the many people sitting nearest the bomb are dead.


ducati, your mind is closed; you have said so ("I'm not [wrong]" Don't be silly.") There is another explanation other than what you hold so dear, and it makes far more sense than your official conspiracy theory.

Since your mind is closed, why are you on this thread? It is not to debate, for you, DrunkenDuck and Tub just post for the sake of it.

If the thread bothers you, but you have nothing of value to contribute, then why come back? Glutton for punishment, I suppose?

I don't understand why you keep coming back. You won't consider anything else, no matter how well researched and presented, and your contribution dried up ages ago.

At least golach has not returned after Fred corrected him on the "Please come in to Afghanistan and rescue us, you knights in shining armour" tale.

----------


## Phill

> Once again, the gullible (Tubthumper, Phill, DrunkenDuck, etc.) have no response and thus resort to juvenile rubbish.


A tad personal don't you think? We can do better than that.

This was quite a valid statement (I thought):




> Unless there is a video of an alleged suicide bomber  stating their intentions beforehand.......



Juvenile, yes. Gullible, apparently so.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Stavro

> Stavro.  You are right - I was thinking of Daniel Obachike whom I confuted with Gill Hicks.  But Ducati is correct too - anyone close enough to the boms would be very unlikely to survive. The eyewitness in the train did not see the bomber- she saw the explosion and then blacked out.


John - fair enough. However, the bomb being underneath the carriage makes survival more likely than the claim that it was inside the carriage.

If you do not think that evil and wickedness exist in this world, then that is up to you, but you should not label everything that you would feel uncomfortable with as a "conspiracy theory," its usage implying some derogatory connotations.

----------


## Tubthumper

Is there actually a list of words, terms or names we're not allowed to use on the org?

----------


## Stavro

> Apart from the actual quote from Bruce Lait the rest of this 'statement' is nothing more than ridiculous supposition and horseshit wrapped up as some sort of truth.


I see. Well the part of his statement I was particularly drawing attention to was, "*The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag*," which in your opinion, then, is not "ridiculous supposition" nor *********

----------


## Phill

> And just because you implied I am juvenile I will post another photo of our aircrew keeping their eye on the target ..


Now we are into conspiracy tackle, why did THEY go with the Aardvark instead of the TSR2 ?

----------


## Tubthumper

> Now we are into conspiracy tackle, why did THEY go with the Aardvark instead of the TSR2 ?


That will never be known, the question is, was Harold Wilson on of THEM or was he one of US that got cornered by THEM??
And why did they destroy all the tooling and prototypes??
And why did TSR2 protoype 2 have a reptile-friendly cockpit???
Is it true that Saunders-Roe, is 3rd dynasty egyptian for 'Worship my Lizard or die'!!!
 ::

----------


## Stavro

Seems that trying to ascertain the truth behind the murder of innocent civilians, whether in Afghanistan or on the London Underground, is too much for certain members.

That is a sad reflection on them.  :Frown:

----------


## ducati

> ducati, your mind is closed; you have said so ("I'm not [wrong]" Don't be silly.") There is another explanation other than what you hold so dear, and it makes far more sense than your official conspiracy theory.
> 
> Since your mind is closed, why are you on this thread? It is not to debate, for you, DrunkenDuck and Tub just post for the sake of it.
> 
> If the thread bothers you, but you have nothing of value to contribute, then why come back? Glutton for punishment, I suppose?
> 
> I don't understand why you keep coming back. You won't consider anything else, no matter how well researched and presented, and your contribution dried up ages ago.
> 
> At least golach has not returned after Fred corrected him on the "Please come in to Afghanistan and rescue us, you knights in shining armour" tale.


My mind is closed but yours isn't? Why do you even bother. This thread is not a debate. It never was. I will not change my perception of the truth to accomodate your propoganda. Why would I?

As to why I post (I can't speak for anyone else) If I didn't yours would be the only view presented (you would like that).

Oh and what is the bread reference about?

----------


## fred

> My mind is closed but yours isn't? Why do you even bother. This thread is not a debate. It never was. I will not change my perception of the truth to accomodate your propoganda. Why would I?
> 
> As to why I post (I can't speak for anyone else) If I didn't yours would be the only view presented (you would like that).
> 
> Oh and what is the bread reference about?


No one knows what happened, there has never been an inquiry.

There should have been a full and independent public inquiry into 7/7, there was none.

Till there is one, one person's opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

----------


## Tubthumper

Stavro, you strike me as a young chap who needs to get out more. Living with parents, existing through your keyboard, getting all your stimulation off the net, it's not healthy. 
Spending time in the online company of tired old men with strong but delusional beliefs, is not a good idea. Some fresh air, the company of other young people, some time spent actually debating in the real sense of the word, maybe in a pub with your friends. You don't even have to drink alcohol, just orange would do. Do you have many friends? Do you get out much? Maybe you could come to an org night out, I'm not the bear I might appear, I assure you!
Sitting on your high-horse kidding yourself on you've got an intellectual edge on the masses - it's a waste of a clever mind my friend. You'll grow old too quickly, you'll burn your life away and one day you'll realise when you're 75 that whether man landed on the moon or not doesn't matter at all from the point of view of one of the drones.
And this is not meant as a criticism or bullying, it's an attempt at reconcilliation if you like. An offer of advice from an older hand who's had an interesting life and is still going strong.
Smile. They might never fit a microchip.

----------


## ducati

> No one knows what happened, there has never been an inquiry.


S does it would seem.

What would be the point of a public enquiry when in your view the public are too stupid to see the truth.

I've had enough of this. See you on a fun thread.  :Grin:

----------


## fred

> S does it would seem.
> 
> What would be the point of a public enquiry when in your view the public are too stupid to see the truth.
> 
> I've had enough of this. See you on a fun thread.


It was not me who said the public are too stupid to see that truth, that was Plato, I disagreed.

----------


## Stavro

> This thread is not a debate. It never was.


Some of us are trying to have a debate.





> Oh and what is the bread reference about?


Pardon?

----------


## Stavro

> Stavro, you strike me as a young chap who needs to get out more. Living with parents, existing through your keyboard, getting all your stimulation off the net, it's not healthy. 
> Spending time in the online company of tired old men with strong but delusional beliefs, is not a good idea. Some fresh air, the company of other young people, some time spent actually debating in the real sense of the word, maybe in a pub with your friends. You don't even have to drink alcohol, just orange would do. Do you have many friends? Do you get out much? Maybe you could come to an org night out, I'm not the bear I might appear, I assure you!
> Sitting on your high-horse kidding yourself on you've got an intellectual edge on the masses - it's a waste of a clever mind my friend. You'll grow old too quickly, you'll burn your life away and one day you'll realise when you're 75 that whether man landed on the moon or not doesn't matter at all from the point of view of one of the drones.
> And this is not meant as a criticism or bullying, it's an attempt at reconcilliation if you like. An offer of advice from an older hand who's had an interesting life and is still going strong.
> Smile. They might never fit a microchip.



"Man landed on the moon or not"? Am I on the wrong thread?

Thank you for your concern, whether genuine or not.  :Wink: 

I was trying to get off this thread a short time ago, but it seems to be not that easy.

----------


## golach

[quote=Stavro;679313 
I was trying to get off this thread a short time ago, but it seems to be not that easy.[/quote]

Seemplees....just shove off  ::

----------


## Phill

> ...."*The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag*," which in your opinion, then, is not "ridiculous supposition" nor ...


Have you done any research, or have experience of victims immediately post incident and their reliability, impartiality, susceptibility to suggestion and lack of professional experience.

Try blowing things up sometime, not in a criminal sense obviously. Try using different explosives and in confined areas. Also consider the construction of (in this case) tube trains and the access panels in the floor of them.

Also consider your situational awareness and try and compare that to those around you, especially in a busy, hostile (in public/personal space standards), fast moving, cramped environment where often people don't want to make eye contact with those around them.

The last time you were on a train or bus, can you remember who else was there and the bags they had with them?
Which stops they got on and off? 




> Seems that trying to ascertain the truth behind the murder of innocent civilians, whether in Afghanistan or on the London Underground, is too much for certain members.
> 
> That is a sad reflection on them.


So where is the truth, you don't really accept dodgy quotes and low res piccies from the Maily Dail do you?




> No one knows what happened, there has never been an inquiry.


And you really think Chilcott would satisfy your questions??

----------


## fred

> And you really think Chilcott would satisfy your questions??


I think there should have been a full, independent and public inquiry. Neither the government of the day nor the Metropolitan Police had too much of a reputation for honesty and integrity, there should have been an inquiry.

Till there is one, one person's opinion is as good as any one else's.

----------


## Phill

> I think there should have been a full, independent and public inquiry. Neither the government of the day nor the Metropolitan Police had too much of a reputation for honesty and integrity, there should have been an inquiry.
> 
> Till there is one, one person's opinion is as good as any one else's.


OK, but who would undertake such an inquiry that would / could be independent AND access al the requisite information that would have to come form the intelligence services?

----------


## fred

> OK, but who would undertake such an inquiry that would / could be independent AND access al the requisite information that would have to come form the intelligence services?


A member of the judiciary.

----------


## Moira

> A member of the judiciary.


I guess you've already emailed him/her Fred.  Look forward to the response.

----------


## John Little

Fred - your view of the UN is Wilsonian.  But the UN does not exist to make a 'better' world.  It never did - how do you think they persuaded Stalin to change his mind at Yalta?  It's a back-scratching organisation designed to ensure that the victors of WW2 could impose an order upon the world.  What it says and what it does are not the same thing.

International law does not exist.

There is that which purports to be international law, but really it relies entirely upon the force with which it can be imposed.  There is no legislative body making international law, and the whole concept is so nebulous that it is like sea froth.  To have law you have to have a legislative body.
There isn't one.

Asking me why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan does not answer why the US did.  The Soviets invaded in a bid to carry out an expansion there they had been desirous of for over a century- an inherited Tsarist policy.  They also hoped for an easy victory to pull their fractious republics together with military glory.

Stavro - I do not imply that conspiracy theory is derogatory.  My own step son does not believe in the moon landings- but he believes in this being called God- I don't believe in him either.

I do not buy conspiracy theories mainly because I have researched enough government papers in the National Archives to know that our governments make it up as they go along.  You don't ned academic qualifications or to be very bright in order to reach the cabinet and it is plain that some of them have not the faintest idea what they are doing from one month to the next.  

I think some large plan to bring about bad effects smacks rather of the Protocols of the elders of Zion - the original conspiracy theory.  I don't think they have it in them.

----------


## northener

> I see. Well the part of his statement I was particularly drawing attention to was, "*The metal was pushed upwards* _as if_* the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag,* _but I don't remember_ *anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag*," which in your opinion, then, is not "ridiculous supposition" nor *********


So one persons lack of 100% clarity during a very traumatic event, coupled with a laymans view of the damaged area constitutes solid fact?  I don't think so.

His comments have been skewed from opinion to solid fact in the article you quoted, Stav. That's why I stated it was horsehit. And I stand by that statement.

----------


## fred

> I guess you've already emailed him/her Fred.  Look forward to the response.


It's down to the government to call an inquiry and if they haven't no doubt there is a reason.

Considering the government took us into two illegal wars, lied to the people to justify them. The police shot down an innocent man on the London Underground then lied to the people to try and cover it up. The intelligence services aided and abetted America to torture people and are lying to the people to cover it up.

I think it's reasonable to believe we are not being told the truth about 7/7 and I think we have a right to know. The judiciary are the only ones with any authority in the country that we don't know for certain are corrupt and haven't been a party to the lies and cover ups, they should be the ones to conduct it.

----------


## John Little

"The judiciary are the only ones with any authority in the country that we don't know for certain are corrupt and haven't been a party to the lies and cover ups, they should be the ones to conduct it."

This is not logical.  If the whole thing is organised by a malign force, and the judiciary are appointees by the administration then I can see no reason in your thesis for neglecting the judicary.  They have to be part of it.

Frankly if your view of the world is real I see little option for us all save to jump off a cliff. It makes me feel like the fellow in that old telly series 'The fugitive'

But really I think you ascribe extraordinary qualities to very ordinary people - our rulers.  And indeed our secret services.

Have you ever read Miles Copeland's Game of Nations?  That took away from me any illusions that the CIA for one knew what they were about - they were, and probably still are, more like the Keystone Kops.

----------


## fred

> "The judiciary are the only ones with any authority in the country that we don't know for certain are corrupt and haven't been a party to the lies and cover ups, they should be the ones to conduct it."
> 
> This is not logical.  If the whole thing is organised by a malign force, and the judiciary are appointees by the administration then I can see no reason in your thesis for neglecting the judicary.  They have to be part of it.
> 
> Frankly if your view of the world is real I see little option for us all save to jump off a cliff. It makes me feel like the fellow in that old telly series 'The fugitive'
> 
> But really I think you ascribe extraordinary qualities to very ordinary people - our rulers.  And indeed our secret services.
> 
> Have you ever read Miles Copeland's Game of Nations?  That took away from me any illusions that the CIA for one knew what they were about - they were, and probably still are, more like the Keystone Kops.


We still need an inquiry and one the people can have faith in. Unlike the Chilcot Inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, ex civil servant who was a member of the Butler Whitewash, Sir Roderick Lyne who was our ambassador to Russia at the time and it was his job to sell the lies to the Russians, he is investigating himself. Sir Lawrence Freedman who was foreign policy advisor to Tony Blair who picked him because of his belief wars of aggression are justified and is an exponent of "wars of choice". Martin Gilbert, well take a look at what he had to say in the Guardian in 2004 and tell me he is unbiased. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...379819,00.html

Not one of the panel spoke against the war in 2003 and most were speaking in favour. It was widely accepted before the inquiry began that it was going to be another whitewash.

We cannot be certain that the judiciary will be 100% unbiased but we have a far better chance than letting those party to the crimes investigate themselves, letting the criminals appoint the judges.

----------


## Phill

> The judiciary are the only ones with any authority in the country that we don't know for certain are corrupt and haven't been a party to the lies and cover ups, they should be the ones to conduct it.


Oh c'mon, are we talking about conspiracy and collusion here or not?
This is a very naive view that a judge is going to get straight answers out of everyone allegedly involved. 

Can we be sure they'd ask the right questions???  ::

----------


## John Little

I find your faith in the judiciary very puzzling in light of your suspicions.  The judiciary has no great track record of impartiality - anywhere.

I repeat- if your view of the world is correct, then you can trust no-one.

----------


## golach

> I find your faith in the judiciary very puzzling in light of your suspicions. The judiciary has no great track record of impartiality - anywhere.


I agree, it is well know the Judiciary is run by the Free Masons, so we all know what that means.
I really must stick to Ian Rankin as my prefered author and not Dan Brown ::

----------


## fred

> Oh c'mon, are we talking about conspiracy and collusion here or not?
> This is a very naive view that a judge is going to get straight answers out of everyone allegedly involved. 
> 
> Can we be sure they'd ask the right questions???


Well no but we can be sure panel members picked by those being investigated wouldn't.

----------


## Tubthumper

> The judiciary are the only ones with any authority in the country that we don't know for certain are corrupt and haven't been a party to the lies and cover ups, they should be the ones to conduct it.


What is the point in an inquiry, if everyone and everything has ben corrupted??
I asked before what one should do if one is unsatisfied with the way the democracy is being run, what should one do?
If you can bring yourself to acknowledge that there is something in our country which can be salvaged from the conspiracy, why not seek election through the various processes available, and get yourself into a position where you can change things?
Alternatively, why not move to London and start a revolution? Anything is better than crying about your fears and frustrations on this tiny and unimportant site.

----------


## Stavro

> So one persons lack of 100% clarity during a very traumatic event, coupled with a laymans view of the damaged area constitutes solid fact?  I don't think so.
> 
> His comments have been skewed from opinion to solid fact in the article you quoted, Stav. That's why I stated it was horsehit. And I stand by that statement.


Sorry, northener, but you have completely disregarded the essential part of the eyewitness testimony: *The metal was pushed upwards*

I have seen photographs that verify this fact.

It was not, in my opinion, a Muslim with a back pack. I know that blows away the cosy government-looks-after-us facade, but there we are. At least two of the four young Muslims were set up. They were patsies.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Sorry, northener, but you have completely disregarded the essential part of the eyewitness testimony: *The metal was pushed upwards*
> I have seen photographs that verify this fact.
> It was not, in my opinion, a Muslim with a back pack. I know that blows away the cosy government-looks-after-us facade, but there we are. At least two of the four young Muslims were set up. They were patsies.


Good grief! Well spotted Stav, have you reported this to the authorities - they need to know about this immediately. This is exactly the kind of evidence that's needed to put an end to these atrocities, whoever causes them!

----------


## John Little

Yes - it's an interesting thing you know but I read a report from a diver who is supposed to have gone down to inspect the wreck of the Lusitania some time in the 1980s.  He said that the metal round the hole in the ship's bow was petalled outwards, not inwards as you would expect from a torpedo.

Could it be the same people at work.....? ::

----------


## Phill

> *The metal was pushed upwards*
> 
> I have seen photographs that verify this fact.


I'd like to see these too, are they on the web?

I am also curious as to where your knowledge and evidence comes from, generally speaking. Do you know or know of people giving you information with regards to these events, or is it internet based?

----------


## Boozeburglar

oops..............................................  ..

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Wish I was young enough to sign up again. I'm about as fit as I was 20 years ago, I can still shoot straight, I'm more sober and sensible and know clearly why I want to go.
> 'Sno fair, these young guys have all the fun.


I don't recall anyone I ever talked to involved in any action calling it  'fun'.

There are plenty of opportunities over there for ex forces, no matter  how old.

My uncle has security guards ex Foreign Legion.

Get your ass over there!

They had internet cafes, you can still carry on bullying people on here.  :Wink:

----------


## northener

> Sorry, northener, but you have completely disregarded the essential part of the eyewitness testimony: *The metal was pushed upwards*
> 
> I have seen photographs that verify this fact.


Maybe so, Stav.

But I've been in the Aft Engine Room of a destroyer when it received a direct hit from a 1000lb bomb. And I can categorically state that metal will bend in allsorts of unexpected directions through shockwaves, reflected blast and flexion.

----------


## Boozeburglar

What pictures have you seen Stavro?

Link them.

I know someone who would be interested in any evidence you have that is being withheld.

----------


## Anfield

Another UK soldier killed today making it 276 so far.

So,  that is another set of parents who will not see their son/daughter again,  except in a coffin.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I don't recall anyone I ever talked to involved in any action calling it  'fun'.
> There are plenty of opportunities over there for ex forces, no matter  how old.
> My uncle has security guards ex Foreign Legion.
> Get your ass over there!
> They had internet cafes, you can still carry on bullying people on here.


Perhaps fun was the wrong word. A lot of the guys I know seem to find deploying very fulfilling though. As for ex FL security guards - I don't somehow think my sorry ageing carcass would seriously make an imposing presence. The way things are going here, though, I might end up out there building power stations. But that'll be OK as long as I can find some deserving cause to focus what's left of my brain on.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Another UK soldier killed today making it 276 so far.
> So,  that is another set of parents who will not see their son/daughter again,  except in a coffin.


Yes, we can read the news. Are you gloating? It certainly seems that way.

----------


## bekisman

They kill themselves too:

17 January 2006 "Hundreds of Afghan Taliban mujahedin are ready for suicide attacks, "Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah tells Reuters.
16 January 2006 -- Bombers kill 26 people in two separate attacks in the Kandahar Province (Spin Boldak and Kandahar) in southern Afghanistan one day after a Canadian diplomat and two civilians were killed in the same area. First, a suicide bomber hurls himself in front of an Afghan Army vehicle in the heart of the provincial capital, Kandahar, killing three Afghan soldiers and two civilians and wounding four soldiers and 10 civilians. Later the same day, at least 20 people are killed and 20 others injured when a bomb attached to a motorcycle explodes at a playground where hundreds of people were gathered for a festival in Spin Boldak, bordering Pakistan.

15 January 2006 -- A suicide car bomb strikes a Canadian Military Convoy in southern Afghanistan, killing two civilians and a Canadian diplomat and wounding 13 other people. 

14 January 2006 -- A suicide car bombing targets a U.S.-Afghan military convoy traveling along a main road in the southern Helmand Province, wounding a U.S. soldier. 

5 January 2006 -- A suicide bomber attacks a crowded market in an Afghan town just a few hundred meters from where the U.S. ambassador was meeting with local leaders. Ten Afghans were killed and 50 wounded.

2 January 2006 -- A suspected suicide bomber detnates explosives in a car near a U.S. military convoy in the southern city of Kandahar, killing himself and wounding a U.S. soldier and two passersby.

2005

20 December 2005 -- Three International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldiers are injured in a suicide-bomb explosion in the western Herat Province.

14 December 2005 -- A suicide attack rocks the famous blue mosque of Afghanistan's northern Balkh Province but did not cause serious injuries.

11 December 2005 -- A suicide bomb attack injures three civilians in the southern Kandahar Province.

mid-November 2005 -- Suicide bombers strike three times in three days, killing a German peacekeeper and several Afghan civilians. In all three cases, vehicles carrying explosives were driven into military convoys. "Taliban [fighters] have long planned and prepared for suicide attacks, and a large number of Taliban are present in cities all over Afghanistan, including Kabul, and are only waiting for orders to attack," commander and Taliban-era Defense Minister Mullah Obaidullah is quoted by Reuters as saying. 

14 November 2005 -- twin attacks in Kabul target NATO-led peacekeepers, killing a German soldier and eight Afghans and marking the first attack in a wave of suicide bombings that will continue into 2006.

1 June 2005 -- An attacker reportedly dressed in a police uniform detonates a bomb at the entrance to a mosque at a funeral for a slain anti-Taliban cleric, killing 19 and injuring 52, including Kabul's police chief. 

7 May 2005 -- A suicide bomber attacks an Internet cafe at a guesthouse in Kabul, killing a UN engineer and an Afghan national and injuring five others.

2004

23 October 2004 -- Two weeks after a landmark presidential election that hands Hamid Karzai a majority, a bomber posing as a beggar approaches ISAF soldiers on a Kabul street that is popular with tourists before blowing himself up. The blast wounds three soldiers and kills a young Afghan girl.

30 January 2004 -- A bomber pulls a taxi laden with explosives up to an ISAF vehicle near a military base in Kabul before detonating his cargo, killing a British soldier and wounding four others.

27 January 2004 -- An attacker nears an ISAF vehicle before detonating mortor rounds strapped to his body, killing a Canadian soldier and an Afghan civilian and wounding three Canadian troops and eight civilians. A Taliban spokesman is quoted as vowing that the attack is the start of a campaign of suicide attacks that "will continue until coalition forces leave our country."

2003

29 December 2003 -- Five Afghan security officers are killed when a man they arrest detonates explosives strapped to his body. 

9 June 2003 -- A taxi cab filled with explosives slams into a bus carrying German ISAF troops, killing four soldiers and one Afghan national. 

February 2003 -- A speaker, purportedly Osama bin Laden, calls in an audiotape for suicide bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan to challenge the United States.


2001 

9 September 2001 -- Commander Ahmed Shah Mas'ud who has spent years fighting Soviet occupation and then leading the anti-Taliban United Front (aka Northern Alliance), is killed by Algerian suicide bombers disguised as a camera crew. The so-called 9/11 attacks against the United States take place days later, prompting the United States to invade to invoke NATO's Article 5 and lead an invasion to oust the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.

Pre-2001 -- Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan recruit internationally and teach suicide bombing as part of their training.

Sources: compiled by RFE/RL from reports by Afghanistan Watch, Reuters, AP, Xinhua, "Miami Herald," "Montreal Gazette," and factiva.com

----------


## Stavro

> Maybe so, Stav.
> 
> But I've been in the Aft Engine Room of a destroyer when it received a direct hit from a 1000lb bomb. And I can categorically state that metal will bend in allsorts of unexpected directions through shockwaves, reflected blast and flexion.


And this I will accept, northener, because it is far different from the blind denial of the eyewitness tesimony that the floor metal was bent upwards after the explosion, even though we are talking of something nowhere near a 1,000 lb bomb. (He would have been a pretty strong man to carry that.  :Smile:  )

As Fred stated earlier, several times, this carnage should be the subject of a technical, independent inquiry.

So at that, I will digress no further from Anfield's original subject ...


Yes, more loss of life. And no doubt more horrendous maiming that probably will not make the statistics in the mainstream media. O, and of course, more Afghani deaths and maiming that will not make the statistics at all, probably.  :Frown:

----------


## Phill

> ...because it is far different from the blind denial of the eyewitness tesimony that the floor metal was bent upwards after the explosion...


Where is the blind denial?
I am curious as to further photos that you've seen. And I am truly curious as to where the other evidence that you have seen comes from.

----------


## Stavro

> Where is the blind denial?
> I am curious as to further photos that you've seen. And I am truly curious as to where the other evidence that you have seen comes from.


Nope. Don't believe you anymore on that one - you have called "wolf" once too often. Do your own research.

----------


## fred

> They kill themselves too:


Yes indeed.

Isn't it about time we realised that they didn't want a lot of foreign soldiers coming in and taking over their country.

There weren't loads of suicide bombings before we invaded, Afghanistan had only had one and that was a political assassination.

----------


## Tubthumper

Where's the photos Stavro? I don't believe you.
Once again, despite protestations and bluster, when called on to produce the goods, the subject gets changed.
Quelle surprise.

----------


## Phill

> Nope. Don't believe you anymore on that one - you have called "wolf" once too often. Do your own research.


Because I asked the question of Banking Families?   :Smile: 
Not wolf, it was a genuine question with (at that time) a genuine response.

Anyhow.

I can only find one picture relating to what that I think we have discussed here, and it is a restricted image in so much of the angle and actual focus point of the image.

I have done my own (limited) research and I am still somewhat perplexed at the claims that are made by various people, both in here and elsewhere.

There seems to be a 'romanticism' with popular culture conspiracy theories based around what "evidence" can be found on the internet. It seem perpetuated by the media, the very same media that some people claim to be moulding the populace's views.

It is almost fashionable and hip to be questioning 9/11 or 7/7 incidents, is it because of their 'sexy' tag lines.
Not so long ago I touched on another possible "conspiracy theory" but this was discarded as speaking ill if the dead or in poor taste and uncalled for.

Additionally there is little reference to issues surrounding the Manchester Bomb, again not sexy or highbrow enough I guess.

But then, there isn't much on the internet about that is there.


It seems to me that when simple and honest questions are asked of people about the information they allude to, there is a path of avoidance.


 :Smile:

----------


## Tubthumper

> Additionally there is little reference to issues surrounding the Manchester Bomb, again not sexy or highbrow enough I guess. But then, there isn't much on the internet about that is there.


 Ah but there weren't innocent civilians killed were there? Wait a minute though, there were civilians killed, weren't there? They were British, but does the fact no-one remebers mean they weren't innocent?



> It seems to me that when simple and honest questions are asked of people about the information they allude to, there is a path of avoidance.


You got it. Watch the rapid subject changes. See the mental gear-shift when confronted with something incontrovertible that goes against the belief. Gasp with amazement at the self-pitying whine that comes out when they're caught. Laugh mightily as they desparately squirm when exposed as charlatans.

----------


## Aaldtimer

> Yes indeed.
> 
> Isn't it about time we realised that they didn't want a lot of foreign soldiers coming in and taking over their country.
> 
> There weren't loads of suicide bombings before we invaded, Afghanistan had only had one and that was a political assassination.


Ah, but Fred, the Taliban were doing a fine job of hanging women and anyone else who "sinned" against their code.
Not by the usual "drop" method though, they preferred to hoist them with a digger bucket, or similar device, so that they would choke to death slowly, and agonisingly, rather than the quick way. ::

----------


## fred

> Ah, but Fred, the Taliban were doing a fine job of hanging women and anyone else who "sinned" against their code.
> Not by the usual "drop" method though, they preferred to hoist them with a digger bucket, or similar device, so that they would choke to death slowly, and agonisingly, rather than the quick way.


Is that any slower or less painful than burning to death in white phosphorus or dying of cancer from depleted uranium when you haven't sinned? Were the horrors of the Taliban worse than the horrors of eight and a half years of war?

At least under the Taliban the people who hadn't sinned could sleep soundly in their beds.

----------


## Tubthumper

> At least under the Taliban the people who hadn't sinned could sleep soundly in their beds.


Unless they were (a) women who went out without a full body-bag on (b) persons who desired to follow a different religious faith or subsect than that specified by the local taliban/ clan cheif (c) were denounced by their neighbours for whatever reason (e) a member of the wrong clan and so on and so on... in any of which cases they could look forward to some real entertainment e.g torture.
You hate the british system and want it toppled, you agree with the taliban system - what are you on?

----------


## Anfield

*"..A British soldier killed in a suicide bomb attack in  Afghanistan on Saturday has been named as Rifleman Daniel Holkham, from  3rd Battalion The Rifles.*

He is the eighth soldier from The  Rifles to die this month. Both his brothers also serve in The Rifles. 


Since  operations began in Afghanistan in 2001, some *278* British military  personnel have been killed.."


Let us hope that his other two brothers are not to become further casualties of this illegal war.


The Tories have just unveiled their election posters,  and not one of them mentions the wars into which New Labour took us, and which Brown continues to send UK soldiers to their deaths to

----------


## scotsboy

> Is that any slower or less painful than burning to death in white phosphorus or *dying of cancer from depleted uranium* when you haven't sinned? Were the horrors of the Taliban worse than the horrors of eight and a half years of war?
> 
> At least under the Taliban the people who hadn't sinned could sleep soundly in their beds.


Nice to see you have dropped the deformities and gone for the stochastic effects :Wink: ............of course you will have information on the increased cancer rates directly linked to DU?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> *"..A British soldier killed in a suicide bomb attack in  Afghanistan on Saturday has been named as Rifleman Daniel Holkham, from  3rd Battalion The Rifles.*
> 
> He is the eighth soldier from The  Rifles to die this month. Both his brothers also serve in The Rifles. 
> 
> 
> Since  operations began in Afghanistan in 2001, some *278* British military  personnel have been killed.."
> 
> 
> Let us hope that his other two brothers are not to become further casualties of this illegal war.
> ...


Anfield .. please stop updating us with the deaths of British service personnel to make political points. I, for one, dont need you to update me and I am distinctly uncomfortable with you using the deaths of these young men in this way. Adding the photo is not needed, and I am pretty sure his brothers would be fairly unhappy with you using their siblings death to make a point about the legality of the conflict in a long off topic thread after some of the blatantly untrue, ignorant and naive comments you have made in the past about the British Forces. I am sure you can make your points without using the death of a young man who gave a helluva lot more than an opinion on a community forum. He put himself on the line and made the ultimate sacrifice, whatever your views he gave everything for his mates and I am sure his brothers will find comfort in that. I am asking you politely to please stop using these deaths in this way.

----------


## bekisman

Using a Community website as a political platform by a stated Pacifist is wrong.

----------


## fred

> Using a Community website as a political platform by a stated Pacifist is wrong.


I think in any community there will be people with differing political views and of course everyone will think their political views are the only right political views, that is normal in any community.

I think the only problem is when people say "mine is the only right political view therefore you shouldn't be allowed to state yours".

Just in the last week I have seen two disturbing news articles. One was telling about how much money Tony Blair, the man who committed us to war in Iraq, has made from his oil interests in the Middle East and how he kept it secret from the British public. The other was about Geoff Hoon, the man who was defence secretary at the time we went to war with Iraq, prostituting himself by offering to sell his political influence to American corporations for £5,000 a day and offering to sell his insider knowledge obtained as Britain's representative to NATO to American arms companies.

Now I don't think you need to be a pacifist to realise we've been well and truly had and what our solders have been dying for has not been the people of Britain, well not the vast majority of them anyway and I don't think there is anything unpatriotic about saying so.

----------


## Anfield

> Using a Community website as a political platform by a stated Pacifist is wrong.


How can you say that my post was making  a political statement?  here are three definitions of a Pacifist: 

The belief that disputes between nations  should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of  resolving disputes.


Such  opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.


I stand by all three of them

----------


## Anfield

> Anfield .. please stop updating us with the deaths of British service personnel to make political points. I, for one, dont need you to update me and I am distinctly uncomfortable with you using the deaths of these young men in this way. Adding the photo is not needed, and I am pretty sure his brothers would be fairly unhappy with you using their siblings death to make a point about the legality of the conflict in a long off topic thread after some of the blatantly untrue, ignorant and naive comments you have made in the past about the British Forces. I am sure you can make your points without using the death of a young man who gave a helluva lot more than an opinion on a community forum. He put himself on the line and made the ultimate sacrifice, whatever your views he gave everything for his mates and I am sure his brothers will find comfort in that. I am asking you politely to please stop using these deaths in this way.


Why does it make you uncomfortable to be reminded that UK soldiers are being killed in an illegal war.  Now that UK soldiers deaths are sometimes not even mentioned on news bulletins it is important to keep people informed.
By the way, do you also feel uncomfortable whilst you carrying out your role in this carnage?

I make no apologies for using photo, this shows that soldier killed was just a kid,  and I am sure that his parents would sooner the war ended now before they lose another one of their sons.

I think you will also find that you were the first on this thread to use a photo,  and what photo did you use, yes the cockpit of a killing machine.

----------


## northener

> Why does it make you uncomfortable to be reminded that UK soldiers are being killed in an illegal war. Now that UK soldiers deaths are sometimes not even mentioned on news bulletins it is important to keep people informed.
> By the way, do you also feel uncomfortable whilst you carrying out your role in this carnage?
> 
> I make no apologies for using photo, this shows that soldier killed was just a kid, and I am sure that his parents would sooner the war ended now before they lose another one of their sons.
> 
> I think you will also find that you were the first on this thread to use a photo, and what photo did you use, yes the cockpit of a killing machine.


Somebodies beeen watching BBC's little piece about reporting casualties, I see......

Personally, Anfield, if I was a relative of anyone killed in that conflict I'd be pretty well annoyed at anyone who parades the death of someone I know for nothing more than cheap online point-scoring. 
And I'd guess that unlike you, I have a large number of friends and acquantances who have lost people in various conflicts over the years.

It's got nothing to do with not being able to handle the 'truth', it's about offering someone some quiet dignity. 
It's a very simple concept that appears to be lost on some.

----------


## Anfield

> Somebodies beeen watching BBC's little piece about reporting casualties, I see......
> 
> Personally, Anfield, if I was a relative of anyone killed in that conflict I'd be pretty well annoyed at anyone who parades the death of someone I know for nothing more than cheap online point-scoring. 
> And I'd guess that unlike you, I have a large number of friends and acquantances who have lost people in various conflicts over the years.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with not being able to handle the 'truth', it's about offering someone some quiet dignity. 
> It's a very simple concept that appears to be lost on some.


Other than pointing out that an awful lot of British soldiers are being killed in an illegal war, what type of "point scoring" am I involved in.

And as for your guess about me having no knoledge of death from conflict, you are incorrect.  
You state yourself that you and a *"large number* of friends and acquantances have lost people  in various conflicts over the years."

Do you ever think what a waste of life?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Why does it make you uncomfortable to be reminded that UK soldiers are being killed in an illegal war.  Now that UK soldiers deaths are sometimes not even mentioned on news bulletins it is important to keep people informed.
> By the way, do you also feel uncomfortable whilst you carrying out your role in this carnage?
> 
> I make no apologies for using photo, this shows that soldier killed was just a kid,  and I am sure that his parents would sooner the war ended now before they lose another one of their sons.
> 
> I think you will also find that you were the first on this thread to use a photo,  and what photo did you use, yes the cockpit of a killing machine.


Listen Anfield.

If you care about the guy then do one of the following .. write a letter to the PM disagreeing with the decision to send him there. Send a contribution to Help for Heroes. Send a contribution to his Regimental Association. Thats respectful. You are using the death of a young man who gave a lot more than you ever did or will to prove a point. Thats disrespectful. Your using this young man has nothing to do with keeping "people informed" as the media do quite a good job of that. Most are even quite good at finding out themselves. Dont try to disguise using the death of this young man in making a politcal point as some kind of concern. Your previous points and comments on this thread prove you have no real concern for anyone in uniform.

How one earth are you "sure" about how his parents feel ??, have you met them ??, Perhaps they are proud that all three of their sons took, and stood by, their oath to this Country. Maybe they would rather that than father someone who does nothing other than stand on the sidelines and bitch and only appears tough enough to fight on the Internet. If you were to do this with a photo of my brother if he was ever killed (he is still serving) you would be taken to task in person.

The photo point is irrelevant. Mine was a photo not taken in Afghanistan and used as a point of humour, it showed a still taken on a FLIR camera of girls sunbathing. Thats a bit different from using the picture of a dead soldier I didnt even know to prove a political point.

As for how I felt during my service, that's none of your buisness. But its interesting how on one hand you are eager to throw the accusation at me of being involved in carnage right alongside supposed sympathy for a dead soldier killed in the line of duty. Do you need a hand to see your own hypocrisy there ??

----------


## golach

> Now that UK soldiers deaths are sometimes not even mentioned on news bulletins.


More lying propaganda again from you anfield? 
As far as I can tell, all deaths of UK military forces have been reported, and the residents of Wooton Bassett turn out and show respect for them all. An act that more of us respect and agree with, than the rubbish you post on here.

----------


## Anfield

> The photo point is irrelevant. Mine was a photo not taken in Afghanistan and used as a point of humour, it showed a still taken on a FLIR camera of girls sunbathing. Thats a bit different from using the picture of a dead soldier I didnt even know to prove a political point.


Two things:
1,  Why do you think it is acceptable to use a photo as a "point of  humour" in such a serious thread. 

2 Both you and bekisman have failed to state what type of political point I am trying to score.

All I want is the end of an illegal war, a stance which an awful lot of people support both here and throughout the world

----------


## Anfield

> More lying propaganda again from you anfield? 
> As far as I can tell, all deaths of UK military forces have been reported, and the residents of Wooton Bassett turn out and show respect for them all. An act that more of us respect and agree with, than the rubbish you post on here.


Once again I must correct you:
"As far as I can tell" is not a very exact statement is it? and what about the rest of the casualties e.g.  NATO forces, Afghanistani civillians etc are they all reported upon?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Two things:
> 1,  Why do you think it is acceptable to use a photo as a "point of  humour" in such a serious thread. 
> 
> 2 Both you and bekisman have failed to state what type of political point I am trying to score.
> 
> All I want is the end of an illegal war, a stance which an awful lot of people support both here and throughout the world


1 .. Because it ridiculed your views that civilians are targetted in a sarcastic and witty matter. And girls in bikinis are always nice to see. As someone well aware of the lengths gone to to avoid hitting civilians I think I earned the right to do ridiucle the ridiculous assumption and accusations that were being made. And a "serious thread" ??, dont make me laugh. Anyone who offered a different opinon to what you and others believed were ridiculed and/or ignored. Even if they really knew the subject issue.

2 .. Cant speak for Beks but I am well aware of the political point you are trying to make. That isnt the issue. And for the record I dont agree with the Ops in Iraq and Afghanistan either. The issue is you using the photo of a dead soldier you never knew to make your point about an "illegal war" and then pretending that you are doing it because you care about him and his family. I mean you even dared to post your assumptions of how you think his parents feel in defence of your views. Your point isnt the problem, I actually agree with it, its the methods you used to make it in the light of recent comments. Using that boy in that way is not well received by those who served.

----------


## Anfield

DD,
We must agree to disagree, but I stand by all the statements I have made and I do respect your postion.  

I do not regret posting picture of a "dead soldier I never knew" and that is why I featured it. Instead of becoming another statistic i.e Dead Soldier No 278,  we can put a face to the number,  it is the face of an ordinary 19 year old who died in a foreign land,  far far away from his family.

You criticise me for "assuming" how I felt his parents were feeling.
I would  guarantee that his parents are suffering hell because their son has been taken away from them so early into his life.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> DD,
> We must agree to disagree, but I stand by all the statements I have made and I do respect your postion.  
> 
> I do not regret posting picture of a "dead soldier I never knew" and that is why I featured it. Instead of becoming another statistic i.e Dead Soldier No 278,  we can put a face to the number,  it is the face of an ordinary 19 year old who died in a foreign land,  far far away from his family.
> 
> You criticise me for "assuming" how I felt his parents were feeling.
> I would  guarantee that his parents are suffering hell because their son has been taken away from them so early into his life.


Fair enough .. You just dont get it and I cant be bothered trying to explain it to you anymore.

----------


## golach

> Now that UK soldiers deaths are sometimes not even mentioned on news bulletins it





> Once again I must correct you:
> "As far as I can tell" is not a very exact statement is it? and what about the rest of the casualties e.g. NATO forces, Afghanistani civillians etc are they all reported upon?


I must correct you:
Where did you mention the rest of the casualties Sic NATO forces, Afghani casualties. 
I was not going to bother correcting you spelling, but, civilians has one L, and the Afghan people are not Afghanistani, they are Afghani.
Do try to keep up with your own propaganda

----------


## northener

> Other than pointing out that an awful lot of British soldiers are being killed in an illegal war, what type of "point scoring" am I involved in.


You're doing an online version of dragging bodies out and shrieking "look at this!". Cynically wrapping it up in a sympathy motive.

This is a free and open forum and I respect your right to post as you see fit, but, how about respecting the rights of those who have lost loved ones in this shitty little conflict?




> And as for your guess about me having no knoledge of death from conflict, you are incorrect.


Don't recall saying that at all.




> You state yourself that you and a *"large number* of friends and acquantances have lost people in various conflicts over the years."
> 
> Do you ever think what a waste of life?


No.


I'll tell you what Anfield, there's been a number of teenagers killed on the roads around here these past few years. I've got photos of two of them. How about you posting them up on here and then try defending your position on the grounds that it's relevant to a local road safety message?

You wouldn't because you know you'd be ripped to shreds within minutes.

Like I said, allowing people a little quiet dignity would go a long way......

----------


## Phill

> Other than pointing out that an awful lot of British soldiers are being killed in an illegal war.........



To which group of unaware .org users are you pointing this out to?


Get a grip.

----------


## Anfield

quote=Anfield;682835]
And as for your guess about me having no knoledge of death from  conflict, you are incorrect.  

[/quote]




> Don't recall saying that at all.



Selective memory?

"..And I'd guess that unlike you, I have a large number of friends and  acquantances who have lost people in various conflicts over the years.."

----------


## Anfield

> To which group of unaware .org users are you pointing this out to?



Seems to me that an awful lot of .org users are unaware that this country is involved in an *illegal* war

----------


## ducati

> Seems to me that an awful lot of .org users are unaware that this country is involved in an *illegal* war


An awful lot of .org users are unaware that this country is involved in a war

----------


## northener

> quote=Anfield;682835]
> And as for your guess about me having no knoledge of death from conflict, you are incorrect.


 


Selective memory?

"..And I'd guess that unlike you, I have a large number of friends and acquantances who have lost people in various conflicts over the years.."[/quote]

Jeez, my memory's getting bad. Anyway, I believe I said friends and acquantances - not 'knowledge', there's a subtle difference there. :Wink: 

Now, what about this war somebody mentioned. Has anyone told us it's illegal yet? ::

----------


## John Little

I do not think I have had much to say here -and deliberately so.  Maybe I should keep my mouth shut, but there are two different questions being twisted together here; and like two different colours they do not match.

It seems clear to me that there is a deep unease among many people, on the Org and in the country generally, about our being involved in wars which seem not to be ours.  Whether or not a war is 'illegal' depends on which body of law you are referring to.  My view is that there is no such thing as international law.  There is however the Charter of the UN which comes down against aggressive war, and Britain signed it.  So by attacking a country which did nothing to us we do appear to be contravening the UN Charter.

This was true especially in Iraq, where the reasons for war were spurious- and it is also true of Afghanistan which had done nothing to us.  However if any country had a beef with Afghanistan it was the US because they gave succour and shelter to Al Qaeda and the group behind 9/11.

So I can see why the US might go to war.
But I cannot see why we should because I do not buy the argument that they present a threat to us.

So imho not the legality but the 'justness' of the war is in question.

On that I agree with Anfield - and I think that many here do too.



However the second question concerns the lives of British soldiers.
They actually have no choice over being there - they are ordered to do it and the British army does as it is told.
As Mr Asquith said after the Curragh 'mutiny' of 1914 " The army shall hear nothing more from me of politics, and in return I wish to hear nothing from the army of politics."

So your average squaddie is not there making political points, but because he has to be.
And being who they are, having determined that they are willing to put their lives on the line to follow their lawfully given orders, they have, imho the right to our support.
This does not say that we must support the war- that is a political matter.  

But whilst our forces are out there it is also a military matter; they need our support for what they do, the best in equipment, our respect for their endeavours and our awe and thanks for their sacrifice.

Many of them, I know, do not believe in this war either; but it's a job and they get on with it  It's about doing the job right, supporting your mates and earning your pay.  Professional elan.

And some of them die.  In a military engagement.  That men die in battle is a truism - but the fact that they do is not an argument that the war is unjust or illegal; their deaths are entirely irrelevant to the political question.  I've never been a serviceman - but have spoken to many - even on the subject of this war, and the ones I know would not like their deaths in action being used as a political lever.  They ain't conscripts - that would be different; it is not like Vietnam.

So in the interests of meaningful discussion and to take some of the emotion out of this, may I respectfully suggest that we seperate these two matter firmly away from each other?

----------


## northener

OK, back with me serious head on.

Anfield, I can understand why you feel it necessary to keep these deaths in the headlines. But I think your understanding of why many people do not wish to see some sort of running tally is somewhat amiss. It is, as I said, more to do with what they believe is right and proper in these circumstances. 

I'll hazard a guess that you did see the piece on the Beeb that i referred to. There was a jolly nice chap on there who was Anti-war and felt that the public should be told at every opportunity exactly how many people had died at any given point.
I've never believed in that as an excuse to parade death tallies. Like I said, we all know people are dying, we can all go and find the info if we need it. I don't want some running 'scoreboard' on a daily basis being shoved in my face. 

If the UK government turned round and ran a daily scoreboard in the media of how many Afghani Taliban combatants were killed every day I would say that it would be a very insensitive and crass thing to do. Can you imagine the response in the UK from those such as yourself who are anti-war? You'd be having an absolute fit over it - and rightly so.

I don't give a monkeys about what side _anyone_ is on, it is simply not right to cheapen peoples lives by using them as some sort of cheap point-scoring excersise.

----------


## fred

> This was true especially in Iraq, where the reasons for war were spurious- and it is also true of Afghanistan which had done nothing to us.  However if any country had a beef with Afghanistan it was the US because they gave succour and shelter to Al Qaeda and the group behind 9/11.


America never actually had any evidence that anyone in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion was connected to 9/11. Al Qaeda was not an Afghani organisation, it was international, if anything the United Arab Emirates would have more claim to hosting Al Qaeda than anyone.

If you take a look at the FBI Most Wanted web page for Bin Laden you will see that 9/11 is not one of the crimes he is listed as being wanted for. This is because they do not have enough evidence to go to a judge and get a warrant.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

----------


## John Little

That may be so however it does not alter my position - that Afghanistan is not and should not be our concern - for whatever reason the US administration chose to make it theirs.

I don't like seeing the North ATLANTIC treaty organisation being made to jump through hoops in some sort of loyalty test.  But as I said, it's an entirely distinct question to that of casualties

----------


## fred

> That may be so however it does not alter my position - that Afghanistan is not and should not be our concern - for whatever reason the US administration chose to make it theirs.


The Afghan president has been vocal about what he considers are America's reasons for making Afghanistan their concern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/wo...karzai.html?hp

----------


## John Little

And he is a good man and true?

He thinks that Afghanistan is a poor country.

The Americans don't want to stop shooting.

Stop shooting Fred.
This thread is dead
The Yanks have a beef-
but our stay should be brief
on Afghanistan's loam-
just bring our guys home.
The whole damned place I fear
is not worth the life of a single grenadier.

----------


## fred

> And he is a good man and true?
> 
> He thinks that Afghanistan is a poor country.


Not everyone in Afghanistan is poor it seems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022404914.html

Wonder where all this money is coming from?

----------


## John Little

Fred - you will find the same phenomenon in Chiang Kai Shek's China, Dinh Diem's Saigon, Noriega's Panama, Mobutu's Zaire, Batista's Cuba, Somoza's Nicaragua etc etc etc.

They raise up a puppet and they feed it.  Sometimes they turn on their masters.  Whatever else it always ends in tears.

The big mistakes we made this time was getting caught up in their foreign policy. I resent our chaps having to help pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

Do you really wonder or are you just trying to prolong this thread?

If you want a discussion of US foreign policy since the Monro Doctrine you might find a few takers, but a thread on Nato airstrikes is probably not the place.

I suggest you start a new one....

----------


## Anfield

Yet more lives lost in Afghanistan.

BBC (Asia)  reports that at least 13 people have been killed by a suicide bomb in Helmand Province.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8596312.stm

Whilst the following link gives the number of NATO casualties:

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

there is no record of the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan, killed  by both NATO forces and suicide bombers.

----------


## bekisman

Might be same one? Aid giving again..
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - March 31.
At least seven Afghan civilians were killed on Wednesday when a suicide bomber blew himself up close to where government officials were distributing aid to people in a town in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province, a provincial official said. Five people were wounded in the attack in Babaji, outside Lashkar Gah, Helmand's provincial capital, said Dawood Ahmadi, a spokesman for Helmand's governor. Ahmadi did not know if any officials were among the casualties. 

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/...-violence.html

----------


## Anfield

It could be the same one,  as the article further states states:

"..A NATO official and a spokesman for the provincial  governor in Helmand said 13 people had been killed and 40 to 45 others  were wounded. President Hamid  Karzai's palace also put the death toll at 13.."

----------


## Tubthumper

Sorry to butt into this, but if we're going to have an ongoing tally of the dead,  (to help people remain aware of the human cost of this or any conflict), might it be a better idea to have an updatable sticky at the top of the General board, rather than keeping this jaded old thread alive?

----------


## Anfield

> Sorry to butt into this, but if we're going to have an ongoing tally of the dead,  (to help people remain aware of the human cost of this or any conflict), might it be a better idea to have an updatable sticky at the top of the General board, rather than keeping this jaded old thread alive?


Nobody is asking or forcing you to read it.

----------


## bekisman

> Sorry to butt into this, but if we're going to have an ongoing tally of the dead, (to help people remain aware of the human cost of this or any conflict), might it be a better idea to have an updatable sticky at the top of the General board, rather than keeping this jaded old thread alive?


Yes, quite agree Tubthumper - a sticky would serve the purpose. My point of including this Suicide Bomber was in reply to an earlier posting: 

_"Suicide bombers" are well and truly in the psyche of the Western population, but such creatures may be very few and far between, or perhaps not even exist at all."_ eh?

----------


## Tubthumper

> Nobody is asking or forcing you to read it.


Indeed. But if it's put in as a sticky, you can use it to help you ponder the tragedy that is war. Rather than just getting excited cos you think have a monopoly on outrage.
Geat.

----------


## Anfield

> Indeed. But if it's put in as a sticky, you can use it to help you ponder the tragedy that is war. Rather than just getting excited cos you think have a monopoly on outrage.
> Geat.


Think you will find that the majority of people in this country (63% for a BBC poll) also share my outrage that this war is unwinnable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/8530761.stm

So,  if you don't like thread, just ignore it.

----------


## fred

> Think you will find that the majority of people in this country (63% for a BBC poll) also share my outrage that this war is unwinnable.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/8530761.stm
> 
> So,  if you don't like thread, just ignore it.


The war was never meant to be won, the Cold War ended, they needed something to replace it.

----------


## bekisman

> The war was never meant to be won, the Cold War ended, they needed something to replace it.


Good one that Fred, for a minute you had me going, till I realised it was April Fools day  ::

----------


## fred

> Good one that Fred, for a minute you had me going, till I realised it was April Fools day


It is April 2010, the war started in October 2001.

In 1939 we went to war with Germany and less than six years later we had invaded and occupied a continent and the war was over.

After eight and a half years we are still in Afghanistan and America is doing their best to prevent talks which may bring the war to an end. Casualties are worse than ever and predicted to get worse.

The evidence supports what I say and that is no joke.

----------


## Anfield

So who did win the "democratic" elections in Afghanistan now that the President is saying that voting was rigged?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8598843.stm

----------


## Anfield

Since the 6th April when Gordon Brown announced a General Election,  the media coverage of before, during and after has reached saturation point

Unfortunately the media did not give the same amount of coverage to the five UK soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan during this period, nor to the  other Nato or Muslim  casualties of this carnage.

The total now is *285* UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan
and *179* soldiers killed in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8579889.stm

----------


## sandyr1

> Nobody is asking or forcing you to read it.


But I think that there must be an awareness! Just go to Southern Florida(where I have been), and I am sure many other US places, and see the casualities of war!
No legs / no arms....most people have no idea/ never saw a dead/ infirm body/ person.
Recently on Mother's day, CNN had 2 mothers on TV with their sons who had been wounded...it would have made a 'grown man cry'!
One of the mothers used the word Vegetable! Very sad indeed! And there are thousands on both sides, if we want to use that description of the conflict/ we are right/ they are wrong?? Or is there another side to all of this......I remain.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Since the 6th April when Gordon Brown announced a General Election,  the media coverage of before, during and after has reached saturation point
> 
> Unfortunately the media did not give the same amount of coverage to the five UK soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan during this period, nor to the  other Nato or Muslim  casualties of this carnage.
> 
> The total now is *285* UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan
> and *179* soldiers killed in Iraq
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8579889.stm


Hmmm .. Sorry, Anfield  but reading the comments above and then comparing them to comments made by you within the last few days makes you look a bit, well, hypocritical.

I refer to your post of just a few days ago on the "What the main parties stand for thread" .. http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...=106861&page=4  .. Post No 68.

And I quote your words here Anfield .. 

"_I would not consider being part of an organisation that only exists to kill or maim people as being honourable, after all look at the outrage on the front pages of the red tops when the supposed Lockerbie bomber was released, and was treated as a hero when he returned to Libya.

Some of our Generals/Colonels/Majors/Lieutenants/Captains/LieutenantColonels etc (and their American equivalents) have just as much blood on their hands as any fundarmentalist resistance fighter/suicide bomber, and yet when they finish their careers are they prosecuted for being war criminals, no they are given another medal, and no doubt an increase in pension, then a nice day out to meet Mrs Windsor_"

So you now care about the very guys you called dishonourable troops/war criminals just a few days ago ??, That's a pretty impressive U turn. Your neck must have snapped round at a rapid rate. I really hope you didn't hurt it. And by the way, the Americans use the same ranks you mentioned. Awesome depth of knowledge of your subject matter.

In the light of the above I reckon you ressurrected this long dead thread to just gleefully announce casualties like you did before. By the way, I am happy to pony up proof of my service record to make you eat your "fantasist" claims, just let me know what would suffice. One condition though, when your proved wrong you give £50 to Help 4 Heroes. And post up the receipt on thread. Over to you.

----------


## Anfield

> In the light of the above I reckon you ressurrected this long dead thread to just gleefully announce casualties like you did before. By the way, I am happy to pony up proof of my service record to make you eat your "fantasist" claims, just let me know what would suffice. One condition though, when your proved wrong you give £50 to Help 4 Heroes. And post up the receipt on thread. Over to you.


I have never doubted your service record.
Over to you

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> I have never doubted your service record.
> Over to you


Do you know what ?? .. I'd rather not. I notice you just ignore your blatant hypocrisy being pointed out though. SNAFU.

As much fun as it has been watching you latch on to every post of mine since I had a bite at your mate, and even somehow manage to drag me into threads I haven't even posted on, I am bored now. As I said in reply to your PM's if you want to put the embarrassment of your attempts at put downs behind you and pretend they never happened I will play right along.

I have far more important things to do right about now.

----------


## bekisman

> Since the 6th April when Gordon Brown announced a General Election, the media coverage of before, during and after has reached saturation point
> 
> Unfortunately the media did not give the same amount of coverage to the five UK soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan during this period, nor to the other Nato or Muslim casualties of this carnage. The total now is *285* UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan and *179* soldiers killed in Iraq 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8579889.stm


Here we go again - for those many new members who've joined us, Anfield is a rabid Pacifist - this posting of his is not concern for our armed forces, how do we know this? well just a quick search of his various comments brings up these:

"dismay at 33 civilians killed by *gung ho* allied troops"
 "the killing of innocent people." 
 "Inevitably they will soon be replaced by more *canon fodder*" 
"people like you bury your head in the sand" 
"Get all foreign forces out of Afghanistan now" 
"Well done Jock on a superb show, another medal for your chest eh" 
And of course the shouted: "End War Now and *TROOPS HOME NOW*" (sic)

"The total for Afghan is 285 killed" no it ain't it's 225 due to hostile action and it's 113 in Iraq to Hostile, not his 179, you MUST try to get your fact correct Anfield..

----------


## Andfield

What do facts matter to Anfiel's ilk. 

I thought I had left these militant loonies behind on Merseyside but alas no  ::

----------


## Anfield

> "The total for Afghan is 285 killed" no it ain't it's 225 due to hostile action and it's 113 in Iraq to Hostile, not his 179, you MUST try to get your fact correct Anfield..


I hate to say this Bekisman but my facts (and figures) are correct;      
 As you doubt the BBC figures,  I enclose the official MOD statistics,
 
"_It is with very deep regret that the Ministry of Defence has confirmed the following fatalities suffered during operations in Afghanistan.__

_ _As at 9 May 2010, a total of 285 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001.._
 http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Fatalities.htm
 and for Iraq
 http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Fatalities.htm

 I will pre-empt your inevitable reply,  by saying that to me it does not matter whether these people were killed by enemy fire, road accidents, friendly fire, collateral damage, negligence or whatever the new "buzz word" for *non combat* death that allows 37% (Iraq) & 21% Afghanistan of its troops to be killed is, the fact remains that 285 UK service personnel died in Afghanistan and 179 in Iraq not to mention a massive amount of civilians.

----------


## oldmarine

> Innocent people get killed in every conflict across the planet.


I agree with what northener said here. War is not a pleasant thing and many innoscent people are victimised whether intended or not. I saw enough of that during WW2 to not want to experience anything like that again.

----------


## golach

> I hate to say this Bekisman but my facts (and figures) are correct;


Your figures may be correct, but why gloat upon them at every opportunity?

----------


## Anfield

> Your figures may be correct, but why gloat upon them at every opportunity?


Golach. I am not "gloating" over these awful statistics. 
I am merely bringing to the fore what other posters would prefer to avoid,  i.e.that the UK, along with other allied countries and the civilian populations of Iraq & Afghanistan are suffering horrific casualty rates as a result of an illegal war.

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Golach. I am not "gloating" over these awful statistics. 
> I am merely bringing to the fore what other posters would prefer to avoid,  i.e.that the UK, along with other allied countries and the civilian populations of Iraq & Afghanistan are suffering horrific casualty rates as a result of an illegal war.


I think most of the members of this message board can think and talk for themselves. The legality of the actions mentioned are a matter of opinion.  Any amount of casualties is too many, and is horrific. 

Why do you think you are bringing these issues to the fore? This is a community message board. You have no idea what we all get up to elsewhere; or what involvement we might have or have had in anti-war action, or how present the issue is to those of us with family serving or living in the war zone.

----------


## Anfield

> Why do you think you are bringing these issues to the fore? This is a community message board.


And your definition of a "community message board" is?

----------


## Boozeburglar

I am not writing a dissertation; so forgive me if I won't indulge your need to have simple terms defined.

----------


## sandyr1

> I think most of the members of this message board can think and talk for themselves. The legality of the actions mentioned are a matter of opinion. Any amount of casualties is too many, and is horrific. 
> 
> Why do you think you are bringing these issues to the fore? This is a community message board. You have no idea what we all get up to elsewhere; or what involvement we might have or have had in anti-war action, or how present the issue is to those of us with family serving or living in the war zone.


Well said..... perhaps this could be the final word. We all deal with these issues in different ways. I know what I have seen and how it personally affects my thoughts.

----------


## rich

Here is Sebastian (Perfect Storm) Junger's Vanity Fair article on Afghanistan. Probably we all need to read it.

----------


## rich

I forgot the URL in the last. Sorry. Here it is:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hanistan200810

----------


## fred

What British, Americans, innocent women and children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq...are dying for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8YwJ...layer_embedded

----------


## Anfield

From thread http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...696#post707696




> Altogether Beks .. 
> 
> "We got one .. We got two .. "





> I won, I won



I just hope that the deaths of 464 UK troops and the thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan & Iraq are not celebrated in the manner above in 40 years time.

----------


## bekisman

> From thread http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...696#post707696
> 
> 
> I just hope that the deaths of 464 UK troops and the thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan & Iraq are not celebrated in the manner above in 40 years time.


Be honest Anfield; you've got absolutly no idea what I'm on about and it ain't nothing to do with your usual mocking..

Ref your; _"Imitation is the best form of flattery"_ you even got that wrong;  delete 'best' insert 'sincerest' [Coined by Charles Caleb Colton in 1820 in his 'Lacon']  :Wink:

----------


## Wickbhoy

Go on home British soldiers, go on home

----------


## bekisman

> Go on home British soldiers, go on home


Don't you mean 'come on home' not 'go' on home - you're in Wick? bit confused there!! :: 
 Your previous posts: 

'BNP'
'Racism' 
'fascist propaganda knuckle-dragging morons'
'The only people who can rip-off tax payers are elected MPs - Keep apologising for fascism'
All sounds so familiar?

Think you should take your own advice:
"You're(sic) replies are pointless and poorly thought out anyway"

----------


## Wickbhoy

Sorry, fail to see the point of going through some of my previous posts? Can you explain why you did that?

----------


## Anfield

> Sorry, fail to see the point of going through some of my previous posts? Can you explain why you did that?


It gets better than that,  pretty soon he will be asking to know where you live.

----------


## bekisman

> It gets better than that, pretty soon he will be asking to know where you live.


Duh - he's in Wick, maybe if you tried really, really hard you might have worked that out  ::

----------


## Andfield

> Duh - he's in Wick, maybe if you tried really, really hard you might have worked that out


This one comes to mind :



What's the difference between a Scouser and a coconut?
One's thick and hairy, and the other's a coconut.

 ::

----------


## Anfield

> "The total for Afghan is 285 killed" no it ain't it's 225 due to hostile action and it's 113 in Iraq to Hostile, not his 179, you MUST try to get your fact correct Anfield..





> I hate to say this Bekisman but my facts (and figures) are correct;      
>  As you doubt the BBC figures,  I enclose the official MOD statistics,
>  
> "_It is with very deep regret that the Ministry of Defence has confirmed the following fatalities suffered during operations in Afghanistan.__
> 
> _ _As at 9 May 2010, a total of 285 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001.._
>  http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Fatalities.htm
>  and for Iraq
>  http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Fatalities.htm
> ...


Still waiting to hear from you on how your version of mortaility rate is considerably less than MOD on this post




> Duh - he's in Wick, maybe if you tried really, really hard you might have worked that out


Wick,  is that the best you can do? your B&Q guy cant do a search based on these co-ordinates.

----------


## bekisman

> Still waiting to hear from you on how your version of mortaility rate is considerably less than MOD on this post
> 
> 
> 
> Wick, is that the best you can do? your B&Q guy cant do a search based on these co-ordinates.


You gave deaths by accident - these happen everywhere, so in substance your figures were WRONG old chap
Oh dear B&Q - what's this, bringing Mrs Beks into it now are we? worried about a bloke (that's me) so try and ridicule my wife.. hmmm says a lot that does...  :Wink:

----------


## Anfield

> You gave deaths by accident - these happen everywhere, so in substance your figures were WRONG old chap
> Oh dear B&Q - what's this, bringing Mrs Beks into it now are we? worried about a bloke (that's me) so try and ridicule my wife.. hmmm says a lot that does...


So if you die in an accident, you dont count? Try telling that to the loved ones of these "accident" cases

"B&Q, Mrs Becks" , what are you on about? 
My post said stated "_..your B&Q guy cant do a search based on these co-ordinates.."_

So have you entered into a civil partnership with one of your ex-military chums?

----------


## bekisman

> So if you die in an accident, you dont count? Try telling that to the loved ones of these "accident" cases
> 
> "B&Q, Mrs Becks" , what are you on about? 
> My post said stated "_..your B&Q guy cant do a search based on these co-ordinates.."_
> 
> So have you entered into a civil partnership with one of your ex-military chums?


You know full well I'd earlier posted about Mrs Beks and her B&Q card - and you know that even earlier I had posted about the B&Q chap not finding our place up here - so pretty damn obvious (to most people) that would be.. 
You must calm down Anfield, you're getting too excited.. 
A bit of military discipline is what you need - anyway, apart from that, let's have YOUR details of personal charity-raising  :Wink:

----------


## Anfield

> You know full well I'd earlier posted about Mrs Beks and her B&Q card - and you know that even earlier I had posted about the B&Q chap not finding our place up here - so pretty damn obvious (to most people) that would be.. 
> You must calm down Anfield, you're getting too excited.. 
> A bit of military discipline is what you need - anyway, apart from that, let's have YOUR details of personal charity-raising


What the (4 letter word which I am not allowed to mention)  are you talking about?,  B&Q card/B&Q chap.

Have you been to Portgower?

And what has my "personal charity raising"  got to do with this thread?

----------


## Andfield

I would have THOUGHT that that a personage of Anfield's standing and financial genius could start an entire website on the strength of his charitable activities  ::

----------


## oldmarine

> Go on home British soldiers, go on home


Where is your patriotism? It certainly must not be with the British troops. Is it with the Islamic Muslims who are dedicated to taking over the whole world? They already have a good foothold in London and in many major cities in the USA. You can read about it in their Koran.

----------


## Wickbhoy

> Where is your patriotism? It certainly must not be with the British troops. Is it with the Islamic Muslims who are dedicated to taking over the whole world? They already have a good foothold in London and in many major cities in the USA. You can read about it in their Koran.


 
Forget patriotism, my heart is firmly with the working-class, worldwide. British troops have invaded, murdered and maimed in the name of empire for centuries, including the ethnic cleansing of the Scottish Highlands.

I feel sorry for the families of troops and the fact that young working-class men and women will go to their deaths fighting for the rich to get richer.

As for the 'Islamic Muslims', I wasn't aware of any other type of muslim. My sympathies are with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they are confronted by daily death and destruction from an invading foreign aggressor.

Also you cannot have patriotism for muslims as Islam is not a nation it is a religion.

You can read a lot of things in all holy books, as for footholds in cities I do not know what you mean by that, we are and always have been a multi-cultural and multi-faith world. I'm sure muslims use the org and for me the tone of your post is verging on the aggressive against muslims.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Forget patriotism, my heart is firmly with the working-class, worldwide. British troops have invaded, murdered and maimed in the name of empire for centuries, including the ethnic cleansing of the Scottish Highlands.
> 
> I feel sorry for the families of troops and the fact that young working-class men and women will go to their deaths fighting for the rich to get richer.
> 
> As for the 'Islamic Muslims', I wasn't aware of any other type of muslim. My sympathies are with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they are confronted by daily death and destruction from an invading foreign aggressor.
> 
> Also you cannot have patriotism for muslims as Islam is not a nation it is a religion.
> 
> You can read a lot of things in all holy books, as for footholds in cities I do not know what you mean by that, we are and always have been a multi-cultural and multi-faith world. I'm sure muslims use the org and for me the tone of your post is verging on the aggressive against muslims.


If you don't like your colours .. seek another flag.

----------


## Andfield

[quote=Wickbhoy;708311] including the ethnic cleansing of the Scottish Highlands.

quote]


Ethnic cleansing of the Scottish Highlands ??

And here was me thinking the whole debacle was a religeous thing with as many clansman on the Gubberment side (Proddies) as there were on the side of The Young Pretender whose plan was to make the whole country (Englandshire included) into Kaflics. 
Are you saying that Cumberland's mob got stuck into the Highlanders irrespective of which side they had supported ?

----------


## Wickbhoy

The British Empire 'got stuck into' anyone who didn't tow their line. the laws passed was an attempt to destroy the Highland culture, anyone breaking them could be transported or worse.

As for Cumberland, he gave no mercy to anyone sympathetic to the Jacobite cause, which was the vast majority of the Highalnds. Of course he didn't kill the Highlanders who sided with him, but those that didn't were seen as another, 'less British' race. 

Don't think that Bonnie Prince Charlie intended turning everyone Catholic, just wanted the power of what he felt was rightfully his, the throne.

Why use terms like 'Proddies and Kaflicks', what is wrong with using the correct names for Protestants and Catholics?

----------


## golach

[quote=Andfield;708341][quote=Ethnic cleansing of the Scottish Highlands ?? 
And here was me thinking the whole debacle was a religious thing with as many clansman on the Gubberment side (Proddies) as there were on the side of The Young Pretender whose plan was to make the whole country (Englandshire included) into Kaflics. 
Are you saying that Cumberland's mob got stuck into the Highlanders irrespective of which side they had supported ?[/quote]

Sorry Andfield, the Ethnic cleansing of the Highlands had nothing to do about religion, far from it.
It was purely to teach the Highlanders and clansmen a lesson they would never forget.
In 1746 the Engelander and Lowlander Scots were so afraid of the Highlander they brought in the Act Of Proscription, banning the wearing of the Tartan, carrying arms or even owning a Gaelic Bible, punishment could be Jail,Transportation or Death. 
This act was repealed in 1822, because George the 4th came to Scotland, he was persuaded by Sir Walter Scott to come wearing a Kilt, but the big jessie that he was, he wore pink tights  ::

----------


## Andfield

Thanks for that bit of info Golach, it puts a different perspective on the situation.

----------


## HaggarJ2

Having a son who has served there and is due to go out again within 6 months of returning. I would congratulate the nato strike force for their actions.
Albeit it is not nice for civillians or anyone to be killed in war.Out there no one is a true civillian, they all carry weapons and our guys and girls cannot tell one from the other (friend or Foe) indeed some who have been made out to be friends, have indeed cost the lives of quite a few of our boys both in iraq and Afganistan, military policemen whose job it was to train their people how to be decent police officers and they were murdered for their efforts.
Sorry but I have changed my view on afganistan this bombing just means fewer terrorist or future terrrorist to attack our boys and girls serving there.
Maybe Nato should do more of this and bring about an end to this farce of a  political war  which is all about the riches of the country and greedy little men here and in the USA making more and more money and get our kids home

----------


## billmoseley

yes they do use mini buses to ferry around insurgents it's good cover and when we accidental bomb the wrong mini buses they get loads of mileage from it from all those who make out our brave lads are cold heartless killers. the Taliban are not your usual soldier who will stand and fight man to man they hide among family's villages and us them as shields. they are the ones you should be having ago at

----------


## rich

I am sorry to see the re-emergence of this appaling thread.
We must never lose sight of the plight of Afghan women.
The Nato allies are actually bringing the modern world to the  sorry bunch of stoners and mutilaters of women.
I refer you to this column by Robert Fisk from the Independent.
It is entitled "the crime wave that shames the world."
Indeed!

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-2072201.html

----------


## oldmarine

> Having a son who has served there and is due to go out again within 6 months of returning. I would congratulate the nato strike force for their actions.
> Albeit it is not nice for civillians or anyone to be killed in war.Out there no one is a true civillian, they all carry weapons and our guys and girls cannot tell one from the other (friend or Foe) indeed some who have been made out to be friends, have indeed cost the lives of quite a few of our boys both in iraq and Afganistan, military policemen whose job it was to train their people how to be decent police officers and they were murdered for their efforts.
> Sorry but I have changed my view on afganistan this bombing just means fewer terrorist or future terrrorist to attack our boys and girls serving there.
> Maybe Nato should do more of this and bring about an end to this farce of a political war which is all about the riches of the country and greedy little men here and in the USA making more and more money and get our kids home


HaggarJ2: My being an old WW2 Veteran I can symphatise/emphatise what you are feeling. My mother went through the same thing for me during the great war of WW2.

----------


## Anfield

It has been reported (although you have to look hard to find it) that *73 civilians* were killed by NATO forces in just two days in East Kunar Province Afghanistan.

This comes just days after the U.S. Army General David Petraeus made a rare apology for an earlier raid which killed 9 other civilians.

The article states  civilian casualties in  Afghanistan rose 20 per cent to 6,215 in the first 10 months of 2010  compared with 2009, with more than three-quarters killed or wounded by  insurgents.

So in other words nearly 40 civilians a week are being killed/maimed  by NATO forces.
If, as we are being told, NATO troops are going to withdraw from Afghanistan   by 2014, that means that between now and then nearly 8,000 more Afghanistanis are going to become casualties in this unjust war.
I think that  General David Petraeus has got a lot more apologising to do

----------

