Afghanistan, 9/11, etc (again) - moved from main board

[Phil D. Rolls]

Goebells would be proud of the way the Government is rallying support for Britain's military conflicts around the world.

[Beefster]

Goebells would be proud of the way the Government is rallying support for Britain's military conflicts around the world.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be 'witty' or not.

If it is, you mean 'Goebbels'.

If not, you don't seem to understand the difference between supporting those putting their lives on the line because they've been told to and supporting an actual conflict.

[joe breezy]

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be 'witty' or not.

If it is, you mean 'Goebbels'.

If not, you don't seem to understand the difference between supporting those putting their lives on the line because they've been told to and supporting an actual conflict.

Agreed, I know there is debate over wars but rememberance day is about remembering those who have been injured or killed.

War is a ghastly business we'd be better without but if we can't remember the bravery of our forefathers who fought against fascism and respect the sacrifice young lads are making now, Goebells would be more keen on that stance I think.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be 'witty' or not.

If it is, you mean 'Goebbels'.

If not, you don't seem to understand the difference between supporting those putting their lives on the line because they've been told to and supporting an actual conflict.

I understand the difference. I think there comes a point when the line seperating the two becomes blurred. It becomes hard to support the soldiers without supporting what they are doing - as some of the posts I've seen seem to suggest.

I don't think they should be there. I think they should be brought home. I think the government is happy for people to support the troops as it grows into a support for the war. Let's cut the crap about trying to make out war is honourable, or dignified.

Can anyone tell me why we are in Afghanistan? I have listened to a number of different reasons, including: to protect Pakistan's borders (Pakistan has a nuclear programme, but they need us to protect them :confused:); apparently it is better we fight the terrorists over there than on our own streets - would the terrorists be interested in us at all if we weren't attacking them: and of course, Afghanistan is the world's major producer of Heroin (see if all else fails say it's about drugs).

The only thing they haven't used yet to produce a blind populist response is to say that the Taliban are an international paedophile ring.

There is a difference between sombre remembrance and sycophantic jingoism. Far too often lately I've read posts that could be straight out of the Victor or Hotspur.

[Hibs On Tour]

Goebells would be proud of the way the Government is rallying support for Britain's military conflicts around the world.

:bitchy:

Supporting men and women who are in our Armed Forces, doing their duty by going where they are told and doing what they are trained to do, is entirely different from any difference of opinion you may have with either the reasons they were sent there or the people in power who sent them there.

Rememberence Day isn't about anything other than recognising the ultimate sacrifice paid by those who have fallen. If it were, it would only be to remind people like you that people like these soldiers might not be able to take the field next year because they are doing their job.

Lots of your posts are good and well thought out - this one is just unworthy of screen room IMHO.

[Jack]

I understand the difference. I think there comes a point when the line seperating the two becomes blurred. It becomes hard to support the soldiers without supporting what they are doing - as some of the posts I've seen seem to suggest.

I don't think they should be there. I think they should be brought home. I think the government is happy for people to support the troops as it grows into a support for the war. Let's cut the crap about trying to make out war is honourable, or dignified.

Can anyone tell me why we are in Afghanistan? I have listened to a number of different reasons, including: to protect Pakistan's borders (Pakistan has a nuclear programme, but they need us to protect them :confused:); apparently it is better we fight the terrorists over there than on our own streets - would the terrorists be interested in us at all if we weren't attacking them: and of course, Afghanistan is the world's major producer of Heroin (see if all else fails say it's about drugs).

The only thing they haven't used yet to produce a blind populist response is to say that the Taliban are an international paedophile ring.

There is a difference between sombre remembrance and sycophantic jingoism. Far too often lately I've read posts that could be straight out of the Victor or Hotspur.

I think in every media outpouring about Remembrance Sunday, and of honouring our Forces generally and individually, its always been made very clear, by the politicians as well, that Remembrance and honouring is about the people who lost their lives or who came back in some way injured and not the reasons they were sent to war or the politicians that sent them.

Its not about if they should be there or should they be brought home, never has been. I think the Government is happy for people to support the troops but as for growing into a support for the war(s) I also think the Government would see that as political suicide. Other than you I haven’t seen anywhere recently suggesting that war is honourable, or dignified.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Goebells would be proud of the way the Government is rallying support for Britain's military conflicts around the world.

I think you're confusing Remembrance Sunday with Armed Forces Day.

[Hibercelona]

I have respect for all fallen soldiers.

On the other hand...

I have no respect what so ever for what they are doing.

As it currently stands, we're the baddies IMO.

It just makes it even more sour, knowing that people are dying for a false cause.

[johnrebus]

I have respect for all fallen soldiers.

On the other hand...

I have no respect what so ever for what they are doing.

As it currently stands, we're the baddies IMO.

It just makes it even more sour, knowing that people are dying for a false cause.


Why are we the baddies, please explain ?

What is this cause, and why is it false ?


:confused:

[chorley_fm]

Goebells would be proud of the way the Government is rallying support for Britain's military conflicts around the world.


what a tool

could you not have started your own thread ?

Its all about support for the troops, remembering the pain and suffering and ultimate sacrifice that the armed forces have to face on a daily basis, and off course to remember those who put their lives on the line protecting the UK from harm in various conflicts.

Ain't about the politicians or the rights or wrongs of conflict

[Hibercelona]

[/I][/B]


Why are we the baddies, please explain ?

What is this cause, and why is it false ?


:confused:

Err... the fact that we're invading a country that had no problem with us what so ever. :confused:

They were no danger to us, they had no problem with us. Yet we're getting involved? :confused:

Why? :confused:

[Beefster]

Err... the fact that we're invading a country that had no problem with us what so ever. :confused:

They were no danger to us, they had no problem with us. Yet we're getting involved? :confused:

Why? :confused:

Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and letting them plan and train for attacks on the UK and its allies.

So to say that they had no problem with us is nonsense.

[Dashing Bob S]

The recent history of our country since WW2 has seen us deploy troops all over the world, from Ulster to the Falklands. In many instances, this has proven to be a poor way of resolving the pertinent conflicts.

Therefore, to anyone thinking of joining the army, past evidence suggests;

1. You will be engaged in a conflict which is likely to be unjust and promote the interests of someone other than your own family or community.

2. You will probably be asked to kill or at least subdue people fighting for a cause/dispute that you know little about.

3. You have a chance of being a casualty, or at least mentally traumatised by that involvement.

So, in our current information-based society, I find myself losing patience with the idea of 'supporting our brave boys' because they were simply foolish or misguided enough to sign up for this.

I don't want to see anyone getting killed for nothing, (whatever their nationality) and if people can't see that this is largely what war is about, then they certainly won't be convinced on a thread like this.

What Filled Rolls calls the Hotspur/Victor mentality of 'love war, but hate its consequences' nauseates me in its childlike foolishness.

[Hibercelona]

Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and letting them plan and train for attacks on the UK and its allies.

So to say that they had no problem with us is nonsense.

And who is it that feeds this p!sh into our minds?

The British media does!

People don't seem to realize that this is the type of thing that happens in wars.

War is full of propaganda.

Innocent people in Afghanistan are being fed the exact opposite information to make us look like the baddies.

Governments will do anything (even spread lies) to get people on their side.

I won't be a part of it.

[HFC 0-7]

And who is it that feeds this p!sh into our minds?

The British media does!

People don't seem to realize that this is the type of thing that happens in wars.

War is full of propaganda.

Innocent people in Afghanistan are being fed the exact opposite information to make us look like the baddies.

Governments will do anything (even spread lies) to get people on their side.

I won't be a part of it.


Did the media make up 9/11?

No! It happened, although I think the war could have been handled differently, there was an obvious threat there and then and something needed to be done. The UK and US have always been close allies and to think that the people responsible for this wouldnt think about attacking the UK is short sighted. Afghanistan has many terrorists in the country and I wouldnt imagine many people would question that!

Sure we could have waited and seen if anything happened, but governments dont have that sort of luxury! Send troops in to protect home soil, which annoys people like yourself, or, wait and run the risk of being attacked and losing many more people, and on home soil.

Either way the government was in a lose lose situation.

[Hibercelona]

Did the media make up 9/11?

No! It happened,

Yes, it did happen. We seen planes crashing into the towers.

What we never seen however, was people from Iraq hijacking the planes. Thats just what we were told, and people take it as fact because it said so on the TV and the newspapers. I'll choose to keep an open mind about it. :agree:


although I think the war could have been handled differently, there was an obvious threat there and then and something needed to be done.

That threat being something about them building nuclear warheads. (again, what we've been told on the TV and read in the newspapers).

We've also been told that the USA are also at it. Should we go an invade them now as well?


The UK and US have always been close allies and to think that the people responsible for this wouldnt think about attacking the UK is short sighted.

If by being allies, you mean us being their lap dogs... then yes. I agree that it may be short sighted. You never know what country in the world could attack us at what time. Yet, everyones minds are set on Afghanistan (because yet again, we've been told to by the media).


Afghanistan has many terrorists in the country and I wouldnt imagine many people would question that!

Have you seen these "terrorists" in person? I haven't.

But they said so on the TV and the newspapers... so lets just assume that its fact.


Sure we could have waited and seen if anything happened, but governments dont have that sort of luxury! Send troops in to protect home soil, which annoys people like yourself, or, wait and run the risk of being attacked and losing many more people, and on home soil.

Either way the government was in a lose lose situation.

If thats the case. We should be sending troops into every country around the world. As any country could strike us at any time without us knowing.

I know I'll get slated for these comments. But I'm not denying the possibility that they are up to something. I'm simply keeping an open mind about it all.

[CyberSauzee]

The only thing they haven't used yet to produce a blind populist response is to say that the Taliban are an international paedophile ring.



Not the Taliban per se, but prevalent and generally accepted in Afghan society unfortunately.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/26/ctw.afghanistan.sex.trade/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[marinello59]

So, in our current information-based society, I find myself losing patience with the idea of 'supporting our brave boys' because they were simply foolish or misguided enough to sign up for this.
.

In my experience servicemen are neither foolish or misguided and have a far better grasp of world affairs than others who will never get their hands dirty having to deal with them. They do not sign up for a specific conflict, they sign up for whatever the Government we elected calls on them to do.
But let's say I accept your argument. What's your answer? No military at all? I have grave doubts about the actions in Afghanistan but my vitriol is reserved for the politicians, not serving soldiers.

[HFC 0-7]

Yes, it did happen. We seen planes crashing into the towers.

What we never seen however, was people from Iraq hijacking the planes. Thats just what we were told, and people take it as fact because it said so on the TV and the newspapers. I'll choose to keep an open mind about it. :agree:



That threat being something about them building nuclear warheads. (again, what we've been told on the TV and read in the newspapers).

We've also been told that the USA are also at it. Should we go an invade them now as well?



If by being allies, you mean us being their lap dogs... then yes. I agree that it may be short sighted. You never know what country in the world could attack us at what time. Yet, everyones minds are set on Afghanistan (because yet again, we've been told to by the media).



Have you seen these "terrorists" in person? I haven't.

But they said so on the TV and the newspapers... so lets just assume that its fact.



If thats the case. We should be sending troops into every country around the world. As any country could strike us at any time without us knowing.

I know I'll get slated for these comments. But I'm not denying the possibility that they are up to something. I'm simply keeping an open mind about it all.

You are entitled to you own opinion, and I agree that the media will put a spin on these things, however, what you are saying is that they are basically making it all up.

Remember, the US knew of threats before 9/11 but didnt do anything about it because of the sort of things you are saying. They then had to experience 9/11 before they did anything about it.

There was videos of Osama, posted on arabic TV after the event, saying there would be more to come and the UK was mentioned in these TV clips. Osama, leader of the taliban in Afghanistan on TV stating his intentions. . . . . . yeah your right we shouldnt have done anything!

Wars are terrible things, there are always innocent casualties, the government did what they thought best to minimise the innocent casualties in the UK.

[Hibercelona]

You are entitled to you own opinion, and I agree that the media will put a spin on these things, however, what you are saying is that they are basically making it all up.

Not at all. As i've already said. I'm not denying the possibility that they are up to something. But I'm also open to the possibility that the USA could be up to something (Power makes people greedy).
We are pretty much open for attack for any of the big powers on the Earth.

[HFC 0-7]

Not at all. As i've already said. I'm not denying the possibility that they are up to something. But I'm also open to the possibility that the USA could be up to something (Power makes people greedy).
We are pretty much open for attack for any of the big powers on the Earth.

I know what you are saying, but the fact that we have gone to war with the country that has Osama in it, who went on TV and stated some of his intentions is not bowing to media spin etc.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You are entitled to you own opinion, and I agree that the media will put a spin on these things, however, what you are saying is that they are basically making it all up.

Remember, the US knew of threats before 9/11 but didnt do anything about it because of the sort of things you are saying. They then had to experience 9/11 before they did anything about it.

There was videos of Osama, posted on arabic TV after the event, saying there would be more to come and the UK was mentioned in these TV clips. Osama, leader of the taliban in Afghanistan on TV stating his intentions. . . . . . yeah your right we shouldnt have done anything!

Wars are terrible things, there are always innocent casualties, the government did what they thought best to minimise the innocent casualties in the UK.

I hate to get involved in this (I don't think I could add anything to what DBS has said and the recent Afghanistan thread in the Holy Ground) but that can't be let pass. In what sense bin Laden the leader of the Taliban?

[Betty Boop]

I know what you are saying, but the fact that we have gone to war with the country that has Osama in it, who went on TV and stated some of his intentions is not bowing to media spin etc.

Osama is deid!

[Hibercelona]

I know what you are saying, but the fact that we have gone to war with the country that has Osama in it, who went on TV and stated some of his intentions is not bowing to media spin etc.

I agree that stating our intentions isn't a media spin. Everybody is well aware of what we are doing and how we are going about it.

But I do believe that its easy for people to be mislead by propaganda.

I'm not saying this is the case, but is it not a possibility that Afghanistan is being used as a scapegoat when things go wrong?

Again... I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they are innocent in any way, but I'm also not jumping to the conclusion that they're up to something.

[basehibby]

Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and letting them plan and train for attacks on the UK and its allies.

So to say that they had no problem with us is nonsense.

This is true - and (unlike Iraq) the powers of the West actually had some justification for invading Afghanistan and unseating the Taliban. But there are other reasons for being there - some good some not so good....

1) Historical moral responsibility - When Russia invaded in the 80s, the western powers strongly backed all anti-russian forces - including the nascent Al-Quaeda, the Taliban and several power hungry Warlords collectively known as the Muja Hadeen. Once the russians left, the west promptly washed their hands of the situation leaving the country to slide into a chaotic civil war which lasted for many years until the Taliban took over - and proceeded to drag their country into the stone age by means of a brutal, ignorant and despotic sectarian regime. Whatever the reasons for the Western powers being there now, there is arguably a moral obligation NOT to simply leave the country to slide into chaos once again.

2) Oil, gas and geo-politics - this is the one we never hear about - there is a longstanding proposal to build a gas pipeline from the enormous reserves that exist around the Caspian Sea in places such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - the proposed route goes through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea - thus completely bypassing Russia. In order for this to happen a stable western friendly government will need to be in place.

So - two reasons - one down to basically noble principles, and the other down to politics and the struggle for control of natural resources. While it's hard to argue against the morality of the first reason, I somehow doubt we'd be anywhere near the place if it wasn't for the latter. So, the likes of FilledRolls and WeeHibee definately have an argument but it's far from clear cut IMO. Still - the original point is that the soldiers on the ground are hardly to blame for all this and fully deserved the warm reception they got on Saturday - to that point I'd certainly give a :top marks

[Hibercelona]

This is true - and (unlike Iraq) the powers of the West actually had some justification for invading Afghanistan and unseating the Taliban. But there are other reasons for being there - some good some not so good....

1) Historical moral responsibility - When Russia invaded in the 80s, the western powers strongly backed all anti-russian forces - including the nascent Al-Quaeda, the Taliban and several power hungry Warlords collectively known as the Muja Hadeen. Once the russians left, the west promptly washed their hands of the situation leaving the country to slide into a chaotic civil war which lasted for many years until the Taliban took over - and proceeded to drag their country into the stone age by means of a brutal, ignorant and despotic sectarian regime. Whatever the reasons for the Western powers being there now, there is arguably a moral obligation NOT to simply leave the country to slide into chaos once again.

2) Oil, gas and geo-politics - this is the one we never hear about - there is a longstanding proposal to build a gas pipeline from the enormous reserves that exist around the Caspian Sea in places such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - the proposed route goes through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea - thus completely bypassing Russia. In order for this to happen a stable western friendly government will need to be in place.

So - two reasons - one down to basically noble principles, and the other down to politics and the struggle for control of natural resources. While it's hard to argue against the morality of the first reason, I somehow doubt we'd be anywhere near the place if it wasn't for the latter. So, the likes of FilledRolls and WeeHibee definately have an argument but it's far from clear cut IMO. Still - the original point is that the soldiers on the ground are hardly to blame for all this and fully deserved the warm reception they got on Saturday - to that point I'd certainly give a :top marks

Top post BH. :agree:

:top marks

[Beefster]

What we never seen however, was people from Iraq hijacking the planes. Thats just what we were told, and people take it as fact because it said so on the TV and the newspapers. I'll choose to keep an open mind about it. :agree:

The hijackers were mainly Saudis so I'm not sure where you heard that they were Iraqis. So, yeah, you're right to be open-minded about whether they were Iraqis or not.


This is true - and (unlike Iraq) the powers of the West actually had some justification for invading Afghanistan and unseating the Taliban. But there are other reasons for being there - some good some not so good....

I know there are a shedload of historical reasons. I read http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806 a few years back and would recommend it to everyone.

I realise that you are not criticising the soldiers but I'm just saddened by some attitudes to people who fight for this country and that people are unable to separate the guys fighting with those who send them to fight. There was a soldier on the TV yesterday who had lost 3 limbs in Afghanistan but was getting on with life and wanting to get back to working for the Army. Yet, we've got some on here 'oh, I don't support him as I don't agree with the war'.

It's easy to be take the moral high ground when you're sitting in a warm house, in front of a PC, with a coffee and a wee cushion for your back.

[Hibercelona]

Yet, we've got some on here 'oh, I don't support him as I don't agree with the war'.

Away and no talk mince. You're twisting the words of what people have said.

Nobody is saying they aren't supporting the soldiers. It's what they are fighting for that people don't support.

I am extremely saddened at the lives lost by those who have been involved in this mess. It just doesn't seem like they are dying for a reasonable cause at all.

As for it being Saudis or people from a Iraq or whatever... who cares? People will believe what ever the media feeds them without having first hand evidence themselves.

[HFC 0-7]

I agree that stating our intentions isn't a media spin. Everybody is well aware of what we are doing and how we are going about it.

But I do believe that its easy for people to be mislead by propaganda.

I'm not saying this is the case, but is it not a possibility that Afghanistan is being used as a scapegoat when things go wrong?

Again... I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they are innocent in any way, but I'm also not jumping to the conclusion that they're up to something.


Not being cheeky here, but I dont know what you mean about the highlighted part above.

[Hibercelona]

Not being cheeky here, but I dont know what you mean about the highlighted part above.

Well we often hear about things in the media.

Bombs going off here and there & people being shot. And I can't help but think that the media often puts a spin on these things and tries to link them up to some sort of terrorist act, without having any clear evidence of it being so.

People are easily mislead by what they hear or read. The government controls the media, which unfortunately controls the minds of many.

Personally I choose to avoid anything on the television or the newspapers that are linked with Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia... etc.

Everybody is entitled to their points of view, but that's just the way I look at it.

[HFC 0-7]

Well we often hear about things in the media.

Bombs going off here and there & people being shot. And I can't help but think that the media often puts a spin on these things and tries to link them up to some sort of terrorist act, without having any clear evidence of it being so.

People are easily mislead by what they hear or read. The government controls the media, which unfortunately controls the minds of many.

Personally I choose to avoid anything on the television or the newspapers that are linked with Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia... etc.

Everybody is entitled to their points of view, but that's just the way I look at it.

RUBBISH!

Government control the media!

No they dont! They can be influenced sure, but the media tries to slate the government at just about every opportunity nowadays.

Also, your early posts question why the troops are in afghanistan and you point to the media as a possible reason as they make us believe that these things are happening and that the terrorists are there. You seem to be going back on this after my posts regarding Osama on TV telling everyone his intentions, and unless the media hired Osama then they arent telling porkies!

[Hibercelona]

RUBBISH!

Government control the media!

No they dont! They can be influenced sure, but the media tries to slate the government at just about every opportunity nowadays.

Also, your early posts question why the troops are in afghanistan and you point to the media as a possible reason as they make us believe that these things are happening and that the terrorists are there. You seem to be going back on this after my posts regarding Osama on TV telling everyone his intentions, and unless the media hired Osama then they arent telling porkies!

Well seeing as most people have suspected Osama to have been dead since 2001... it can't be him that you are seeing. :wink:

[HFC 0-7]

Well seeing as most people have suspected Osama to have been dead since 2001... it can't be him that you are seeing. :wink:

You were questioning britain going into afghanistan, not whats happening now! He was definately alive before we went in!

[Hibercelona]

You were questioning britain going into afghanistan, not whats happening now! He was definately alive before we went in!

Indeed he was.

The Bush family were also good friends with the Bin Laden family. This was due to their investment in Bushes Arbusto Energy company.

Their have been plenty of so called "Bin Laden" tapes out there.

Just one problem... The person in each video looks different. Which would suggest that its possible that none of them were in fact the real Bin Laden.

Their has been a lot of controversy on this over the years.

But I'm going to end my debate here....

I've heard enough of Bin Laden for a life time. :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

I understand the difference. I think there comes a point when the line seperating the two becomes blurred. It becomes hard to support the soldiers without supporting what they are doing - as some of the posts I've seen seem to suggest.


:agree:


The only thing they haven't used yet to produce a blind populist response is to say that the Taliban are an international paedophile ring.


Haven't you seen/read The Kite Runner?

[Beefster]

As for it being Saudis or people from a Iraq or whatever... who cares? People will believe what ever the media feeds them without having first hand evidence themselves.

Who cares? A fair number of folk, I'd imagine


Indeed he was.

The Bush family were also good friends with the Bin Laden family. This was due to their investment in Bushes Arbusto Energy company.

Their have been plenty of so called "Bin Laden" tapes out there.

Just one problem... The person in each video looks different. Which would suggest that its possible that none of them were in fact the real Bin Laden.


You actually right about the Bush / Bin Laden family connections but I only read about this in newspapers and books. Where did you get your first-hand evidence?

[Jack]

Well we often hear about things in the media.

Bombs going off here and there & people being shot. And I can't help but think that the media often puts a spin on these things and tries to link them up to some sort of terrorist act, without having any clear evidence of it being so.

People are easily mislead by what they hear or read. The government controls the media, which unfortunately controls the minds of many.

Personally I choose to avoid anything on the television or the newspapers that are linked with Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia... etc.

Everybody is entitled to their points of view, but that's just the way I look at it.

If that’s the case may I ask where you gain your knowledge on this subject?

In fact if you don’t trust the media (and I mean that in a way that you can separate the spin / reporters bull**** from actual events) how do you learn anything of what's going on in the world?

[hibsbollah]

:agree:



Haven't you seen/read The Kite Runner?

:faf: Hollywood propaganda at its best. Leni Riefenstahl would have been proud of it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think you're confusing Remembrance Sunday with Armed Forces Day.

I think quite a few people are, and I reckon the government are responsible. It becomes very hard to seperate the two things when we are in the middle of a conflict.

[marinello59]

I think quite a few people are, and I reckon the government are responsible. It becomes very hard to seperate the two things when we are in the middle of a conflict.

Aren't you guilty here of underestimating the intelligence of the general public? People are not as gullible as the media (or Government) would like to think and can quite easily make the distinction between the two.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Aren't you guilty here of underestimating the intelligence of the general public? People are not as gullible as the media (or Government) would like to think and can quite easily make the distinction between the two.

I was responding to the way phrases like "brave lads" an "fighting for our freedom" are starting to be used on a frequent basis. Straight out of WW2 newsreels.

In answer to your question. I accept that the public maybe do have more sense. I hope so, because I think the government is starting to use the war as a distraction from other issues.

[marinello59]

I was responding to the way phrases like "brave lads" an "fighting for our freedom" are starting to be used on a frequent basis. Straight out of WW2 newsreels.

Brave lads? I wouldn't argue with that one, they are.
Fighting for our freedom? Apart from the spin doctors and the media is it a phrase you hear on a regular basis. A recent poll finding that 62% (ish:greengrin) doubt the wisdom of the Afghanistan campaign suggests that the great British public are indeed capable of joined up thinking.

[Hibrandenburg]

I was responding to the way phrases like "brave lads" an "fighting for our freedom" are starting to be used on a frequent basis. Straight out of WW2 newsreels.

In answer to your question. I accept that the public maybe do have more sense. I hope so, because I think the government is starting to use the war as a distraction from other issues.

You mean the next government surely. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars ain't doing New Labour any favours.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Brave lads? I wouldn't argue with that one, they are.
Fighting for our freedom? Apart from the spin doctors and the media is it a phrase you hear on a regular basis. A recent poll finding that 62% (ish:greengrin) doubt the wisdom of the Afghanistan campaign suggests that the great British public are indeed capable of joined up thinking.

I think that's my argument well and truly buried.:flamed:


You mean the next government surely. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars ain't doing New Labour any favours.

The quote above would appear to confirm that.

(where's a white flag smiley when you need one)

[Betty Boop]

Sky news is reporting that Khalid Shekh Mohammed and four others are to be moved from Guantanamo Bay, to New York, to stand trial in a Federal Court for alledgedly masterminding the events on September 11th. Can his evidence be admissable, being that he was water-boarded more than forty times, and he was rendered from a foreign country. Will he get a fair trial?