Soldier Praise

[lapsedhibee]

As horrific as this is, and presumably those guilty will be punished, this type of thing has been happening during wars since time began and took place during World Wars 1 and 2 too.

Does this not argue the point that although there are acts of bravery and heroism by soldiers - including British soldiers - in every war, there are also acts which are neither brave nor heroic (in fact, possibly the exact opposite) by soldiers - including British soldiers - in every war. If so, this would seem to lend support to Tinyclothes's original proposition, which I took to be that it is wrong to ascribe bravery and heroism to absolutely everything that every British soldier does.

[Tinyclothes]

Does this not argue the point that although there are acts of bravery and heroism by soldiers - including British soldiers - in every war, there are also acts which are neither brave nor heroic (in fact, possibly the exact opposite) by soldiers - including British soldiers - in every war. If so, this would seem to lend support to Tinyclothes's original proposition, which I took to be that it is wrong to ascribe bravery and heroism to absolutely everything that every British soldier does.

:top marks

[Phil D. Rolls]

So saying that some of the dead soldiers may have been bad soldiers is not slanderous? It is in my book.

And I'm dragging it up now because you said that you had not said anything slanderous, which you did, even though you then tried to backtrack.

And I couldn't get on to post on Wednesday when you were drivelling all your p!sh so I'm making up for it now. :greengrin

In the first paragraph you say that it is slanderous in your opinion. By the second it is a fact. You were right the first time.

Surely what is brave or heroic can only be a matter of opinion? We don't all get frightened by the same things.

Talking about the thread in general now. I think we also have to acknowledge that sometimes what appears brave is actually stupid. If a soldier gets killed doing something he shouldn't, I can see how he could be described as a bad soldier.

I also think that, just because someone does something that we are scared to, it doesn't make them brave. Someone said earlier that to be brave, it has to be something that scares the person doing it.

Some people think nurses are heros.I don't think so, from what I've seen most nurses don't see anything brave about their job. Instead they find it hard to understand why other people can't do it. I imagine soldiers are just the same.

Let's not patronise soldiers by transferring our values onto them. They are thinking individuals who make their own decisions about joining the forces.They are not little plastic toys for us to play with.

Probably, if you ask people why they joined up you'll get a whole variety of reasons from family tradition to the fact that they enjoy killing people. Just as people go into other fields to fulfill their own selfish needs.

[Phil D. Rolls]

And you dont think the common denominator is that you are the tool and not them :cool2:

:faf: Reminds me of the mother watching her son's passing out parade, she turns to the lady next to her and says "my little boy is the only one marching in step".

[Green Mikey]

I Think the media has a duty to do this to keep morale up as there's so much negativity regarding the actual battles they are fighting.
I think it's the worst kept secret in the world that we're out there for reasons that the public simply don't agree with.


:bitchy:The media has a duty to publish the truth and stay objective. If the public don't agree with the war then media can't be expected ignore this to protect soldier morale.

What you are talking about is propoganda.

[Woody1985]

Does this not argue the point that although there are acts of bravery and heroism by soldiers - including British soldiers - in every war, there are also acts which are neither brave nor heroic (in fact, possibly the exact opposite) by soldiers - including British soldiers - in every war. If so, this would seem to lend support to Tinyclothes's original proposition, which I took to be that it is wrong to ascribe bravery and heroism to absolutely everything that every British soldier does.

If that's the case then it's a pretty pointless arguement. Of course not every soldier is brave and some commit horrible crimes. I'd say that the vast majority of them are brave/heros. If any of you want to make a real difference get this joke of a government to **** and support one that is anti war that will get troops out as safely as possible for both us and the civilians in the countries we are currently in.

If that wants to be the arguement then the comment that nurses etc are his real hero's is also invalid as there will be some nurses who murder patients, perform acts of malpractice etc etc etc.

What a piece of **** thread.

As a side note, I had thought of joining the army when I was about 17 and the TA at a later date but never took the decision as I felt that the army should be here for our defence and it is not used in the correct way. Vent your anget at the politicians, not soldiers.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If that's the case then it's a pretty pointless arguement. Of course not every soldier is brave and some commit horrible crimes. I'd say that the vast majority of them are brave/heros. If any of you want to make a real difference get this joke of a government to **** and support one that is anti war that will get troops out as safely as possible for both us and the civilians in the countries we are currently in.

If that wants to be the arguement then the comment that nurses etc are his real hero's is also invalid as there will be some nurses who murder patients, perform acts of malpractice etc etc etc.

What a piece of **** thread.

As a side note, I had thought of joining the army when I was about 17 and the TA at a later date but never took the decision as I felt that the army should be here for our defence and it is not used in the correct way. Vent your anget at the politicians, not soldiers.

:agree:

People have all sorts of motivation for doing job. It is wrong to tar them all with the same brush.

[poolman]

Just my tuppence worth here

Whether they are all heroes or not, I dont know but I would not do their job for a Euro lottery win, i'm to much of a coward for one thing:greengrin

One thing I did disagree with the other week was a father came on whos son was tragically killed in Afghanistan and claimed that the Prime Minister has blood on his hands

Well i'm sorry but thats just so wrong, whatever opinions are about troops being there it was, decided, rightly or wrongly that they were to be sent to Afghanistan

Nobody frogmarched this unfortunate laddie to the recruiting office and, it is, the ARMED FORCES which means what it says on the tin, its not a paintball hooley up in the t-woods

Anyway, I say again I would not do their job and I think that they are very brave young guys and good luck to them all out there

[Woody1985]

Just my tuppence worth here

Whether they are all heroes or not, I dont know but I would not do their job for a Euro lottery win, i'm to much of a coward for one thing:greengrin

One thing I did disagree with the other week was a father came on whos son was tragically killed in Afghanistan and claimed that the Prime Minister has blood on his hands

Well i'm sorry but thats just so wrong, whatever opinions are about troops being there it was, decided, rightly or wrongly that they were to be sent to Afghanistan

Nobody frogmarched this unfortunate laddie to the recruiting office and, it is, the ARMED FORCES which means what it says on the tin, its not a paintball hooley up in the t-woods

Anyway, I say again I would not do their job and I think that they are very brave young guys and good luck to them all out there

It would all be dependant on when he signed up IMO. If he signed up when there was no conflict and no reason to go to war then there could be an element of truth. If he signed up after the wars had started then it was optional.

[--------]

One thing I have been told by a number of conscripted soldiers from the Second World War - including two uncles and my father - is that in their day the biggest whingers in the Army were the Regulars who had signed up before the War began. Regulars seemed to take the view that soldiering was their job, like plumbing or joinering, and they had the right to serve their 10 years or 18 or 25 or whatever, then retire with a pension and a whole skin.

So they moaned and griped the whole time, much, much more than the conscripts. I've been told the same by ex RN and ex-RAF guys, too.

One of my uncles who served in Burma went so far as to say he felt much safer when his battalion was supported by Ghurkas or Indian Army battalions than when they were brigaded with Regulars. the Ghurkas and Pathans wouldn't leave you in the lurch, he said - British Regulars, especially English regiments, might. (He was a Royal Scots Territorial, btw, who served with Ghurkas and very much an 'Army' man.) But I've worked with and known a lot of ex-servicemen, and the vast majority say the same.

A conscript army like the one my father and uncles served in is pretty much the same mix of characters as society as a whole - probably it lacks some of the worse elements of the general population, as they would be the ones who dodged their call-up, but generally speaking, you'll find all sorts in a conscript army.

A Regular Army like the one we have today depends heavily on the selection process and training for the quality of its troops. How choosy the recruiters are depends on the regiment - engineers and technicians need to be more intelligent than a squaddie in a line regiment, for example. Guards regiments who look for height and smartness have in the past lowered the intelligence standards even farther - hence their nickname - "Woodentops".

Since it isn't exactly unknown for British soldiers from ethnic minorities to be bullied by other British soldiers, I don't find it at all surprising that cases are coming to light of Iraqi civilians and war prisoners being abused by British soldiers. Nor to I find it hard to believe that a fair percentage of those cases will be true bills - this is how occupying armies have always behaved towards the people of the country they're occupying. Especially when those armies have been almost exclusively Regulars. It's all about perceived differences - 'them' and 'us' - and the greater and more numerous the differences, the more likely you are to have this sort of abuse going on. Bluntly, these are war crimes, and those responsible are war criminals.

But focussing troops to kill the enemy (say, Germans) to protect their OWN people (say, British) is one thing. German BAD, British GOOD is an easy lesson to learn. Focussing troops to kill an enemy (Afghanis) to protect other people not their own (more Afghanis) is a lot harder, especially since some of the Afghanis they need to kill are pretending to be some of the Afghanis the troops are there to protect. Then one of the 'friendly' Afghanis turns out not to have been friendly after all, and 5 of your mates are killed and the guy who killed them gets away because HIS Afghani mates (who you thought were YOUR mates too) didn't really try to chase him too hard....

[IndieHibby]

Please cut out the personal stuff guys, there is a decent (if somewhat heated:greengrin) debate going on here. We really don't want to be deleting posts or closing the thread.
Thanks.

My bad! Let my temper get the better of me. Apologies to all I have personally offended.

[IndieHibby]

Who has been slandering the dead? IIRC this thread started off by questioning whether bravery was a correct way to describe someone's actions if they ended up getting killed.

I think it might have been better advised to start the discussion on a different day. That said it is a legitimate question. We have differing views on the answer, but it would be very wrong not to discuss it.

As well as that, if the 11th had been the only day that we were asked to remember it might not have come to this. We have had this whole thing for a few weeks now.

I think what I, and maybe others, object to about this is that when a soldier is killed serving his country, the media choose to ascribe this loss with their own prescription of the word "Hero". To then question this, and inescapably (either intentionally or otherwise) devalue the memory of him/her, is a little unreasonable. So people ask, "Why would someone devalue the memory..." and the answer is because you object to the use of the word "Hero"/"Brave", when some other word would have been appropriate.

If I was an insensitive pedant, then maybe I would agree. But I don't. What is the point of questioning the manner in the way dead soldiers are remembered, on the day of rememberance?

Where is the satisfaction in that?

[IndieHibby]

:bitchy:The media has a duty to publish the truth and stay objective. If the public don't agree with the war then media can't be expected ignore this to protect soldier morale.

What you are talking about is propoganda.

Maybe they do have a duty, but they certainly don't live up to it. Since when have the media been objective about anything.

Negative news sells. People don't want to hear about good stuff. Hence the Army Officer feeling the need to correct this on the Today programme.

And what about the large section of society who, while questioning the aims about the war in private, are not willing to allow this to affect our support (overt or otherwise) of the troops who are fighting?

I'd be willing to bet that your average squaddie cares more that you support him in his role than whether or not you take a principled moral stance on it and find any and every outlet to vent your opinion.

[hibsbollah]

I think what I, and maybe others, object to about this is that when a soldier is killed serving his country, the media choose to ascribe this loss with their own prescription of the word "Hero". To then question this, and inescapably (either intentionally or otherwise) devalue the memory of him/her, is a little unreasonable. So people ask, "Why would someone devalue the memory..." and the answer is because you object to the use of the word "Hero"/"Brave", when some other word would have been appropriate.

If I was an insensitive pedant, then maybe I would agree. But I don't. What is the point of questioning the manner in the way dead soldiers are remembered, on the day of rememberance?

Where is the satisfaction in that?

Exactly:agree:

[lapsedhibee]

What is the point of questioning the manner in the way dead soldiers are remembered, on the day of rememberance?

The thread was started on 10th November. So we had poppies sold in October, fitba silences on the 7th, Remembrance Sunday on the 8th, and Armistice Day on the 11th. How much more of the year, as well as the 10th, would you prefer that people with views other than your own kept quiet?

[The Godfather]

This might sound harsh and I know I'll get jumped all over for saying it but it's what I think.

I'm tired of all the talk of our 'brave' soldiers and all the heroes we have in Afghanistan at the moment. I know it's remembrance day and all that but it's doing my nut this year, with the debate about bringing the troops home it's even more hyped than normal. I personally don't think every single soldier is a hero or particularly brave, they're just doing their job. I admit it's a tough job but I'd say a nurse is more of a hero. I've got a few mates in the forces so I'm not totally blinkered on this. I just think that folk are quick to get behind the troops because they don't have much else going on in their lives.

There I've said it. I'm not a bad man, honest.

WOW I never knew people could talk such sh&t :blah::blah::blah:

[ArabHibee]

It would all be dependant on when he signed up IMO. If he signed up when there was no conflict and no reason to go to war then there could be an element of truth. If he signed up after the wars had started then it was optional.

Sorry Woody, but I totally disagree with you. Regardless of when someone signs up they have to face the fact that they may end up in a war or conflict situation, regardless of whether it is to defend their own country or someone else's. To not do so, is very naive I feel.

[poolman]

It would all be dependant on when he signed up IMO. If he signed up when there was no conflict and no reason to go to war then there could be an element of truth. If he signed up after the wars had started then it was optional.


Thays a very naive post Woody IMO

Surely it doesn't matter if and when you sign up when you know if you aqre in the armed forces at any time you can be sent to any conflict at any time the government sees fit to fight with the obvious possibility of losing your life

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think what I, and maybe others, object to about this is that when a soldier is killed serving his country, the media choose to ascribe this loss with their own prescription of the word "Hero". To then question this, and inescapably (either intentionally or otherwise) devalue the memory of him/her, is a little unreasonable. So people ask, "Why would someone devalue the memory..." and the answer is because you object to the use of the word "Hero"/"Brave", when some other word would have been appropriate.

If I was an insensitive pedant, then maybe I would agree. But I don't. What is the point of questioning the manner in the way dead soldiers are remembered, on the day of rememberance?

Where is the satisfaction in that?

It's a fair point you make. I think the 11th wasn't the best time to discuss it. That said, I think it is worthwhile discussing the issue - if only to seperate the media's trivialisation of a massive issue.

[ArabHibee]

Thays a very naive post Woody IMO

Surely it doesn't matter if and when you sign up when you know if you aqre in the armed forces at any time you can be sent to any conflict at any time the government sees fit to fight with the obvious possibility of losing your life


Is that no what I said? :confused:

[Removed]

Is that no what I said? :confused:

Poolman must have you on ignore :greengrin

[marinello59]

:greengrinJoking Arab.
Poolman must have you on ignore :greengrin

Who?








































































































Joking Arab.:greengrin

[poolman]

Is that no what I said? :confused:


Aye, but I was replying to his response to my post :dizzy:

[Steve-O]

And you dont think the common denominator is that you are the tool and not them :cool2:

No. :greengrin

[Steve-O]

Tsk tsk, look what this brave hero has been up to...

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2729758/Army-support-worker-in-Afghanistan-posts-sick-images-of-dead-bodies-on-web.html

[Twa Cairpets]

Tsk tsk, look what this brave hero has been up to...

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2729758/Army-support-worker-in-Afghanistan-posts-sick-images-of-dead-bodies-on-web.html

Utterly pathetic post.

This is one of the lowest forms of argument, and is dismissable as a logical fallacy. Here's a link (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/)to help you.

If this is the level of your argument, then you really need to have a word.

[Beefster]

Tsk tsk, look what this brave hero has been up to...

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2729758/Army-support-worker-in-Afghanistan-posts-sick-images-of-dead-bodies-on-web.html

"The dad-of-one works for defence contractor KBR"

...therefore is not a soldier. Therefore, your argument falls down at the first hurdle. It's about as relevant as me posting a news story about Harold Shipman to prove that all teachers are bad drivers.

Good job.

[Phil D. Rolls]

A TWISTED Army support worker in Afghanistan was slammed last night for posting sick snaps of dead bodies on the internet.

Horrific ... Duncan posted this image of a dead body on Bebo with the caption 'maybe not'
Horrific ... Duncan posted this image of a dead body on Bebo with the caption 'maybe not'

We're so horrified we're going to let you see it so that you can remind us.

George Duncan used his Bebo page to mock the horrific deaths of Taliban and Afghan soldiers - including one blown in HALF.

Duncan, 30, from Dunfermline, Fife, even wrote 'joke' captions below the bloody images.

The dad-of-one works for defence contractor KBR - which provides vital food, fuel, water and sanitation for Our Boys in the war-torn country.

Hands on hearts everybody.

But last night one ex-military man said sicko Duncan does not deserve to work alongside Britain's brave troops.

He's sick, they're brave.


Gruesome ... Duncan captioned this image of a corpse in a body bag with the words 'campin out'

We think this is gruesome, but we'll let you judge. The ******** put a sick caption beneath it, it's in such poor taste that you'll have to use your own imaginations, er..


Our source added: "This website totally sickened me. The pictures are horrendous and show one body blown to pieces.

"Anyone could go on to this site including my own children.

As if we didn't realise how serious this is.

"Something has to be done. Kicking Duncan out of the country would be a good start "We are supposed to be a civilised country. We should not make a fool of people who have died."

By showing their corpses on anything other than The Sun website

Duncan set up his Bebo page to keep in touch with his family while in Afghanistan.

It is littered with pictures of his wife Jen and toddler son, but one vile gallery 'Afghan Aug 2009' has a string of appalling images.

The sick ********!

One shows a bearded man lying dead soaked in blood. The cruel caption states: "Maybe not".

He also shows a vehicle riddled with bullets titled "ha ha missed".

Another has a dead soldier in a body bag - his face reduced to a pulp - called: "Campin' out".

You've already done this one - ed

And in one photo - too distressing to print - is an Afghan blasted in two pieces. His torso lies at the bottom of a flight of steps splattered with his blood.

Can you imagine what that looks like!!!!

Part of his foot is seen lying near a black sandal. Duncan's gloating caption is "half en half".

Actually, that's quite funny.

The warzone worker does not reveal where he is based on his website. His employer KBR has provided services at Camp Bastion in Helmand province.

THE SUN SAYS
British people are renowned the world over for their sense of fair play. That is why readers will be so shocked by sicko Duncan James Bebo page. Children or anybody could see these vile and twisted pctures. It is our job as a newspaper to bring these images to your attention.

Our Brave Boys, are not killing people so that some amateur, who is probably mentally ill (he's from Dunfermline FFS) to publish on the internet. That is why we have taken the decision to show them on a family website like this, where Our Brave Lads can ensure that their children (and their childrens children) will live in a world free from such filth.

Pages 4 - 29, pictures of our Brave Lads killing Johnny Tow el Head and other dagos etc etc

[Dashing Bob S]

Isn't it possible to be both brave and sick? You can show courage and disregard for your own safety by killing many foreigners, but also be an evil menace back in civvy street after a few too many.

Surely one doesn't exclude the other?

[--------]

Tsk tsk, look what this brave hero has been up to...

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2729758/Army-support-worker-in-Afghanistan-posts-sick-images-of-dead-bodies-on-web.html



Unless I've misread that - this creep isn't a soldier.

And the Sun is as bad as he is - they publish the pictures on THEIR website so EVERYONE can enjoy them.

And YOU'VE published the link so that WE can look at them....

[IndieHibby]

The thread was started on 10th November. So we had poppies sold in October, fitba silences on the 7th, Remembrance Sunday on the 8th, and Armistice Day on the 11th. How much more of the year, as well as the 10th, would you prefer that people with views other than your own kept quiet?

How churlish of you.

[IndieHibby]

It's a fair point you make. I think the 11th wasn't the best time to discuss it. That said, I think it is worthwhile discussing the issue - if only to seperate the media's trivialisation of a massive issue.

Would you agree that some people here wish to vent their frustration (and I too share their frustration) at the way the media have 'hyped' rememberance, but have failed to make that distinction, in or around the very day where doing so comes across as somewhat insensitive?

This is, of course, seperate from the outright slander posted by some....

[Phil D. Rolls]

Would you agree that some people here wish to vent their frustration (and I too share their frustration) at the way the media have 'hyped' rememberance, but have failed to make that distinction, in or around the very day where doing so comes across as somewhat insensitive?

This is, of course, seperate from the outright slander posted by some....

Yes, I think I said early in the thread that some people (myself included on occasion) could think a bit harder about how what they write could hurt others. You can't expect grieving relatives to look into things too deeply, they have other issues to deal with.

[Woody1985]

Sorry Woody, but I totally disagree with you. Regardless of when someone signs up they have to face the fact that they may end up in a war or conflict situation, regardless of whether it is to defend their own country or someone else's. To not do so, is very naive I feel.


Thays a very naive post Woody IMO

Surely it doesn't matter if and when you sign up when you know if you aqre in the armed forces at any time you can be sent to any conflict at any time the government sees fit to fight with the obvious possibility of losing your life

Apologies, I should have been a bit more explicit in my post.

I think that if you sign up to the army in good faith, trust your government to do the right thing and they send you out into an illegal war (there's a separate debate on the Afghan one on that issue, but certainly Iraq) I think that you could consider it as having the government having blood on their hand.

If you joined after and took the opportunity to understand the conflicts etc then you could make a concious decision on whether to join up or not.

If you are in the latter scenario then I don't think you can consider that the governments fault.

[The Green Goblin]

A TWISTED Army support worker in Afghanistan was slammed last night for posting sick snaps of dead bodies on the internet.

Horrific ... Duncan posted this image of a dead body on Bebo with the caption 'maybe not'
Horrific ... Duncan posted this image of a dead body on Bebo with the caption 'maybe not'

We're so horrified we're going to let you see it so that you can remind us.

George Duncan used his Bebo page to mock the horrific deaths of Taliban and Afghan soldiers - including one blown in HALF.

Duncan, 30, from Dunfermline, Fife, even wrote 'joke' captions below the bloody images.

The dad-of-one works for defence contractor KBR - which provides vital food, fuel, water and sanitation for Our Boys in the war-torn country.

Hands on hearts everybody.

But last night one ex-military man said sicko Duncan does not deserve to work alongside Britain's brave troops.

He's sick, they're brave.


Gruesome ... Duncan captioned this image of a corpse in a body bag with the words 'campin out'

We think this is gruesome, but we'll let you judge. The ******** put a sick caption beneath it, it's in such poor taste that you'll have to use your own imaginations, er..


Our source added: "This website totally sickened me. The pictures are horrendous and show one body blown to pieces.

"Anyone could go on to this site including my own children.

As if we didn't realise how serious this is.

"Something has to be done. Kicking Duncan out of the country would be a good start "We are supposed to be a civilised country. We should not make a fool of people who have died."

By showing their corpses on anything other than The Sun website

Duncan set up his Bebo page to keep in touch with his family while in Afghanistan.

It is littered with pictures of his wife Jen and toddler son, but one vile gallery 'Afghan Aug 2009' has a string of appalling images.

The sick ********!

One shows a bearded man lying dead soaked in blood. The cruel caption states: "Maybe not".

He also shows a vehicle riddled with bullets titled "ha ha missed".

Another has a dead soldier in a body bag - his face reduced to a pulp - called: "Campin' out".

You've already done this one - ed

And in one photo - too distressing to print - is an Afghan blasted in two pieces. His torso lies at the bottom of a flight of steps splattered with his blood.

Can you imagine what that looks like!!!!

Part of his foot is seen lying near a black sandal. Duncan's gloating caption is "half en half".

Actually, that's quite funny.

The warzone worker does not reveal where he is based on his website. His employer KBR has provided services at Camp Bastion in Helmand province.

THE SUN SAYS
British people are renowned the world over for their sense of fair play. That is why readers will be so shocked by sicko Duncan James Bebo page. Children or anybody could see these vile and twisted pctures. It is our job as a newspaper to bring these images to your attention.

Our Brave Boys, are not killing people so that some amateur, who is probably mentally ill (he's from Dunfermline FFS) to publish on the internet. That is why we have taken the decision to show them on a family website like this, where Our Brave Lads can ensure that their children (and their childrens children) will live in a world free from such filth.

Pages 4 - 29, pictures of our Brave Lads killing Johnny Tow el Head and other dagos etc etc


Exactly my point, as made in my first post on this thread, which is that it`s entirely a media-made problem.

GG

[lapsedhibee]

How churlish of you.

Ok, that's the personal abuse out of the way. And the answer to my question?

[Steve-O]

"The dad-of-one works for defence contractor KBR"

...therefore is not a soldier. Therefore, your argument falls down at the first hurdle. It's about as relevant as me posting a news story about Harold Shipman to prove that all teachers are bad drivers.

Good job.

My mistake.

Of course, no soldiers have ever posed in dodgy photos while at war...oh wait a minute in fact...

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/11/15/another-abu-ghraib-iraqis-claim-abuse-by-british-troops/

edit - yes, these are just 'allegations' but it would crazy to think that stuff like this didn't go on. My only argument here is that not all of these guys are 'brave heroes', I can't see why some people refuse to accept that to be honest?

[Twa Cairpets]

My mistake.

Of course, no soldiers have ever posed in dodgy photos while at war...oh wait a minute in fact...

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/11/15/another-abu-ghraib-iraqis-claim-abuse-by-british-troops/

edit - yes, these are just 'allegations' but it would crazy to think that stuff like this didn't go on. My only argument here is that not all of these guys are 'brave heroes', I can't see why some people refuse to accept that to be honest?

I dont think for a moment anyone - media included - would claim this. In any population, theres going to be bad people. Nurses, police, teachers, clergy - any profession or trade, in fact - there is a percentage of societal dregs.

This does not mean it is representative of the qualities of the body of the group, and is a very cheap shot.

[Betty Boop]

'I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest.
I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong those sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.
On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them.
Also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realise.'

Siegfried Sassoon, July 1917

[IndieHibby]

My mistake.

Of course, no soldiers have ever posed in dodgy photos while at war...oh wait a minute in fact...

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/11/15/another-abu-ghraib-iraqis-claim-abuse-by-british-troops/

edit - yes, these are just 'allegations' but it would crazy to think that stuff like this didn't go on. My only argument here is that not all of these guys are 'brave heroes', I can't see why some people refuse to accept that to be honest?

So you are basically saying that you object to the media generalising about 'heroes', when a tiny minority do things like this?

So, you are a Hibby - correct? So I can an object to any positive generalisation that is made about Hibby's, citing the odd example of hooliganism as justification for that?

Would you accept that your position is one of insensitive pedantry?

[IndieHibby]

Ok, that's the personal abuse out of the way. And the answer to my question?

Personal abuse? If you say so. I said it was 'churlish' of you to make the comment. If you take that as personal abuse, then I feel sorry for the evident case of acute sensitivity that you appear to suffer from. Life must be tough for you.

As it happens, I did initially attempt a reply, but was so worn down with bashing my head against a brick wall, I gave up.

So, here goes:

You object to my dislike of some of the characatures and inferences of soldiers, past and present, on the following grounds:
1. The thread was started on the 10th - so (presumably) I can't object to it on the 11th?
2. Poppies were being sold as early as October - actually, now I think of it, what a bunch of *******s those charity poppy sellers actually are! I mean, how dare they start in October?:grr:
3. We have Armistice Day, Rememberance Sunday and Silences at football grounds already, so any other day in or around it is fair game?

You objected to my use of the word "churlish" to describe the above position(s).

So, what word would you prefer me to use. I can't think of any less abusive than that.....

[lapsedhibee]

Personal abuse? If you say so. I said it was 'churlish' of you to make the comment. If you take that as personal abuse, then I feel sorry for the evident case of acute sensitivity that you appear to suffer from. Life must be tough for you.

As it happens, I did initially attempt a reply, but was so worn down with bashing my head against a brick wall, I gave up.

So, here goes:

You object to my dislike of some of the characatures and inferences of soldiers, past and present, on the following grounds:
1. The thread was started on the 10th - so (presumably) I can't object to it on the 11th?
2. Poppies were being sold as early as October - actually, now I think of it, what a bunch of *******s those charity poppy sellers actually are! I mean, how dare they start in October?:grr:
3. We have Armistice Day, Rememberance Sunday and Silences at football grounds already, so any other day in or around it is fair game?

You objected to my use of the word "churlish" to describe the above position(s).

So, what word would you prefer me to use. I can't think of any less abusive than that.....

In amongst all this fulmination, I still don't detect an answer. How much of the year do you want reserved so that during that time no-one with views obviously different from yours should raise any issues about the coverage of Remembrance in case it upsets you? You've objected to issues being raised on the 10th. I have taken the liberty of assuming you would feel equally strongly about their being raised on the 7th, 8th or 11th. I heard someone on the radio talking about "Remembrance Week" - would that be long enough for you, or should it be a full month, or perhaps all year round would be best? :dunno:

[IndieHibby]

In amongst all this fulmination, I still don't detect an answer. How much of the year do you want reserved so that during that time no-one with views obviously different from yours should raise any issues about the coverage of Remembrance in case it upsets you? You've objected to issues being raised on the 10th. I have taken the liberty of assuming you would feel equally strongly about their being raised on the 7th, 8th or 11th. I heard someone on the radio talking about "Remembrance Week" - would that be long enough for you, or should it be a full month, or perhaps all year round would be best? :dunno:

I didn't say that I wanted to reserve anything. I objected, as I have the right to, to the taste in which some of the comments here were being made. I would object to those all year round if necessary.

With regard to the timing, if you need to be told when it is and when it is not approriate to discuss matters of heightened sensitivity, then you clearly do not have the good taste which I would regard as a basic part of being civil to others around you. To point out the dates on which you shouldn't discuss how dead soldiers are bad soldiers, or that they are chavs on the street one day but Heroes if they enlist on the next, is, for the third time, somewhat 'churlish' - would you (or would you) not agree? (seeing as you are so keen on having questions answered)

Rememberance Week is a ridiculous notion, only mildly more stupid than holding minutes silences at football stadia. But if the club decide that is what they would like to do, in spite of the inevitable lack of self-discipline that some fans display, then that's their problem. It's their image that is tarnished, in the eyes of some (others would argue that the only people who should be ashamed are those who aren't capable of shutting their traps).

If it is bad that the media 'hype' rememberance, then it is also not equally, or more so, bad that some people choose to insult the memory of the dead because they cannot distinguish between the media trying to fill time in their self-imposed, 24 hour news cycle and those who wish to have silence and civil rememberance respected?

Too much to ask?

As it happens, the timing was merely a peripheral complaint. My main objections was to the dowright bad taste in which some of the comments have been made.

[lapsedhibee]

With regard to the timing, if you need to be told when it is and when it is not approriate to discuss matters of heightened sensitivity, then you clearly do not have the good taste which I would regard as a basic part of being civil to others around you.

Yes, yes. Everyone who shares your views is civil and has good taste; everyone who has different views isn't and doesn't.


To point out the dates on which you shouldn't discuss how dead soldiers are bad soldiers, or that they are chavs on the street one day but Heroes if they enlist on the next, is, for the third time, somewhat 'churlish' - would you (or would you) not agree? (seeing as you are so keen on having questions answered)

Eh? You were the one pointing at dates when things shouldn't be discussed. What you said was "What is the point of questioning the manner in the way dead soldiers are remembered, on the day of rememberance?"
And you also appear to be confusing the point about dates and appropriateness (which I took you up on) with bad soldiering, chavs, etc (which are not, as far as I can see, related to the other point in any way).

I don't really see what point you're trying to make by repeatedly calling me churlish. All you're saying, over and over again, is that people who disagree with your point of view are bad/wrong/rude/whatever.


If it is bad that the media 'hype' rememberance, then it is also not equally, or more so, bad that some people choose to insult the memory of the dead because they cannot distinguish between the media trying to fill time in their self-imposed, 24 hour news cycle and those who wish to have silence and civil rememberance respected?

Again, I don't see any connection whatsoever between discussing media coverage of Remembrance and insulting dead people. You can do the first without doing the second, and you can do the second without doing the first. They seem to be inextricably linked in your mind to the extent that anyone doing one appears to you to be also doing the other.


As it happens, the timing was merely a peripheral complaint. My main objections was to the dowright bad taste in which some of the comments have been made.
Perhaps some comments on this thread have been in bad taste. I occasionally wander on to internet messageboards where the merest hint of bad taste leads to posts being deleted, posters banned, etc. I suppose there's a place for that on the interweb. Don't think a footy messageboard wants to be like that though - this one, for example, allows nothing like the levels of bad taste that are espoused at actual footy matches.

[IndieHibby]

[QUOTE=lapsedhibee;2243355]

Again, I don't see any connection whatsoever between discussing media coverage of Remembrance and insulting dead people. You can do the first without doing the second, and you can do the second without doing the first. They seem to be inextricably linked in your mind to the extent that anyone doing one appears to you to be also doing the other.

QUOTE]

As far as I recall, you didn't make any comments which I felt were in bad taste. I don't think I even objected to anything you said (apart from suggesting that I wanted to 'reserve' days for rememberance) In fact, the first instance I was aware of your existence was when you decided to challenge my opinion that some of the comments should be left for another day. Fair enough - we disagree!

I am fully aware that it is possible to hold two differing but not opposed opinions at the same time. When I first posted on this thread, it was to make the GENERAL comment that the sum impression was that it was in bad taste/timing. So I am not criticising EVERYONE on the thread, just those who could have chosen their words more carefully.

It was you who chose to defend the thread and it contents in it's entirety. That's why, you'll find, that I rarely ever engaged with comments directly, other than tinyclothes and yourself (who chose to comment on my posts).

So what's the problem? That I think your defence of the thread was churlish? Is that it?

Let's just agree to disagree....

[lapsedhibee]

Let's just agree to disagree....
:agree:

[Steve-O]

I dont think for a moment anyone - media included - would claim this. In any population, theres going to be bad people. Nurses, police, teachers, clergy - any profession or trade, in fact - there is a percentage of societal dregs.

This does not mean it is representative of the qualities of the body of the group, and is a very cheap shot.

None of the other lot are described as brave heroes and Our Boys all the time though are they?

Don't see how it's a cheap shot to be honest. I accept it's a minority though.

[Twa Cairpets]

None of the other lot are described as brave heroes and Our Boys all the time though are they?

Don't see how it's a cheap shot to be honest. I accept it's a minority though.

How magnanimous of you.

How is it a cheap shot? Well, with some glee you find examples of vile individuals who also happen to be soldiers/military support staff. Your clear and deliberate implication is one of "look at them. and these are heroes...?".

I dont personally for a moment buy into the romanticising of the military, but I do recognise that the job they are doing - whether or not you agree with the reason why they are doing it - is one which the vast majority of people on these boards, myself and i suspect you included, wouldnt want to do because the very real possibility of being killed. For this reason alone your cheapening of the role they are fulfilling and extremely petty attempts to belittle them as individuals is contemptible.