Soldier Praise

[Tinyclothes]

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.

[AugustaHibs]

But we would all be under threat if they didnt do it so, i think they're hero's.

I do see where your getting though, it is a bit hyped at the moment.

[marinello59]

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.

I can't wait to see how you defend that remark.:greengrin

[BroxburnHibee]

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.

Total ****** pish.

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

[Antifa Hibs]

I don't get this heroes nonsense and the hysteria of them.

Invading a foreign land, killing innocent civilians. Just because some pr1ck in a suit told them to. How heroic :rolleyes:

The worst part of this is soldiers are constantly saying they havn't a clue what they are fighting for, constantly saying they don't want to be in Iraq etc, yet a few months later, they're off to these countries pointing there guns about.

[ArabHibee]

I don't get this heroes nonsense and the hysteria of them.

Invading a foreign land, killing innocent civilians. Just because some pr1ck in a suit told them to. How heroic :rolleyes:

The worst part of this is soldiers are constantly saying they havn't a clue what they are fighting for, constantly saying they don't want to be in Iraq etc, yet a few months later, they're off to these countries pointing there guns about.

:wtf: Please tell me that you are at the wind up????

[marinello59]

I don't get this heroes nonsense and the hysteria of them.

Invading a foreign land, killing innocent civilians. Just because some pr1ck in a suit told them to. How heroic :rolleyes:

The worst part of this is soldiers are constantly saying they havn't a clue what they are fighting for, constantly saying they don't want to be in Iraq etc, yet a few months later, they're off to these countries pointing there guns about.

Hysteria? Point me towards the reports of these hysterical people please.

And also to the constant quotes soldiers have been giving about not having a clue etc etc etc.

[Betty Boop]

I think the heroes in these war torn countries are the aid workers, who put their lives on the line, in order to provide much needed food and shelter, for the innocent civilians caught up in conflict. In these Remembrance ceremonies you hardly ever hear a word about the civilians, thousands of men, women and children who have perished, often referred to as "collateral damage". :boo hoo:

[(((Fergus)))]

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.

The establishment have to make a big song and dance about bravery etc. in order to keep the troops and their families on side. They can't/won't pay them decent mercenary rates* so have to "reward" them in some other way, e.g., flattery ("protecting the free world" etc.). It is wearing thin though the longer this goes on.

* The payout to one set of parents who lost their 19-year-old son in Afghanistan was £66,574.52. That's about one year's salary for an MP to compensate for the rest of that boy's life plus grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.

[Steve-O]

'Brave' seems to get rolled out quite a bit these days...

- any celebrity who get a disease = brave
- any soldier (apart from those on the other side of course) = brave
- family members of either of the above = brave

:blah:

[BravestHibs]

The establishment have to make a big song and dance about bravery etc. in order to keep the troops and their families on side. They can't/won't pay them decent mercenary rates* so have to "reward" them in some other way, e.g., flattery ("protecting the free world" etc.). It is wearing thin though the longer this goes on.

* The payout to one set of parents who lost their 19-year-old son in Afghanistan was £66,574.52. That's about one year's salary for an MP to compensate for the rest of that boy's life plus grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.

Absolutely spot on. It's a kind of advertising for the forces. You can either be poor and get no respect in civilian life, quite possibly jobless and claiming benefits as most of the people who sign up come from a deprived area. In civilian life these same people would be referred to as 'neds' or '****' or a 'drain on society' and then without a hint of irony the same people who would deride them, would refer to them as a hero as soon as they signed up. It's the double standards I can't bare.

[Tinyclothes]

Also, why are all dead soldiers declared as heroes as soon as they die? Surely some of them were just bad soldiers.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Also, why are all dead soldiers declared as heroes as soon as they die? Surely some of them were just bad soldiers.

I think they are called heros to make things easier for their families, and to ease our conscience about sending them to their death.

I think it's in pretty poor taste to call them bad soldiers though.

[hibsbollah]

Also, why are all dead soldiers declared as heroes as soon as they die? Surely some of them were just bad soldiers.

I think youve gone too far there.

[BravestHibs]

I think they are called heros to make things easier for their families, and to ease our conscience about sending them to their death.

I think it's in pretty poor taste to call them bad soldiers though.

I think he was merely speculating as to the potential reason they may have died. If anything, he was trying to give it meaning rather than just saying 'oh well, there goes another hero, another name etched into some memorial in some barracks somewhere.'

[Jay]

Also, why are all dead soldiers declared as heroes as soon as they die? Surely some of them were just bad soldiers.

Your a f****** disgrace.

[Tinyclothes]

I think youve gone too far there.

How exactly? I'm not saying all are bad soldiers but equally I'm not sure how heroic it is to go to a foreign land, in an unjustifiable war and get killed doing the job you signed up for.

[Phil D. Rolls]

How exactly? I'm not saying all are bad soldiers but equally I'm not sure how heroic it is to go to a foreign land, in an unjustifiable war and get killed doing the job you signed up for.

It may not be heroic, it is tragic. You are asking a fair question, but I think it is in poor taste to discuss something like that on a public forum where someone might be hurt by it. Don't ask me why I think that, I just do.

[marinello59]

Absolutely spot on. It's a kind of advertising for the forces. You can either be poor and get no respect in civilian life, quite possibly jobless and claiming benefits as most of the people who sign up come from a deprived area. In civilian life these same people would be referred to as 'neds' or '****' or a 'drain on society' and then without a hint of irony the same people who would deride them, would refer to them as a hero as soon as they signed up. It's the double standards I can't bare.

Have you met many serving soldiers / sailors / airman and asked them why they joined up? You seem to be making a seriously flawed assumption that the only people who join the forces are those who have no other choices in life.

---------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------


How exactly? I'm not saying all are bad soldiers but equally I'm not sure how heroic it is to go to a foreign land, in an unjustifiable war and get killed doing the job you signed up for.

That isn't what you said though........you may have a decent argument to make but that remark was tasteless to say the least.

[BravestHibs]

[QUOTE=marinello59;2238218]Have you met many serving soldiers / sailors / airman and asked them why they joined up? You seem to be making a seriously flawed assumption that the only people who join the forces are those who have no other choices in life.[QUOTE]

So are you saying that as many people from a middle/upper class will sign up as people who perhaps come from an area with not so many opportunities? I don't think that's true. However I'm also not saying, as you seem to infer, that only poor people will sign up to the forces. The Royal Family are testament to that, however I also don't think your average conscript will have the opportunity to attend Sandhurst before they sign on the dotted line.

[marinello59]

So are you saying that as many people from a middle/upper class will sign up as people who perhaps come from an area with not so many opportunities? I don't think that's true. However I'm also not saying, as you seem to infer, that only poor people will sign up to the forces. The Royal Family are testament to that, however I also don't think your average conscript will have the opportunity to attend Sandhurst before they sign on the dotted line.

Conscripts?

[BravestHibs]

Conscripts?

Yeah I wasn't 100% sure that was the right word to use but is that really what you're going to focus on?

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------


Do you talk to him a lot?

[lyonhibs]

If being a soldier really is such a run-of-the mill, "sign up and take it on the chin" kind of job, then there are a few folk on this thread that should sign up tout suite to see how over the top describing soldiers as "brave" really is.

Until they do that, it's rank high horse posturing to say that soldiers in war zones don't merit being called "brave"

[marinello59]

Yeah I wasn't 100% sure that was the right word to use but is that really what you're going to focus on?

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------


It's obviously the wrong word, I figured you used it to deflect attention from your flawed logic.
The days of all Army Officers having clipped vowels and priveleged backgrounds are long gone. Practical considerations demand that Officers are selected on the basis of ability and desire to fil that role.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

[BravestHibs]

It's obviously the wrong word, I figured you used it to deflect attention from your flawed logic.
The days of all Army Officers having clipped vowels and priveleged backgrounds are long gone. Practical considerations demand that Officers are selected on the basis of ability and desire to fil that role.

We weren't originally talking about officers though, or at least I wasn't. I was talking about the kids who go in on the bottom rung.

[marinello59]

We weren't originally talking about officers though, or at least I wasn't. I was talking about the kids who go in on the bottom rung.

:confused: You mentioned Officers........didn't you?

[Jay]

Its almost 11am on the 11th of the 11th and we are allowing people on this board to say dead soldiers are bad soldiers. Its just vile.

[BravestHibs]

:confused: You mentioned Officers........didn't you?

I mentioned the royal family to illustrate the fact that I realise that it's not soley the poor who sign up to the army which is how you understood my original post. You mentioned officers and clipped vowels, I mentioned the Royal Family and Sandhurst.

[marinello59]

I mentioned the royal family to illustrate the fact that I realise that it's not soley the poor who sign up to the army which is how you understood my original post. You mentioned officers and clipped vowels, I mentioned the Royal Family and Sandhurst.

You implied that coming from a less well off background barred you from Sandhurst which is not true.

[Antifa Hibs]

Its almost 11am on the 11th of the 11th and we are allowing people on this board to say dead soldiers are bad soldiers. Its just vile.

Not everybody likes the army, not everybody cares about british soldiers.

Some people, politicians, the media etc need to get over that fact.

I pick up a Sun and see that a soldier has died in Iraq, in all honesty I couldn't care less and skip those pages? Does it make a *** disgrace? I don't get this thing in this day and age were as soon as someone has died wether is a soldier or a celeb such as jade goody we all need to take an interest and pay our respects to them?

[BravestHibs]

You implied that coming from a less well off background barred you from Sandhurst which is not true.

OK, perhaps not entirely, but I'm pretty sure you could say that not going to private school doesn't preclude you from becoming Prime Minister because John Major didn't. It doesn't mean that what I'm saying, which is that it's a rarity, isn't true, because it is.

I'm going to post my original point again because you don't seem to remember what I said. Here it is:

"So are you saying that as many people from a middle/upper class will sign up as people who perhaps come from an area with not so many opportunities? I don't think that's true. However I'm also not saying, as you seem to infer, that only poor people will sign up to the forces. The Royal Family are testament to that, however I also don't think your average conscript will have the opportunity to attend Sandhurst before they sign on the dotted line."

You chose to almost completely ignore the point I was making by picking up on symantics. I believe they'd call that a diversionary tactic in the forces.

[marinello59]

Sorry, I have deleted the side argument from this thread. It was starting to become a discussion about a third party rather than sticking to the issue beibg debated ..........which has the potential to be heated enough on its own.:greengrin

Feel free to contact me / abuse me by PM if you wish to discuss it further.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry for dragging things off at a tangent there. I was just worried that we'd judge someone harshly when they aren't aware of how other people take their words. I can take it, someone with a disability might not be able to.

I don't have an agenda on mental health. I have a very personal reason for being concerned for Asperger's sufferers. I dare say in much the same way as others have genuine concern for the deaths of soldiers.

[lapsedhibee]

Its almost 11am on the 11th of the 11th and we are allowing people on this board to say dead soldiers are bad soldiers. Its just vile.

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, but if you're implying that voices dissenting from the mainstream should be censored/suppressed because it is near the time of a public ceremony, I strongly disagree. Alternative views should most definitely be allowed.

[marinello59]

OK, perhaps not entirely, but I'm pretty sure you could say that not going to private school doesn't preclude you from becoming Prime Minister because John Major didn't. It doesn't mean that what I'm saying, which is that it's a rarity, isn't true, because it is.

I'm going to post my original point again because you don't seem to remember what I said. Here it is:

"So are you saying that as many people from a middle/upper class will sign up as people who perhaps come from an area with not so many opportunities? I don't think that's true. However I'm also not saying, as you seem to infer, that only poor people will sign up to the forces. The Royal Family are testament to that, however I also don't think your average conscript will have the opportunity to attend Sandhurst before they sign on the dotted line."

You chose to almost completely ignore the point I was making by picking up on symantics. I believe they'd call that a diversionary tactic in the forces.

First point. "Working class" candidates at Sandhurst is not a rarity these days. Apart from anything else the Army had to bow to practical considerations and appeal to as wide a talent pool as possible. I would argue that your view there is outdated.
Sorry, your original post on here implied that the Army primarily appealed to those who had no other choice. Those who would normally be called "neds" and "****" by those of us who may oppose the war but support the troops???? (That in itself says more about your attitudes to the less well off than mine.) And somehow that makes us guilty of double standards. No, your sweeping (and false)generalisation lets you sneer at those who may have a differing view from yours.

[BravestHibs]

Its almost 11am on the 11th of the 11th and we are allowing people on this board to say dead soldiers are bad soldiers. Its just vile.

Just out of interest, what are your views on Iraqi or Afghani soldiers?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, but if you're implying that voices dissenting from the mainstream should be censored/suppressed because it is near the time of a public ceremony, I strongly disagree. Alternative views should most definitely be allowed.

Not everyone thinks that way. :rolleyes:

I remember one thread where I happened to mention how much I'd enjoyed a piece of Halibut I had for tea the night before. All I said was "that Halibut was fit for Jehova". Next thing 30 women with false beards were throwing rocks at me.

I had to go and watch old episodes of Monty Python before I could relax.:greengrin

[BravestHibs]

First point. "Working class" candidates at Sandhurst is not a rarity these days. Apart from anything else the Army had to bow to practical considerations and appeal to as wide a talent pool as possible. I would argue that your view there is outdated.
Sorry, your original post on here implied that the Army primarily appealed to those who had no other choice. Those who would normally be called "neds" and "****" by those of us who may oppose the war but support the troops???? (That in itself says more about your attitudes to the less well off than mine.) And somehow that makes us guilty of double standards. No, your sweeping (and false)generalisation lets you sneer at those who may have a differing view from yours.

I'd be interested to hear when the Army suddenly became a middle and upper class bastion as you seem to be implying.

All I meant was that the same people who refer to the working class as 'neds' and '****' would also be the first to get all uppity when, such as on a board like this, people dare to disagree with the moral majority. But hey, why let what I actually meant get in the way of you venting your personal dislike towards me eh.

[marinello59]

I'd be interested to hear when the Army suddenly became a middle and upper class bastion as you seem to be implying.
All I meant was that the same people who refer to the working class as 'neds' and '****' would also be the first to get all uppity when, such as on a board like this, people dare to disagree with the moral majority. But hey, why let what I actually meant get in the way of you venting your personal dislike towards me eh.

Whre have I implied that? You asserted that a service career was only for those who had no other choice. Given the highly skilled nature of many roles in the services that point just doesn't hold water.The qualifications they hold before entering the services gives them a choice.
You are the one who brought class in to this by stating that it was a barrier to entering Sandhurst. It isn't now.

And why does my disagreeing with you suddenly become a venting of my personal dislike of you. Don't be such a sensitive wee soul, we can disagree and be pals, honest.:greengrin

[Jay]

Not everybody likes the army, not everybody cares about british soldiers.

Some people, politicians, the media etc need to get over that fact.

I pick up a Sun and see that a soldier has died in Iraq, in all honesty I couldn't care less and skip those pages? Does it make a *** disgrace? I don't get this thing in this day and age were as soon as someone has died wether is a soldier or a celeb such as jade goody we all need to take an interest and pay our respects to them?

so you dont think there was anything in the timing of the posts? Aye right!

[Jay]

Just out of interest, what are your views on Iraqi or Afghani soldiers?

whats that got to do with what I posted? The timing of the thread and subsequent posts is in bad taste. Yes people are allowed their opinions but surely they have to respect the fact that what they post will have more of an impact and I belive the OP did this in the full knowledge of what it was stir up.

Any other dqay it would have been bad enough but you are all entitled to your opinion but this morning was just to stir it up.

I pray to god that none of you lose a loved one at war. you may just look back with huge regret.

[Phil D. Rolls]

so you dont think there was anything in the timing of the posts? Aye right!

I think that's maybe taking conspiracy theories a bit far.

[Tinyclothes]

The whole point of this thread is obviously because of the media hype about soldiers which is hightened this year because of the debate on whether or not we should be in the Afghan war. So you piling in saying that it shouldn't be allowed and somehow censored is ridiculous. The whole idea, I thought, of these so called 'brave' soldiers being sent to countries that have the audacity of having different beliefs to us is to protect free speech and freedom of expression.

[Tinyclothes]

whats that got to do with what I posted? The timing of the thread and subsequent posts is in bad taste. Yes people are allowed their opinions but surely they have to respect the fact that what they post will have more of an impact and I belive the OP did this in the full knowledge of what it was stir up.

Any other dqay it would have been bad enough but you are all entitled to your opinion but this morning was just to stir it up.

I pray to god that none of you lose a loved one at war. you may just look back with huge regret.

No I wasn;t trying to stir anything up. You will see there are a few people on here that agree with me and not just fellow tub thumpers. On your ridiculous point about the timing, it is obviously not just a coincidence as my original point was how rememberence day is more hyped this year because of the ongoing debate about bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, that's why I felt compelled to post this to see what other people think. I think your blinkered view is in bad taste and maybe it is you who needs to be censored.

[Ed De Gramo]

Anybody who joins the Armed Forces are heroes in my eyes...

These people are prepared to perform a job where they might be killed, severly wounded or taken hostage.

Brave is one thing that every solider, pilot or Naval Officer is when they are in a war torn country with RPG's, Mortars etc..being blasted at them :agree:

Like to see how the people questioning their bravery would fare over there

[lapsedhibee]

I pray to god that none of you lose a loved one at war. you may just look back with huge regret.

That's one view but there is another, which tends to be overlooked at this time of year. Some of the most elderly members of my family, who did lose loved ones in World Wars, cannot stand the hooha at this time of year as it perpetuates the sense of loss, unhappiness, etc which they lived through at the time. The blanket poppyisation of the broadcast media from an apparently earlier and earlier time each year adds to the problem for them. They want simply to let go of World Wars.

[BravestHibs]

Whre have I implied that? You asserted that a service career was only for those who had no other choice. Given the highly skilled nature of many roles in the services that point just doesn't hold water.The qualifications they hold before entering the services gives them a choice.
You are the one who brought class in to this by stating that it was a barrier to entering Sandhurst. It isn't now.

And why does my disagreeing with you suddenly become a venting of my personal dislike of you. Don't be such a sensitive wee soul, we can disagree and be pals, honest.:greengrin

OK for about the 5th time. What I've been saying is that the MAJORITY of people who sign up are going to come from the lower end of the socio economic scale. It has always been the case and still is. I've gone to great lengths to highlight this in previous posts, this seems to have been ignored by you and now all of a sudden the whole conversation about Sandhurst. I'm afraid that if you still can't understand my point then we'll have to leave it there.

As for me being a sensitive soul well that just plain isn't true. The fact that you seem to appear every time I post is either, flattering, sinister or coincedental. Which would you say?

[Tinyclothes]

That's one view but there is another, which tends to be overlooked at this time of year. Some of the most elderly members of my family, who did lose loved ones in World Wars, cannot stand the hooha at this time of year as it perpetuates the sense of loss, unhappiness, etc which they lived through at the time. The blanket poppyisation of the broadcast media from an apparently earlier and earlier time each year adds to the problem for them. They want simply to let go of World Wars.

:top marks

[Green Mikey]

Personally, I think the term hero is used too often in the media these days especially in the context of soldiers. It is a soldier's job to serve in war zones and unfortunately some will die. IMO this does not automatically make them heroes.

I think some of the coverage of soldiers deaths and the 'heroic' 'brave boys' sentiments championed by tabloids exploits the deaths of these men for the purpose of selling newspapers.

[Phil D. Rolls]

whats that got to do with what I posted? The timing of the thread and subsequent posts is in bad taste. Yes people are allowed their opinions but surely they have to respect the fact that what they post will have more of an impact and I belive the OP did this in the full knowledge of what it was stir up.

Any other dqay it would have been bad enough but you are all entitled to your opinion but this morning was just to stir it up.

I pray to god that none of you lose a loved one at war. you may just look back with huge regret.

Personally, I didn't know it was Armistice Day, tbh it's been rammed down my throat so much in (what seems like) the last month, that I am numb towards it.

Maybe if this was the only day that we were asked to remember then your point would be more valid.

I'm sure none of us would like to lose a loved one in a war, whether we are British, German or Afghan.

[Tinyclothes]

Personally, I think the term hero is used too often in the media these days especially in the context of soldiers. It is a soldier's job to serve in war zones and unfortunately some will die. IMO this does not automatically make them heroes.

I think some of the coverage of soldiers deaths and the 'heroic' 'brave boys' sentiments championed by tabloids exploits the deaths of these men for the purpose of selling newspapers.

We also seem to forget sometimes about the brutal torture that 'our brave boys' have been getting up to with suspects that have not even had a trial but are locked up and sometimes kept away from their loved ones for years at a time.

[BravestHibs]

whats that got to do with what I posted? The timing of the thread and subsequent posts is in bad taste. Yes people are allowed their opinions but surely they have to respect the fact that what they post will have more of an impact and I belive the OP did this in the full knowledge of what it was stir up.

Any other dqay it would have been bad enough but you are all entitled to your opinion but this morning was just to stir it up.

I pray to god that none of you lose a loved one at war. you may just look back with huge regret.

All entitled to our opinion as long as you don't percieve us to be stirring up some kind of trouble? Which other opinions am I entitled to just so that in the future I don't make you overcome with red top rhetoric?

[Phil D. Rolls]

We also seem to forget sometimes about the brutal torture that 'our brave boys' have been getting up to with suspects that have not even had a trial but are locked up and sometimes kept away from their loved ones for years at a time.

History is written by the winners.:agree:

[Tinyclothes]

History is written by the winners.:agree:

That will be the Taliban then.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That will be the Taliban then.

Has been every other time someone has tried to tame Afghanistan.

[Jay]

No I wasn;t trying to stir anything up. You will see there are a few people on here that agree with me and not just fellow tub thumpers. On your ridiculous point about the timing, it is obviously not just a coincidence as my original point was how rememberence day is more hyped this year because of the ongoing debate about bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, that's why I felt compelled to post this to see what other people think. I think your blinkered view is in bad taste and maybe it is you who needs to be censored.

I'm quite happy to have a blinkered view in your opinion if it means I dont insult the familys of young men killed in Iraq etc. I wasn't the one who said that maybe they died because they were bad soldiers. I'll just stay blinkered and ridiculous and I'll be happy with the type of person I am.



That's one view but there is another, which tends to be overlooked at this time of year. Some of the most elderly members of my family, who did lose loved ones in World Wars, cannot stand the hooha at this time of year as it perpetuates the sense of loss, unhappiness, etc which they lived through at the time. The blanket poppyisation of the broadcast media from an apparently earlier and earlier time each year adds to the problem for them. They want simply to let go of World Wars.

I can only speak of my own experiences. My husbands great grandad was killed during the war and is buried in France. The family never got to have a funeral for him and my hubbys grandmother tried very hard to keep his memory alive as my mum in law is doing now.
Most of the family have managed to make the trip to france to visit his grave and the rest of us are planning it in the next few years once the kids are a bit older.
Rememberance day to my hubbys family means a lot and always has, they get to pay their respects to him - just once a year but it was always a comfort to his daughter.

[Jay]

All entitled to our opinion as long as you don't percieve us to be stirring up some kind of trouble? Which other opinions am I entitled to just so that in the future I don't make you overcome with red top rhetoric?

Is there a need for that? Does it make you feel better? A question without an answer made merely to have a dig?

[Tinyclothes]

Is there a need for that? Does it make you feel better? A question without an answer made merely to have a dig?

Did it make you feel better to accuse me of merely trying to stir things up and maybe I should be censored? I think Bravest had every right to post that.

[BravestHibs]

Anybody who joins the Armed Forces are heroes in my eyes...

These people are prepared to perform a job where they might be killed, severly wounded or taken hostage.

Brave is one thing that every solider, pilot or Naval Officer is when they are in a war torn country with RPG's, Mortars etc..being blasted at them :agree:

Like to see how the people questioning their bravery would fare over there

To your first point, I used to be a bike courier, the chances of me getting killed were infinitely higher than if I'd worked in an office, no one ever called me a hero. The same goes for people who work in a steel mill, the chances of injury and death are also very high. Again I haven't seen the papers describing them as heroes. Fishermen die all the time, so do oil rig workers. People die in their place of work alot and always have done. Why are they not heroes?


As for the second point I highlighted, well we'd probably have and do the exact same as the ones who are already out there. Our training would be the same we'd be following the same orders so I don't see what would be different.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is there a need for that? Does it make you feel better? A question without an answer made merely to have a dig?

Was there any need for you to call the OP "a *****ing disgrace?" What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[marinello59]

OK for about the 5th time. What I've been saying is that the MAJORITY of people who sign up are going to come from the lower end of the socio economic scale. It has always been the case and still is. I've gone to great lengths to highlight this in previous posts, this seems to have been ignored by you and now all of a sudden the whole conversation about Sandhurst. I'm afraid that if you still can't understand my point then we'll have to leave it there.

As for me being a sensitive soul well that just plain isn't true. The fact that you seem to appear every time I post is either, flattering, sinister or coincedental. Which would you say?

There really is no need for you to start trying to make this a personal issue. Please drop your attempts to make it one and stick to the issues. Nothing sinister. How could I like or dislike you, I don't know you.:confused:

I haven't ignored your point. I disagreed with your statement which you have made no attempt to back up with hard facts. YOU mentioned Sandhurst in an attempt to back up your initial post, not me.:faf:

[Jay]

Did it make you feel better to accuse me of merely trying to stir things up and maybe I should be censored? I think Bravest had every right to post that.

In my opinion you were stirring it up and I said so, I didn't make a sarcastic remark.

Do you honestly think I would be surprised that you think he was entitled to post the remark? I would have thought he was big enough to answer without both if his sidekicks jumping in with both feet.

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------


Was there any need for you to call the OP "a *****ing disgrace?" What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Again (this is getting boring now) I make a statement I believed was true, I didn't post a sarcastic remark which added nothing to whats being said.

[Tinyclothes]

In my opinion you were stirring it up and I said so, I didn't make a sarcastic remark.

Do you honestly think I would be surprised that you think he was entitled to post the remark? I would have thought he was big enough to answer without both if his sidekicks jumping in with both feet.

Sidekicks? I'll leave that alone.

If you think I'm stirring then fair enough, is it because I just happen to have a more open viewpoint on the matter than you?

I lost my great grandnad and great uncle in the first world war. My grandad in the second world war and currently have a close friend (and Hibby) serving in Afghanistan. This does not mean that I am blind to the facs and unable to hear another viewpoint without freaking out, calling people '*****ing disgraces' and quoting things that I have read in the Sun so must be correct.

[lapsedhibee]

I can only speak of my own experiences. My husbands great grandad was killed during the war and is buried in France. The family never got to have a funeral for him and my hubbys grandmother tried very hard to keep his memory alive as my mum in law is doing now.
Most of the family have managed to make the trip to france to visit his grave and the rest of us are planning it in the next few years once the kids are a bit older.
Rememberance day to my hubbys family means a lot and always has, they get to pay their respects to him - just once a year but it was always a comfort to his daughter.

Ok your particular family has chosen to keep going a tradition of remembering a family member who perhaps most of you never knew. Fair enough. Firstly, you could do that without Remembrance Day and how it is currently represented - so your private and respectful tributes to your ancestor, and the tabloid campaigns to force premiership fitballers to wear poppies, are worlds apart. Secondly, those who wish to keep those traditions going should respect those who do not. (And vice versa of course.) At this time of year it often seems that the people who do not are force fed the views of those who do - an example of this, it might be argued, is the holding of remembrance silences at fitba matches.

I don't see that the current slating, on this thread, of tabloid misuse of words like "brave" "hero" (and I would also add "tragic") implies any disrespect whatsoever to your great grandfather in law.

[Jay]

Sidekicks? I'll leave that alone.

If you think I'm stirring then fair enough, is it because I just happen to have a more open viewpoint on the matter than you?

I lost my great grandnad and great uncle in the first world war. My grandad in the second world war and currently have a close friend (and Hibby) serving in Afghanistan. This does not mean that I am blind to the facs and unable to hear another viewpoint without freaking out, calling people '*****ing disgraces' and quoting things that I have read in the Sun so must be correct.

Who is feaking out like? Not me, nor did I quote anything I read in the sun. I appologise if my comment hurt your feelings but I bet your comments would upset a lot more people than mine.

I am sure you expected no less when you made the original post.

[Jay]

Ok your particular family has chosen to keep going a tradition of remembering a family member who perhaps most of you never knew. Fair enough. Firstly, you could do that without Remembrance Day and how it is currently represented - so your private and respectful tributes to your ancestor, and the tabloid campaigns to force premiership fitballers to wear poppies, are worlds apart. Secondly, those who wish to keep those traditions going should respect those who do not. (And vice versa of course.) At this time of year it often seems that the people who do not are force fed the views of those who do - an example of this, it might be argued, is the holding of remembrance silences at fitba matches.

I don't see that the current slating, on this thread, of tabloid misuse of words like "brave" "hero" (and I would also add "tragic") implies any disrespect whatsoever to your great grandfather in law.

I find it really difficult to believe that many people would want to scrap Rememberance day, especially with so many soldiers losing their lives over the last few years.

You cant please everybody and there will always be an element who wouldn't want such things but it would, in my opinion, be awful if we lost it. If nothing else it educates children. My kids have learned so much about the wars and the Berlin wall etc in the last week, things I dont think should ever be forgotten.

[BravestHibs]

There really is no need for you to start trying to make this a personal issue. Please drop your attempts to make it one and stick to the issues. Nothing sinister. How could I like or dislike you, I don't know you.:confused:

I haven't ignored your point. I disagreed with your statement which you have made no attempt to back up with hard facts. YOU mentioned Sandhurst in an attempt to back up your initial post, not me.:faf:

Exactly! You don't know me, you do seem to thoroughly enjoy rebuking me at every given opportunity though. I'd really rather you didn't show such a close interest in me and my posts, particularly when you apply double standards as to what is acceptable and unacceptable to write. If my posts really were so bad and you weren't taking an unhealthy personal interest in me, why are you the ONLY admin to ever give me grief? I'm only making this a personal issue because you seem to have some crusade on to give me a hard time. I'm not a paranoid man, this is the case, whether you realise it or not. So how about you quit breathing down my neck and I'll stop making it a personal issue.

[Phil D. Rolls]

In my opinion you were stirring it up and I said so, I didn't make a sarcastic remark.

Do you honestly think I would be surprised that you think he was entitled to post the remark? I would have thought he was big enough to answer without both if his sidekicks jumping in with both feet.



---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------



Again (this is getting boring now) I make a statement I believed was true, I didn't post a sarcastic remark which added nothing to whats being said.

I think you're losing the plot. If you think back to earlier in the thread, we were hardly side-kicks then.

I'm just wondering why you think it's OK to take a pop at others, but can't take criticism back the way. Best that we leave it there though.

[lapsedhibee]

I find it really difficult to believe that many people would want to scrap Rememberance day.

Next year around this time, have a look at how many people are wearing poppies on the tellybox (no, don't bother - it'll be around 100%, except for Jon Snow, Krishnan GuruMurthy and the C4 newsteam); then look at how many out on the street are wearing them. The thirst for Remembrance as represented in and by the media may be less than you assume.

[marinello59]

Exactly! You don't know me, you do seem to thoroughly enjoy rebuking me at every given opportunity though. I'd really rather you didn't show such a close interest in me and my posts, particularly when you apply double standards as to what is acceptable and unacceptable to write. If my posts really were so bad and you weren't taking an unhealthy personal interest in me, why are you the ONLY admin to ever give me grief? I'm only making this a personal issue because you seem to have some crusade on to give me a hard time. I'm not a paranoid man, this is the case, whether you realise it or not. So how about you quit breathing down my neck and I'll stop making it a personal issue.

Dearie me, you really are that sensitive. A hard time? :faf:
Stuff this............I am out of here.

[Jay]

I think you're losing the plot. If you think back to earlier in the thread, we were hardly side-kicks then.

I'm just wondering why you think it's OK to take a pop at others, but can't take criticism back the way. Best that we leave it there though.

Where can I not take criticism? I have answered every piece of criticism thrown at me without spitting the dummy. All I asked was why the sarcastic remark asking what you (not your post) are allowed to say?

I think we should just leave it there - as usual when you and I are on the same thread eh?

[hibsbollah]

I find it really difficult to believe that many people would want to scrap Rememberance day, especially with so many soldiers losing their lives over the last few years.

You cant please everybody and there will always be an element who wouldn't want such things but it would, in my opinion, be awful if we lost it. If nothing else it educates children. My kids have learned so much about the wars and the Berlin wall etc in the last week, things I dont think should ever be forgotten.

:top marksTheres no danger of that happening, thankfully. Most people realise that remembrance day is there for people of all views to show respect for those who die in war. It is perfectly consistent, for example, to dislike the British Army as an institution (to use antifa hibs example earlier), but still fall silent in memory of Harry Patch and his comrades, or for civilian dead anywhere in the world.

[BravestHibs]

Dearie me, you really are that sensitive. A hard time? :faf:
Stuff this............I am out of here.


Finally. OK I'm sensitive whatever you need to justify the abuse of your position as admin.

[Jay]

Next year around this time, have a look at how many people are wearing poppies on the tellybox (no, don't bother - it'll be around 100%, except for Jon Snow, Krishnan GuruMurthy and the C4 newsteam); then look at how many out on the street are wearing them. The thirst for Remembrance as represented in and by the media may be less than you assume.

I'm sorry apparently I have lost the plot :greengrin

Are you saying people on the streets are not wearing poppys? I know I live in a wee west Lothian bubble but almost everybody around here that I have seen are wearing them, including the kids. The shops in my area are sold out as I struggled to get any for the boys to wear to school.

I know people domnt want it, or am beginning to realise that now anyway, but in my opinion it would be a sad day that it was scrapped. A terrible sign of what society is becoming.

[marinello59]

Finally. OK I'm sensitive whatever you need to justify the abuse of your position as admin.

That is a serious allegation to make. You are the one trying to make this personal. Not me. As I said I am stepping away from this one now.

[lapsedhibee]

:top marksTheres no danger of that happening, thankfully. Most people realise that remembrance day is there for people of all views to show respect for those who die in war. It is perfectly consistent, for example, to dislike the British Army as an institution (to use antifa hibs example earlier), but still fall silent in memory of Harry Patch and his comrades, or for civilian dead anywhere in the world.

By remembrance day 2009, would you be referring to the 11th, the 8th or the 7th? As I remember it, it was the 7th that most exercised people on here, followed by the 8th, followed by the 11th. Think there would be plenty people happy to reduce remembrance days to day.

[BravestHibs]

That is a serious allegation to make. As I said I am stepping away from this one now.

Not just me who's sensitive then eh. And you're right it is a serious allegation to make, but one which I felt I had to make in order for you to stop this unhealthy interest in me and my posts. Hopefully we can put this one to bed now as it's not the first time I have mentioned this.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Where can I not take criticism? I have answered every piece of criticism thrown at me without spitting the dummy. All I asked was why the sarcastic remark asking what you (not your post) are allowed to say?

I think we should just leave it there - as usual when you and I are on the same thread eh?

Have we been on the same thread before?

[hibsbollah]

By remembrance day 2009, would you be referring to the 11th, the 8th or the 7th? As I remember it, it was the 7th that most exercised people on here, followed by the 8th, followed by the 11th. Think there would be plenty people happy to reduce remembrance days to day.

What the football chooses to do pre kickoff (the 7th) has nothing to do with remembrance day itself, as im sure you know. The confusion between the Sunday and doing it on the 11th itself apparently arose because of employers being unwilling to allow a break in the normal working week when the 11th fell on a weekday. I agree that it would be better to either hold it on a Sunday or on the 11th and stick to it.

...although thats not really relevant to the point I was making.

[Tinyclothes]

I'm sorry apparently I have lost the plot :greengrin

Are you saying people on the streets are not wearing poppys? I know I live in a wee west Lothian bubble but almost everybody around here that I have seen are wearing them, including the kids. The shops in my area are sold out as I struggled to get any for the boys to wear to school.

I know people domnt want it, or am beginning to realise that now anyway, but in my opinion it would be a sad day that it was scrapped. A terrible sign of what society is becoming.

And what exactly is society becomming?

[lapsedhibee]

Are you saying people on the streets are not wearing poppys?

Hundreds and hundreds of people on the streets of Edinburgh were not wearing poppies in the few days before 11th November. Virtually all broadcasters were wearing them in October. Perhaps the demand in neighbouring West Lothian was so great that Edinburgh shops were all sold out, I dunno.

[steakbake]

Basically, our troops are in the middle of a disaster zone, orchestrated by a Labour government. We've had 4 Ministers for Defence since the invasion of Afghanistan. We have lost our purpose - what is it for? To stem the drugs trade? To keep our streets safe from terrorism? To break up training camps where British born terrorists train? To free the people of Afghanistan from oppression? To stem immigration? - All these reasons have been given in the past couple of weeks as to why we are there. Where is the consistency of leadership? Where is the urgency to get people in and out in as quick a time as possible? Where's the point in young people losing their lives to support a rigged election to support a corrupt leader? Why aren't people equipped for the job they have been sent out to do?

For that, we should not be falling silent. We should be absolutely raging.

[Jay]

Have we been on the same thread before?

:greengrin

What happened to your yawn I was going to say night night. I'm off.:bye:

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------


Hundreds and hundreds of people on the streets of Edinburgh were not wearing poppies in the few days before 11th November. Virtually all broadcasters were wearing them in October. Perhaps the demand in neighbouring West Lothian was so great that Edinburgh shops were all sold out, I dunno.

They did come out early though. I bought mine in October and its a crumpled mess.

Its something I will try to remember to keep an eye on next year out of interest.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:greengrin

What happened to your yawn I was going to say night night. I'm off.:bye:

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------



They did come out early though. I bought mine in October and its a crumpled mess.

Its something I will try to remember to keep an eye on next year out of interest.

I was always told to be respectful to ladies and the elderly.:devil:

[lapsedhibee]

I agree that it would be better to either hold it on a Sunday or on the 11th and stick to it.

:agree:

...although thats not really relevant to the point I was making.
Touches on it though, because I think there are people who are well up for the idea of Remembrance but disappointed with the current media excesses. That campaign by the Mail to force fitba teams to have poppy shirts on the 7th was, imo, to coin a phrase, a ******* disgrace!

[steakbake]

Re: poppies. I have given money to both the British Legion and the Haig Fund and been given a poppy but I've not put the poppy on my jacket. What's a poppy fascist's stance on that?

Rememberance day is required - unfortunately we're remembering civilians who have joined our army only to be sent on increasingly ridiculous conquests on behalf of a country where a large proportion of the population and ruling elite still refuse to live up to the reality that Britain is not the world power that we're spending billions on (and lives on) to pretend that we are.

[--------]

By remembrance day 2009, would you be referring to the 11th, the 8th or the 7th? As I remember it, it was the 7th that most exercised people on here, followed by the 8th, followed by the 11th. Think there would be plenty people happy to reduce remembrance days to day.


:agree:

I think it would be an awfully good idea to limit the observance of formal Acts of Remembrance to religious services (of whatever denomination or faith) and to War Memorials, and to go back to the situation we had a few years back (dating from the end of the Second World War) where those Acts of Remembrance took place over the weekend closest to November 11th. The 11th was a day for more private remembrance and mourning. But we do need to remember that mourning is the word for what many people do at Remembrance, and that should be respected. Disruption of silences or of memorial ceremonies is out, IMHO.

So it might be good if those who disagree with the practice had the courtesy not to actively disrupt those ceremonies.

(Maybe the timing of the OP was a wee bit insensitive?)

I share a lot of the reservations expressed regarding our present government's use (abuse?) of Remembrance to deflect justified criticism of its policy and practice in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I wouldn't make direct attacks on individual soldiers, or on soldiers generally. As far as conduct in combat or during its immediate aftermath goes, I would hesitate to judge or condemn any man or woman who had been placed in a harsher or more pressured situation than I've experienced - I'm not so sure of my own virtue or courage in the face of authority and peer pressure, tbh.

(There but for the grace of God, and all that....)

[Allant1981]

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.


Hvae you ever been in the forces?

[Tinyclothes]

Hvae you ever been in the forces?

Have you ever read a whole thread before piling into the debate?

[Allant1981]

Have you ever read a whole thread before piling into the debate?


Actually I did read the whole debate but it was your original post that bugged me. You didnt answer the question so i'm guessing no is the answer. You say that someone who works as a nurse should be called a hero. I think they do a great job also but why should a nurse be called a hero and not our soldiers?

[--------]

:agree:

Touches on it though, because I think there are people who are well up for the idea of Remembrance but disappointed with the current media excesses.

That campaign by the Mail to force fitba teams to have poppy shirts on the 7th was, imo, to coin a phrase, a ******* disgrace!


As you say. :agree:

IMO much of the media excess (which has been encouraged by both the Blair and the Brown administrations) is far more about the agendas of the papers themselves (in the Mail's case right-wing xenophobia) and the agenda of the government (in Brown's case 'how do I stay in the job and the house after next summer?') than it is about remembering or honouring the war dead of the last century.

As I said last week, there's film of a touching and beautifully-staged ceremony of remembrance for the German (Aryan?) dead of the Great War about half-way through "Triumph of the Will" - but we all know what the agenda was there - or we should.

But this doesn't mean we don't remember our dead - it just means we think before we allow ourselves to be sucked into someone else's agenda.

[lapsedhibee]

Basically, our troops are in the middle of a disaster zone, orchestrated by a Labour government. We've had 4 Ministers for Defence since the invasion of Afghanistan. We have lost our purpose - what is it for?

Is it about raw materials?

(1) Opiates are good at the end of life for people with terminal cancer
(2) We have an ageing population, large numbers of whom will have terminal cancer
(3) There is no cure on the horizon for most cancers
(4) Pensions are in a mess
(5) Government finances are in a mess and so NHS spending will be cut
(6) A cheap and controllable source of opiates in the future is desirable

[--------]

Is it about raw materials?

(1) Opiates are good at the end of life for people with terminal cancer
(2) We have an ageing population, large numbers of whom will have terminal cancer
(3) There is no cure on the horizon for most cancers
(4) Pensions are in a mess
(5) Government finances are in a mess and so NHS spending will be cut
(6) A cheap and controllable source of opiates in the future is desirable



Jings! I thought I was cynical. :dizzy:


But you may be right.....

[Phil D. Rolls]

Actually I did read the whole debate but it was your original post that bugged me. You didnt answer the question so i'm guessing no is the answer. You say that someone who works as a nurse should be called a hero. I think they do a great job also but why should a nurse be called a hero and not our soldiers?

I don't think anyone who does a job they are paid for is necessarily a hero. At the same time, being in a job that risks your life, or has you doing things other people wouldn't is sometimes brave. Sometimes you're doing something you love and bravery doesn't come into it.

[Tinyclothes]

Actually I did read the whole debate but it was your original post that bugged me. You didnt answer the question so i'm guessing no is the answer. You say that someone who works as a nurse should be called a hero. I think they do a great job also but why should a nurse be called a hero and not our soldiers?

No I haven't been in the army as you so astutely guessed. I think a nurse has more right to be classed as a hero as they are doing a 'just' job.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is it about raw materials?

(1) Opiates are good at the end of life for people with terminal cancer
(2) We have an ageing population, large numbers of whom will have terminal cancer
(3) There is no cure on the horizon for most cancers
(4) Pensions are in a mess
(5) Government finances are in a mess and so NHS spending will be cut
(6) A cheap and controllable source of opiates in the future is desirable

I honestly don't think a government would go to war over pain relief. They'd sooner have people suffer.

But when it comes to controlling a strategic area of the world, which could impinge on the supple of another commodity, like oil, that could be a different matter.

Either way it would be about forcing those who have commodities we want to supply them at what we consider a fair price.

[steakbake]

Is it about raw materials?

(1) Opiates are good at the end of life for people with terminal cancer
(2) We have an ageing population, large numbers of whom will have terminal cancer
(3) There is no cure on the horizon for most cancers
(4) Pensions are in a mess
(5) Government finances are in a mess and so NHS spending will be cut
(6) A cheap and controllable source of opiates in the future is desirable

This one is about opium and the last one was about oil?

This one is about oil as well, I'd say. A pipeline.

[--------]

No I haven't been in the army as you so astutely guessed. I think a nurse has more right to be classed as a hero as they are doing a 'just' job.


ALL nurses or just the best ones?

Or the ones in Intensive Care Units?

Infectious Diseases Units?

Geriatric wards? Theatre nurses?

:cool2:

[Allant1981]

No I haven't been in the army as you so astutely guessed. I think a nurse has more right to be classed as a hero as they are doing a 'just' job.


So you have no idea if these guys are hero's or not as you aren't out their with them or haven't ever been in similar situations. So tell me, if you or your family happened to stay in a country where the ordinary people couldn't defend themselves would you look for help in over throwing a regime that has made their lives hell

[Tinyclothes]

So you have no idea if these guys are hero's or not as you aren't out their with them or haven't ever been in similar situations. So tell me, if you or your family happened to stay in a country where the ordinary people couldn't defend themselves would you look for help in over throwing a regime that has made their lives hell

Couldn't possibly say mate. I might be one of the many, many locals that like the regime and don't want it overthrown.

[--------]

I honestly don't think a government would go to war over pain relief. They'd sooner have people suffer.

But when it comes to controlling a strategic area of the world, which could impinge on the supple of another commodity, like oil, that could be a different matter.

Either way it would be about forcing those who have commodities we want to supply them at what we consider a fair price.


War is always about taking something we don't have from people who do.

Oil, opium, a strategic position, control of communications, whatever.

Catch-22 - allows THEM to do to YOU what YOU can't stop THEM from doing to YOU.

Or vice-versa. Best catch in the world. :devil:

[New Corrie]

And what exactly is society becomming?


A sad place devoid of manners and respect.

[Phil D. Rolls]

ALL nurses or just the best ones?

Or the ones in Intensive Care Units?

Infectious Diseases Units?

Geriatric wards? Theatre nurses?

:cool2:

I'd say any nurse that gets to go the theatre is on a pretty cushy number. Although having to sit through 8 weeks of "We Will Rock You", does require some element of bravery.

[lapsedhibee]

I honestly don't think a government would go to war over pain relief.

I must have just imagined the expression "Opium Wars". :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I must have just imagined the expression "Opium Wars". :wink:

Yeah, but I don't think that was about pain relief. Otherwise we would surely have had an Aspirin Offensive by now, not to mention Operation Speedy Relief or indeed the Paracetomol Campaign. (I'll stop now).

[Tinyclothes]

A sad place devoid of manners and respect.

Maybe, but I'm not sure how we can expect kids growing up to show manners and respect when the rulers of this country act the way they do. Be it in ripping us off in expenses claims or waging war for unjustifiable reasons. who do they have to look up to if the parents are unable to instill manners and respect?

[Betty Boop]

:top marksTheres no danger of that happening, thankfully. Most people realise that remembrance day is there for people of all views to show respect for those who die in war. It is perfectly consistent, for example, to dislike the British Army as an institution (to use antifa hibs example earlier), but still fall silent in memory of Harry Patch and his comrades, or for civilian dead anywhere in the world.

Harry Patch who was staunchly anti-war. He knew all too well the folly of war, having experienced the horror of trench warfare. Harry Patch told things as they were.

The trenches were about six feet deep, about three feet wide - mud, water, a duckboard if you were lucky. You slept on the firing step, if you could, shells bursting all around you. From the time I went to France - the second week in June 1917 - until I left 23rd December 1917, injured by shellfire, I never had a bath. I never had any clean clothes.

You daren't show above [the trench] otherwise a sniper would have you.

That is another thing with shell shock - I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it - but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you. An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war - they didn't. If you were there you were shot.

Rats as big as cats. Anything they could gnaw, they would - to live. ... As you went to sleep, you would cover your face with a blanket and you could hear the damn things run over you.

He was laying there in a pool of blood. As we got to him, he said, 'Shoot me.' He was beyond all human aid. Before we would pull out the revolver to shoot him, he died. ... And when that fellah died, he just said one word: 'Mother.' It wasn't a cry of despair. It was a cry or surprise and joy. I think - although I wasn't allowed to see her - I am sure his mother was in the next world to welcome him. ... And from that day until today - and now I'm nearly 106 years old - I shall always remember that cry and I shall always remember that death is not the end

[BravestHibs]

I was watching a programme that briefly touched the Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was absolutely horrific. I'm not ashamed to say that, listening to the first hand experiences of an 8 year old survivor of the Hiroshima blast had me sitting in my living room on my own in tears.

[hibsbollah]

Yeah, but I don't think that was about pain relief. Otherwise we would surely have had an Aspirin Offensive by now, not to mention Operation Speedy Relief or indeed the Paracetomol Campaign. (I'll stop now).

It was actually about accessing lots and lots of cheap tea to feed the factory workers back home who kept the engine of empire ticking over. Opium for tea. But thats another story:wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I see Margaret Thatcher turned up at the service at Westminster Abbey, was pointed out in fawning tones on the television and fussed over by those around her. If that isn't indicative of the unremitting hypocrisy of Remembrance Day, I'm not sure what is. At least Blair wasn't present, I suppose.

It's slightly comforting to know that I'm not the only one who finds the 11th one of the most supremely uncomfortable events in the calender. The genuine emotionality constantly cut-through with militarism, grovelling subservience to the people who time and time again send the people being remembered to their deaths, the mythical history invoked in rhetoric of 'freedom' and 'sacrifice' and the really, really strange – and never resolved - tension between a solemn 'never again' anamnesis and bombastic glorification (it's amazing how often the machinery of war crops up in proceedings once you pay attention) of war that’s constantly present; has anyone actually read the final stanza of In Flanders Fields? Eurgh, that’s the foundational aesthetic of the whole thing? No, thank you very much.

It seems that if the tone of proceedings isn’t outrightly bellicose then it only ever veers into a mythologising of war as just an unfortunate fact of life which occurs from time to time, outwith the control of anyone – slaves to a force of history; its wounded needing patched up and it's dead commemorated once a year and then we can move on til next time. I'm not sure which of the two is the more distasteful.

Anyway I hope there isn't aything disrespectful in what I've said and no-one takes offence. I think the genuinely disrespectful thing is co-opting the war dead in the service of a system that necessitates (no, predicates itself upon) the occasional 'mass sacrifice'. But ho-hum.

N.B. And that's without even getting into the bizarre national policing of Poppy-wearing (but that’s been covered over and over on here in recent days). 'How can we rip any shread of meaning left from this already slightly questionable symbol?', 'Make it unrelentingly ubiquitous?', 'That’ll do'. I think Harry Patch's view of Remembrance Day as an act of 'show-business' is becoming truer by the year.

[(((Fergus)))]

I see Margaret Thatcher turned up at the service at Westminster Abbey, was pointed out in fawning tones on the television and fussed over by those around her. If that isn't indicative of the unremitting hypocrisy of Remembrance Day, I'm not sure what is. At least Blair wasn't present, I suppose.


he was at the cenotaph

http://keeptonyblairforpm.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/cenotaph_2009_gbrownwatchedbytb_ap.jpg?w=450&h=323

[Gatecrasher]

Anybody who joins the Armed Forces are heroes in my eyes...

These people are prepared to perform a job where they might be killed, severly wounded or taken hostage.

Brave is one thing that every solider, pilot or Naval Officer is when they are in a war torn country with RPG's, Mortars etc..being blasted at them :agree:

Like to see how the people questioning their bravery would fare over there


:top marks

[hibsbollah]

I see Margaret Thatcher turned up at the service at Westminster Abbey, was pointed out in fawning tones on the television and fussed over by those around her. If that isn't indicative of the unremitting hypocrisy of Remembrance Day, I'm not sure what is. At least Blair wasn't present, I suppose.

It's slightly comforting to know that I'm not the only one who finds the 11th one of the most supremely uncomfortable events in the calender. The genuine emotionality constantly cut-through with militarism, grovelling subservience to the people who time and time again send the people being remembered to their deaths, the mythical history invoked in rhetoric of 'freedom' and 'sacrifice' and the really, really strange – and never resolved - tension between a solemn 'never again' anamnesis and bombastic glorification (it's amazing how often the machinery of war crops up in proceedings once you pay attention) of war that’s constantly present; has anyone actually read the final stanza of In Flanders Fields? Eurgh, that’s the foundational aesthetic of the whole thing? No, thank you very much.

It seems that if the tone of proceedings isn’t outrightly bellicose then it only ever veers into a mythologising of war as just an unfortunate fact of life which occurs from time to time, outwith the control of anyone – slaves to a force of history; its wounded needing patched up and it's dead commemorated once a year and then we can move on til next time. I'm not sure which of the two is the more distasteful.

Anyway I hope there isn't aything disrespectful in what I've said and no-one takes offence. I think the genuinely disrespectful thing is co-opting the war dead in the service of a system that necessitates (no, predicates itself upon) the occasional 'mass sacrifice'. But ho-hum.

N.B. And that's without even getting into the bizarre national policing of Poppy-wearing (but that’s been covered over and over on here in recent days). 'How can we rip any shread of meaning left from this already slightly questionable symbol?', 'Make it unrelentingly ubiquitous?', 'That’ll do'. I think Harry Patch's view of Remembrance Day as an act of 'show-business' is becoming truer by the year.

I think you can take whatever you want to from the event of remembrance day. All human life is there (including generals and Thatcher). Just because the event at the cenotaph is full of military triumphalism doesnt mean the day itself can't have a completely different meaning for the individual. Just the act of silence in itself can be meaningful. I suspect millions of people feel the same way.

[(((Fergus)))]

What do people actually remember? Personally I just get annoyed at how nothing has been learned from all those people's deaths. I have never, ever thought "thank you for saving us from the kaiser" or similar.

[da-robster]

The majority of the soldiers in the armed forces are very brave brave in the sense that they are doing a job which could get them killed for relatively little money and to say they are not brave is simply wrong. But are all men in the armed forces heroes,no the dictionary definintion of hero is as follows:

A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

While many of the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown these heroic tendencies not all have.

There are definitely heroes in this conflict, the bomb disposer who got killed for example but in the way the media blanket the term across every man who has served in one of the illegal wars is wrong and is really just a cynical excersise in selling papers brave these men are and to doubt that is ignorant but to say all are heroes is just as ignorant.

The men involved in world war one with horrible conditions and deaths conscripted because of international politics, they were heroes.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The majority of the soldiers in the armed forces are very brave brave in the sense that they are doing a job which could get them killed for relatively little money and to say they are not brave is simply wrong. But are all men in the armed forces heroes,no the dictionary definintion of hero is as follows:

A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

While many of the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown these heroic tendencies not all have.

There are definitely heroes in this conflict, the bomb disposer who got killed for example but in the way the media blanket the term across every man who has served in one of the illegal wars is wrong and is really just a cynical excersise in selling papers brave these men are and to doubt that is ignorant but to say all are heroes is just as ignorant.

The men involved in world war one with horrible conditions and deaths conscripted because of international politics, they were heroes.

But does there not have to be a degree of choice before you can bring bravery into it? Those guys had no say in the matter.

[da-robster]

But does there not have to be a degree of choice before you can bring bravery into it? Those guys had no say in the matter.


To fight in a war is still brave no matter what espiceally one with such dreadful conditions. Which is why you can not say that any soldiers are not brave.

[New Corrie]

Anybody who joins the Armed Forces are heroes in my eyes...

These people are prepared to perform a job where they might be killed, severly wounded or taken hostage.

Brave is one thing that every solider, pilot or Naval Officer is when they are in a war torn country with RPG's, Mortars etc..being blasted at them :agree:

Like to see how the people questioning their bravery would fare over there


Quite right my friend, as opposed to internet smart *****, sitting wrapped in cotton wool in the warmth of their houses.....Tossers!

[Phil D. Rolls]

To fight in a war is still brave no matter what espiceally one with such dreadful conditions. Which is why you can not say that any soldiers are not brave.

Supposing you are going to be shot if you don't fight?

[da-robster]

Supposing you are going to be shot if you don't fight?

But in the first world war you weren't. There was a great channel four documentary by Ian Hislop on it called Not Forgotten. Yes you could be abused but you could not be shot.

[Phil D. Rolls]

But in the first world war you weren't. There was a great channel four documentary by Ian Hislop on it called Not Forgotten. Yes you could be abused but you could not be shot.

Fair enough, if they had a choice to stay then it was brave.

[da-robster]

Fair enough, if they had a choice to stay then it was brave.

And yet the paradox was it was just as brave to be a conscientous objector you would be imprisoned laughed at insulted and hated so it would take great resolve to not fight.War can bring out the best in some people and the worst in others.

[Phil D. Rolls]

And yet the paradox was it was just as brave to be a conscientous objector you would be imprisoned laughed at insulted and hated so it would take great resolve to not fight.War can bring out the best in some people and the worst in others.

I think it was the fear of what others would think of them and their families that made many enlist.

[Riordans Boots]

As we are all allowed to have opinions, I would just like to say that some people on this thread must be completely spineless and have no sense of pride.:agree:

Remember the saying "They died for us" anybody?? and "We will remember them"

Brave- Hero- Bad ..... whatever. Some folk on here are so far up their own erses with their statements and opinions. (And I'm not one of them btw)

:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

As we are all allowed to have opinions, I would just like to say that some people on this thread must be completely spineless and have no sense of pride.:agree:

Remember the saying "They died for us" anybody?? and "We will remember them"

Brave- Hero- Bad ..... whatever. Some folk on here are so far up their own erses with their statements and opinions. (And I'm not one of them btw)

Allow me to briefly venture out from up my own erse to say that Remembrance for me is almost diametrically opposed to Pride.

[Riordans Boots]

Allow me to briefly venture out from up my own erse to say that Remembrance for me is almost diametrically opposed to Pride.


You weren't included in my 'Some people' :wink:

[Tinyclothes]

As we are all allowed to have opinions, I would just like to say that some people on this thread must be completely spineless and have no sense of pride.:agree:

Remember the saying "They died for us" anybody?? and "We will remember them"

Brave- Hero- Bad ..... whatever. Some folk on here are so far up their own erses with their statements and opinions. (And I'm not one of them btw)

:greengrin

'They died for us' suggests that I wanted them to go to war, which I didn't. They died for a regime I don't believe in, overthrowing a regime I don't have enough experience of to want it to be overthrown.

[Riordans Boots]

'They died for us' suggests that I wanted them to go to war, which I didn't. They died for a regime I don't believe in, overthrowing a regime I don't have enough experience of to want it to be overthrown.



Look pal, you can say what you want (Utter p!sh) You obviously have your strong opinions on this subject and my strong opinion is that you are :crazy:

[Betty Boop]

But in the first world war you weren't. There was a great channel four documentary by Ian Hislop on it called Not Forgotten. Yes you could be abused but you could not be shot.

You certainly could be shot in WW1 for cowardice, soldiers were ordered to be part of firing squads to execute their comrades. Soldiers were also shot when suffering from shell shock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796579.stm

[da-robster]

You certainly could be shot in WW1 for cowardice, soldiers were ordered to be part of firing squads to execute their comrades. Soldiers were also shot when suffering from shell shock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796579.stm

Yes a soldier could but here it states thst the worse that could happen was not death.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/conscientiousobjectors.htm
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/cos/st_co_wwone.html

[Betty Boop]

Yes a soldier could but here it states thst the worse that could happen was not death.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/conscientiousobjectors.htm
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/cos/st_co_wwone.html

My apologies, I didn't know you were referring to conscientious objectors. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anybody seen the picture of the Beatles beside a war memorial in the late 50s? The inscription reads "Their Name Liveth Forever More". It was both a sly boast by the (pre Fab) Four (OK, there were five of them if you include Stu Sutcliffe as a Bona Fide band member. I digress.

The other point to the picture was that they were taking a dig at the establishment. The baby boom generation had grown up being told how grateful they should be because a war had been fought on their behalf. They said, "yeah, ta".

Same thing in East Germany this week. A new generation , post-communism are questioning what exactly they are supposed to be grateful for.

My point is, when wars are over, they should be over. It seems to me a lot of the Remembrance Sunday stuff is about reminding us all that we have something to be grateful for.

[Tinyclothes]

Look pal, you can say what you want (Utter p!sh) You obviously have your strong opinions on this subject and my strong opinion is that you are :crazy:

Well made point mate. vey educated and concise.

[The Green Goblin]

I think some of the coverage of soldiers deaths and the 'heroic' 'brave boys' sentiments championed by tabloids exploits the deaths of these men for the purpose of selling newspapers.


I agree with that - that`s it in a nutshell for me. For me it`s the media reporting and their manipulation of words which is the most distasteful thing of all. I really cringe and feel furious when I see politicians with their second homes and privileged, rich, exploitative lifestyles and their nose in the trough trotting out the expected sound bites about `heroes` and so on, when many of them have the blood of those men and women on their hands.

I make no judgements on the soldiers themselves, and we shouldn`t be surprised at enormous civilian casualties - hasn`t war always been this way? What did they really expect? On the first night alone of the invasion in 2003, the U.S sent almost 6000 cruise missiles into Baghdad. What did they expect would be the outcome of that decision? Did they care? No, of course not.

Honestly, those in power couldn`t care less, as long as their expenses claims are paid out and they vote themselves grotesque pay rises while the widows and orphans of those they sent off to die for their lies struggle by on a pathetic pension or one-off payout.

I personally don`t think our armed forces should be in the countries they are in right now, but that`s also not their fault - it`s the government`s, whose responsibility it is to put them in harm`s way only if it`s really necessary. They place these people in an intolerable situation without the necessary equipment, then they stand there on the evening news and justify their deaths with crocodile tears and carefully prepared statements.

And, looking back 100, even 200 years, what exactly has changed? Nothing. The language and rhetoric is still the same. Rich, untrustworthy politicians trumpet about the armed forces for votes while they send them off to die for nothing.

If, in 2003, politicians like Blair can send 18 year old lads fresh out of school to die overseas based on nothing more than a pack of lies and a desire to stay chummy with someone like George W Bush, then the answer to the question 'have we learned lessons from history?' is still a firm 'no'.

They're not all that different from those lads that stood in the trenches, in terms of how unprepared they are for the realities and horrors of war, in terms of their youth and in terms of how they have been betrayed by those who used their lives for their own political ends.

These same politicians who stood, who still get up today in parliament and praise their 'heroic sacrifice' - wasn't that the spin 100 years ago, the generals who wined and dined themselves safely behind the lines and put shell-shocked men up against the wall for 'cowardice'? I think there's good reason to be angry about it. "Lions led by donkeys" is the phrase that comes to mind. It's still going on.

This is precisely what makes the actions of Blair and Bush and now Brown and Obama, all the more despicable. Surely they are betraying that freedom and taking it for granted, using it for their own agendas, rather than treating these peoples` willingness to be there for the rest of us with the caution and sense of responsibility it deserves? It's no coincidence that it's the surviving veterans of wars who stand at the forefront of organised demonstrations against current wars.

But blaming the soldiers for the manipulated hyperbole of the red tops is grossly misplaced. They shouldn`t be there in the first place, and their sacrifices are not making us any safer - they are dying for political agendas and careers and that, sadly, is it.

GG

[AndyP]

I see Margaret Thatcher turned up at the service at Westminster Abbey, was pointed out in fawning tones on the television and fussed over by those around her. If that isn't indicative of the unremitting hypocrisy of Remembrance Day, I'm not sure what is. At least Blair wasn't present, I suppose.

All former Prime Ministers attend the Cenotaph Service, which is why Major and Blair where there as well as Thatcher.



It's slightly comforting to know that I'm not the only one who finds the 11th one of the most supremely uncomfortable events in the calender. The genuine emotionality constantly cut-through with militarism, grovelling subservience to the people who time and time again send the people being remembered to their deaths, the mythical history invoked in rhetoric of 'freedom' and 'sacrifice' and the really, really strange – and never resolved - tension between a solemn 'never again' anamnesis and bombastic glorification (it's amazing how often the machinery of war crops up in proceedings once you pay attention) of war that’s constantly present; has anyone actually read the final stanza of In Flanders Fields? Eurgh, that’s the foundational aesthetic of the whole thing? No, thank you very much.



Yep, makes me giggle slightly when it is used out of context my people trying to highlight the horror of war, mind you it probably helps that it was covered when doing a history degree module with the OU.




It seems that if the tone of proceedings isn’t outrightly bellicose then it only ever veers into a mythologising of war as just an unfortunate fact of life which occurs from time to time, outwith the control of anyone – slaves to a force of history; its wounded needing patched up and it's dead commemorated once a year and then we can move on til next time. I'm not sure which of the two is the more distasteful.

Anyway I hope there isn't aything disrespectful in what I've said and no-one takes offence. I think the genuinely disrespectful thing is co-opting the war dead in the service of a system that necessitates (no, predicates itself upon) the occasional 'mass sacrifice'. But ho-hum.

N.B. And that's without even getting into the bizarre national policing of Poppy-wearing (but that’s been covered over and over on here in recent days). 'How can we rip any shread of meaning left from this already slightly questionable symbol?', 'Make it unrelentingly ubiquitous?', 'That’ll do'. I think Harry Patch's view of Remembrance Day as an act of 'show-business' is becoming truer by the year.

The way I see Rememberence Sunday (and the 11th to a lesser extent) is that it is for those who do not need to remember because those who do have to do it EVERY day for the rest of their lives and don't need the "special" day.

[Dashing Bob S]

Hysteria? Point me towards the reports of these hysterical people please.

And also to the constant quotes soldiers have been giving about not having a clue etc etc etc.

It's fairly obvious (though inexcusable in this age) that many of the soldiers who enlist do not have a clue what they are fighting against or for. They are simply young men from poor backgrounds, not with great education, who are seeking adventure and somewhere they can belong. That noble impulse has been exploited since time began by the powers that be, and probably always will.

The other posters are correct, this doesn't automatically make anyone a hero.

[Tinyclothes]

The way I see Rememberence Sunday (and the 11th to a lesser extent) is that it is for those who do not need to remember because those who do have to do it EVERY day for the rest of their lives and don't need the "special" day.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It's a very long sentence that doesn't seem to mean anything. Apologies if I'm being slow (wouldn't be the first time).

[Dashing Bob S]

Anybody who joins the Armed Forces are heroes in my eyes...

These people are prepared to perform a job where they might be killed, severly wounded or taken hostage.

Brave is one thing that every solider, pilot or Naval Officer is when they are in a war torn country with RPG's, Mortars etc..being blasted at them :agree:

Like to see how the people questioning their bravery would fare over there

Maybe in that case we should be questioning their intelligence rather than their heroism?

[AndyP]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It's a very long sentence that doesn't seem to mean anything. Apologies if I'm being slow (wouldn't be the first time).


Probably my fault, typed it early this morning and hadn't had a my cup of tea by then

Basically, if you have a close relative (and I don't mean the grandad/great grandad links to WW1/WW2) or friend/colleague who has lost their life during any war, not a day will go past when you don't think of them. Those who fall into the bracket of distant relations with whom they have no real thread of contact are the ones who put more signifigance on the 11th.

Probably still not that clear then :greengrin

[BravestHibs]

It's fairly obvious (though inexcusable in this age) that many of the soldiers who enlist do not have a clue what they are fighting against or for. They are simply young men from poor backgrounds, not with great education, who are seeking adventure and somewhere they can belong. That noble impulse has been exploited since time began by the powers that be, and probably always will.

The other posters are correct, this doesn't automatically make anyone a hero.

Incorrect, if you read Marinellos posts you will see that the majority are not as you describe but rather monacled toffs queueing round the block as soon as they graduate from boarding school to sign up and fly direct to Afghanistan. Not only that, but the poorer element normally reserved for the frontline are now flooding through Sandhurst faster than they can hand out officers stripes.

[Tinyclothes]

Probably my fault, typed it early this morning and hadn't had a my cup of tea by then

Basically, if you have a close relative (and I don't mean the grandad/great grandad links to WW1/WW2) or friend/colleague who has lost their life during any war, not a day will go past when you don't think of them. Those who fall into the bracket of distant relations with whom they have no real thread of contact are the ones who put more signifigance on the 11th.

Probably still not that clear then :greengrin

I agree mate.

[hibsbollah]

There were some posts earlier questioning why nurses or firefighters weren't constantly referred to as 'heroes' in the media. A fair point. On the other hand, these professions wouldn't be subjected to jibes about their intelligence or their abilities, as soldiers have been on this and the other similar thread.

I think some people are letting their cynicism about current conflicts get in the way of common humanity.

[marinello59]

Incorrect, if you read Marinellos posts you will see that the majority are not as you describe but rather monacled toffs queueing round the block as soon as they graduate from boarding school to sign up and fly direct to Afghanistan. Not only that, but the poorer element normally reserved for the frontline are now flooding through Sandhurst faster than they can hand out officers stripes.



Hold on. :paranoid: You seem to have an unhealthy interest in my posts.......:faf:

---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------


There were some posts earlier questioning why nurses or firefighters weren't constantly referred to as 'heroes' in the media. A fair point. On the other hand, these professions wouldn't be subjected to jibes about their intelligence or their abilities, as soldiers have been on this and the other similar thread.

I think some people are letting their cynicism about current conflicts get in the way of common humanity.

:top marks

[BravestHibs]

Hold on. :paranoid: You seem to have an unhealthy interest in my posts.......:faf:





Well despite DBS pretty much echoing my sentiments I see you chose to ignore his post and once again, focus on mine. I'm going to have to start looking into an injunction against you at this rate.

[IndieHibby]

Jesus wept.

I have just read the whole of this thread. I should have known better. It's clear that some people suffer from a self-obsession-induced myopia.

War is, has always been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, the human expression of nature's conflict with itself.

Our politicians have to make decisions that we would not be able to make for ourselves, but do so in the knowledge that some people are so short-sighted that they would wait until the wolf was at the door before crying for help.

These people are babies and need to be treated as such. They have the ability to post their inane regurgitations on public forums such as this, and I defend their right to do so.

However, they must also expect to receive hostility from those who find their views vile.

At various points, soldiers in the British Army, past and present, have been referred to as:
Stupid
Poor
Ned/****
Undue Heroes
Toff's

It makes me incandescent with rage that some people have such a high regard of their own opinion, that they can't see to it that they respect others and keep it to themselves.

Shame on you.

[marinello59]

Well despite DBS pretty much echoing my sentiments I see you chose to ignore his post and once again, focus on mine. I'm going to have to start looking into an injunction against you at this rate.

Are you for real? You mentioned me.:faf::faf::faf:

[BravestHibs]

Are you for real? You mentioned me.:faf::faf::faf:

I'm aware of that. And within seconds you had replied. Creepy.

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 AM ----------


Jesus wept.

I have just read the whole of this thread. I should have known better. It's clear that some people suffer from a self-obsession-induced myopia.

War is, has always been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, the human expression of nature's conflict with itself.

Our politicians have to make decisions that we would not be able to make for ourselves, but do so in the knowledge that some people are so short-sighted that they would wait until the wolf was at the door before crying for help.

These people are babies and need to be treated as such. They have the ability to post their inane regurgitations on public forums such as this, and I defend their right to do so.

However, they must also expect to receive hostility from those who find their views vile.

At various points, soldiers in the British Army, past and present, have been referred to as:
Stupid
Poor
Ned/****
Undue Heroes
Toff's

It makes me incandescent with rage that some people have such a high regard of their own opinion, that they can't see to it that they respect others and keep it to themselves.

Shame on you.

That was me and you are taking that completely out of context.

[lapsedhibee]

At various points, soldiers in the British Army, past and present, have been referred to as:
Stupid
Poor
Ned/****
Undue Heroes
Toff's

It makes me incandescent with rage that some people have such a high regard of their own opinion, that they can't see to it that they respect others and keep it to themselves.

Shame on you.

I think the "toffs" was a joke.

[marinello59]

I'm aware of that. And within seconds you had replied. Creepy.[COLOR="Silver"]



Cut it out and stick to the topic please.

[IndieHibby]

I'm aware of that. And within seconds you had replied. Creepy.

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 AM ----------



That was me and you are taking that completely out of context.

I wasn't specifiying who said it. As I remember, you were saying that the same people who would call a person a ned if they saw them in the streets, then the next (day, whatever) would call them hereos for being in a uniform.

So 'neds' can join the army and become 'heroes'? Not that you would say that, but others would?

I reckon those people, who some would call a Ned, wouldn't stand a chance in the Army.

To think that these are the kind of people who become heroes in the Army merely reflects your own prejudices about the kinds of people who join the Army. IMO.

But, yes, I did take the comment out of context. Not deliberately, you understand, otherwise I would have gone to the bother of using your name.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 AM ----------


I think the "toffs" was a joke.

I'll accept that. If you accept that maybe the time and the place for jokes like that wasn't here or now.

I don't even know who posted it, btw. I'm not going to bother finding out.

[marinello59]

It's fairly obvious (though inexcusable in this age) that many of the soldiers who enlist do not have a clue what they are fighting against or for. They are simply young men from poor backgrounds, not with great education, who are seeking adventure and somewhere they can belong. That noble impulse has been exploited since time began by the powers that be, and probably always will.

The other posters are correct, this doesn't automatically make anyone a hero.

I have already given my opinion of this in previous posts on here.
As you quoted the questions I asked perhaps you could answer them both.:greengrin

[BravestHibs]

I wasn't specifiying who said it. As I remember, you were saying that the same people who would call a person a ned if they saw them in the streets, then the next (day, whatever) would call them hereos for being in a uniform.

So 'neds' can join the army and become 'heroes'? Not that you would say that, but others would?

I reckon those people, who some would call a Ned, wouldn't stand a chance in the Army.

To think that these are the kind of people who become heroes in the Army merely reflects your own prejudices about the kinds of people who join the Army. IMO.

But, yes, I did take the comment out of context. Not deliberately, you understand, otherwise I would have gone to the bother of using your name.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 AM ----------



I'll accept that. If you accept that maybe the time and the place for jokes like that wasn't here or now.

I don't even know who posted it, btw. I'm not going to bother finding out.

Correct I wouldn't say that. One of my good friends came back from Afghanistan last thursday, I'll be seeing him this weekend and filling him in on the nature of this thread and seing what he thinks about the whole matter. He happens to be a Celtic fan as well which would tie into a couple of the other threads started over the last week or so.

[IndieHibby]

Correct I wouldn't say that. One of my good friends came back from Afghanistan last thursday, I'll be seeing him this weekend and filling him in on the nature of this thread and seing what he thinks about the whole matter. He happens to be a Celtic fan as well which would tie into a couple of the other threads started over the last week or so.

It would be interesting to see what he thinks. I listened to the today programme the other day. Speaking was an (officer, I think) in the Army who had come back and complained to his mum about the negative coverage in the media about Afghanistan. So his mum phoned the editor and got him on!

It was refreshing to hear the positives that are happening as a result of our presence there.

If you can, let us know what he thinks about the Media coverage. A lot of the underlying context in this thread is about the media's role in (in)forming public opinion.

A responsibility they are patently not meeting. All in the name of ratings, etc. The BBC are among the worst.

[Tinyclothes]

Jesus wept.

I have just read the whole of this thread. I should have known better. It's clear that some people suffer from a self-obsession-induced myopia.

War is, has always been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, the human expression of nature's conflict with itself.

Our politicians have to make decisions that we would not be able to make for ourselves, but do so in the knowledge that some people are so short-sighted that they would wait until the wolf was at the door before crying for help.

These people are babies and need to be treated as such. They have the ability to post their inane regurgitations on public forums such as this, and I defend their right to do so.

However, they must also expect to receive hostility from those who find their views vile.

At various points, soldiers in the British Army, past and present, have been referred to as:
Stupid
Poor
Ned/****
Undue Heroes
Toff's

It makes me incandescent with rage that some people have such a high regard of their own opinion, that they can't see to it that they respect others and keep it to themselves.

Shame on you.

That's the most arrogant post I've read in my entire life. Saying people need to be treated as babies? from the sounds of it you would like to live in a dictatorship so we would have even less choice about our own destinys. Seriously mate, Incandecant with rage that someone might have a different (and slightly more open and honest) belief than you and would have the audacity to express it and discuss on a forum? You need to take a long hard look at yourself because you seem to have quite a dangerous thought process that I find quite worrying.

[The Green Goblin]

War is, has always been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, the human expression of nature's conflict with itself.

Nature is not in conflict with itself. I find that a strange description of what is an exclusively human habit: to wage war on its own species. Perhaps you have read 'The Once and Future King' by T.H White. The young King Arthur, growing up, is changed into various animals by Merlin, to teach him the wisdom of each. Whilst living as a goose, he receives a hard lesson in his attitude to war from his goose teacher.

Her amusement over Arthur’s human nature turns to horror when he asks her about the sentries and if they are currently “at war.” Her question, “But what creature could be so low as to go about in bands, to murder others of its own blood?” is supposed to be hypothetical, but does, of course, have a ready answer: man. They have no use for war because, in the air, there are no boundaries and, therefore, no causes for battle.

As man is the only species of its kind who goes around killing its own kind for its own sake, I would take issue with your description of war as "Nature's conflict with itself". I would therefore also respectfully suggest that you revise your acceptance of human conflict as something inevitable." My own view is that war is the ultimate failure of humanity. It has nothing to do with Nature.

GG

[BravestHibs]

Jesus wept.

I have just read the whole of this thread. I should have known better. It's clear that some people suffer from a self-obsession-induced myopia.

War is, has always been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, the human expression of nature's conflict with itself.

Our politicians have to make decisions that we would not be able to make for ourselves, but do so in the knowledge that some people are so short-sighted that they would wait until the wolf was at the door before crying for help.

These people are babies and need to be treated as such. They have the ability to post their inane regurgitations on public forums such as this, and I defend their right to do so.

However, they must also expect to receive hostility from those who find their views vile.

At various points, soldiers in the British Army, past and present, have been referred to as:
Stupid
Poor
Ned/****
Undue Heroes
Toff's

It makes me incandescent with rage that some people have such a high regard of their own opinion, that they can't see to it that they respect others and keep it to themselves.

Shame on you.

Which particular wolf is this? The Saudis who attacked the Twin towers? The Moroccans who bombed the train in Spain or the Pakistanis who set off the bombs in London?

[The Green Goblin]

Our politicians have to make decisions that we would not be able to make for ourselves, but do so in the knowledge that some people are so short-sighted that they would wait until the wolf was at the door before crying for help.


Oh dear, I really don't share your reverent faith and trust in our mighty politicians. These same politicians who use taxpayers' money to fund their second homes in the countryside while thousands of unemployed struggle to get by every day? Yes, those altruistic, trustworthy, decent, honest men and women. Please, don't be so naive.

GG

[Dashing Bob S]

I think one of the things that personally annoys me about Remembrance Day (or week, as it now seems to have become) is that we are indiscriminately asked to remember the 'war dead', whether they died in 'just' wars, fighting against tyranny, or nonsense conflicts engineered to protect the wealth of the few or the ego and power base of politicians and governments.

I think few would argue that WW2, and the fight against fascism would be seen as a just war. Hitler was expansive in his ambitions, and his systematic attempt to wipe out an entire race was unacceptable to any right-thinking humanitarian person. I mourn and am proud of several family members who served, and gave their life in this war. Conversely I'm not proud, and don't mourn, the death of a great-grandfather who was a senior army officer and sent many working-class men to their certain deaths in WW1, simply to further the interests of the rich and ruling classes of this country.

I also refused to get too sombre about the demise of young men who served in the Falklands, and expected to be bullying ill-equipped teenage Argentinan conscripts, sent by a tottering fascist regime. (Unless you happen to think the re-election of Thatcher and the Tories was a just enough reason for this nonsense.)

Many of the 'war dead' in recent years, haven't actually died in 'wars' at all, according to the double-speak of our politicians and MOD figures. They are in 'peacekeeping' or 'operational activities' or 'security enforcement'.

All in all, I believe that this so-called broad church remembrance of the war dead, and all the pomp and the unsavoury elements it draws, and the nauseating crocodille tears on display, merely constitutes a back-door celebration of militarism.

Least we forget? Chance would be a fine thing. You can rest assured that after Afghanistan, there will soon be another pointless war to bolster ego's, and another load of pious politicians and broadcasters posing around union flag-covered coffins of young working-class men duped into joining this particular silly adventure, if only in preference to drugs/gang one that awaits them back home.

[hibsbollah]

I think one of the things that personally annoys me about Remembrance Day (or week, as it now seems to have become) is that we are indiscriminately asked to remember the 'war dead', whether they died in 'just' wars, fighting against tyranny, or nonsense conflicts engineered to protect the wealth of the few or the ego and power base of politicians and governments.

I think few would argue that WW2, and the fight against fascism would be seen as a just war. Hitler was expansive in his ambitions, and his systematic attempt to wipe out an entire race was unacceptable to any right-thinking humanitarian person. I mourn and am proud of several family members who served, and gave their life in this war. Conversely I'm not proud, and don't mourn, the death of a great-grandfather who was a senior army officer and sent many working-class men to their certain deaths in WW1, simply to further the interests of the rich and ruling classes of this country.

I also refused to get too sombre about the demise of young men who served in the Falklands, and expected to be bullying ill-equipped teenage Argentinan conscripts, sent by a tottering fascist regime. (Unless you happen to think the re-election of Thatcher and the Tories was a just enough reason for this nonsense.)

Many of the 'war dead' in recent years, haven't actually died in 'wars' at all, according to the double-speak of our politicians and MOD figures. They are in 'peacekeeping' or 'operational activities' or 'security enforcement'.

All in all, I believe that this so-called broad church remembrance of the war dead, and all the pomp and the unsavoury elements it draws, and the nauseating crocodille tears on display, merely constitutes a back-door celebration of militarism.

Least we forget? Chance would be a fine thing. You can rest assured that after Afghanistan, there will soon be another pointless war to bolster ego's, and another load of pious politicians and broadcasters posing around union flag-covered coffins of young working-class men duped into joining this particular silly adventure, if only in preference to drugs/gang one that awaits them back home.


You clearly aren't a pacifist, as you say you supported WW2 because it was a 'just war'. Logically, the conditions that brought about Nazi Germany could very easily happen again at some point. There could easily be another need for a 'just war'. But you also say that we should 'question the intelligence' of soldiers for being in a war situation where they could be killed, injured or taken hostage. :confused: Thats not logical.

[Tinyclothes]

I think one of the things that personally annoys me about Remembrance Day (or week, as it now seems to have become) is that we are indiscriminately asked to remember the 'war dead', whether they died in 'just' wars, fighting against tyranny, or nonsense conflicts engineered to protect the wealth of the few or the ego and power base of politicians and governments.

I think few would argue that WW2, and the fight against fascism would be seen as a just war. Hitler was expansive in his ambitions, and his systematic attempt to wipe out an entire race was unacceptable to any right-thinking humanitarian person. I mourn and am proud of several family members who served, and gave their life in this war. Conversely I'm not proud, and don't mourn, the death of a great-grandfather who was a senior army officer and sent many working-class men to their certain deaths in WW1, simply to further the interests of the rich and ruling classes of this country.

I also refused to get too sombre about the demise of young men who served in the Falklands, and expected to be bullying ill-equipped teenage Argentinan conscripts, sent by a tottering fascist regime. (Unless you happen to think the re-election of Thatcher and the Tories was a just enough reason for this nonsense.)

Many of the 'war dead' in recent years, haven't actually died in 'wars' at all, according to the double-speak of our politicians and MOD figures. They are in 'peacekeeping' or 'operational activities' or 'security enforcement'.

All in all, I believe that this so-called broad church remembrance of the war dead, and all the pomp and the unsavoury elements it draws, and the nauseating crocodille tears on display, merely constitutes a back-door celebration of militarism.

Least we forget? Chance would be a fine thing. You can rest assured that after Afghanistan, there will soon be another pointless war to bolster ego's, and another load of pious politicians and broadcasters posing around union flag-covered coffins of young working-class men duped into joining this particular silly adventure, if only in preference to drugs/gang one that awaits them back home.

Top post :agree:

[Green Mikey]

Personally, I think that remembrance day has been misappropriated by the media and warped into a compulsory mass grief exercise similar to the near hysteric reaction that accompanied the deaths of Diana and Jade Goody. Forcing all people on TV and in sport to wear poppies devalues the meaning of the gesture by making it compulsory.

Also, the linking of Remembrance day and the current deaths of soldiers has seen the day being re-interpreted by some media as a nationalistic bravery ceremony. I feel that Remembrance day should be more solemn, a time to reflect on the people who have given their lifes in conflict on all sides not a celebration of our 'brave boys' who died fighting a faceless and forgotten enemy.

[Beefster]

I see Margaret Thatcher turned up at the service at Westminster Abbey, was pointed out in fawning tones on the television and fussed over by those around her. If that isn't indicative of the unremitting hypocrisy of Remembrance Day, I'm not sure what is. At least Blair wasn't present, I suppose.

Without an essay or link to someone else's opinion, which part of Thatcher's use of the military do you object to?

[--------]

Personally, I think that remembrance day has been misappropriated by the media and warped into a compulsory mass grief exercise similar to the near hysteric reaction that accompanied the deaths of Diana and Jade Goody. Forcing all people on TV and in sport to wear poppies devalues the meaning of the gesture by making it compulsory.

Also, the linking of Remembrance day and the current deaths of soldiers has seen the day being re-interpreted by some media as a nationalistic bravery ceremony. I feel that Remembrance day should be more solemn, a time to reflect on the people who have given their lifes in conflict on all sides not a celebration of our 'brave boys' who died fighting a faceless and forgotten enemy.


Agree with all of this, especially the sentence in bold. :agree:

It can get to be a bit like the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade sometimes.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Without an essay or link to someone else's opinion, which part of Thatcher's use of the military do you object to?

Tee-hee, get you!

I'm going to go for: the Falklands War, the Bombing of Libya (allowing U.S. bombers to use British bases) and collusion between the British military/security services and loyalist paramilitaries.

[Mon Dieu4]

Tee-hee, get you!

I'm going to go for: the Falklands War, the Bombing of Libya (allowing U.S. bombers to use British bases) and collusion between the British military/security services and loyalist paramilitaries.

Why wouldnt have they allowed it when the previous year they had killed a Policewoman outside the embassy in London, turning into the longest seige in Londons History. Added to the fact they allowed the PIRA to train in their country & have arms deals with them for millions of pounds worth of weapons?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why wouldnt have they allowed it when the previous year they had killed a Policewoman outside the embassy in London, turning into the longest seige in Londons History. Added to the fact they allowed the PIRA to train in their country & have arms deals with them for millions of pounds worth of weapons?

Because it was completely and utterly illegal and wasn't even the casus belli for the attack.

Presumambly we should have launched an airstrike on the U.S. Eastern Seaboard since that was far and away the biggest source of outside funding for the Provisional IRA.

Crikey, this is going off-topic.

[Mon Dieu4]

Because it was completely and utterly illegal and wasn't even the casus belli for the attack.

Presumambly we should have launched an airstrike on the U.S. Eastern Seaboard since that was far and away the biggest source of outside funding for the Provisional IRA.

Crikey, this is going off-topic.

Members of the public fundraising for terrorism is completely different from state sponsored terrorism & you know that.

Sometimes hard decisions have to be made & "bad men" have to be taken care of, not nice, not pretty but that is the world we live in.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Members of the public fundraising for terrorism is completely different from state sponsored terrorism & you know that.

Sometimes hard decisions have to be made & "bad men" have to be taken care of, not nice, not pretty but that is the world we live in.

Who was 'taken care of'? Gaddaffi's fifteenth month old daughter? Because that was about as close to him as it got.

Oh, and Lybian funding of the Provisionals increased to an enormous degree after the attack.

[Mon Dieu4]

Who was 'taken care of'? Gaddaffi's fifteenth month old daughter? Because that was about as close to him as it got.

Oh, and Lybian funding of the Provisionals increased to an enormous degree after the attack.

I shall end this here because no matter what I come out with, you will reply with a 1 million word reply including a link to an obscure Tibetan cats teachings on how we should all get along etc.

I dont mean this as a dig but you seem Anti everything & on any old bandwagon, you remind me of Rick in the Young Ones

[lapsedhibee]

I dont mean this as a dig but you seem Anti everything & on any old bandwagon, you remind me of Rick in the Young Ones

Outrageous slur. Thought it was well known that LH is Foxy out of Citizen Smith? :confused:

[Tinyclothes]

I shall end this here because no matter what I come out with, you will reply with a 1 million word reply including a link to an obscure Tibetan cats teachings on how we should all get along etc.

I dont mean this as a dig but you seem Anti everything & on any old bandwagon, you remind me of Rick in the Young Ones

And you remind me of someone who's just been destroyed in a debate.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I shall end this here because no matter what I come out with, you will reply with a 1 million word reply including a link to an obscure Tibetan cats teachings on how we should all get along etc.

I dont mean this as a dig but you seem Anti everything & on any old bandwagon, you remind me of Rick in the Young Ones

I take a great deal of offence at the insinuations of hippy-ness...

'How we should all get along'? Urgh, what a disgusting thought - nothing could be further from the truth (that's not meant sarcastically, btw.)


Outrageous slur. Thought it was well known that LH is Foxy Smith out of Citizen Smith? :confused:

Exactly. Come on people, get it right.

[--------]

I take a great deal of offence at the insinuations of hippy-ness...

'How we should all get along'? Urgh, what a disgusting thought - nothing could be further from the truth (that's not meant sarcastically, btw.)

Exactly. Come on people, get it right.


Humbly report, there was me thinking you were the wee guy in your avatar, your honour .... :devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I shall end this here because no matter what I come out with, you will reply with a 1 million word reply including a link to an obscure Tibetan cats teachings on how we should all get along etc.

I dont mean this as a dig but you seem Anti everything & on any old bandwagon, you remind me of Rick in the Young Ones

:faf: Facist.:greengrin


Outrageous slur. Thought it was well known that LH is Foxy out of Citizen Smith? :confused:

I had always thought that. Although there is a resemblence to Dave Spart in some of LH's teachings, er, posts. :duck::greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Humbly report, there was me thinking you were the wee guy in your avatar, your honour .... :devil:

:greengrin

I can only dream of being as cool - and subversive - as Josef Švejk.

[--------]

:greengrin

I can only dream of being as cool - and subversive - as Josef Švejk.


"Humbly report, I'm an idiot, your honour...."

There's no answer to that. :devil:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I had always thought that. Although there is a resemblence to Dave Spart in some of LH's teachings, er, posts. :duck::greengrin

Worse than Hitler, you.

:greengrin

[Brizo]

Personally, I think that remembrance day has been misappropriated by the media and warped into a compulsory mass grief exercise similar to the near hysteric reaction that accompanied the deaths of Diana and Jade Goody. Forcing all people on TV and in sport to wear poppies devalues the meaning of the gesture by making it compulsory.

Also, the linking of Remembrance day and the current deaths of soldiers has seen the day being re-interpreted by some media as a nationalistic bravery ceremony. I feel that Remembrance day should be more solemn, a time to reflect on the people who have given their lifes in conflict on all sides not a celebration of our 'brave boys' who died fighting a faceless and forgotten enemy.

:top marks

People should have the choice of whether or not they pay their respects and for those of us that choose to pay them , how we do it. The post Diana cult of compulsory mass mourning is eroding that choice year on year.

[New Corrie]

And you remind me of someone who's just been destroyed in a debate.

I think you'll find that he's probably just got bored!

[Betty Boop]

I take a great deal of offence at the insinuations of hippy-ness...

'How we should all get along'? Urgh, what a disgusting thought - nothing could be further from the truth (that's not meant sarcastically, btw.)



Exactly. Come on people, get it right.

I thought you were Wolfie? :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

:top marks

People should have the choice of whether or not they pay their respects and for those of us that choose to pay them , how we do it. The post Diana cult of compulsory mass mourning is eroding that choice year on year.

Completely agree with this sentence, but I think it unfair and a bit pointless to conflate the artificial hysteria and grief over Diana (and as somebody said above Jade bloody Goody) with a remembrance act for soldiers who have died in conflicts.

There was a thread a while back when someone mentioned that there seemed to be a "minutes silence very week at football games nowadays", and that each one devalued the poignancy and importance of the action. While this may be true, I think as a society, there should be a way of publicly marking the deaths of soldiers employed by the government we elect to run the country.

The comments from the OP are fairly repellant in my view, and I find the rather flippant and derisory way in which he/she espouses their mildly unpleasant viewpoint almost as unpleasant as the viewpoint itself.

[lapsedhibee]

I think as a society, there should be a way of publicly marking the deaths of soldiers employed by the government we elect to run the country.

Is this demand not satisfied by the announcements on (I think) all broadcast media, and I guess most or all printed media, these announcements often being accompanied by interviews with grieving relatives? :dunno:

[ArabHibee]

And you remind me of someone who's just been destroyed in a debate.


And you remind me of someone who could start a fight in an empty room.

[The Green Goblin]

And you remind me of someone who could start a fight in an empty room.

I get that impression too.

GG

[Twa Cairpets]

Is this demand not satisfied by the announcements on (I think) all broadcast media, and I guess most or all printed media, these announcements often being accompanied by interviews with grieving relatives? :dunno:

To a degree I agree with you, and the extent of the coverage of this events is, I think, somewhat overhyped and unecessarily maudlin (which is one of the reasons why they are at the same time of reducing impact). However, a society-wide time to reflect - in a way people wish to reflect without being told how to feel - is, broadly, a good thing.

[lapsedhibee]

To a degree I agree with you, and the extent of the coverage of this events is, I think, somewhat overhyped and unecessarily maudlin (which is one of the reasons why they are at the same time of reducing impact). However, a society-wide time to reflect - in a way people wish to reflect without being told how to feel - is, broadly, a good thing.

Ah right, gotcha - sorry, I thought your earlier post was advocating something in addition to Remembrance/Armistice Day.

[sleeping giant]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It's a very long sentence that doesn't seem to mean anything. Apologies if I'm being slow (wouldn't be the first time).

:faf:

Made me laugh:greengrin

Please excuse me and carry on:notworthy:

[ArabHibee]

:faf:

Made me laugh:greengrin

Please excuse me and carry on:notworthy:

Please don't encourage him.

[Tinyclothes]

Please don't encourage him.

How no?

[Hibrandenburg]

I think the heroes in these war torn countries are the aid workers, who put their lives on the line, in order to provide much needed food and shelter, for the innocent civilians caught up in conflict. In these Remembrance ceremonies you hardly ever hear a word about the civilians, thousands of men, women and children who have perished, often referred to as "collateral damage". :boo hoo:

I agree, but let's not forget that the aid workers wouldn't be able to do diddly squat in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the soldiers making the area safeish for them to work in in the first place.

Look back to how Afghanistan was before and compare it to now. The Taliban were destroying all infrastucture and anything that contradicted their radical beliefs. Executions were a daily occurance and women and female children were being oppressed simply because of their gender.

There's been around 200 young lads came back in wooden boxes who went there to try and make a difference for the average Afghani and for some to sit behind their keyboards, 1000's of miles away from any danger and to say these lads had no idea what they were getting themselves into is just pure lies and is disgusting. Everytime these guys go out on patrol they are briefed on not only what they're about to try and do but also on the political situation, tactical situation and what is hoped to be acheived by whatever task they're carrying out.

Join the army, get the lobotomy, collect your gun and develop an unhealthy appetite for killing people. Do some of you really believe what you type in your virtual trenches? :jamboak:

[Betty Boop]

I agree, but let's not forget that the aid workers wouldn't be able to do diddly squat in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the soldiers making the area safeish for them to work in in the first place.

Look back to how Afghanistan was before and compare it to now. The Taliban were destroying all infrastucture and anything that contradicted their radical beliefs. Executions were a daily occurance and women and female children were being oppressed simply because of their gender.

There's been around 200 young lads came back in wooden boxes who went there to try and make a difference for the average Afghani and for some to sit behind their keyboards, 1000's of miles away from any danger and to say these lads had no idea what they were getting themselves into is just pure lies and is disgusting. Everytime these guys go out on patrol they are briefed on not only what they're about to try and do but also on the political situation, tactical situation and what is hoped to be acheived by whatever task they're carrying out.

Join the army, get the lobotomy, collect your gun and develop an unhealthy appetite for killing people. Do some of you really believe what you type in your virtual trenches? :jamboak:

And the lives of Afghanis has improved now, in what way?

[Green Mikey]

I agree, but let's not forget that the aid workers wouldn't be able to do diddly squat in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the soldiers making the area safeish for them to work in in the first place.

Lets not forget that the aid workers wouldn't be in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the war.


Look back to how Afghanistan was before and compare it to now. The Taliban were destroying all infrastucture and anything that contradicted their radical beliefs. Executions were a daily occurance and women and female children were being oppressed simply because of their gender.

Destruction is still a common occurence in Afghanistan, the war has brought little stability to the country. The war is causing casualties that are at similar levels to that of Taliban rules and that is just the official statitics (see link below). Increasing civilian and soldier deaths, rigged elections and the continuation of the war makes the situation in Afghanistan as bad, if not worse, than it was when the Taliban were in power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/17/afghan-civilian-deaths-un

[Beefster]

Tee-hee, get you!

I'm going to go for: the Falklands War, the Bombing of Libya (allowing U.S. bombers to use British bases) and collusion between the British military/security services and loyalist paramilitaries.

The Falklands War - Territory of the UK, populated by UK citizens, invaded by a foreign nation and you object to its defence. Okay.

The other two would start a whole other debate so I'm not touching. I'm still not sure how you equate both actions to hypocrisy on Remembrance Day but I'm sure there's a built-in hatred of Thatcher going on too. Think yourself lucky though, you probably didn't have to pay the poll tax.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The Falklands War - Territory of the UK, populated by UK citizens, invaded by a foreign nation and you object to its defence. Okay.

The other two would start a whole other debate so I'm not touching. I'm still not sure how you equate both actions to hypocrisy on Remembrance Day but I'm sure there's a built-in hatred of Thatcher going on too. Think yourself lucky though, you probably didn't have to pay the poll tax.

I was never able to figure out how the Falklands was British, given it's distance from these islands. If the presence of British subjects is all it takes to establish sovereignty then I suppose the Costa del Sol must be another territory we are now responsible for.

[lapsedhibee]

I was never able to figure out how the Falklands was British, given it's distance from these islands. If the presence of British subjects is all it takes to establish sovereignty then I suppose the Costa del Sol must be another territory we are now responsible for.

:bitchy:

Your wife might be allowed to go to Australia, but she'd still be your property. :rules:

[Betty Boop]

:bitchy:

Your wife might be allowed to go to Australia, but she'd still be your property. :rules:

Women are men's property? This is 2009! :faf:

[BravestHibs]

Women are men's property? This is 2009! :faf:

Betty, I think I could conduct a long and succesful marriage with you.

[lapsedhibee]

Women are men's property? This is 2009! :faf:

What? :dunno:

[--------]

And the lives of Afghanis has improved now, in what way?


That's the question. Allowing that we simply replaced the Taliban with a government made up of thugs and robbers, not a lot, I'd say.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's the question. Allowing that we simply replaced the Taliban with a government made up of thugs and robbers, not a lot, I'd say.

Even the politicians are starting to question whether there is any point throwing good money after bad to support the regime in Afghanistan. I saw Hilary Clinton say as much on the news last night.

[Woody1985]

This is not meant to be dismissive or controversial but is there any information that is documented from first hand experience of the impact on the people who live in Afghanistan?

I fail to understand how anyone can say there has been a + or - effect on the people who live there without speaking to them.

I suspect there is information somewhere on this and it would be interesting to read. Does anyone have any?

[IndieHibby]

Nature is not in conflict with itself. I find that a strange description of what is an exclusively human habit: to wage war on its own species. Perhaps you have read 'The Once and Future King' by T.H White. The young King Arthur, growing up, is changed into various animals by Merlin, to teach him the wisdom of each. Whilst living as a goose, he receives a hard lesson in his attitude to war from his goose teacher.

Her amusement over Arthur’s human nature turns to horror when he asks her about the sentries and if they are currently “at war.” Her question, “But what creature could be so low as to go about in bands, to murder others of its own blood?” is supposed to be hypothetical, but does, of course, have a ready answer: man. They have no use for war because, in the air, there are no boundaries and, therefore, no causes for battle.

As man is the only species of its kind who goes around killing its own kind for its own sake, I would take issue with your description of war as "Nature's conflict with itself". I would therefore also respectfully suggest that you revise your acceptance of human conflict as something inevitable." My own view is that war is the ultimate failure of humanity. It has nothing to do with Nature.

GG

I have followed your request to 'respectfully revise my acceptance...' and yet I still come to the same conclusion.

Living things are, always have and always will be in competition at the intra-species and inter-species level. Even siblings comepete, to the death, and in some cases, before they are even born.

Humans have been forming groups and warring for as far back as recorded history goes, and further - the evidence is there in the fossils of even the ancestors of our species.

If it is a failure of our species, it is a failure of resource management. Our society is just playing this game with a longer viewfinder than others.

[--------]

Even the politicians are starting to question whether there is any point throwing good money after bad to support the regime in Afghanistan. I saw Hilary Clinton say as much on the news last night.


Oh good. And when they finally get round to withdrawing, I wonder who'll be left holding the fort while the Yanquis pull out?

Our Army is tied to the coat-tails of the Yanquis. I strongly suspect that the reason President BO is procrastinating over decisions regarding what happens next is because his administration is divided over the issue. So we wait for the US to decide what THEY're going to do, all the while losing men. And our other NATO allies are meanwhile more concerned to stay in their secure compounds and make sure THEY don't take casualties.

Ah, the blessings of a 'special relationship' with the poh-liceman of world peace....

[IndieHibby]

This is not meant to be dismissive or controversial but is there any information that is documented from first hand experience of the impact on the people who live in Afghanistan?

I fail to understand how anyone can say there has been a + or - effect on the people who live there without speaking to them.

I suspect there is information somewhere on this and it would be interesting to read. Does anyone have any?

There was an Army officer on the Today programme a couple of days ago who was quite explicit about the progress that is being made.

The entire reason he came on the programme was to counter the negative reporting on the mainstream media.

The info is there, but some people need to become aware that:
a) Confirmation bias is something that we all suffer from to an extent
b) the media live off this basic instinct.

[--------]

There was an Army officer on the Today programme a couple of days ago who was quite explicit about the progress that is being made.

The entire reason he came on the programme was to counter the negative reporting on the mainstream media.

The info is there, but some people need to become aware that:
a) Confirmation bias is something that we all suffer from to an extent
b) the media live off this basic instinct.


And the Army officer was, of course, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not saying what he had been told to say? :cool2:

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is not meant to be dismissive or controversial but is there any information that is documented from first hand experience of the impact on the people who live in Afghanistan?

I fail to understand how anyone can say there has been a + or - effect on the people who live there without speaking to them.

I suspect there is information somewhere on this and it would be interesting to read. Does anyone have any?

I've posted quite a bit of stuff before from Malalai Joya, the elected M.P. for the Afghan province of Farah who has undergone numerous assassination attempts both from those associated with the Karzai regime and from Taliban/Talib associated groups. Here's (http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/10/28/a_woman_among_warlords_afghan_democracy) a fairly extensive interview with her - draw your own conclusions.

Personally I find the certainty with which people claim Afghanistan is better off under occupation absolutely bewildering - they don't seem to be very interested in the facts of the matter.

N.B. And as I've said before, it's not like the Taliban are engaged in some underground, guerilla insurgency; they're in direct control of 40%-50% of the country.

[IndieHibby]

And the Army officer was, of course, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not saying what he had been told to say? :cool2:

Your prejudices give you away :wink: His mother phoned the Editor and got him on the show after he complained about the negative reporting in the media.

Usually the government send someone from the MOD to do that sort of thing.

[Bishop Hibee]

Your prejudices give you away :wink: His mother phoned the Editor and got him on the show after he complained about the negative reporting in the media.

Usually the government send someone from the MOD to do that sort of thing.

I heard this guy and frankly I thought he was talking rubbish and peddling a political agenda. He basically said that you couldn't support British troops and oppose the war in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8349981.stm

If that is the case then 64% of the UK public are more or less anti-troops if you believe the latest poll.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8348942.stm

Harold Wilson had the right idea when he didn't send British troops to Vietnam. It's sad that Blair and Brown didn't have the same bottle.

[IndieHibby]

That's the most arrogant post I've read in my entire life. Saying people need to be treated as babies? from the sounds of it you would like to live in a dictatorship so we would have even less choice about our own destinys. Seriously mate, Incandecant with rage that someone might have a different (and slightly more open and honest) belief than you and would have the audacity to express it and discuss on a forum? You need to take a long hard look at yourself because you seem to have quite a dangerous thought process that I find quite worrying.

1)It's harldy arrogant to conclude that some people have such infantile opinions that they must, therefore, be treated like someone who is, well, infantile.

2)What, exactly, did I say that allowed you the to take to Olympian jump in logic to conclude that I want to live in a dictatorship?

3)I'm not angry that other people's opinions are different from mine, I'm angry that their opinions lead them to think that slandering the dead, on the one day that we take to remember them, is somehow civil behaviour.

4) To conclude that I have to re-appraise my entire personality and world-view, because you find my disgust at people slandering the dead worrying, is in itself indicative of someone who holds infantile opinions.

In short, there is almost nothing you can say now that will change my conclusion that you are an unremitting idiot.

[IndieHibby]

'They died for us' suggests that I wanted them to go to war, which I didn't. They died for a regime I don't believe in, overthrowing a regime I don't have enough experience of to want it to be overthrown.

I mean FFS - who in their right mind holds an opinion like this?

So because YOU didn't want them to go to the Somme, because YOU didn't experience the regime, means that you object to others saying that they died for you?

Does anyone else find this stance completely objectionable?

What a self-centred tube you really are....

[IndieHibby]

I heard this guy and frankly I thought he was talking rubbish and peddling a political agenda. He basically said that you couldn't support British troops and oppose the war in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8349981.stm

If that is the case then 64% of the UK public are more or less anti-troops if you believe the latest poll.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8348942.stm

Harold Wilson had the right idea when he didn't send British troops to Vietnam. It's sad that Blair and Brown didn't have the same bottle.

Do you have direct experience of their operations that would counter his direct experience?

Bearing in mind, he did go on the programme of his own (or his mothers own) volition.

[Phil D. Rolls]

1)It's harldy arrogant to conclude that some people have such infantile opinions that they must, therefore, be treated like someone who is, well, infantile.

2)What, exactly, did I say that allowed you the to take to Olympian jump in logic to conclude that I want to live in a dictatorship?

3)I'm not angry that other people's opinions are different from mine, I'm angry that their opinions lead them to think that slandering the dead, on the one day that we take to remember them, is somehow civil behaviour.

4) To conclude that I have to re-appraise my entire personality and world-view, because you find my disgust at people slandering the dead worrying, is in itslef indicative of someone who holds infantile opinions.

In short, there is almost nothing you can say now that will change my conclusion that you are an unremitting idiot.

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.

[marinello59]

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.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I mean FFS - who in their right mind holds an opinion like this?

So because YOU didn't want them to go to the Somme, because YOU didn't experience the regime, means that you object to others saying that they died for you?

Does anyone else find this stance completely objectionable?

What a self-centred tube you really are....

No I don't find it objectionable when many of the soldiers were coerced into fighting in a needless, pointless war. To suggest they all went because of an altruistic belief in freedom is an insult to those slaughtered in a war they didn't want or understand.

I think if people came out with some of the dewy eyed romanticism in 1920 they'd have been lucky to avoid a kicking. The fact is they didn't go to war for us, they went for the adventure or because they were pressured into it.

[Tinyclothes]

1)It's harldy arrogant to conclude that some people have such infantile opinions that they must, therefore, be treated like someone who is, well, infantile.

2)What, exactly, did I say that allowed you the to take to Olympian jump in logic to conclude that I want to live in a dictatorship?

3)I'm not angry that other people's opinions are different from mine, I'm angry that their opinions lead them to think that slandering the dead, on the one day that we take to remember them, is somehow civil behaviour.

4) To conclude that I have to re-appraise my entire personality and world-view, because you find my disgust at people slandering the dead worrying, is in itself indicative of someone who holds infantile opinions.

In short, there is almost nothing you can say now that will change my conclusion that you are an unremitting idiot.

I have no want to change your opinion. Anyone who is willing to post the drivvle above is beyond hope.

P.S I never slandered the dead.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I have followed your request to 'respectfully revise my acceptance...' and yet I still come to the same conclusion.

Living things are, always have and always will be in competition at the intra-species and inter-species level. Even siblings comepete, to the death, and in some cases, before they are even born.

Humans have been forming groups and warring for as far back as recorded history goes, and further - the evidence is there in the fossils of even the ancestors of our species.

If it is a failure of our species, it is a failure of resource management. Our society is just playing this game with a longer viewfinder than others.

How deeply unpleasant - not to mention utterly reductive of human experience. No time for any of the intricacies and complexities of existence just a crude belief that we're programmed for bellum omnium contres omnes.

This sort of thing leads you down very dangerous roads.

[Bishop Hibee]

Do you have direct experience of their operations that would counter his direct experience?

Bearing in mind, he did go on the programme of his own (or his mothers own) volition.

Never been to Afghanistan. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion though.

For what it's worth I believe you can be sympathetic towards British troops in Afghanistan i.e. hoping they don't die and feeling sorry for them as pawns in a political game, without supporting the cause. As 15 of the 19 hijackers of the planes involved in the atrocities on 11th September were Saudis, perhaps that's the dictatorship we defenders of democracy should have dealt with :dunno:

[Green Mikey]

I have followed your request to 'respectfully revise my acceptance...' and yet I still come to the same conclusion.

Living things are, always have and always will be in competition at the intra-species and inter-species level. Even siblings comepete, to the death, and in some cases, before they are even born.

Humans have been forming groups and warring for as far back as recorded history goes, and further - the evidence is there in the fossils of even the ancestors of our species.

If it is a failure of our species, it is a failure of resource management. Our society is just playing this game with a longer viewfinder than others.


I mean FFS - who in their right mind holds an opinion like this?

So because YOU didn't want them to go to the Somme, because YOU didn't experience the regime, means that you object to others saying that they died for you?

Does anyone else find this stance completely objectionable?

What a self-centred tube you really are....

I don't understand your logic.

If war and death are a pre-determined consequences of nature then how can participating in a war be heroic? In one post that war is a 'failure of our species' but also defend it's perpretrators on another.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Never been to Afghanistan. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion though.

For what it's worth I believe you can be sympathetic towards British troops in Afghanistan i.e. hoping they don't die and feeling sorry for them as pawns in a political game, without supporting the cause. As 15 of the 19 hijackers of the planes involved in the atrocities on 11th September were Saudis, perhaps that's the dictatorship we defenders of democracy should have dealt with :dunno:

Wonder why we didn't. :cool2:

[BravestHibs]

Do you have direct experience of their operations that would counter his direct experience?

Bearing in mind, he did go on the programme of his own (or his mothers own) volition.

I think that the fact that this war is costing billions of our tax cash, without sounding like a Daily Mail reader writing an open letter, gives us the right to question the line which may or may not be being spun to placate us. If there was a blind acceptance of war things would be very bad for alot of people.

Personally, and I think this goes for most of the people on the thread, I support the troops in that I don't want them to die, this doesn't have to go hand in hand with supporting the war though as I don't want any Afghanis/Iraqis to die either. So to come out and accuse, as you have, people on this thread of 'slandering the dead' when the only thing they have been slandering is the reasons for the war and the machine propogated by the government and the red tops which seeks to make war in some way desirable, or 'the right thing to do' is, in my view, obtuse and points towards someone who has albeit temporarily, lost the ability to reason coherently due to the tsunami of pro war information leaked to the media in order justify the unjustifieable.

[ancient hibee]

No I don't find it objectionable when many of the soldiers were coerced into fighting in a needless, pointless war. To suggest they all went because of an altruistic belief in freedom is an insult to those slaughtered in a war they didn't want or understand.

I think if people came out with some of the dewy eyed romanticism in 1920 they'd have been lucky to avoid a kicking. The fact is they didn't go to war for us, they went for the adventure or because they were pressured into it.
Seeing there are loads of FACTS being spouted,the FACT is that the majority went because they thought it was the right thing to do.And many "dewy eyed romantics"would have been horrified at the thought that the death of a loved one had not been worthwhile.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Seeing there are loads of FACTS being spouted,the FACT is that the majority went because they thought it was the right thing to do.And many "dewy eyed romantics"would have been horrified at the thought that the death of a loved one had not been worthwhile.

OK, in all honesty I'm going by what could, admittedly, be biased accounts. I haven't based my opinion on any objective statistical evidence. If you can point me to a reliable survey about why people went then it would certainly help me revisit my thinking.

The "dewy eyed romantics" are those who glorify war, I wouldn't have thought many of those who saw active service would think that way. If the cause was so noble, how come history and what we have learned from survivors doesn't bear this out.


Hibs.net rule #432: A statement cannot be treated as a fact, unless the word fact is written in capital letters after said statement has been written.:greengrin

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't understand your logic.

If war and death are a pre-determined consequences of nature then how can participating in a war be heroic? In one post that war is a 'failure of our species' but also defend it's perpretrators on another.

I doubt he'll be back to argue the case, that is, if he has any sense. People who adopt the 'consequences of nature' argument without thinking it through always end up their own *rses.

[Betty Boop]

This is not meant to be dismissive or controversial but is there any information that is documented from first hand experience of the impact on the people who live in Afghanistan?

I fail to understand how anyone can say there has been a + or - effect on the people who live there without speaking to them.

I suspect there is information somewhere on this and it would be interesting to read. Does anyone have any?

US Is Doing No Good in Afghanistan
By Malalai Joya

November 11, 2009 "SJMN" --- As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country.

Eight years ago, women's rights were used as one of the excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing a women's rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media.

In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the mask of democracy while they occupy government positions. But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy.

The U.S. and its allies are getting ready to offer power to the medieval Taliban by creating an imaginary category called the "moderate Taliban" and inviting them to join the government. A man who was near the top of the list of most-wanted terrorists eight years ago, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has been invited to join the government.

Over the past eight years the U.S. has helped turn my country into the drug capital of the world through its support of drug lords. Today, 93 percent of all opium in the world is produced in Afghanistan. Many members of Parliament and high ranking officials openly benefit from the drug trade. President Karzai's own brother is a well known drug trafficker.

Meanwhile, ordinary Afghans are living in destitution. The latest United Nations Human Development Index ranked Afghanistan 181 out of 182 countries. Eighteen million Afghans live on less than $2 a day. Mothers in many parts of Afghanistan are ready to sell their children because they cannot feed them.

Afghanistan has received $36 billion of aid in the past eight years, and the U.S. alone spends $165 million a day on its war. Yet my country remains in the grip of terrorists and criminals. My people have no interest in the current drama of the presidential election since it will change nothing in Afghanistan. Both Karzai and Dr. Abdullah are hated by Afghans for being U.S. puppets.

The worst casualty of this war is truth. Those who stand up and raise their voice against injustice, insecurity and occupation have their lives threatened and are forced to leave Afghanistan, or simply get killed.

We are sandwiched between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces of the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban and the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai.

Now President Obama is considering increasing troops to Afghanistan and simply extending former President Bush's wrong policies. In fact, the worst massacres since 9/11 were during Obama's tenure. My native province of Farah was bombed by the U.S. this past May. A hundred and fifty people were killed, most of them women and children. On Sept. 9, the U.S. bombed Kunduz Province, killing 200 civilians.

My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation.

© 2009 San Jose Mercury News

[ArabHibee]

I have no want to change your opinion. Anyone who is willing to post the drivvle above is beyond hope.

P.S I never slandered the dead.

Really? Read below:


Also, why are all dead soldiers declared as heroes as soon as they die? Surely some of them were just bad soldiers.

:hmmm:

[Tinyclothes]

Really? Read below:



:hmmm:

How is that slandering? We went through this with other posters after I wrote it. I'm not saying all dead soldiers are bad soldiers. I'm just saying they aren't necessarily brave. Maybe (definitely) I made my point badly and a little too inconsiderately but to drag this up now seems a tad desperate.

[ArabHibee]

How is that slandering? We went through this with other posters after I wrote it. I'm not saying all dead soldiers are bad soldiers. I'm just saying they aren't necessarily brave. Maybe (definitely) I made my point badly and a little too inconsiderately but to drag this up now, seems a tad desperate.

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

[Steve-O]

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

See highlighted word for why it's not slanderous.

[Danderhall Hibs]

See highlighted word for why it's not slanderous.

He never said "may" though:


Surely some of them were just bad soldiers.

There's no question mark so I'm assuming it's a statement.

[Tinyclothes]

How is that slandering? We went through this with other posters after I wrote it. I'm not saying all dead soldiers are bad soldiers. I'm just saying they aren't necessarily brave. Maybe (definitely) I made my point badly and a little too inconsiderately but to drag this up now seems a tad desperate.

Don't really see the need to keep dragging this post up, I apologise for it. This shouldn't be the key focus of some peoples posts. This is getting personal.

[ArabHibee]

Don't really see the need to keep dragging this post up, I apologise for it. This shouldn't be the key focus of some peoples posts. This is getting personal.

:faf:
How do you work that one out? You started the thread didn't you?

If I was going to be personal I'd say I think you're a right twonk who is always on the wind up and post very dubious comments to stir people up.

But I'm not being personal so I'll not post that.

And talking about being personal - that's good coming from you. :kettle:

[Steve-O]

He never said "may" though:



There's no question mark so I'm assuming it's a statement.

Well I'm assuming it was a question.

Either way, it's still not slanderous unless there is absolutely no chance it's true.

I think it's fair to say that all soldiers are not as good at their jobs as others, just like in any other profession.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Well I'm assuming it was a question.

Either way, it's still not slanderous unless there is absolutely no chance it's true.

I think it's fair to say that all soldiers are not as good at their jobs as others, just like in any other profession.

You can't assume that - there was no question mark - so it's a statement. :wink:

And I agree with you the rest of what you say. Except he never said "may"

[Pete]

I've only read the first page and that's about as much as I can stomach.

What sort of cretinous individual questions whether these people are considered "brave"?

My definition of "brave" is doing something even though you are scared...and that scared is most definately what these boys are when they are posted off to some god forsaken land to do what they are told. To compare them to nurses is laughable.

Try drinking in a few squaddie pubs, hearing their stories and hearing how many of them simply can't handle it when they are back in reality...and the measures they have taken to basically escape the horrors they have witnessed.

Their "bravery" shouldn't ever be brought into question. Anyone who has seen active service should be given the five star treatment by society and the british public.

As for the "bad soldier" argument...that's not even worth the oxygen.

[Steve-O]

You can't assume that - there was no question mark - so it's a statement. :wink:

And I agree with you the rest of what you say. Except he never said "may"

I can do whatever I want! :na na: :greengrin

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------


I've only read the first page and that's about as much as I can stomach.

What sort of cretinous individual questions whether these people are considered "brave"?

My definition of "brave" is doing something even though you are scared...and that scared is most definately what these boys are when they are posted off to some god forsaken land to do what they are told. To compare them to nurses is laughable.

Try drinking in a few squaddie pubs, hearing their stories and hearing how many of them simply can't handle it when they are back in reality...and the measures they have taken to basically escape the horrors they have witnessed.

Their "bravery" shouldn't ever be brought into question. Anyone who has seen active service should be given the five star treatment by society and the british public.

As for the "bad soldier" argument...that's not even worth the oxygen.

Were the squaddies that raped girls and assaulted tourists in Cyprus a few years ago 'brave'? :confused:

[Pete]

Were the squaddies that raped girls and assaulted tourists in Cyprus a few years ago 'brave'? :confused:

What's that got to do with anything?

That's a crime that's been committed by an individual and was through personal choice.

To use something like that isn't valid as we both know such people immediately opt out of any frameworks of respect we once held them in.

[Tinyclothes]

I've only read the first page and that's about as much as I can stomach.

What sort of cretinous individual questions whether these people are considered "brave"?

My definition of "brave" is doing something even though you are scared...and that scared is most definately what these boys are when they are posted off to some god forsaken land to do what they are told. To compare them to nurses is laughable.

Try drinking in a few squaddie pubs, hearing their stories and hearing how many of them simply can't handle it when they are back in reality...and the measures they have taken to basically escape the horrors they have witnessed.

Their "bravery" shouldn't ever be brought into question. Anyone who has seen active service should be given the five star treatment by society and the british public.

As for the "bad soldier" argument...that's not even worth the oxygen.

So doing anything that scares you should be considered brave? I'm scared of mushrooms.

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 AM ----------


I've only read the first page and that's about as much as I can stomach.

What sort of cretinous individual questions whether these people are considered "brave"?

My definition of "brave" is doing something even though you are scared...and that scared is most definately what these boys are when they are posted off to some god forsaken land to do what they are told. To compare them to nurses is laughable.

Try drinking in a few squaddie pubs, hearing their stories and hearing how many of them simply can't handle it when they are back in reality...and the measures they have taken to basically escape the horrors they have witnessed.

Their "bravery" shouldn't ever be brought into question. Anyone who has seen active service should be given the five star treatment by society and the british public.

As for the "bad soldier" argument...that's not even worth the oxygen.

I never said nurses were brave but to me they are heroes.

[Steve-O]

What's that got to do with anything?

That's a crime that's been committed by an individual and was through personal choice.

To use something like that isn't valid as we both know such people immediately opt out of any frameworks of respect we once held them in.

What's that got to do with anything? They were squaddies, the same ones you're talking about that are nothing but brave heroes.

[Pete]

So doing anything that scares you should be considered brave? I'm scared of mushrooms.

Why don't you try them then?

They might open your mind.

[Tinyclothes]

Why don't you try them then?

They might open your mind.

:yawn:

[Pete]

What's that got to do with anything? They were squaddies, the same ones you're talking about that are nothing but brave heroes.

You're linking their acts of service to their criminal acts. They are "brave" and "heroes" in my eyes because of the job they are doing....going into active service and expecting the worst.
To bring criminal acts into the argument is irrelevant....and we both know acts of sexual assault aren't brave or heroic...so it's obvious that the individuals involved are therefore stripped of such accolades.

If you're using the acts of a few individuals to try and score some petty points regarding my points about the forces then it's below the belt.



Something for you to consider: These boys are thrust into battle with combat training and a sense of brotherhood...and that's basically it.

Things like physical assault, rape, sexual assault, murder and maiming are something they see frequently in some theatres. They get a certain amount of training to deal with seeing these things but the widespread feeling is that it doesn't go anywhere near as far as it should.

Maybe you should look for blame for the crimes you talk about higher up the tree.

The issue of proper mental councelling during service needs to be addressed...but it isn't as half as important as the issue of proper councelling AFTER active service.

[Pete]

:yawn:

Aye...go to sleep.

Come back and make another thread when you feel like you need more attention.

[Steve-O]

You're linking their acts of service to their criminal acts. They are "brave" and "heroes" in my eyes because of the job they are doing....going into active service and expecting the worst.
To bring criminal acts into the argument is irrelevant....and we both know acts of sexual assault aren't brave or heroic...so it's obvious that the individuals involved are therefore stripped of such accolades.

If you're using the acts of a few individuals to try and score some petty points regarding my pionts about the forces then it's below the belt.



Something for you to consider: These boys are thrust into battle with combat training and a sense of brotherhood...and that's basically it.

Things like physical assault, rape, sexual assault, murder and maiming are something they see frequently in some theatres. They get a certain amount of training to deal with seeing these things but the widespread feeling is that it doesn't go anywhere near as far as it should.

Maybe you should look for blame for the crimes you talk about higher up the tree.

The issue of proper mental councelling during service needs to be addressed...but it isn't as half as important as the issue of proper councelling AFTER active service.

My point is really that I don't think they are all brave or heroes...not doubt many of them are, the majority even, but there are erses amongst them, and any squaddie I have met has been an absolute tool.

Maybe that's a different argument though.

I just don't really get into the whole nationalistic pride thing with the army and all, this is all.

They choose to do it (these days) so they may well be brave, but I don't think the media needs to go over the top in the way that they do as it can lead to the very indifference I feel about the whole thing.

[Pete]

My point is really that I don't think they are all brave or heroes...not doubt many of them are, the majority even, but there are erses amongst them, and any squaddie I have met has been an absolute tool.

Maybe this is the key...however, it's all about personal opinions.



I just don't really get into the whole nationalistic pride thing with the army and all, this is all.

They choose to do it (these days) so they may well be brave, but I don't think the media needs to go over the top in the way that they do as it can lead to the very indifference I feel about the whole thing.

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.

It's not the guys in the forces fault...remember, they would be the ones protecting us should anyone ever actually invade this land. The chances might be minimal but that's what they signed up for as well.

[Betty Boop]

The MOD is investigating 33 new cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq, including the rape of a sixteen year old boy by two soldiers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360040.stm

[Beefster]

The MOD is investigating 33 new cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq, including the rape of a sixteen year old boy by two soldiers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360040.stm

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.

I'm not excusing or defending it, just stating that it's not a new phenomenon. Just like the vast majority of Hibs fans aren't casuals, the vast majority of soldiers will doubtlessly find this as horrific as us.

[hibsbollah]

It's not the guys in the forces fault...remember, they would be the ones protecting us should anyone ever actually invade this land. The chances might be minimal but that's what they signed up for as well.

Very true. And then we will have to rely on them. Lets hope they aren't as 'bad' and 'stupid' as some have suggested...

[AndyP]

My point is really that I don't think they are all brave or heroes...not doubt many of them are, the majority even, but there are erses amongst them, and any squaddie I have met has been an absolute tool.


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

[Tinyclothes]

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

So he's a tool for not agreeing with you?

[AndyP]

So he's a tool for not agreeing with you?


Read the comment quoted again, the reply was a little bit tongue in cheek