US Soldier Kills 16 Aghan Civilians

[JE89]

Including 9 children. Apparently he was drunk and broke into their homes a mile from his base.

Absolute idiot. I can see the US making an example of him as they need to send a message out. I reckon he could get the lethal injection.

Taliban has promised revenge attacks.

[hibsbollah]

Obama; 'i offer my condolences' followed by a long monologue about the tremendous job his soldiers are doing doesnt strike the right note IMO. No doubt his attention is taken by not appearing 'soft' in the eyes of the right in an election year.

[Scouse Hibee]

Civilians needlessly killed eh......................911!

[Future17]

Civilians needlessly killed eh......................911!

:confused:

[yeezus.]

Apparently he had a breakdown. Absolutely disgusting to read the death of so many young children.

[JE89]

Civilians needlessly killed eh......................911!

An eye for an eye eh? :bitchy:

For the record there has been between 11,000-13,000 civilian Afghan deaths since 2003. So US deserves another 3 911s to even the score? I thought not.

[Scouse Hibee]

An eye for an eye eh? :bitchy:

For the record there has been between 11,000-13,000 civilian Afghan deaths since 2003. So US deserves another 3 911s to even the score? I thought not.

No because last year the Taliban were responsible for 80% of civilian deaths in Afghanistan!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

[/B]
No because last year the Taliban were responsible for 80% of civilian deaths in Afghanistan!!!

Are you saying that 9/11 justifies this?

[Scouse Hibee]

Are you saying that 9/11 justifies this?

What? The Taliban killing 80% of civilians in Aghanistan or the US soldier killing women & children.

[CropleyWasGod]

What? The Taliban killing 80% of civilians in Aghanistan or the US soldier killing women & children.

The latter.

[Scouse Hibee]

The latter.

Justifies it no! What I am saying though is that when I saw the news it didn't evoke the same emotion in me that watching the relatives of the six soldiers killed last week did or the visions of people jumping from burning towers.

[CropleyWasGod]

Justifies it no! What I am saying though is that when I saw the news it didn't evoke the same emotion in me that watching the relatives of the six soldiers killed last week did or the visions of people jumping from burning towers.

Ok. I'm interested in people's emotional reactions..... is that, do you think, because it's not "one of us" that have suffered?

Not having a go, I am genuinely intrigued.

[Scouse Hibee]

Ok. I'm interested in people's emotional reactions..... is that, do you think, because it's not "one of us" that have suffered?

Not having a go, I am genuinely intrigued.

That's a hard one to answer, maybe sub consciously I felt that but it was not a thought I had at the time. I was genuinely emotional last week at watching the relatives (tear in the eye). The same when watching the twin towers unfold. The news of the US soldiers rampage I'm afraid did nothing other than make me ask I wonder why he done that?

[Sylar]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

[yeezus.]

Nobody here is defending the Taliban, an eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

Yes the Taliban committed atrocities against women and children, but that doesn't mean it's okay when coalition troops do it.

[yeezus.]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

Well said.:not worth

[steakbake]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

War makes monsters of us all.

[HKhibby]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

Same old Americans!, cause chaos everywhere they go!, thanks to this idiot things will be prolonged again with withdrawl etc.. not to mention all the security issues that everone will have to go through because of them!, they think they are so great and high and mighty, but everywhere they go they cause trouble and chaos and mess!...then everone else has to go and clean up after them!

I would really like to see the UK withdraw now because of it and leave them to fight it alone!...then see how long it would go on! because they cant do anything without anyones help! especially the British!, oh and if there was some sort of major terrorist attack in the UK, would they help the UK go after them? i think not!....remember the funding for the IRA ****?,...from all the plastic american paddys?...now who has a terrorist problem!

[Beefster]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

Good post. The guy was mentally unstable and committed a terrible crime. He'll be punished accordingly but lets not pretend that he's representative of the NATO forces.

I find the outrage on here about any US/UK atrocities, followed by complete silence about Afghan/Iraqi atrocities, fairly depressing. I've never understood this need to hate the US/UK forces.

[Betty Boop]

Strange, that given the high levels of security at American bases, a soldier in combat gear and armed to the teeth, can wander off unchallenged at 3 in the morning and carry out a killing spree.

[hibsbollah]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

You might be right that there are double standards re-what is posted on.net. That, however, is a thoroughly unimportant double standard.

A more relevant double standard is what would be the likely outcome if a member of the (say) Iranian military slaughtered nine American children in cold blood. You can bet shylock would want his pound of flesh, and a stiff 'offer my condolences' from Ajmahinejad would not suffice.

[Beefster]

You might be right that there are double standards re-what is posted on.net. That, however, is a thoroughly unimportant double standard.

A more relevant double standard is what would be the likely outcome if a member of the (say) Iranian military slaughtered nine American children in cold blood. You can bet shylock would want his pound of flesh, and a stiff 'offer my condolences' from Ajmahinejad would not suffice.

If Iranian armed forces were in the US, helping keep an organisation like the Taliban out of power, I seriously doubt it.

[yeezus.]

Same old Americans!, cause chaos everywhere they go!, thanks to this idiot things will be prolonged again with withdrawl etc.. not to mention all the security issues that everone will have to go through because of them!, they think they are so great and high and mighty, but everywhere they go they cause trouble and chaos and mess!...then everone else has to go and clean up after them!

I would really like to see the UK withdraw now because of it and leave them to fight it alone!...then see how long it would go on! because they cant do anything without anyones help! especially the British!, oh and if there was some sort of major terrorist attack in the UK, would they help the UK go after them? i think not!....remember the funding for the IRA ****?,...from all the plastic american paddys?...now who has a terrorist problem!

Your last point could be turned on it's head - remember the UK Government's funding for the UVF?

[Future17]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.

I might have misunderstood your point here, but what are you saying is justified?

I don't think there is imbalance in the importance (for want of a better word) which is attributed to the actual deaths on either side of this conflict. However, I think that the deaths of British soldiers and the attrocities committed by other groups in countries like Afghanistan are all-too-regular occurences. This event is the first of its kind in this conflict and sure to have a major effect on the region and our armed forces' mission there. That is why I think an increased importance has been attached to it in terms of the creation of this thread and the number of comments.

FWIW, I'm 99% certain a thread was created after the Fort Hood massacre, as I seem to remember chucking my 2p's worth in on that as well. :greengrin


Good post. The guy was mentally unstable and committed a terrible crime. He'll be punished accordingly but lets not pretend that he's representative of the NATO forces.

I find the outrage on here about any US/UK atrocities, followed by complete silence about Afghan/Iraqi atrocities, fairly depressing. I've never understood this need to hate the US/UK forces.

I don't think anyone on this thread is expressing a hatred of the US/UK forces? :confused:

[Sylar]

I might have misunderstood your point here, but what are you saying is justified?

I don't think there is imbalance in the importance (for want of a better word) which is attributed to the actual deaths on either side of this conflict. However, I think that the deaths of British soldiers and the attrocities committed by other groups in countries like Afghanistan are all-too-regular occurences. This event is the first of its kind in this conflict and sure to have a major effect on the region and our armed forces' mission there. That is why I think an increased importance has been attached to it in terms of the creation of this thread and the number of comments.

FWIW, I'm 99% certain a thread was created after the Fort Hood massacre, as I seem to remember chucking my 2p's worth in on that as well. :greengrin



Sorry, having read that back, I can see why there is a degree of ambiguity in my second sentence - what I meant was, the expressions of shock and disgust regarding the incident were justified, NOT the shooting itself.

Incidentally, I had a look through the archives for a thread on the Fort Hood massacre, but couldn't see anything - would be interested to have a read through the thoughts and comments if indeed one does exist.

[Beefster]

I don't think anyone on this thread is expressing a hatred of the US/UK forces? :confused:

I wasn't only referring to this thread with that comment. It's a regular theme in this forum (i.e. the Holy Ground).

[hibsbollah]

I wasn't only referring to this thread with that comment. It's a regular theme in this forum (i.e. the Holy Ground).

No it isnt. I think that reflects your own political position. I read as many views counter to what you describe.

[Hibs Class]

Your last point could be turned on it's head - remember the UK Government's funding for the UVF?

I don't remember that. Is it a fact that you can post evidence of or is it just a made up rumour?

[JE89]

For every incident like this (which was indeed, abhorrent), there are other incidents which go unreported.

This was obviously a tragic story, but the sense of outrage which has followed the actions (which are justified) intrigue me, particularly on here.

For example, where was the thread outlining the appall at the murder of 6 British troops last week? How about the thread which was never created in 2009 when a Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 innocent military personnel and wounding 30 others?

You can make either side out to be "monstrous" in times of war and there seems to be a willingness to do just that whenever it's a British or American soldier carrying out such acts.

This guy had a major meltdown and he should be punished accordingly, but lets not kid ourselves on that there are only one side of monsters in this war.



I don't think there is imbalance in the importance (for want of a better word) which is attributed to the actual deaths on either side of this conflict. However, I think that the deaths of British soldiers and the attrocities committed by other groups in countries like Afghanistan are all-too-regular occurences. This event is the first of its kind in this conflict and sure to have a major effect on the region and our armed forces' mission there. That is why I think an increased importance has been attached to it in terms of the creation of this thread and the number of comments.


Future17 has said what I was going to say. It's a pretty unique situation and one that when I read it really shocked me. I created the thread to see what peoples opinions were partly because for uni I had to read Edward Said's 'Orientalism' and some of the views that have been posted are along the lines of what Said talks about in his book.

I certainly don't hate the US/UK forces but the attitudes of both governments (particularly the US) is very imperialistic. We are often preached that these countries have the right to democratic freedoms and that the US is a 'saviour' of the people of these nations and having read Said's book I can see similarities in today's wars and those of the times of the empires and that over the last two hundred years or so the attitudes of the West to the Eastern nations hasn't changed greatly.

I find your two monsters in every war comment a bit strange as I'm sure the majority of the UK population see the UK/US forces as the 'good guy' but your statement seems to suggest otherwise.

I rarely start my own threads and haven't really on .net recently but decided to start this one due to having just finished Said.

Last question that I am unsure about (not just for you TSSF) - 'the murder of 6 British troops' - is it murder if it is in times of war?

[Beefster]

No it isnt. I think that reflects your own political position. I read as many views counter to what you describe.

You're suggesting that opinions are split 50/50. I think it's fair to describe that as 'regular'.

But yes, I tend to support my country's armed forces and their allies. They only follow orders - it's the politicians that I usually have the problem with.

[Sylar]

I find your two monsters in every war comment a bit strange as I'm sure the majority of the UK population see the UK/US forces as the 'good guy' but your statement seems to suggest otherwise.

I rarely start my own threads and haven't really on .net recently but decided to start this one due to having just finished Said.

Last question that I am unsure about (not just for you TSSF) - 'the murder of 6 British troops' - is it murder if it is in times of war?

I don't mean to suggest that I view the entire US/UK armed forces as "monsters", but merely that the psychological stresses that some of these troops are placed under are too much to handle, and it can lead to monstrous acts (hence the massacre which started the thread, the posing with corpses, torture of PoWs). I just find that the attention only seems to get drawn to instances when such an act is perpetrated by one of the Allied Forces. I appreciate that this is a pretty brutal story (so I apologise if it seems I was suggesting the thread shouldn't have been started - not what I was trying to say, but it does read as such) and it's no surprise it merits discussion, but it's then regrettable that atrocities on the other side don't gauge any interest/discussion, such as my previously cited example of last week.

Your closing question is very interesting indeed - many would call the entire presence/war in Afghanistan as state sanctioned murder, "killing in the name of" defence of our freedoms. I find it quite amazing though, just how desensitized many troops who have killed someone become to the idea of their actions - one of my good friends is a sniper and was stationed over in Iraq for a few years - one story which stuck with me was that one day at a security checkpoint, a young child (around 10 or so) started running towards them - he was wearing a large jacket and did not respond to shouts to stop, so his CO instructed him to take him down. In the end, it was the right call, as the kid was strapped to the hilt with explosives, but his completely calm demeanor when recounting this story chilled me somewhat, as if someone working in a shop or call centre might describe an interesting encounter with a customer. Certainly, the notion of having taken another life generated no guilt, as it's very much a "kill or be killed" scenario. I'd consider that defense, though I see both sides of the coin.

[Scouse Hibee]

I don't mean to suggest that I view the entire US/UK armed forces as "monsters", but merely that the psychological stresses that some of these troops are placed under are too much to handle, and it can lead to monstrous acts (hence the massacre which started the thread, the posing with corpses, torture of PoWs). I just find that the attention only seems to get drawn to instances when such an act is perpetrated by one of the Allied Forces. I appreciate that this is a pretty brutal story (so I apologise if it seems I was suggesting the thread shouldn't have been started - not what I was trying to say, but it does read as such) and it's no surprise it merits discussion, but it's then regrettable that atrocities on the other side don't gauge any interest/discussion, such as my previously cited example of last week.

Your closing question is very interesting indeed - many would call the entire presence/war in Afghanistan as state sanctioned murder, "killing in the name of" defence of our freedoms. I find it quite amazing though, just how desensitized many troops who have killed someone become to the idea of their actions - one of my good friends is a sniper and was stationed over in Iraq for a few years - one story which stuck with me was that one day at a security checkpoint, a young child (around 10 or so) started running towards them - he was wearing a large jacket and did not respond to shouts to stop, so his CO instructed him to take him down. In the end, it was the right call, as the kid was strapped to the hilt with explosives, but his completely calm demeanor when recounting this story chilled me somewhat, as if someone working in a shop or call centre might describe an interesting encounter with a customer. Certainly, the notion of having taken another life generated no guilt, as it's very much a "kill or be killed" scenario. I'd consider that defense, though I see both sides of the coin.

Your friend obviously has the attributes that have enabled him to become a sniper which I can only imagine is a highly skilled job that only certain people will ever be able to demonstrate the required skillsets. Unfortunately there are many who return carrying the baggage of what they have been asked to do not so well.

[--------]

You're suggesting that opinions are split 50/50. I think it's fair to describe that as 'regular'.

But yes, I tend to support my country's armed forces and their allies. They only follow orders - it's the politicians that I usually have the problem with.


Careful, Beefster - that's the Nuremberg Defence and was ruled inadmissible by British and American judges over 60 years ago.

My concern for our troops in Afghanistan is real, and I sincerely wish that I could foresee every one of them, men and women, coming home safe and in one piece - but I really can't, and that is distressing to say the least. But approval of EVERYTHING they've done there and in Iraq? Not possible - the abuse of prisoners that took place in Abu Ghraib was mirrored by the abuse of prisoners by British troops, though thankfully not in any degree at all as frequently as that perpetrated by the Americans. But by reputation the British Army's much more selective in its recruitment than the US Army or Marine Corps, and (dare I say it) a great deal more professional in the way it carries out its duties. Even then, this war's a tall order for them, perhaps beyond them.

The defence for this guy's actions seems fore-ordained - he suffered a breakdown as a result of battle-fatigue, which I suspect won't cut any ice with either the Taliban or the Afghan government. And truthfully, I can see their point of view, if the reports of what he did that night are accurate. Going by America's Vietnam experience (or maybe that should be Vietnam's American experience?) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the roots of what he did were drug-related. Drugs, a pissed-off attitude, and ready access to lethal weapons were a dangerous mixture in Vietnam. My Lai was by no means an isolated incident. And the guys at My Lai were only obeying orders given them by officers who were some of them incompetent, and others out of control. Of course it helps when the locals look different - 'gooks' and 'rag-heads' don't really count as people sometimes.

Whoever first had the bright idea to go into Afghanistan this time around needs dealt with. the truth is that we're not there to bring freedom and democracy to the Afghans - we're there because this war is yet another round in ther Great Game - whoever controls Afghanistan, the Hindu Kush and the areas to the immediate north controls the heart of Central Asia. That's the area sandwiched between Russia, China, the Muslim Middle east, and India. Blair and Bush should have read Rudyard Kipling - if they were either of them capable of reading him and taking in what he has to say they MIGHT just have found the wee bit of common sesne that would have stopped them sending the troops in at all. The Americans will have a hard job convincing anyone that they're sincere in their regrets for what this soldier has done.

[Future17]

Sorry, having read that back, I can see why there is a degree of ambiguity in my second sentence - what I meant was, the expressions of shock and disgust regarding the incident were justified, NOT the shooting itself.

Incidentally, I had a look through the archives for a thread on the Fort Hood massacre, but couldn't see anything - would be interested to have a read through the thoughts and comments if indeed one does exist.

I was guessing that's what you meant. :aok:

I've had a look and can't find the Fort Hood thread either but, IIRC, its content was strangely akin to being a close-related version of this thread. By that I mean that there was those suggesting he was a terrorist of some description (based on his name), those suggesting he had just gone insane and those suggesting that it was karmic for the US military recent war record.


I wasn't only referring to this thread with that comment. It's a regular theme in this forum (i.e. the Holy Ground).

Understood. :aok:


You're suggesting that opinions are split 50/50. I think it's fair to describe that as 'regular'.

But yes, I tend to support my country's armed forces and their allies. They only follow orders - it's the politicians that I usually have the problem with.

I suppose the question this raises with me is whether someone who kills the enemy as a result of following orders is better or worse than someone who kills the enemy because they believe it is necessary and morally justifiable to do so. FWIW, I'm not pretending to know the answer to that question.

[Beefster]

Careful, Beefster - that's the Nuremberg Defence and was ruled inadmissible by British and American judges over 60 years ago.


It's only an invalid argument if the soldier is aware that the order is unlawful AFAIK. I could be wrong though.


I suppose the question this raises with me is whether someone who kills the enemy as a result of following orders is better or worse than someone who kills the enemy because they believe it is necessary and morally justifiable to do so. FWIW, I'm not pretending to know the answer to that question.

Woah, that's a whole other can of worms!

[Betty Boop]

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/

[Sylar]

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/

Was beginning to wonder what was keeping you :agree:

[Future17]

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/

That article is one-sided to the point of being ridiculous and to the point of being (almost) unworthy of consideration in evaluating the importance of the event which led to the creation of this thread.

However, it did painfully reawaken the feeling of helpless regret I get whenever I think about the ammunition incidents like this provide to the propagandists who will teach children to hate everthing about our country, good or bad.

To refer back to some of the earlier posts, a key difference about this incident compared to some of the other atrocities mentioned, is that this will be perceived by some as being carried out in our name. Regardless of whether or not you support our armed forces and/or their presence in nations like Afghanistan, if you believe in peace, that cannot be a good thing.

[The Green Goblin]

I don't agree with atrocities being comparable. An atrocity is an atrocity, regardless of who commits it. The whole thing is a big bloody mess that has been rumbling on for over 10 years now and it has solved absolutely nothing whatsoever. Instead, it has caused untold deaths on all sides, whether civilian or military (we haven't even mentioned the thousands of deaths caused by unmanned drones) and the clincher of it is, that the U.S sent troops there to Afghanistan in response to 911, where 18 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia... Going back to the start, that's still the bit that doesn't add up for me.

[khib70]

This forum never fails not to surprise me

An appalling act by a deranged individual leaves 16 innocent victims dead and whole families ravaged. Utterly hellish and hard to express enough disgust and horror. No argument about that whatsoever.

Meanwhile, over 3,000 known civilian dead in Syria as the result of direct military action by the ruling government. Last post on that thread - 3 weeks ago, and the thread even contains a few pathetic attempts to justify this carnage.

But then this forum has always set high double standards:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

This forum never fails not to surprise me

An appalling act by a deranged individual leaves 16 innocent victims dead and whole families ravaged. Utterly hellish and hard to express enough disgust and horror. No argument about that whatsoever.

Meanwhile, over 3,000 known civilian dead in Syria as the result of direct military action by the ruling government. Last post on that thread - 3 weeks ago, and the thread even contains a few pathetic attempts to justify this carnage.

But then this forum has always set high double standards:rolleyes:

Correct. You've much more eloquently made the point that I was trying to.

[hibsbollah]

This forum never fails not to surprise me

An appalling act by a deranged individual leaves 16 innocent victims dead and whole families ravaged. Utterly hellish and hard to express enough disgust and horror. No argument about that whatsoever.

Meanwhile, over 3,000 known civilian dead in Syria as the result of direct military action by the ruling government. Last post on that thread - 3 weeks ago, and the thread even contains a few pathetic attempts to justify this carnage.

But then this forum has always set high double standards:rolleyes:

Avery good thread it is too, i was just going to add a new link to it detailing AIs report from Jordan on interviews with people fleeing from Homs. But i wont now on the basis that you'll assume i'm being falsely even-handed :greengrin

[JE89]

This forum never fails not to surprise me

An appalling act by a deranged individual leaves 16 innocent victims dead and whole families ravaged. Utterly hellish and hard to express enough disgust and horror. No argument about that whatsoever.

Meanwhile, over 3,000 known civilian dead in Syria as the result of direct military action by the ruling government. Last post on that thread - 3 weeks ago, and the thread even contains a few pathetic attempts to justify this carnage.

But then this forum has always set high double standards:rolleyes:

I started the thread and have listed the reasons. Post #29

[khib70]

Avery good thread it is too, i was just going to add a new link to it detailing AIs report from Jordan on interviews with people fleeing from Homs. But i wont now on the basis that you'll assume i'm being falsely even-handed :greengrin
Ah, go on! :greengrin

[Dinkydoo]

A terrible atrocity which would still be just as terrible, regardless of who committed the act.

He should be punished accordingly, and an investigation carried out to establish what caused the 'meltdown' and whether measures can be put in place to reduce the likelihood of it happening again

[Hibs Class]

Your last point could be turned on it's head - remember the UK Government's funding for the UVF?


I don't remember that. Is it a fact that you can post evidence of or is it just a made up rumour?

Given your silence I assume your post was just nothing more than trolling? :rolleyes:

[hibeedonald]

Given your silence I assume your post was just nothing more than trolling? :rolleyes:

Nope it all came out a few years ago.

[Hibs Class]

Nope it all came out a few years ago.

Are you going to post a link? I did a quick search after the first post earlier in the week and although I found several sites with history of the UVF none had reference to UK Government funding, hence the question.

[marinello59]

Are you going to post a link? I did a quick search after the first post earlier in the week and although I found several sites with history of the UVF none had reference to UK Government funding, hence the question.

I think you would search in vain. There were allegations that UK Government sources fed intelligence to the UVF when it suited them. I don't know if it was ever proved to be official policy though as opposed to somebody acting illegally. (And that sort of leak would haver been providing info to the Republicans as well.)

[Betty Boop]

Are you going to post a link? I did a quick search after the first post earlier in the week and although I found several sites with history of the UVF none had reference to UK Government funding, hence the question.


At the risk of being accused of being anti-...... here you go ! :greengrin

http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/20/udr-girdwood-story/british-army-covered-up-udr-units-links-to-uvf

[marinello59]

At the risk of being accused of being anti-...... here you go ! :greengrin

http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/20/udr-girdwood-story/british-army-covered-up-udr-units-links-to-uvf

So there was no UK Government funding but there were people engaged in fraudulent illegal activity. That's rather different isn't it?

[Beefster]

So there was no UK Government funding but there were people engaged in fraudulent illegal activity. That's rather different isn't it?

No, no, you've got it all wrong. This was all absolutely authorised at the highest levels of the UK Government. There's just no evidence of that.

[Hibs Class]

So there was no UK Government funding but there were people engaged in fraudulent illegal activity. That's rather different isn't it?

That's what I was asking about - I've heard stories before about collusion etc. but the initial post on this element presented UK Government funding as a fact and rather than just dismiss it as a throwaway comment to support one poster's personal agenda I thought it was worth asking for evidence.