muslim fanatics hurl hate abuse at our soldiers the AAgrumpy column

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:05 am

kazalala;1158596 wrote: exactly,, i suppose there are some young people that do have a great interst in it at a young age,, but maybe not the majority. I also think leaving school at 16 is mad! I think they should start school later and leave later,, what sense have you got at 16:-3:o

A little ditty by the Stranglers for you:

YouTube - The Stranglers - Tank

They had it right even back in 1978

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:15 am

OpenMind;1158603 wrote: On that last point, I tend to disagree with you there. You cannot get any real experience of the working world at school and the present work experience is just a joke. For myself, when I reflect back on my own life, I could have done with spending time out in a work environment for a couple of years before taking my o-levels. That way, I would have had a better idea of what subjects to pursue. The law at the moment doesn't allow this. Yet, it should only be an option. It shouldn't be forced on those who know which subjects they want to pursue.

what a good idea:)

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:36 am

oscar;1158605 wrote: A little ditty by the Stranglers for you:

YouTube - The Stranglers - Tank

They had it right even back in 1978

ohhhhhhhhhhh so the Stranglers know! well you should have said so at the start! would have saved all my questions

;)

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:41 am

kazalala;1158627 wrote: ohhhhhhhhhhh so the Stranglers know! well you should have said so at the start! would have saved all my questions

;) :wah::wah: They know everything :wah: I've always loved the last lines in that ditty.

'Don't care where-abouts they send me now,

Send picture postcards to my old mother and father

So when i get i get home they'll have some-one to be proud of,

I can drive my very own tank........ yes, I can maim.'

Sums it up for me.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:27 pm

gmc;1158548 wrote: try these linksThank you gmc. I didn't say such people didn't exist, I said you couldn't link them to the Luton protesters.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:30 pm

kazalala;1158593 wrote: That makes sense, i mean 17 and 18 years old? maybe thats too young to be joining up

I dunno a wet t shirt contest is stopped because of health and safety issues, but a 17 year old can go to war:rolleyes:what a crazy world.

A seventeen year old can, at the moment, sign up. Nobody under eighteen can be deployed to a war zone.

That at least is the case with the army. How it works with the Navy I can't imagine, I'm sure they have under-18s aboard.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:06 am

Galbally;1158542 wrote: So if soliders are guilty of whatever it is they are guilty for, by extension of the fact that they go along with what they are told. Therefore all labour party voters who put the Labour party back in power in 2006 are directly responsible for what has happened in Iraq since they were perpetuating the system resulting in Labour being in power, anyone who consumes anything that involves anyone else suffering is responsible also for that suffering, likewise: anyone who trys to defend communist murders, jihadist atrocities, or deny Nazi eztermination camps are also guilty by association and by being "part of the problem". You could also say that the Palestian civilians who were recently killed by the IDF incursion were valid targets, as they are perpetuating a system that maintains a violent party of militarists (Hamas) in power in the Gaza strip.

As one intelligent but cynical person once remarked, no one alive is innocent, everyone is either a willing or unwilling part of a wider system that involves something that can be considered repression, everyone is a justified target of someone else. Some people would see innocence personified as a child, but children are just adults that haven't grown up yet, one day they will do something that will perpeturate one repressive system or another. The only way to get rid of evil or guilt on planet earth would be to get rid of people, period, all people.

You see this is the problem when you start the utopian moral relativism thing, in that who gets to determine what is acceptable in terms of views and actions and what isn't? Ultimately if its not a commonly agreed system of legality involving lots of arbitrary compromises developed over time and due to events, then it will be a group of angry, bright-eyed young men with guns and lots of doctrinare ideas about right and wrong, based on what they think is right and what your doing is wrong.

You tend to find that utopian (usually Marxist) Western intellectuals of a certain mindset generall see everyone as "part of the problem" other than themselves. This utopianism is evident in all political and religious philosophies though, from neoliberals who believe that no regulation in economic life will lead to a bright McTopia, while Marxists think you can defeat human nature with social engineering, religious extremists who think scriptures can be used to secure some form of human paradise on earth, very conservative "small government" people who think you can replace the role of governance with general anarchy, or new agers and tree huggers who think that somehow we can give up on the use of any technology developed since 1950, revert to a medival existence and that this will lead us back to some golden age of pagan "innocence".

The main problem that in reality most people are unable to consider themselves simply morally neutral "citizens of planet earth" with no particularist self-interests, but of course we all actually are self-interested, life is series of compromises with each other, occasionally breaking down into conflict over resouces; and which is why we will always, always need to have soliders, and tax collectors, and policemen, and judges, and jails, and laws, and rules, and all of those things that provide a platform for society to funtion, by repressing the basic fact that there are no such things as self-inforcing rules, instead there are mores that are maintained by society itself by internal pressure on its own members, and their are explicit rules that are maintained usually by a system of law.

You could I supose lobotomize human beings into automotons through genetic engineering, whereby everyone will no longer pursue their own interests but embrace some sort of collective species-wide existence, but they wouldn't be human beings as I would recognize them.

No, you go too far. There are obviously degrees of responsibility. To sign a contract legally committing one to kill on command, in exchange for keep, pay, training and the life of Riley, is blatantly of a different order of culpability to voting party A or party B at a national election when Iraq isn't on the manifesto and neither main party is offering withdrawal. As it happens I voted Liberal Democrat anyway.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:15 am

spot;1158838 wrote: Thank you gmc. I didn't say such people didn't exist, I said you couldn't link them to the Luton protesters.

Anjem Choudary is their spokesman. How clear a link do you want?

Muslim group pledges more protests against UK soldiers | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Choudary defended the Luton protests: "If it is unpalatable, they should not go to Iraq. If the British are going to be engaging in torture, killing women and children, that needs to be condemned."

Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, who comes from Luton, said the protesters did not represent British Muslims: "This is al-Muhajiroun remnants â€“ these are known figures who have been long associated with al-Muhajiroun."

He said the group had leafleted Luton over the weekend to drum up support for Tuesday's protest, and could attract at best 20 people out of the town's Muslim population of 20,000.

He said the aim of the extremists had been publicity, which the media had handed them: "Their aim is to create discord and ferment division and this coverage helps them achieve their goals."

Inayat Bunglawala: The media should not reward the extremists protesting in Luton with publicity | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Al-Muhajiroun

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:30 am

gmc;1158855 wrote: Anjem Choudary is their spokesman. How clear a link do you want?But you're claiming he wants insurrection in the UK and it's simply not true. You even quoted him saying it's not true in one of those links: "what I say publicly is what I say privately. If they ask about doing jihad in this country, I tell them they live here under a covenant of security and that they are not allowed to kill people or target their wealth".

Part of the problem is that people see what they want to see and refuse to hear the fine detail.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:16 am

spot;1158860 wrote: But you're claiming he wants insurrection in the UK and it's simply not true. You even quoted him saying it's not true in one of those links: "what I say publicly is what I say privately. If they ask about doing jihad in this country, I tell them they live here under a covenant of security and that they are not allowed to kill people or target their wealth".

Part of the problem is that people see what they want to see and refuse to hear the fine detail.

But that's also true of your position, you only see what you want to see, and downplay the rest, but that's human nature. I know I do it to, I am comfortable with my failings, as I can hardly claim perfection in any way, like all people.

In terms of these groups, and the general Islamicist movement in the U.K. I would not equivocate with these people, or try and argue these points on their terms, I do not accept their frames of reference, from my perspective if they are UK Citizens then they are traitors and fifth columnists with a very clear agenda, if they are not U.K. Citizens then they are foreign subversives. In either case, they should expect nothing other than the fruits of such activities.

Now perhaps you think that's reactionary but sometimes, being reactionary and intolerant has its place, as does being liberal and tolerant on other occasions. It's my own view that in this instance what's happening with the creeping radicalization of young muslims in Britain, the self-isolation of Muslim communities, the attempts to usurp British laws and customs and replace them with Islamic ones, and the disgraceful and cowardly attempts by the establishment to essentially appease the individuals and foreign countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia) driving that process is a national mistake of historic proportions, and its a policy that should be reversed abruptly, and immediately.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:34 am

‘Britain’s most reviled man? I wear that badge with pride’ | News is gmc's link I was looking at in particular.

There's things there the chap's saying which he knows full well aren't achievable. He's chipping into an abusive system from the outside, of course he's going to express extremes in order to be able to aim for a suitable compromise somewhere in the middle.

There's a lot he says in that article with which I'd sympathize, much of his criticism is just. 'He characterises Britons - "with their alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography" - as "living like animals in a jungle"', for example? It's fair comment and what he describes is both real and regrettable. We should, as he says, reform.

He can't achieve a pure Islamic state, he must be fully aware he can't. His criticism of the troops is word for word the same as mine though. We might approach it from different angles but the observations are identical. The shouldn't be volunteering for an armed force which is put to such purposes.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:01 am

spot;1158839 wrote: A seventeen year old can, at the moment, sign up. Nobody under eighteen can be deployed to a war zone.

That at least is the case with the army. How it works with the Navy I can't imagine, I'm sure they have under-18s aboard.

i thought i had heard of 17 year olds being sent, so had a look and found this link,, i have also copied part of the link.

Pride and tears over rising toll of teenagers sent to war | UK news | The Guardian

In 2003, Britain ratified the optional protocol to the UN convention of the rights of the child involving children in armed conflicts, and has said it will ensure that no under-18s are routinely deployed to war zones. But it reserves the right to deploy under-18s where, for instance, navy units carrying younger soldiers may find themselves diverted at short notice.

It has since emerged that, despite the promises, a number of 17-year-olds have been sent to Iraq. In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the defence minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that 15 soldiers were "inadvertently deployed to Iraq before their 18th birthday" between June 2003 and July 2005.

I think even 18 is too young

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:12 am

kazalala;1158951 wrote: i thought i had heard of 17 year olds being sent, so had a look and found this link,, i have also copied part of the link.

Pride and tears over rising toll of teenagers sent to war | UK news | The Guardian

I think even 18 is too young

Such a waste of lives.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:20 am

OpenMind;1158952 wrote: Such a waste of lives.

Parents tend to think it is a massive badge of honour on the family if one of their offspring is in the forces. The parents need to understand more and take more responsibility before packing Johnny off to sign up.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:27 am

oscar;1158972 wrote: Parents tend to think it is a massive badge of honour on the family if one of their offspring is in the forces. The parents need to understand more and take more responsibility before packing Johnny off to sign up.

According to the article that Kazalala provided a link to, the parents didn't want their children going off. It's worth reading the link to see the pressure placed on the parents by the children themselves.

The services have always taken the youngsters as they are so readily adaptable and easy to train. These youngsters are also more likely to be ideologically patriotic than their elder counterparts.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:50 am

OpenMind;1158973 wrote: According to the article that Kazalala provided a link to, the parents didn't want their children going off. It's worth reading the link to see the pressure placed on the parents by the children themselves.

The services have always taken the youngsters as they are so readily adaptable and easy to train. These youngsters are also more likely to be ideologically patriotic than their elder counterparts. Then it begs the question....... Are the forces taking advantage of impressionable youngsters against their parents wishes?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:51 am

spot;1158860 wrote: But you're claiming he wants insurrection in the UK and it's simply not true. You even quoted him saying it's not true in one of those links: "what I say publicly is what I say privately. If they ask about doing jihad in this country, I tell them they live here under a covenant of security and that they are not allowed to kill people or target their wealth".

Part of the problem is that people see what they want to see and refuse to hear the fine detail.

Have you actually bothered to read through those links?

More than 200 Muslims at a packed public meeting in Tower Hamlets were told by organiser Anjem Choudary: "We have a special surprise, a special treat for you. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad will be joining us on a live feed from Lebanon." He added: "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister - Bush or Brown - or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah."

Choudary, who with Bakri led the fanatical Al-Muhajiroun organisation - notorious for its glorification of terrorism and the 9/11 attacks before its banning and dissolution in 2004 -warmed up the crowd, two Sundays ago, with his own inflammatory rhetoric.

"It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," he said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

At one point on the tape Choudary says: â€œPeople [are] looking for a place for their money to go so they can go to the front line and they canâ€™t find it. You should not think to yourself â€˜my money, my moneyâ€™ . . . you have [an] opportunity to carry daâ€™wah to society . . . and you have money that can go towards the daâ€™wah, you have money that can go towards the mujaheddin. One day you will not have that. Then you will regret the time when you said, â€˜When I had that time, when I was with people, I did not invest it properlyâ€™.â€

Choudary added: â€œWhen you are working collectively . . . people supporting the mujaheddin, people collecting money for the daâ€™wah or giving money to the mujaheddin, he will come to you then. He will divert you, he will say to you, â€˜This money is needed for your familyâ€™.â€

When confronted, Choudary said: â€œI donâ€™t think Iâ€™ve ever said to people â€˜raise money and send it to Al-Qaeda and the Talibanâ€™, which is what you are suggesting.â€

Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid, a leading Muslim cleric, said: â€œWhen people like Choudary say mujaheddin, they mean armed struggle against Britain and America.â€

I suspect if yo heard the tape you wpuld probably claim it was faked.

Part of the problem is that people see what they want to see and refuse to hear the fine detail

Re-arrange in a sentence, pot, kettle, calling the. Unless you have a different meaning of armed insurrection.

posted by spot

There's a lot he says in that article with which I'd sympathize, much of his criticism is just. 'He characterises Britons - "with their alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography" - as "living like animals in a jungle"', for example? It's fair comment and what he describes is both real and regrettable. We should, as he says, reform.

Since when has the opinion of a teetotal misogynist with an invisible friend been worthwhile listening to? I will no more tolerate a muslim trying to run the country along religious lines than I will a catholic or a protestant. We have a generally secular attitude to things for the reason that the alternative is to allow too much power and influence to priests. Unless of course you also want to see canon law taking precedence over the civil law. In which case you put yourself firmly beyond the pale

posted by spot

There's things there the chap's saying which he knows full well aren't achievable. He's chipping into an abusive system from the outside, of course he's going to express extremes in order to be able to aim for a suitable compromise somewhere in the middle.

We have a compromise. he can live his life as he chooses-he can even follow sharia law if he wants so long as he doesn't try to make others conform to it as well. It's a compromise called a secular society founded on the basic principle that all faiths are tolerated and individuals have the right to lead their lives in as they choose with equal rights in law. What would you say to the daughter of muslim fundamentalists forced to wear the Burkina and told who to marry when they leave home and ask for help in the UK? Tough **** sharia law overrules british civil law and you have no rights?

He's every bit as demented as a christian fundamentalist that wants to ban atheists from public life-kill gay people and anyone else they disapprove of. He's a racist religious bigot that make gerry adams and the reverend ian paisley seem cuddly.

YouTube - Maajid Nawaz & Anjem Choudary 1/2

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:55 am

What part of "He can't achieve a pure Islamic state, he must be fully aware he can't" did that not cover?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:56 am

oscar;1158975 wrote: Then it begs the question....... Are the forces taking advantage of impressionable youngsters against their parents wishes?

If the kids are under 18, the parents have to sign consent forms.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:06 am

oscar;1158975 wrote: Then it begs the question....... Are the forces taking advantage of impressionable youngsters against their parents wishes?

Quotes from the linked article.

Rifleman Lincoln's father, Peter, 60, who refused to sign his son's parental consent papers because he did not want him to join up at 17, feels that soldiers should not be sent into armed conflict until they are 21. "He couldn't get a job in the factories around here until he was 18, but he could go and learn to kill," said Mr Lincoln. "He never had a life, did he?"

Mrs Lincoln reluctantly agreed to sign her son's papers because he told her he would enlist as soon as he was 18 anyway. She said: "He wanted to make something of himself. There's nothing round here for teenagers. He wanted to be a gunner like his great-grandfather."

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:33 am

spot;1158977 wrote: What part of "He can't achieve a pure Islamic state, he must be fully aware he can't" did that not cover?

Which part of he is a religious nutter that doesn't care how much hatred he stirs up did you fail to understand. He may be fully aware of it but what makes you think he isn't delusional.

posted by spot

But you're claiming he wants insurrection in the UK and it's simply not true.

It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," he said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

Which part of It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," he said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. Do you think is not a call for armed insurrection.

Religious nutters are not rational human beings, nor are those who follow them.

If there was a violent backlash against these demonstrators it would probably please him no end.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:48 am

I'm sure it would, yes. Nothing would please him more. It's exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted, after all. For some reason people gave him exactly what he aimed for.

As for his fronting and even organizing the protest at Luton, I'm grateful to him. He's made the question a matter of national debate.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:32 am

spot;1159039 wrote: I'm sure it would, yes. Nothing would please him more. It's exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted, after all. For some reason people gave him exactly what he aimed for.

As for his fronting and even organizing the protest at Luton, I'm grateful to him. He's made the question a matter of national debate.

All it's done is antagonise ordinary people with no particular anti-muslim feelings and stoke the fires of religious bigotry. A lot of people are opposed to our being involved in Iraq and afghanistan but they are bright enough to understand that the people responsible are the politicians and shouting abuse at the troops is the wrong way to go about changing things. People might be broadly tolerant but you can hardly be surprised at the reaction. Why should we tolerate pillocks like this. If the pope or the archbishop of canterbury started calling for religious law to take precedence over civil law and for all good Christians to rise up and make it happen there would be outrage and they'd be told to F---0k off in no uncertain terms. Oh of course you think he is speaking metaphorically don't you?

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:25 am

gmc;1159293 wrote: All it's done is antagonise ordinary people with no particular anti-muslim feelings and stoke the fires of religious bigotry. A lot of people are opposed to our being involved in Iraq and afghanistan but they are bright enough to understand that the people responsible are the politicians and shouting abuse at the troops is the wrong way to go about changing things.And I'm saying they're wrong, these bright ones you talk about. They're assigning the blame in the wrong place. It's a guarantee the politicians will abuse their position, that's their nature. The people making the wrong moral choice are the ones going into recruitment offices, the blame for all the killing is theirs.

gmc wrote: People might be broadly tolerant but you can hardly be surprised at the reaction. Why should we tolerate pillocks like this. If the pope or the archbishop of canterbury started calling for religious law to take precedence over civil law and for all good Christians to rise up and make it happen there would be outrage and they'd be told to F---0k off in no uncertain terms. Oh of course you think he is speaking metaphorically don't you?

No, I think he's speaking unrealistically of a dream and he knows he's never going to see it. Religious leaders for thousands of years have used the same apocalyptic language, it's central to Christianity as well. It's what religions do. Bad cess to them all.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:17 am

so because we know politicians will abuse their power, they dont need to take any responsibility or blame for their actions?

but guillable, misguided people should take the blame?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:30 am

kazalala;1159468 wrote: so because we know politicians will abuse their power, they dont need to take any responsibility or blame for their actions?

but guillable, misguided people should take the blame?

I knew a couple who got their trade but once 'The politicians' 'used them' for an illegal war, they bought themselves out. That's what i call honerable.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:33 am

oscar;1159493 wrote: I knew a couple who got their trade but once 'The politicians' 'used them' for an illegal war, they bought themselves out. That's what i call honerable.

Ok but should the politicians take no blame at all:-2

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:52 am

Posted by Spot

And I'm saying they're wrong, these bright ones you talk about. They're assigning the blame in the wrong place. It's a guarantee the politicians will abuse their position, that's their nature. The people making the wrong moral choice are the ones going into recruitment offices, the blame for all the killing is theirs.

No the blame lies with our politicians and MP's. We need to get them under control all you are advocating is diverting attention away from the real culprits and let them continue unchecked. Maybe choudary will fire-bomb one of his own mosques just to get things going

posted by spot

No, I think he's speaking unrealistically of a dream and he knows he's never going to see it. Religious leaders for thousands of years have used the same apocalyptic language, it's central to Christianity as well. It's what religions do. Bad cess to them all.

When did reality get in the way of a good religious conflict? There are enough equally unrealistic Christians ready to fight over it to cause chaos. There areeven tghose who think this is the end of times (Again). Just because it might be unrealistic doesn't mean they are not capable of causing a lot of misery and warfare. We've had enough religious wars in Europe to be able to understand where it might lead.

posted by oscar

I knew a couple who got their trade but once 'The politicians' 'used them' for an illegal war, they bought themselves out. That's what i call honerable.

They joined up knowing they might be asked to do things they don't approve of-how did they feel about going to northern Ireland?

You surprise me Oscar you really do. how do you think all those old soldiers you so much admire feel about seeing those who followed in their footsteps being spat upon for doing their jobs just as they did and as your father (or was it grandfather) did.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:42 pm

gmc;1159561 wrote: Posted by Spot

posted by oscar

They joined up knowing they might be asked to do things they don't approve of-how did they feel about going to northern Ireland?

You surprise me Oscar you really do. how do you think all those old soldiers you so much admire feel about seeing those who followed in their footsteps being spat upon for doing their jobs just as they did and as your father (or was it grandfather) did. Father, Granfather and Uncles. actually......... simple...... they vounteered to DEFEND their homeland. We are defending nothing here.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:07 pm

oscar;1159595 wrote: Father, Granfather and Uncles. actually......... simple...... they vounteered to DEFEND their homeland. We are defending nothing here.

So the ones that dropped bombs on german cities deliberately creating firebombs to kill as many civilians as possible they weren't butchers, war criminals, murderers, terrorists — and baby killers but pursuing an honourable profession in defence of their country. How about all the ones that fought in korea, malaysia, oman, aden, the falklands, desert storm they weren't defending their homeland were they?

You dodged the question I notice. How would they feel about seeing british troops verbally abused in their own streets. All those representatives from the british legion that turn up at military funerals, I suppose you think them sadly mistaken in showing their respect for some twit that chose to die in an illegal war. Or the two that got executed in northern ireland, their own stupid fault for being there in the first place.

Save your ire for the ones that really deserve it like that lying hypocritical bastard gordon brown and his cronies who are willing to send soldiers out to die for no better reason than hubris and the inability to admit they lied and have made a terrible mistake. Maybe if people like you stopped lionising the bastard we might be able to get rid of them and get ourselves out of this mess.

There is no such thing as a just war, there is just war. True if there was a war and nobody turned up the world would be a great place but that's not going to happen is it? in the meantime the next best thing is keep politicians in their place and target them instead of fawning all over them and not get diverted into protests that target people doing something they regard as their duty to the best of their ability. You may not agree with the morality of their chosen profession and their motives will be as varied as their backgrounds but supporting them is not the same as supporting the war no matter how you want to play with the words. Iwould think more of you and spot if you went along on an anti war demonstration at number 10

If you ever get to meet gordon brown heid him for me will you please.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:09 pm

gmc;1159629 wrote: How would they feel about seeing british troops spat on in their own streets.On a question of fact, has that actually happened yet? It was the constant scream of the American Right that it had happened to Vietnam War Veterans landing back in the US, there were even books written about it. The consensus is that the accusation didn't hold up in any documented sense, merely as back-dated accusations by those carrying an axe they wanted to grind.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:57 am

spot;1159677 wrote: On a question of fact, has that actually happened yet? It was the constant scream of the American Right that it had happened to Vietnam War Veterans landing back in the US, there were even books written about it. The consensus is that the accusation didn't hold up in any documented sense, merely as back-dated accusations by those carrying an axe they wanted to grind.

No it hasn't. My apologies I was speaking metaphorically though I failed to make that that quite clear. I have amended the post to verbally abused. I think calling them baby killers falls in to that category.

The american right used incidents of protests against the troops as a way of distracting attention from the real issue. It would be a pity if we let these demonstrations distract from the real issue-politicians who seem to think they are beyond the law and cannot be held accountable for anything and that voters are like mushrooms and just need more **** piled on them to keep them happy.

Stop kidding yourself Anjem choudary and his like are bastions of freedom calling for free speech and liberty in the midst of a sea of oppression in the UK. They're religious nutters who would bring down the fabric of the society they live in deliberately trying to provoke a violent reaction in the hope it will attract more to their lunatic cause. In that respect they really are no different from the real IRA gunmen. A plague on all their houses.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:08 am

gmc;1159765 wrote: I have amended the post to verbally abused. I think calling them baby killers falls in to that category.Again on a question of fact, have babies not died as a direct consequence of these occupations? In what sense is "baby killers" inaccurate?

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:20 am

War heroes' abuse protest - mirror.co.uk

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:59 am

spot;1159770 wrote: Again on a question of fact, have babies not died as a direct consequence of these occupations? In what sense is "baby killers" inaccurate?

As a question of fact do you have proof that these particular soldiers have killed any babies or indeed that any British soldier has?

Also as a question of fact do you concede that these protesters, at least as represented by their spokesman, are indeed calling for jihad in the UK and are hell bent on stirring up violence to that end.

What I think will happen is that more and more people will tun out at these parades to show their support and there will be an element ready to attack any Muslim protesters that turn up and anjem choudary will go on TV pretending he doesn't understand why people are angry. Being inclined to tolerance doesn't mean you will accept someone taking the ****. If he really wants british troops out of Afghanistan he is going about it the wrong way imo.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:07 am

[QUOTE=gmc;1160286]As a question of fact do you have proof that these particular soldiers have killed any babies or indeed that any British soldier has?

QUOTE] You can log onto any of the sites for sponsership for adoption of Iraqi babies and children that have been orphaned. You can read the backgrounds behind them where, yes their baby brothers and sisters have been killed by allied troops. Maybe un- intentionally, but killed all the same.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:51 pm

oscar;1160427 wrote: [QUOTE=gmc;1160286]As a question of fact do you have proof that these particular soldiers have killed any babies or indeed that any British soldier has?

QUOTE] You can log onto any of the sites for sponsership for adoption of Iraqi babies and children that have been orphaned. You can read the backgrounds behind them where, yes their baby brothers and sisters have been killed by allied troops. Maybe un- intentionally, but killed all the same.

Taking a leaf out of spots book have you any proof that these particular soldiers killed babies?

I don't support this war in any way-as should be clear from my posts. But these protests against returning troops have only one aim and that is antagonise people. I am not prepared to tolerate anyone calling for jihad and sharia law any more than I am prepared to tolerate any bunch of religious nutters that want to impose their will by force.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:02 pm

gmc;1160578 wrote: Taking a leaf out of spots book have you any proof that these particular soldiers killed babies?You're not the first person to pull that angle. The armed services don't release that information and consequently it's uncheckable. There's quite a lot else they don't release too, and that's all uncheckable as well in consequence.

What can be said is that if nobody had volunteered those dead babies - which *are* verifiable - would still be alive, background causes of mortality permitting.

Statistically, those soldiers on parade were likely to include at least one involved in the death of a baby. That's a guess but I'll openly do the sums for you if you doubt it's likely.

"Taking a leaf out of spots book" is an awful misrepresentation of the truth. I'm asked to justify my posts far more often than I ask others to. I only ever ask someone to justify something if I know for a fact it can't be done, it's not to get them to do work, it's to get them to realize the stupidity of their claim.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:05 pm

spot;1160595 wrote: You're not the first person to pull that angle. The armed services don't release that information and consequently it's uncheckable. There's quite a lot else they don't release too, and that's all uncheckable as well in consequence.

What can be said is that if nobody had volunteered those dead babies - which *are* verifiable - would still be alive, background causes of mortality permitting.

Statistically, those soldiers on parade were likely to include at least one involved in the death of a baby. That's a guess but I'll openly do the sums for you if you doubt it's likely.

"Taking a leaf out of spots book" is an awful misrepresentation of the truth. I'm asked to justify my posts far more often than I ask others to. I only ever ask someone to justify something if I know for a fact it can't be done, it's not to get them to do work, it's to get them to realize the stupidity of their claim. The figures:

Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day as 'anarchy' beckons - Middle East, World - The Independent

It's estimated around I in every 200 deaths by allied troops are under two years old. Yes, they kill babies.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:18 pm

2,550 children and babies.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:36 pm

spot;1160595 wrote: You're not the first person to pull that angle. The armed services don't release that information and consequently it's uncheckable. There's quite a lot else they don't release too, and that's all uncheckable as well in consequence.

What can be said is that if nobody had volunteered those dead babies - which *are* verifiable - would still be alive, background causes of mortality permitting.

Statistically, those soldiers on parade were likely to include at least one involved in the death of a baby. That's a guess but I'll openly do the sums for you if you doubt it's likely.

"Taking a leaf out of spots book" is an awful misrepresentation of the truth. I'm asked to justify my posts far more often than I ask others to. I only ever ask someone to justify something if I know for a fact it can't be done, it's not to get them to do work, it's to get them to realize the stupidity of their claim.

How is it a misrepresentation of the truth, backhanded compliment if anything. You asked me to back up my claim about the protesters which is fair enough. I only occasionally post things I can't back up and then usually in error.

I asked that you prove these particular soldiers had killed any babies. the implication is that the action is deliberate which I don't think is the case. The whole bloody thing is a mess. I oppose our involvement in these wars. My contention that protests such as the one that started this thread distract attention from the real issues and are designed to be provocative and as such will do little to help.

posted by oscar

The figures:

Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day as 'anarchy' beckons - Middle East, World - The Independent

It's estimated around I in every 200 deaths by allied troops are under two years old. Yes, they kill babies.

So why aren't you banging in the door at number 10 telling your mate gordon-who is one of those that got us in to this, to get us out. It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't keep posting how wonderful you think gordie boy is. He's a pillock, a moron and every bit as culpable as bush and blair for this unholy mess.

What is he hiding?

What do they have to hide? Fury as Straw blocks release of minutes of key Cabinet meeting held before Iraq war | Mail Online

The release of the documents was ordered by the Information Tribunal. But ministers argued that it threatened the confidentiality essential for the proper functioning of government.

Critics suspect the Government also wants to avoid potential embarrassment for Gordon Brown over the role he played as ministers agreed to go to war.

The Cabinet meetings considered the hugely controversial issue of whether the invasion was legal under international law.

The late Robin Cook, who was Leader of the Commons, wrote in his diary that several ministers raised serious concerns.

He said Mr Brown delivered a 'long and passionate' statement of support for Premier Tony Blair's strategy - even though he had previously been sceptical about the war.

Moron, hypocrite, liar, totally utterly useless chancellor and a waste of space s a prime minister.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:58 pm

gmc;1160677 wrote: How is it a misrepresentation of the truth, backhanded compliment if anything. You asked me to back up my claim about the protesters which is fair enough. I only occasionally post things I can't back up and then usually in error.

I asked that you prove these particular soldiers had killed any babies. the implication is that the action is deliberate which I don't think is the case. The whole bloody thing is a mess. I oppose our involvement in these wars. My contention that protests such as the one that started this thread distract attention from the real issues and are designed to be provocative and as such will do little to help.

posted by oscar

So why aren't you banging in the door at number 10 telling your mate gordon-who is one of those that got us in to this, to get us out. It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't keep posting how wonderful you think gordie boy is. He's a pillock, a moron and every bit as culpable as bush and blair for this unholy mess.

What is he hiding?

What do they have to hide? Fury as Straw blocks release of minutes of key Cabinet meeting held before Iraq war | Mail Online

Moron, hypocrite, liar, totally utterly useless chancellor and a waste of space s a prime minister.

Highly qualified for the role then.:rolleyes:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:09 pm

gmc;1160677 wrote: posted by oscar

So why aren't you banging in the door at number 10 telling your mate gordon-who is one of those that got us in to this, to get us out. It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't keep posting how wonderful you think gordie boy is. He's a pillock, a moron and every bit as culpable as bush and blair for this unholy mess.

What is he hiding?

What do they have to hide? Fury as Straw blocks release of minutes of key Cabinet meeting held before Iraq war | Mail Online

.

Can't argue with you there my little Jock. I was against the war from the start. However, His Gordonness is just wonderful at everything else.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:18 pm

gmc;1160677 wrote: I asked that you prove these particular soldiers had killed any babies. the implication is that the action is deliberate which I don't think is the case.

No! Neither do I! How can you possibly twist my words into me saying they do it deliberately? It would be less bad if it were deliberately done because then it could potentially be prevented by better policing and training. It's inherent in sending armed troops to occupy a foreign country. There's a guarantee that there'll be a resistance. We even supply resistances, remember? Plucky women parachuted in with Glosters to lead cells? Richard Harris bringing down heavy water plants under fjord-tops? It's part of the mythology of war. No army of occupation is ever going to hold down a country in rebellion without killing babies, nobody knows how to do that.

There is, in addition to the baby-killing nature of volunteering for today's armed forces (given what they're used for now) the totally different matter of rogue troops shooting up civilians as criminal murder as opposed to the mere inadvertent deaths of far larger numbers of civilians the thread's discussed. Iraq in particular has had small-scale My Lai equivalents. That's not what informs this thread. The accusations in thread are about inadvertent non-deliberate deaths inherently caused by the deployment. They're injust. they're avoidable by not deploying. The forces can only be deployed if people promise to kill on command in exchange for all the material benefit they take in exchange. That promise is blackguardly.

I'm interested, though, that what you complain about - what you think I claim or said - is so different to what I actually try to express. I'm not incompetent at expression. I know full well I've not written what you react to. You're reacting to what you assume to be implications, perhaps. Honestly, seriously, I don't have any such implications in mind. You seem to feel that "killing babies" involves tossing two-year-olds into the air and bayoneting them as they come down, or dashing their brains out against the door-post. That's not it at all. It's the stray shot, the collapsing room as a mortar explodes, the "precision targeted" air-dropped munition pack which shuts down a wedding party and leaves eighty bodies strewn around. I'll say it again. Without these volunteers who paraded in Luton those scenes would not exist. If they volunteer then the politicians will make use of them and those consequences will occur. That is the extent of the guilt I'm accusing them of and it's a heavy and direct guilt. Euphemising these things as "collateral damage" in no way reduces the actuality.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:06 am

oscar;1160695 wrote: Can't argue with you there my little Jock. I was against the war from the start. However, His Gordonness is just wonderful at everything else.

No he isn't and even if he wasn't his actions in supporting this war show his lack of common sense never mind hypocrisy. I can't take your posts about this seriously while you persist in lionising one of the main architects of our involvement in the Iraq war. Rather than shout abuse at the troops go and shout at Gordon Brown. Try "resign gordon you lying bastard you're making the tories seem a good alternative". Get a grip on reality woman Gordon brown is one of the people who got us in to this mess and is one of those doing nothing to get us out of it-in between ruining the economy and giving bonuses to his mates in the banking industry. If you oppose the war you must oppose gordon brown and call for his resignation. I suggest you get rid of him before the labour party ceases to exist. I hate the bastard even more than I hated Margaret Thatcher and that's saying something.

posted by spot

I'm interested, though, that what you complain about - what you think I claim or said - is so different to what I actually try to express. I'm not incompetent at expression. I know full well I've not written what you react to. You're reacting to what you assume to be implications, perhaps. Honestly, seriously, I don't have any such implications in mind. You seem to feel that "killing babies" involves tossing two-year-olds into the air and bayoneting them as they come down, or dashing their brains out against the door-post. That's not it at all. It's the stray shot, the collapsing room as a mortar explodes, the "precision targeted" air-dropped munition pack which shuts down a wedding party and leaves eighty bodies strewn around. I'll say it again. Without these volunteers who paraded in Luton those scenes would not exist. If they volunteer then the politicians will make use of them and those consequences will occur. That is the extent of the guilt I'm accusing them of and it's a heavy and direct guilt. Euphemising these things as "collateral damage" in no way reduces the actuality.

No i don't as it happens. I know exactly where you are coming from ( If I felt like being pedantic I would point out the obvious flaw in your argument that the troops don't actually drop bombs from aeroplanes, they can see who they are shooting at and you have produced nothing to show this particular regiment caused any civilian deaths. ) and as an argument it has some validity but it's also spurious IMO. It's not as simple as if people didn't volunteer we wouldn't be involved or all troops are guilty by association. The idea that if no one joined uop we would never have wars is lovely but completely unrealistic. The troops aren't stupid they know what they joined up for and most of them are doing what they consider to be their duty. The first time they might not really understand but the second and third time they know exactly what it is about. You might not agree with that attitude but it is a sense of morality and honour that is strongly felt. It is one many can understand even if they don't share it. It is a sense of right and wrong lacking in our politicians who are playing games with the lives of our soldiers and everybody else in the world in a kind of demented hubris dance where they delude themselves they know what is best for everybody and anyone objecting doesn't understand the issues. They are the ones that should be targeted for protest rather allowing this kind of distraction. The muslim protesters-or their leaders anyway- are guilty of the same kind of cynical manipulation like it or not there are people who would like to see religious warfare in the UK. If we are not careful they will succeed. We the voting public voted labour back in to office despite overwhelming opposition to their policies in iraq. We the voting public let gordon brown and his cronies away with it. Protest about all those who do nothing and might even vote labour back in again. Protest about them otherwise it's like punishing the car after the driver has killed someone.

Like it or not, many indeed I would say most of the people in this country have respect for the troops even if they do not agree with what is done in their name. In Scotland at least most are within two or three steps of knowing someone in the armed forces, Quite few of the school kids local to where I live have been to the funerals of former classmates, I have nephews and nieces who watch the news avidly because they know someone involved in it. This is not some detached event on the other side of the world involving someone unknown. While they might be opposed to the war and think it stupid they are not going to tolerate these kinds of protests.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:16 am

gmc;1160875 wrote: No he isn't and even if he wasn't his actions in supporting this war show his lack of common sense never mind hypocrisy. I can't take your posts about this seriously while you persist in lionising one of the main architects of our involvement in the Iraq war. Rather than shout abuse at the troops go and shout at Gordon Brown. Try "resign gordon you lying bastard you're making the tories seem a good alternative". Get a grip on reality woman Gordon brown is one of the people who got us in to this mess and is one of those doing nothing to get us out of it-in between ruining the economy and giving bonuses to his mates in the banking industry. If you oppose the war you must oppose gordon brown and call for his resignation. I suggest you get rid of him before the labour party ceases to exist. I hate the bastard even more than I hated Margaret Thatcher and that's saying something.

I lay the blame totally at the door of Bush's poodle Blair. Now Gordey is not getting on with Obama, we might see a change here in attitude towards America. I oppose the war but i don't call for GB's resignation over it. No Pm is going to get it right all of the time and I'm sure that if we had a Conservative Government, they would still have invaded Iraq as we did the Falkland Islands.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:17 pm

oscar;1161406 wrote: I lay the blame totally at the door of Bush's poodle Blair. Now Gordey is not getting on with Obama, we might see a change here in attitude towards America. I oppose the war but i don't call for GB's resignation over it. No Pm is going to get it right all of the time and I'm sure that if we had a Conservative Government, they would still have invaded Iraq as we did the Falkland Islands.

Gordie boy was part of it all-maybe hat's why he doesn't get on with Obama. Maybe he sees him for the self seeking, incompetent moron he really is. No PM has got it consistently wrong as much as gordon (except maybe tony but he skipped before he got booted out and now he''s officially a catholic he can get god to forgive him).

GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON

How many times do I need to point this out to you?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:23 pm

gmc;1161687 wrote: Gordie boy was part of it all-maybe hat's why he doesn't get on with Obama. Maybe he sees him for the self seeking, incompetent moron he really is. No PM has got it consistently wrong as much as gordon (except maybe tony but he skipped before he got booted out and now he''s officially a catholic he can get god to forgive him).

GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON GORDON IS A MORON

How many times do I need to point this out to you? Just a few more please.

I've been googling the Respect Party today

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:08 pm

oscar;1155976 wrote: The fact remains that the muslims in question are British citizens there-fore they have a right to protest and stage a demo providing no-one is assaulted. That is the law. Legally, they were doing nothing wrong. It is no different to me protesting against the thirs run-way or fox hunting.

The returning soldiers are not hero's, don't make that mistake. They volunteered and entered an illegal war based on lie's and corruption.

I wish i had known the venue as i would have been with them.

People Like - pantoandy - Have Such Hate For The Muslims Its Sad Because They Don't Care About Nobody But Themselves . If The Shoe Was On The Other Foot , They Would Be Crying Out To The World For Help . Senting Me And Women To War To Die For Nothing . That's Sick That Also Shows They Careless About Their Own Soldier's

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:54 pm

Daniyal;1161761 wrote: People Like - pantoandy - Have Such Hate For The Muslims Its Sad Because They Don't Care About Nobody But Themselves . If The Shoe Was On The Other Foot , They Would Be Crying Out To The World For Help . Senting Me And Women To War To Die For Nothing . That's Sick That Also Shows They Careless About Their Own Soldier's Some are offended at what the Muslim radicals had on their banners but most English are hypocrites. They expect freedom of speech and the legal right to an opinion as is tthe British law. That is until the muslims, the Palistinians or any other ethnic community dis-agree with them. I don't like hypocricy. All i'm trying to say to Pantoandy is that if i can wave a banner at a fox hunt then equally British muslims have the right to have an opinion and express it. It's just a case of the English not liking what they say.