lippydave Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 selling poached fish no doubt ,theiving b*******s are taking carp from around here Ooooh I prefer poached to fried.... Just had to say that for the halibut...... I'll get me Fisherman's smock.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveD Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lippydave Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Just read the first few pages of a book that Asterix had suggested ias a good read n a separate thread, and within the first 20 odd I came to a quote which I thought appropriate for this thread as it seems to have drifted into a debate about religous belief systems.... It's a Douglas Adams quote: "Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . .. no, that's holy? . .. We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveD Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 whats that got to do with carp and poles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lippydave Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 whats that got to do with carp and poles Well religion is a load of old carp..... and many here seem to have views of polar opposites....groan.... ...and if you grilled me, I'd have to say I'd poached the quote.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizzer Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Its been called off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 Inclined to agree james.Like you, i understand the point that Blatman is making, it just seems that none of them has the answer to the questions we asked, other than become a politician But neither James or yourself has answered the fact that you think it is OK for a vast western Army to invade states in the middle east, unintentionally kill thousands of civilians, impose Western/Christian Laws on a Muslim state then Whine about somebody who wants to have a demonstartion march against what is going on! YOU have not offered anything which substantiate this claim. 1. I dont doubt that civillians have been killed but only in the line of fire not as a delibrate act. this is unfortunate of course but if your caught in a fire fight DUCK! 2. You say that Christian values have been imposed HOW? were forcing them to church on a sunday I presume and building good old C of E churches are we? What you seem to want to brush over is the fact that what are forces are trying to do is disband the Taliban / al qaeda for the good of the population both in Afghanistan and here and every other country around the world. Answer me this does anyone want to be blown up Therefore the reason for our precence there is in the worlds best interests. Please dont try and tell me there is any other reason because there's b****r all there but dust! Do I think that it will work? No I dont the Afgan's have been at war with one country or another for too long they are also in their nature a War like people and therefore I dont think that we will ever truley solve this problem. But we also can't alow the country to harbour terrorists which train others to pop over here the states and any other country which takes there fancy and blow it up. But obviously you are aginst all of this so what would you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 whats that got to do with carp and poles the thing about carp is , if you bag a decent sized one you dont need so many chips Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 QUOTE What you seem to want to brush over is the fact that what are forces are trying to do is disband the Taliban / al qaeda for the good of the population both in Afghanistan and here and every other country around the world. This is the problem though. We are fighting an idea not an army and every time we kill innocent civilians / commit abusses / lock people up with no trial more people buy into Al Qaeda's philosophy. I notice we aren't invading Pakistan / Iraq where most of the terrorist activity is supposed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 we kill innocent civilians / commit abusses I notice we aren't invading Pakistan / Iraq where most of the terrorist activity is supposed to be. What of the inocent people who die as a result of a terrorist attack should there lives be sacreficed? And again abusses where is the evidance And if we did pull out of Afghanistan and left them all to it are you naive enough to think they will stop there attacks? No they will see it as a huge victory and would only increase there attacks as a result. Both of these country's have goverements which it is hoped that we (the Western world) would be able to negotiate with in order to quash the pockets of terrorits in these countrys something that Afghanistan did not want to do / was not able to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I know I said I wouldn't but... QUOTE And again abusses where is the evidance http://www.independent.co.uk/news....49.html Now of course, I realise that my position all along has been that the press should probably be ignored, but if you are prepared to believe the Times article you posted, then you should be prepared to believe this one too, unless you agreew ith me that the press should be ignored, in which case we'll ignore the Times article too. Your choice. This article states that there are currently 47 cases under investigation from between 2004 to 2007. Follow this link and you'll see statements from a former RMP soldier, and on the right links to more UK army abuses of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners. I'll agree that press articles don't qualify as evidence, but all that means is that you haven't provided evidence to the contrary either, just media articles that suit your position when taken in isolation. Liek I said before you *must* look at more than one side of the story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slater Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Who are killing the innocent Iraqi and Afghan people? I think the majority are being killed by their own misguided people. QUOTE There was, he claims, evidence to strongly suggest that the Iraqi victim had been shot at point blank range for merely throwing rocks at a British army tank. sorry but in the heat of a firefight or riot how do you tell the difference between between a rock/stone being thrown or a grenade? do you wait and see if it explodes and see your mates blown to pieces or do you take them out, I know what my reaction would be. As for prisoners why dont we just sit them down, give them a nice brew and a biccy and they will sing like larks or we could put them into stress positions (they have never been known to kill anyone and depending on your regiment they are part and parcel of your training) make them uncomfortable and you may get some intel, war is not a nice place to be lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Grenades won't hurt a tank. If the soldier was in / on the tank, then the suggestion is that either the assailant was also in or on the tank, so the soldier should be able to tell a rock from a grenade. Or the soldier dismounted the tank, aprehended the assailant and then shot him point blank. If the assailant had thrown the rock, then surely the kill shot would not have been point blank as the assailant would necessarilly be further away than point blank. Again, please think through what you are being presented with before deciding whether the comments are as merit worthy as they first seem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 QUOTE What of the inocent people who die as a result of a terrorist attack should there lives be sacreficed So we kill one of them for every western person killed QUOTE And again abuses where is the evidance Abu Grab, Guantanimo, etc QUOTE And if we did pull out of Afghanistan and left them all to it are you naive enough to think they will stop there attacks? No they will see it as a huge victory and would only increase there attacks as a result. No, we have to help the population, build schools, buy there produce (not opium!), get the conomy moving and get the indiginous people to turn against Al Qaeda / Taliban. By continuing to kill them, innocently or not, they are more likely to turn to Al Qaeda's philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slater Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Grenades won't hurt a tank. QUOTE If the soldier was in / on the tank, then the suggestion is that either the assailant was also in or on the tank, so the soldier should be able to tell a rock from a grenade. Or the soldier dismounted the tank, aprehended the assailant and then shot him point blank. If the assailant had thrown the rock, then surely the kill shot would not have been point blank as the assailant would necessarilly be further away than point blank. Again, please think through what you are being presented with before deciding whether the comments are as merit worthy as they first seem... I think you will find that most armored vehicles are light tanks with at least one operator out of the top. and yes a grenade can harm a tank, blow off a track, have you ever been in a situation where you are surrounded by a baying mob? Can tell a grenade from a rock, stand by a wall and let some one throw a variety of missiles at you would you be able to tell what is what? I dont think so. Untill you are actually in these situations you wouldnt even comprehend what goes through your mind and even soldiers have a sense of self survival of himself and his mates. I have never met a suaddie that goes out with the intention of killing someone for no reason and to suggest that the do is an insult to all. I am not suggesting that you form any part of that debate and welcome your views which are mostly common sense. lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.