British Deaths In Afghanistan

Keltik THC · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:03

AcidHell2 said:
Which are? this is not Iraq.

The lies that we are fighting to stop terrorism? that we are fighting against the opium trade? that we are fighting against Al-Qaeda? that we are fighting against the Taliban? or that we are fighting for democracy?

i could go on.

Biohazard · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:03

they are bombing the poppies every so often.

durruti · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:04

Amnesia said:
their duty to serve the country.

you make it sound like they have a choice if they want to fight or not.

They don't have any duty, they are free individuals and have their owns wills which are not bound by a country...

And how don't they have a choice to fight or not, i don't understand this?

Glaucus · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:05

We are fighting terrorism. It was reasonable show of force after 9/11. Any country harbouring or ignoring terrorist will be made to take accountability.

V4NT0M · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:06

Keltik THC said:
The lies that we are fighting to stop terrorism? that we are fighting against the opium trade? that we are fighting against Al-Qaeda? that we are fighting against the Taliban? or that we are fighting for democracy?

i could go on.

They're not fighting the Taliban? Would have thought the soldiers on the front line might have caught wind of that one whilst fighting them?

Keltik THC · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:06

Biohazard said:
they are bombing the poppies every so often.

lol, no they arent, they are protecting them.

have you been their or spoke to anyone who has?

FYI - our established order doesnt destroy poppies, we confiscate the fields off the local farmers who are trying to make a living and then ship it into the UK.

Vonhelmet · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:08

Keltik THC said:
They do have a choice, they had a choice when they joined the army, they had the choice when they were told that their regiment was going to get shipped into the middle of a pointless war.

As a soldier you are not forced to fight, you can conscientiously object and then go through the process of proving that we went to war on fabrications and lies of the highest order for Anglo-American hegemony.

If the hearing failed then i'd rather rot in a cell for my principles than die fighting for criminals.... but maybe that's just me.

Firstly, it's not a pointless war, though it is one that has been totally undersold by the army and thus misunderstood by the public.

Secondly, just because you join the army doesn't mean you expect to die. You should be aware that there has been a lot of controversy about our soldiers being ill equipped. That is the army's fault, not the soldiers'.

Thirdly, the Afghan soldiers they're fighting are not as innocent as you make out. This isn't Iraq - we're not marching in on dubious motives and taking over a country. There is a real enemy in the country which poses a real threat to world peace through the facilitation of Islamic terrorism.

Keltik THC · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:08

AcidHell2 said:
We are fighting terrorism. It was reasonable show of force after 9/11. Any country harbouring or ignoring terrorist will be made to take accountability.

Err.... how about you go and do some research; just like Iraq, Afghanistan had NOTHING (or at least there's no evidence towards them) to do with 9/11.

The Taliban said, publicly, after 9/11 if the US shows evidence that Osama was involved they would extradite him... EVEN THE CIA SAYS THAT THEIR IS NO EVIDENCE OSAMA WAS INVOLVED!!!!

its not about terrorism my friend, the terrorists are within our government. These wars are about hegemony.

Keltik THC · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:10

vonhelmet said:
This isn't Iraq - we're not marching in on dubious motives and taking over a country. There is a real enemy in the country which poses a real threat to world peace through the facilitation of Islamic terrorism.

we are marching on dubious motives, see my post above.

This country served no threat at all to world peace until we started bombing the **** out of everything and creating terrorism to suit our needs... no one has ever conquered Afghanistan, if laid out flat it is bigger than China... if we think we can do something that Alexander the Great couldn't then we are full of more folly than i can imagine.

EDIT: Islamic Terrorism is an oxymoron; Islam means PEACE... you, my friend, are caught, hook line and sinker into the Established orders propaganda... stay away from the BBC thats my advice.

EDIT II: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm - go and have a look and see if you can find ANY REFERENCE TO 911 AND THEN PHONE THE FBI AND ASK THEM WHY HE IS NOT LISTED AS THE MASTERMIND OF 911 AND THEY WILL TELL YOU AS THEY HAVE ALREADY TOLD RESEARCHERS IN THE US - THAT THEIR IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT OSAMA MASTERMINDED 911.

sorry about the caps but people need to wake up and stop buying all this propaganda, do some research into these subjects, especially when innocent people are being slayed for no reason other than the established orders hegemony.

Amnesia · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:10

durruti said:
They don't have any duty, they are free individuals and have their owns wills which are not bound by a country...

And how don't they have a choice to fight or not, i don't understand this?

ok are we talking about British soldiers here or the taliban

Vonhelmet · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:10

durruti said:
They don't have any duty, they are free individuals and have their owns wills which are not bound by a country...

And how don't they have a choice to fight or not, i don't understand this?

It's a contract of employment like any other. They are employed by the army to fight wars. If they honestly think the war is unjust, then sure - they can quit, but otherwise it is their duty to fight.

Glaucus · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:11

Why are you singling out Osama. It had a lot to do with the training grounds and probable money/resources routes.

ha-ha terrorists with in our own government. Go back to your conspiracy sites.

durruti · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:13

Amnesia said:
ok are we talking about British soldiers here or the taliban

British soldiers, although it applies for both i think.

Amnesia · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:15

durruti said:
British soldiers, although it applies for both i think.

you think the British soldiers dont have a duty to serve their country ?
to protect it and fight when needed ?

now before you start telling me that we were not under any threat/attack....that isnt for the soldiers to decide.

Vonhelmet · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:16

Keltik THC said:
we are marching on dubious motives, see my post above.

This country served no threat at all to world peace until we started bombing the **** out of everything and creating terrorism to suit our needs... no one has ever conquered Afghanistan, if laid out flat it is bigger than China... if we think we can do something that Alexander the Great couldn't then we are full of more folly than i can imagine.

EDIT: Islamic Terrorism is an oxymoron; Islam means PEACE... you, my friend, are caught, hook line and sinker into the Established orders propaganda... stay away from the BBC thats my advice.

So there are no Islamic terrorists? Put down your hash pipe, please.

By the way, in before a No True Scotsman fallacy!

Keltik THC · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:18

Amnesia said:
ok are we talking about British soldiers here or the taliban

British. you can object to fighting as a soldier and then go through the conscientious objection process.

See my above posts.

fight and die for criminals or rot in a prison for your principles.. your decision.

Keltik THC · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:20

vonhelmet said:
So there are no Islamic terrorists? Put down your hash pipe, please.

By the way, in before a No True Scotsman fallacy!

I don't have a pipe im afraid, there are terrorists, who the media tells you that they are Islamic but not in the true sense of the word... this is propaganda my friend.

Its like saying a Christian Terrorist, but if you slay people in cold blood then you are not a true Christian, because that contravenes one of the main tenets of Christianity, the same applies to Islam.

and i don't understand your last comment about Scotsmen?

EDIT: i'm not going to argue my point much more, everyone has differing beliefs in some way or another... the truth is none of us really know the truth - we are all just grasping at what straws we have found because the system is made to be so confusing that we all end up arguing with each other rather than looking at the real enemies... and they aren't the Afghani's.

Glaucus · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:25

Keltik THC said:
this is propaganda my friend.

No, it is what they class them self as. It might be totally against Islam. But this is still there excuse.

Vonhelmet · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:26

Keltik THC said:
I don't have a pipe im afraid, there are terrorists, who the media tells you that they are Islamic but not in the true sense of the word... this is propaganda my friend.

Its like saying a Christian Terrorist, but if you slay people in cold blood then you are not a true Christian, because that contravenes one of the main tenets of Christianity, the same applies to Islam.

and i don't understand your last comment about Scotsmen?

It is said that No True Scotsman would ever put anything - salt, sugar, whatever - on his porridge. But what if a Scotsman does? Ah, you say, he is not a true Scotsman. Never mind that he was born and lives in Scotland, comes from an ancient clan of Scots, and would consider himself Scottish. Oh no, the fact that he puts sugar on his porridge means he can't possibly be a true Scotsman.

And now you say that no true Muslim would commit terrorism. Yet there are plenty of Muslims who do commit terrorism. Not true Muslims? Do me a favour. At best they are
misguided. At worst, it's a bloodthirsty religion bent on conquering the world by force. Actually, that's a bit sensationalist. The truth is somewhere in between.

durruti · 20 Aug 2009 at 20:27

vonhelmet said:
It's a contract of employment like any other. They are employed by the army to fight wars. If they honestly think the war is unjust, then sure - they can quit, but otherwise it is their duty to fight.

Okay, i'm talking about 'duty' in the moral sense which is synonomous with soldiers e.g. for king and country, as in they have a pre-supposed commitment to their country to uphold its pride, as in they have an obligation to national pride, which they don't as they can leave like you said.