Disgusting Mail article, need to rant...

sponge999 said:
Isn't the aim to kill them all anyway? Then people moan when we do?

Don't get what's wrong here.
Click to expand...

This thread is about how the information is presented. How the killing is made 'high-five' cool ..

Imagine, if you would, a taliban soldier hacks the head off a British soldier with a machete.

Then the local Afghan rag runs a story with the headline 'Ha, he deserved it'. In the middle of the paper they give a free 'cut out' paper machette and a big picture of a British soldier's head, for a laugh, so readers can pretend THEY are hacking off the soldiers head (competition for who send in the best picture depicting them pretending to hack off the printed soldiers' head).

Would you find the article insulting/disrespectful? Or is this 'fair enough' because we're their enemy and killing is 'supposed' to be happening ...?
 
I like the ways these threads always bring out the Taliban sympathizers, anyone who thinks the Taliban are like normal people just defending their country, please read up on the issue.

oh and a side note we are not occupying Afghanistan, we are there as guests of the government.

OT: As much as I detest the Daily Mail I don't the original article is 'disgusting', I mean, they are the scum of the earth afterall.
 
what would you prefer? them dead or our troops dead?
OR, Should the troops see if the Taliban want to join them down the local for an ice tea?
 
britboy4321 said:
This thread is about how the information is presented. How the killing is made 'high-five' cool ..

Imagine, if you would, a taliban soldier hacks the head off a British soldier with a machete.

Then the local Afghan rag runs a story with the headline 'Ha, he deserved it'. In the middle of the paper they give a free 'cut out' paper machette and a big picture of a British soldier's head, for a laugh, so readers can pretend THEY are hacking off the soldiers head (competition for who send in the best picture depicting them pretending to hack off the printed soldiers' head).

Would you find the article insulting/disrespectful? Or is this 'fair enough' because we're their enemy and killing is 'supposed' to be happening ...?
Click to expand...

The Daily Mail isn't giving away cut-out sniper rifles or any crap like that. You're taking it to ridiculous extremes, bloody well grow up. Afghans, by and large, do not support the Taliban so you're comparing oranges and apples.

I realise people on this forum have a strong dislike of the DM, but you don't half take the criticisms too far... :rolleyes:
 
Johno please? said:
and a side note we are not occupying Afghanistan, we are there as guests of the government.

.
Click to expand...

1) The Taliban WAS the government
2) We ousted the Taliban by force
3) A new government that likes us is put into power.

If the same thing had happened in England and 'The great Taliban council' was put in charge, I think the word 'occupiers' might be appropriate!!
 
SteveOBHave said:
Perhaps get the hell out of their countries? The west has been occupying the Middle East since the early 1900s. It's this odd idea that we're entitled to be there and that we're helping the barbarians.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if they stopped gassing their own people or pulling out the fingernails of random peasants and simply got on with the job of selling us overpriced oil, then all would be hunky dory :rolleyes:

But they can't help themselves can they?
it's all "you spilt my pint so I'm going to wage some stupid never ending feudal war with all your tribe and your goats"

Stop pretending they are some kind of modern western nation instead of the feudal backwater of dribbling inbreds that they really are.


As for the thread, I'm sure the soldiers out there are quite happy that's one less commander to organise IED's and maybe a few less of their mates going home in bodybags.

If you are going to complain about glorificatrion of war, then pick on the braindead muslims who think they are going to heaven if they heroically remotely trigger an IED like the brave warriors they all think they are :rolleyes:
 
britboy4321 said:
1) The Taliban WAS the government
2) We ousted the Taliban by force
3) A new government that likes us is put into power.

If the same thing had happened in England and 'The great Taliban council' was put in charge, I think the word 'occupiers' might be appropriate!!
Click to expand...

The Taliban were not and never have been the government. They're a military group who siezed control of some parts of Afghanistan and held power for a few years, but were not widely recognised as being responsible for the country as such.
 
Far too much terrorist sympathy and anti British forces whinging.

I'd be happy if the Daily Mail were to print nothing but these kinds of stories. Would stop them printing the usual drivel.

I fail to see how this story can be so offensive, unless you're a dirty terrorist that is...
 
In my eye's Snipers are one of the most important troops we have, They rarely get the recognition they deserve, A sniper can take out single targets without much danger to any surrounding civilians, If it were normal ground troops there is a good chance that Civilians will be hurt in resulting crossfire.
 
britboy4321 said:
1) The Taliban WAS the government
2) We ousted the Taliban by force
3) A new government that likes us is put into power.

If the same thing had happened in England and 'The great Taliban council' was put in charge, I think the word 'occupiers' might be appropriate!!
Click to expand...

The Taliban Government of Afghanistan was issued with certain demands by the United States and in turn the United Nations regarding the surrender of the leaders of al-Qaeda, the release of all foreign nationals held unjustly in their prisons, access to and the closing of Terrorist Training camps in Taliban controlled areas.

Prior to the NATO campaign only the Pakistani Govt recognised the Taliban as the legal Government in Afghanistan.

So the Taliban were not the legally recognised Government of Afghanistan as all international recognition of that was removed.

The NATO military action was in support of the Afghan United Front forces to secure their own country and was not an invasion against a sovereign nation as you make out.
 
Last edited:
At least the armed forces are taking cost cutting seriously and reducing munitions waste.

At the end of the day the national press has an agenda to make heroes of our soldiers and enemies of our foes. I don't mind this and it has gone on for donkeys years.
 
britboy4321 said:
Ach I think for example 'conscientious objectors' are some of the bravest people out there ..
Click to expand...

Most are simply taking the road of least mortal danger to themselves. Far easier to sit in a jail cell than up to your armpits in blood and crap in a war-zone. They are quite happy for others to take the risks while they look down their noses at them in the safety afforded them by those they despise.

Some exhibit a bravery of their own, but most are simply pacifists or objectors through fear and cowardice.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Most are simply taking the road of least mortal danger to themselves. Far easier to sit in a jail cell than up to your armpits in blood and crap in a war-zone. They are quite happy for others to take the risks while they look down their noses at them in the safety afforded them by those they despise.

Some exhibit a bravery of their own, but most are simply pacifists or objectors through fear and cowardice.
Click to expand...

Actually nowadays I think they do not sit in a jail cell -- they are shipped off to

1) Work in a military hospital
2) Do something like clear minefields, disarm bombs, cook or other things not directly combat oriented etc.
3) Do something like logistics or interpreting on the front line

None of which they can play the 'conscientious objector' card, and all of which are probably as dangerous as fighting the enemy.

Generally they just refuse to kill another human being they've never met because some bloke with a few stripes on his arm tells him to ..

I think conscripts that just always take the path of least resistance are the real cowards. After all, if they were heroes, they'd have volunteered ..

I'd like to think of myself as a conscientious objector. But put me in a mighty dangerous front line hospital saving lives - thats being shelled by the enemy -- no problem. Put me clearing a minefield next to a school - deal. But I'm not gonna start killing strangers because big nasty man tells me to though ..
 
Last edited:
If most the guys in this thread were born as one of the 'evil bad guys', they'd be vehemently encouraging and celebrating the death of us 'good guys'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom