Shocking EDL video

[pingwing]

I don't the EDL have got this one right, being anti-muslim for someone stating the blinding obvious (the army has to kill people, its the job) who happens to be a muslim is just stupid.

-_-

 

[RDM]

What he said was from what I remember thousands of civilians in Iraq/Afghan are dying and no one gives a damn about that which is true.

Well, no, he said a lot more than that. He said that all soldiers should die and go to hell and that they were all expletive scum. He also said that the families should cry at their dead solider's grave as they were going to hell.

So it was a little bit more than "no one cares about the Iraqi's and Afghan's dying." Not to mention that most of the Afghan and Iraqi dead are dying at the hands of other so called muslims and not the ISAF forces.

 

[King85]

Soldiers in killing people shocker.

Groups like the EDL are an embarrasment to this country and no different to a religious fundamentalist group in many respects, uneducated and angry about topics they don't understand.

 

[ilcp]

Nothing wrong with that video imo, they didn't attack him, just hurled abuse and intimidated him, which is what many radical muslim groups do aswell. Fair is fair

hm... so you are advocating "such behaviour". my my.. arent westerns supposed to be all "civil/good and have higher morals then other nations" - i guess not..


I have seen time and time again, people using the freedom of speech card when it suits them i.e. photos of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), but then on other occasions when it doesnt suit them, i.e. in this case, they have a problem... do not pick and choose?

 

[Deific]

You clearly don't have close friends/family in the Forces. Soliders never choose to go to war. No solider wants war, definitely not after they've experienced it. They want the politicians to sort things out and war should be a last resort.

Actually I do have friends who have been to afghanistan, but my outlook is clearly different to theirs, so it is not a subject I would go into depth about with them, if I want to preserve the friendship - having grown up with them.

On the topic of 'wanting politicians to sort things out', soldier or not - that's naievity if you understand the basis for conflict in the first place.

A regular solider as you think of them signs up because it has good job opportunities, teaches you skills, make life-long friends and because they want to protect these shores. They get no choice in where they go to war. If the politicians decide they want oil or to overthrow some random dictator then they have to go. Why?

1. because they want to protect their friends.
2. because they'll go to jail if they don't.

The smart soliders do what they're asked and do it well.

They have every choice on whether they go to war. It's whether or not they are willing to accept the concequences for carrying out their moral obligation as a human being, in saying 'no', when told to invade and overthrow. To partake in the invasion of a people's land in order to secure oil because you're too afraid to face jail, all whilst the price at the pump continues to rise for your countrymen regardless - I'm searching for a word other than disgraceful.

I find 'smart soldiers' a juxtaposition. There's plenty of intelligent men and women in the forces, but as I've already said, I believe the 'smart' people have never enlisted.

Smart people do not enter conflict to overthrow dictators in favor of western appeasing replacements. Neither do they enter conflict, in order to protect friends, when it is actively allowing and enabling the slaughter of millions of innocents for that precious oil you mentioned. Smart people don't fight wars so that the same people who are systematically stripping your freedoms, can increase their wealth further.

The Forces give up a lot and they deserve respect for what they do. They don't choose the environment they're placed in and they concentrate on helping their friends and getting the job done. Those blokes gave up their lives because politicians put them in that place. The soliders knew the risks but they knew what they had to do. They have families and I'm grateful for what they do.

You say they deserve respect for what they do. I disagree. I call them 'enablers' of a corrupt system. Politicians didn't put them there either. They signed up for it, and they got what they signed for. It's certainly unfortunate that they lost their lives, but no more unfortunate than the loss of any islamic freedom fighter returning fire in their direction, because he wants the force invading his country and killing his people, gone.

Actually all three would possibly be illegal in the UK, we have laws against religious hatred too. Not to mention that Jews are considered an ethnic group. Oddly you seem to think that calling someone a black ******** is wrong yet less so with Jew?

I wasn't talking about the eyes of the law. I was talking about peoples perceived view of what is acceptable. 'Jewish' is essentially an ethnoreligion, it is not the same as 'black'.

No, your line of reasoning is flawed because not all soldiers are killers, you seem to have a remarkably simplistic view of what it means to be in the Armed Forces.

It's not flawed. I understand there are many roles in the armed forces. That statement was merely to serve the purpose of debate.

Now that you have seen it you have even said you agree with the sentiment, do you honestly agree that:

That sentence has no validity to me. Hell is fictional, so I find it neither offensive nor relevant to the rest of his post. It's an irate exhaustion of anger by the poster and I find what he has to post before his 'blow off' of far more importance.

 

[RDM]

hm... so you are advocating "such behaviour". my my.. arent westerns supposed to be all "civil/good and have higher morals then other nations" - i guess not..

Are we allowed to generalise the behaviour of an entire group now due to the actions of a few? Because I thought that was a big no no...

I have seen time and time again, people using the freedom of speech card when it suits them i.e. photos of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), but then on other occasions when it doesnt suit them, i.e. in this case, they have a problem... do not pick and choose?

Surely you are now doing just the same thing aren't you? Complaining when free speech is used to do things you don't agree with yet championing it when things are siad that you do agree with?

FWIW I think what he said was incredibly offensive, stupid, wrong and moronic. However I do feel he should have the right to say it and shouldn't have been arrested for it. The flip side is that he also has to deal with the ramifications of what he has said, which will be increased hostility towards him and probably the community he is part of.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

people who have chosen to fight a war and do have the ability to choose otherwise, neither are you insulting a race of people with unsubstantiated opinion.

I think what all sides miss or choose to miss is context,

Soldiers as a general rule do not fire unless threatened or are directed to fire due to perceived threat, all governed by rules of engagement to help reduce collateral damage and deaths.

An inevitable outcome however rare will be collateral damage and deaths of bystanders because of the methods of the insurgents who place themselves in amongst civilians.

The insurgents have no such rules of engagement, they will and do kill anyone.

Now in context;

1. Any of the deaths of civilians are unacceptable but do to the operational methods of the forces involved civilian deaths are always in error (except rare cases where some soldiers cheese slides right off his cracker).

• Civilian deaths caused by insurgents are usually targeted against military forces with no regard for civilians who maybe around or are simply a strike against the civilian populace to impose the will of the insurgents upon them.

The second would equal murder; the first however in context would be very difficult to label being entirely unintentional if rules of engagement have been followed.

 

[Deific]

I don't understand what the rules of engagement have to do with the sentence you quoted me on. However, I have no desire to delve into such a conversation either - it would be lengthy, I find in the scheme of things, the 'rules of engagement' is a laughable concept.

 

[ThatAsianGuy]

My opinion is that he said nothing wrong to the soldiers however i dont like the comment he made, i get his point but he went over the top because no1 should lose there loved one in a war
Im also against the war because
soldiers (that could be your son, nephew, brother, father, friend,husband,boyfried) dying for the wrong reason/ for a lie. The media always portray a certain image when it comes to these things i cant say what image because you know what im talking about,

majority of the people in this country i dont get it why dont we just protest and get it done after all some wise guy said "goverment should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the goverment"

WHy cant we just leave the middle east just chill in england have a cuppa, Talk about the weather, Show off our Muslamic Ray guns, and some karaoke down the pub

 

[Hitman_Leon]

I don't understand what the rules of engagement have to do with the sentence you quoted me on. However, I have no desire to delve into such a conversation either - it would be lengthy, I find in the scheme of things, the 'rules of engagement' are a laughable concept.

People choosing to fight is what I quoted you on, they do choose to fight and by rules, unlike the opposition.

Rules of engagement are the only way to minimize civilian casualties, the only way to at least minimize civilian deaths.

What would you have the soldiers do, ditch the rules and fight like the insurgents killing everyone?.

 

[Deific]

People choosing to fight is what I quoted you on, they do choose to fight and by rules, unlike the opposition.

Rules of engagement are the only way to minimize civilian casualties, the only way to at least minimize civilian deaths.

What would you have the soldiers do, ditch the rules and fight like the insurgents killing everyone?.

I can accurately guess your news sources.

 

[N17]

I think a lot of Afghans are happy to have the UK forces there actually helping them get rid of the Taliban and training them. I don't agree with the war, or why our boys are sent over there. But I have a lot of respect for them. The forces involve more than front line staff/members.

The EDL are as bad as the other religious nutcases. They spoil it for everyone. Yes there should be freedom of speach. As I have expressed on here.

Look at the US though trigger happy and uncultured. At least we have culture and acceptence and choice.

 

[Kemik]

Actually I do have friends who have been to afghanistan, but my outlook is clearly different to theirs, so it is not a subject I would go into depth about with them, if I want to preserve the friendship - having grown up with them.

On the topic of 'wanting politicians to sort things out', soldier or not - that's naievity if you understand the basis for conflict in the first place.

They have every choice on whether they go to war. It's whether or not they are willing to accept the concequences for carrying out their moral obligation as a human being, in saying 'no', when told to invade and overthrow. To partake in the invasion of a people's land in order to secure oil because you're too afraid to face jail, all whilst the price at the pump continues to rise for your countrymen regardless - I'm searching for a word other than disgraceful.

I find 'smart soldiers' a juxtaposition. There's plenty of intelligent men and women in the forces, but as I've already said, I believe the 'smart' people have never enlisted.

Smart people do not enter conflict to overthrow dictators in favor of western appeasing replacements. Neither do they enter conflict, in order to protect friends, when it is actively allowing and enabling the slaughter of millions of innocents for that precious oil you mentioned. Smart people don't fight wars so that the same people who are systematically stripping your freedoms, can increase their wealth further.

You say they deserve respect for what they do. I disagree. I call them 'enablers' of a corrupt system. Politicians didn't put them there either. They signed up for it, and they got what they signed for. It's certainly unfortunate that they lost their lives, but no more unfortunate than the loss of any islamic freedom fighter returning fire in their direction, because he wants the force invading his country and killing his people, gone.

So what do you say to your friends when they go into dangerous situations? "Hope you come home safe but you put yourself there so if you come back injured it's your own fault?"

What about if there was a genuine threat to the UK and everyone who currently signed up decided "actually, there's a chance some politician at some point will send me somewhere I don't really agree with so I won't sign up"? There wouldn't be anyone to defend us...

I think you're living in a bit of a dream world. Most soliders sign up for good reasons. Just like most Afghans don't decide to shoot at occupying forces. I don't agree with the reasons they went to Afghan to begin with but now their task is to stabilise the country and the aim is to provide the human rights freedom they didn't get under the Taliban.

Politicians decide where the troops go. Not sure how you don't see that...

 

[cheets64]

No doubt the lads family comes from that region but its not fair to slate BRITAIN, the country he lives in he gets free healthcare, education, running clean drinking water on tap.

These "muslims" in this country will get a war if they want with "EDL etc." it if they carry on with this talk, like I said protest to the MPs etc. not the families of dead soldiers, you are only going to get firebombed or run out of town.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

I can accurately guess your news sources.

I can accurately tell you that you are wrong, my younger brother and other friends have served or are serving in the forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq when there was a presence there.

You don't know how hard a mistaken death hits a soldier until you are sitting with him when he tells you about it, they do try to prevent it.

 

[B&W]

LOL why? for asking a couple of questions?

Your assumptions behind the so called questions.

 

[B&W]

No doubt the lads family comes from that region but its not fair to slate BRITAIN, the country he lives in he gets free healthcare, education, running clean drinking water on tap.

These "muslims" in this country will get a war if they want with "EDL etc." it if they carry on with this talk, like I said protest to the MPs etc. not the families of dead soldiers, you are only going to get firebombed or run out of town.

Who do you think you are? These "muslims" are we some kind of mindless robots who all share azhar alis point of view?

lol at the edl bunch of scum, like last time you came to birmingham city centre who did the running mate.

edl are nothing and they need to fix up before someone does them over.

 

[ThatAsianGuy]

I agree EDL ARE SCUM, MDL ARE ALSO SCUM YOU CANNOT fight fire with fire, if we protest in the same voilent way as the EDL then what is the difference, iv been to protest before and i swear everytime the EDL are always voilent the ones that are kicking it off . however you do get the complete "M M MDL" IDIOTS that you just wanna slap across the face, countless times iv told them chill the ***** out and act humble

I agree i think we should all ship the EDL and MDL to a small island and kick back relax and laugh our asses of while they exterminate one another

more then once they start fighting with the police more then actually doing any protesting, they also fight amongst eatch other when they aint got no "MDL" to bash in.

Please fully star out all swearing in future. Thank you.

 

[Deific]

So what do you say to your friends when they go into dangerous situations? "Hope you come home safe but you put yourself there so if you come back injured it's your own fault?"

It's rarely discussed, and when it is, simply in passing where I offer up a "good luck" gesture (in reference to them coming back in one piece, not conquering/killing/overthrowing anyone before you get smart).

What about if there was a genuine threat to the UK and everyone who currently signed up decided "actually, there's a chance some politician at some point will send me somewhere I don't really agree with so I won't sign up"? There wouldn't be anyone to defend us...

That is quite a dilemma...unfortunate that our continued invasion of foreign lands would present such a troubling decision, isn't it?

Most soliders sign up for good reasons.

I couldn't agree more.

I don't agree with the reasons they went to Afghan to begin with but now their task is to stabilise the country and the aim is to provide the human rights freedom they didn't get under the Taliban.

Drivel fed to you by <insert mainstream media propaganda machine #26>

Politicians decide where the troops go. Not sure how you don't see that...

By politicians, I assume you mean prime minister. The same prime minister who acts like a lapdog for the US/NATO etc. I don't believe he decides anything of the sort.


Anyway, I've made my view clear, so I wont be posting here again.

 

[N17]

I agree EDL ARE SCUM, MDL ARE ALSO SCUM YOU CANNOT fight fire with fire, if we protest in the same voilent way as the EDL then what is the difference, iv been to protest before and i swear everytime the EDL are always voilent the ones that are kicking it off

more then once they start fighting with the police more then actually doing any protesting, they also fight amongst eatch other when they aint got no "MDL" to bash in.

Lock the Cocks in one room. End of.