Another story for the daily fail..

Biohazard said:
Quite what we think we are going to achieve there long term is quite beyond me.
Click to expand...

Nowhere near what we hoped to. Whether the threat was embellished or not, allowing 'safe havens' for terrorist organisations which threaten our security and thus our freedom (if we just attempt to defend ourselves internally it will mean less Freedom for the people) is unacceptable.

That was reason enough.


Anyway that is off-topic somewhat.

What the Councillor did is neither offensive or wrong. She exercised her right to express herself, and she did so in a sensible and inoffensive way.

Unlike many of the posters here I might add.
 
Last edited:
Nobody wants to go to war but it happens and if you cant support the lads out there then well whats the point of ever having an armed force.
Click to expand...

erm think if the politicians ****ed off trying to have everyone killed over power and who gets to have their agenda rule then would we really need 1?????????

seriously, this was all started by politicians sendin troops over there kickin the hornets nest then they want to be the ones that look good in the eyes of the public just to get another election won when infact they have avaded the real reason to why they sent some jar heads over there to get shot up, don't get me wrong... i have respect for the jar heads that couldn't care what they are fighting for but the fact remains she didn't want to commemorate a bunch of stuck up politicians for doing it in the first place
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
No it's not. They're fighting for Afghanistan's future, not Britain's. Her freedoms are totally irrelevant to what's happening over there.
Click to expand...

That isn't a particularly sound argument, though. What the hell say do we have, and did we ever truly have, in the "future" of Afghanistan? Why there? Are our troops suddenly rushing in to remove tyrants like Mugabe? To sort out the Darfur situation? Or anything else that truly matters in a humanitarian sense?

I don't think so.

That line of thinking could lead to a much broader discussion than I'm prepared for at the moment, with quite a volume of alcohol in me, but Castiel is right. She's within Britain, and she's exercising her right to voice her opinion, and doing so peacefully. She wasn't standing there shouting "Curse you, politicans!" or any other more vulgar interpretation of the notion. Thus, non-story.

EDIT: I think I've just understood what you meant in your comment, and why you've disagreed with Castiel's; which, in turn, when taken as a standalone comment doesn't hold too much water. So, sorry. :)
 
Last edited:
She seems like a very intelligent women and making a valid political point of view, it is rather a tasteless way to show it at a time like that but that's point scoring for you.

I don't particularly agree with the waste of Soldiers lives and Money that the Afghan war is costing us either. Its Vietnam mk2 and a total lose - lose situation.
 
Pestilence said:
That isn't a particularly sound argument, though.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a sound argument for the point I was actually making, which is (curiously enough) not the argument you addressed. British freedoms are not under threat, and British soldiers in Afghanistan are not fighting for British freedoms. They are fighting in a vain and ultimately fruitless attempt to improve the future of Afghanistan. That was my point.

What the hell say do we have, and did we ever truly have, in the "future" of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

None whatsoever. Was that a serious question?

Why there? Are our troops suddenly rushing in to remove tyrants like Mugabe? To sort out the Darfur situation? Or anything else that truly matters in a humanitarian sense?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You have totally misread my post. I don't know how, but you've actually managed it. Amazing. :confused:

I was not commenting on the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan. I was explaining why it has no relevance to British freedoms. I personally object to the war in Afghanistan. It's a complete waste of time, manpower, money, and lives.
 
Her explanation was self defeating anyway. If "her actions were directed at the other politicians and not Lance Corporal Croucher", why refuse to stand for him the first place? That does nothing to demonstrate her displeasure against politicians.

Next time perhaps she'll spit on a soldier and claim she's directing it at Tony Blair. :rolleyes:
 
Biohazard said:
I still don't see what you were on about to start with so I can't answer the second half of your post...

However I don't think they are threatening the freedom of the UK.

They are up to bad ****, and no doubt some might eventially end up here.

However I think the percieved threat has been significantly embellished.

Quite what we think we are going to achieve there long term is quite beyond me.
Click to expand...

I was referring to castiel saying that the UK military is somehow fighting for British people's freedom to choose if they want to do standing ovations or not :confused:

I wouldn't be surprised if you got executed for not standing up for some taliban war hero if you live in afghanistan, but I'm not sure how exactly that telegraphs to a person sitting in an office in england. It sounds like some feel-good phrase that Americans throw around now that the quasi-religious worship of all things military is in vogue.
 
Castiel said:
They allowed and encouraged training camps for known Terrorist Organisations which threatened and operated within the UK. They also offered 'safe haven' to several organisations including al-Qaeda, who also directly threatened the UK.
Click to expand...

How many islamic terror attacks against the UK were their prior to invading afghanistan/iraq?

And why would they even be targeting the UK in the first place? "They hate our freedom"?
 
Big deal, she made a statement, we live in a democracy where one can express ones views whether one likes them or not. Time to move on to the next story.
 
Evangelion said:
No it's not. They're fighting for Afghanistan's future, not Britain's. Her freedoms are totally irrelevant to what's happening over there.
Click to expand...

They are fighting for both. The fact that Afghanistan under the Taliban was 'safe haven' to international terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda warranted such action.

Allowing such 'training camps' threatens our Freedom, because, as we have seen, the growth of terror laws infringe on personal freedoms of people in this country and if we allowed such groups a base to operate from and simply defended our borders, to do so effectively would mean further curtailment of those freedoms.
 
She is free to act however she likes, I am not exactly sure anyone (sensible) is disputing that? However we are also free to criticise how she acts, especially as someone who has put herself forward for public life. Her excuse rings somewhat hollow and as a bit of PR damage control.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
She is free to act however she likes, I am not exactly sure anyone (sensible) is disputing that? However we are also free to criticise how she acts, especially as someone who has put herself forward for public life. Her excuse rings somewhat hollow and as a bit of PR damage control.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. However while the reason why she refused to stand is a little weak, I cannot fathom why anyone would be offended by it.

I would be most interested to find out the ethnicity of the other person who refused to stand.
 
Evangelion said:
You have totally misread my post. I don't know how, but you've actually managed it. Amazing. :confused:
Click to expand...

A point that I acknowledged at the end of my post, having been quite drunk at the time. Maybe if you read the whole thing you'd have picked up on that.

... but don't let me stop you increasing your post count and wallowing in belligerence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom