Discussion
NWTony said:
league67 said:
zuby84 said:
league67 said:
Probably this kid
I'm sure he was displaying threatening behaviour and using colourful language.
Scuffers mode: "Look we can't see the child's right hand, he could be holding a gun for all we know or perhaps even the detonator button for a bomb. Without seeing all of his hands; we just can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from this picture."I'm sure he was displaying threatening behaviour and using colourful language.
See, this would be a 'picture of a small child next to a soldier with a gun'.
I hope you can see the difference between the two.
Not 'even' on the trigger. You are quite right, it's not, your point?
Is this one standing guard too? After all his finger is not on the trigger.
Edited by league67 on Friday 22 August 09:33
Different wars so totally different considerations. A bit like comparing rugby with football, they both play on a pitch, have goal posts and use a ball.
Where was the Brit soldier? Was he amongst known friendly locals? The Israeli wasn't hence the more aggressive stance. Common practice in all military forces. You adapt you stance to the situation. For example when we were welcomed into Iraq in 2003 we wore berets, when things turn a little nastier we wore helmets.
Example, he knows he is safe, hence the weapon is slung across his chest and not in the ready position.
I am sorry for showing an evil IDF Zionist murderer with compassion. Be assured he was shot immediately after this photo.
Where was the Brit soldier? Was he amongst known friendly locals? The Israeli wasn't hence the more aggressive stance. Common practice in all military forces. You adapt you stance to the situation. For example when we were welcomed into Iraq in 2003 we wore berets, when things turn a little nastier we wore helmets.
Example, he knows he is safe, hence the weapon is slung across his chest and not in the ready position.
I am sorry for showing an evil IDF Zionist murderer with compassion. Be assured he was shot immediately after this photo.
Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 22 August 10:37
Just for NWTony.
He's not pointing gun at all, is he, look at his finger, not on a trigger, but same position as the first picture.
To help with the context; it's still from 0:49 of this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEmQVxfgIzw
He's not pointing gun at all, is he, look at his finger, not on a trigger, but same position as the first picture.
To help with the context; it's still from 0:49 of this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEmQVxfgIzw
Grumfutock said:
Different wars so totally different considerations. A bit like comparing rugby with football, they both play on a pitch, have goal posts and use a ball.
Where was the Brit soldier? Was he amongst known friendly locals? The Israeli wasn't hence the more aggressive stance. Common practice in all military forces. You adapt you stance to the situation. ]
That summarises the situation quite succinctly.Where was the Brit soldier? Was he amongst known friendly locals? The Israeli wasn't hence the more aggressive stance. Common practice in all military forces. You adapt you stance to the situation. ]
Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
ETA I'm sure Jimbeaux would argue that as the IDF won the war it's tough luck on the Palestinians. That's fine but at least admit that the IDF is an army of occupation whose long term goal is to ensure the colonisation of the WB by Jewish settlers.
league67 said:
Really? Where is the gun pointing to?
See, this would be a 'picture of a small child next to a soldier with a gun'.
I hope you can see the difference between the two.
Not 'even' on the trigger. You are quite right, it's not, your point?
Is this one standing guard too? After all his finger is not on the trigger.
I can't see the second pic you posted as it is on a server banned at my work, but the first pic and the one I initially responded to are BOTH pictures of soldiers next to children.See, this would be a 'picture of a small child next to a soldier with a gun'.
I hope you can see the difference between the two.
Not 'even' on the trigger. You are quite right, it's not, your point?
Is this one standing guard too? After all his finger is not on the trigger.
Edited by league67 on Friday 22 August 09:33
You would have to be desperate to suggest that the soldier in that picture is threatening the child with the gun.
There are undoubtedly pictures available of soldiers pointing guns at children, but that isn't one of them.
audidoody said:
Ooh .. photographs to prove Israeli soldiers are Zionist murderers.
Good thing the British Army is immune from that puerile game.
No they're not. Which is why incident like that get investigated and punished.Good thing the British Army is immune from that puerile game.
But if you want comparisons, could you tell me how many women and children the British Army killed in NI?
NWTony said:
I can't see the second pic you posted as it is on a server banned at my work, but the first pic and the one I initially responded to are BOTH pictures of soldiers next to children.
You would have to be desperate to suggest that the soldier in that picture is threatening the child with the gun.
There are undoubtedly pictures available of soldiers pointing guns at children, but that isn't one of them.
Think you might have misunderstood. The first pic is an example of a soldier NOT pointing his gun at a child, the second one shows the opposite.You would have to be desperate to suggest that the soldier in that picture is threatening the child with the gun.
There are undoubtedly pictures available of soldiers pointing guns at children, but that isn't one of them.
audidoody said:
Ooh .. photographs to prove Israeli soldiers are Zionist murderers.
Good thing the British Army is immune from that puerile game.
Oh yes I can see him shooting in that picture. Look how he just points the gun and shoots!Good thing the British Army is immune from that puerile game.
I just love you arm chair generals who assume all soldiers, in all conflicts, at all points in history act as one and the same.
If a rioter is causing problems then yes you might physically man handle them. when around hostile civilians who have a track record of suicide bombing and shootings, you would carry you gun in a very aggressive manner. All these situations are different, as is the time and acceptable actions.
In 1940's there were a crap load less human rights than now!
As I say, it is like debating with 3 year old kids!
Countdown said:
That summarises the situation quite succinctly.
Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
I notice a massive difference. During the period of that photo we were among friendly civilians!!! It is taken in the area around KAF and if, IF, the locals were hostile to us there is no way on god's green earth he would be without a helmet in that photo. Or are you assuming that ALL Afghan's were/are against the British Army? The same assumption for Iraq? Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
That summarises the situation quite succinctly.
Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
I notice a massive difference. During the period of that photo we were among friendly civilians!!! It is taken in the area around KAF and if, IF, the locals were hostile to us there is no way on god's green earth he would be without a helmet in that photo. Or are you assuming that ALL Afghan's were/are against the British Army? The same assumption for Iraq? Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
Are you genuinely suggesting that the majority of Iraqis and Afghans wanted us and the US there?
It seems like you like re-writing history.
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
That summarises the situation quite succinctly.
Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
I notice a massive difference. During the period of that photo we were among friendly civilians!!! It is taken in the area around KAF and if, IF, the locals were hostile to us there is no way on god's green earth he would be without a helmet in that photo. Or are you assuming that ALL Afghan's were/are against the British Army? The same assumption for Iraq? Our soldiers weren't amongst friendly locals, so we left. The alternative would have been to kill and keep killing locals and argue it as some kind of perverse self defence. If we weren't there we wouldn't be getting attacked by the locals.
Notice any difference?
Are you genuinely suggesting that the majority of Iraqis and Afghans wanted us and the US there?
It seems like you like re-writing history.
Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
NWTony said:
league67 said:
Really? Where is the gun pointing to?
See, this would be a 'picture of a small child next to a soldier with a gun'.
I hope you can see the difference between the two.
Not 'even' on the trigger. You are quite right, it's not, your point?
Is this one standing guard too? After all his finger is not on the trigger.
I can't see the second pic you posted as it is on a server banned at my work, but the first pic and the one I initially responded to are BOTH pictures of soldiers next to children.See, this would be a 'picture of a small child next to a soldier with a gun'.
I hope you can see the difference between the two.
Not 'even' on the trigger. You are quite right, it's not, your point?
Is this one standing guard too? After all his finger is not on the trigger.
Edited by league67 on Friday 22 August 09:33
You would have to be desperate to suggest that the soldier in that picture is threatening the child with the gun.
There are undoubtedly pictures available of soldiers pointing guns at children, but that isn't one of them.
I also asked for the significance of the finger next and not on the trigger and posted further picture, but, once again, nothing from you on that either. To me, soldier not pointing gun at the kid is completely different than the first one. To you giving water and pointing gun at are equal. I don't know what to say to that.
league67 said:
I also asked for the significance of the finger next and not on the trigger and posted further picture, but, once again, nothing from you on that either.
And that question shows your utter lack of knowledge of military operations, working practices and weapon handling.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff