Discussion
league67 said:
Transmitter Man said:
league67 said:
For you, there is no point in reading anything. British Army didn't go on rampage killing over 2000 people, most of them civilians, in little over a month. If they were terrorizing civilian population, just like both IDF and Hamas do, they would be terrorist organization as well. Flag or cause are irrelevant. Actions are what terrorists are judged on.
I understand why are you aligning your views and looking for proof from mentally ill person. I really do.
Personally I think there's a difference between a terrorist organisation and the IDF;I understand why are you aligning your views and looking for proof from mentally ill person. I really do.
Anyone have a match?
I'm sure he was displaying threatening behaviour and using colourful language.
Grumfutock said:
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.
league67 said:
Grumfutock said:
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.Fair enough though, engaging ignore mode. ma`a as-salāma
league67 said:
Strange, they are both posted on postimage.org. I asked you where the gun should be pointing in order for you to think that it's pointing at the child. For some reason I'm still waiting for answer to that one.
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.
One is at S3postimage the other at S29postimage? Whatever the reason I can see the first pic you posted on this computer but the second is a red X. If I click on the red X to follow the link I get a page banned message from my employers.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.
In response to your first point, i think (and you'll have to accept it's hard to say in 2D that the gun is "pointing" to the left and above the child's head, I'm not certain though. I put "pointing" in quotes as I didn't want to imply that the soldier was deliberately "pointing" the gun anywhere, it seems to me that the gun is just being held - he hasn't shouldered the weapon, he isn't looking down the sights and again, finger is not on the trigger (more on this in a bit). Also, if the soldier is pointing guns at children, he'd be better off pointing it at the bigger child behind him.
And once again on the trigger finger - I can't see the second pic, I can't possbily comment. Have I missed something or are you referring to the pic of the soldier sharing water witht he child, which is completely different?
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock, I'd like to hear why you support Israel.
Or, at least, why the part of you that credits your opponents with rationality believes that we should.
Well if that is a serious question then it is a simple answer. I really don't give a crap either way.Or, at least, why the part of you that credits your opponents with rationality believes that we should.
What I do care about is the bleeding heart brigade that think shooting unguided missiles at people is acceptable but a country using it's armed forces to strike back isn't on.
I also have an issue with people that think you can fight a war without casualties. It isn't like that, never has been and never will be. You cannot drop a bomb on a building and not expect damage or casualties within the blast radius. You can not fight a war in a city and not have innocent people hurt. Hamas use choose their launch site very cleverly and are no fools. Israel just don't give a crap as long as they get the main target. The ex soldier part of me admires their political balls to do that, the humanitarian in me condemns it.
Simple fact is, having been in these no win situations myself in a lot of places around the world, I have sympathy with the Israeli soldiers on the ground and get a tad miffed when kids that haven't done anything more exciting than play Call of Duty call them child murderers whilst defending, to the hilt, suicide bombers. I would love to see some on here witness the effects of such bombers and then defend them. Now they are indiscriminate!
Call it professional empathy if you like but I know how hard the Israeli soldiers have it. I open accept that there will be some nutters amongst them, bound to be. However please consider how you might react to seeing a friend shot or blown up and the next day to face people that you know were involved but you have to remain cool. It isn't easy. That doesn't excuse those that react and over step the mark, of course not, but if we are going to shout foul and demand court cases then let us apply the same rules to all sides.
I firmly believe in fighting fire with fire. You will not and cannot win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Churchill knew it in 1940, the Yanks didn't in '65 and we forgot it in the Stan.
I hope that answers your question.
Grumfutock said:
I firmly believe in fighting fire with fire. You will not and cannot win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Churchill knew it in 1940, the Yanks didn't in '65 and we forgot it in the Stan.
I hope that answers your question.
Apply that logic to the Palestinians, and you have the reason the mess it as it is.I hope that answers your question.
NWTony said:
league67 said:
Strange, they are both posted on postimage.org. I asked you where the gun should be pointing in order for you to think that it's pointing at the child. For some reason I'm still waiting for answer to that one.
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.
One is at S3postimage the other at S29postimage? Whatever the reason I can see the first pic you posted on this computer but the second is a red X. If I click on the red X to follow the link I get a page banned message from my employers.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.
In response to your first point, i think (and you'll have to accept it's hard to say in 2D that the gun is "pointing" to the left and above the child's head, I'm not certain though. I put "pointing" in quotes as I didn't want to imply that the soldier was deliberately "pointing" the gun anywhere, it seems to me that the gun is just being held - he hasn't shouldered the weapon, he isn't looking down the sights and again, finger is not on the trigger (more on this in a bit). Also, if the soldier is pointing guns at children, he'd be better off pointing it at the bigger child behind him.
And once again on the trigger finger - I can't see the second pic, I can't possbily comment. Have I missed something or are you referring to the pic of the soldier sharing water witht he child, which is completely different?
I understand your reasoning. But, for me, even taking into account 2D picture and the fact that we weren't there, picture is pointing at the kid, to the best of available info. I'm not going to guess as to why he is pointing gun at that kid. I had gun pointed at my direction on two occasions, and it's not an experience that I'll like to repeat. As for looking down the sights, completely unnecessary at that range, so moot point?
As for the finger not being on the trigger, I don't think that would have any bearing on the fact that gun is pointed at the kid.
To illustrate that I linked the video where Israeli soldier is using the weapon in the same way to, quite obviously, threaten someone. If you look up you'll see the link to youtube.
The finger on the second picture, as well as at 0:40 of the first video is in the exactly same position, I would imagine it's placed there to prevent involuntary squeeze of the trigger, but close enough that it could be moved very quickly.
league67 said:
Grumfutock said:
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.
He ignores everyone who defeats him in debate. Grumfutock said:
I firmly believe in fighting fire with fire. You will not and cannot win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Churchill knew it in 1940, the Yanks didn't in '65 and we forgot it in the Stan.
Massively oversimplistic in my opinion.The differences between the war we fought in 1940, compared to the wars fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan are obvious and transparent.
In the first one we had an identifiable military objective and a reason for going to war that didn't need to be justified to our respective civilian populations. Their support was unconditional.
In the latter two wars the objective was fuzzy at best, neither the US or the UK had a clearly defined objective that could be achieved by military means, and neither war had the unconditional support of the domestic electorate.
To suggest we "forgot" how to win wars in Afghanistan is ridiculous. The only way to win would have been to kill every single Afghani (and their Pathan cousins over the border in Pakistan, depopulate the entire country of Pashtuns, and repopulate with people from outside the area.
Do you think the Russians "forgot" as well?
I'd agree with a fair bit of that. My first real realisation that people didn't walk (or limp, or get carried away) with neat holes in them was seeing the aftermath of the attack on the market in Sarajevo.
I asked because I came to realise that many of the arguments you were mounting are well to the "right" (for want of a better term) of those in Haaretz, let alone those in the documentary on Deir Yassin (Israeli Jews).
Here's another question.
Israel are obviously capable of crushing Hamas. But wouldn't that see the end of Israel?
I asked because I came to realise that many of the arguments you were mounting are well to the "right" (for want of a better term) of those in Haaretz, let alone those in the documentary on Deir Yassin (Israeli Jews).
Here's another question.
Israel are obviously capable of crushing Hamas. But wouldn't that see the end of Israel?
Grumfutock said:
Where did I say that? Kindly point it out to me!
Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
You seem to prefer the "wriggle out of awkward questions" style of debating.Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
Here's a fairly straightforward question - Do you think the majority of either Afghans or Iraqis "wanted" their country to be invaded by the UK and US?
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
I firmly believe in fighting fire with fire. You will not and cannot win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Churchill knew it in 1940, the Yanks didn't in '65 and we forgot it in the Stan.
Massively oversimplistic in my opinion.The differences between the war we fought in 1940, compared to the wars fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan are obvious and transparent.
In the first one we had an identifiable military objective and a reason for going to war that didn't need to be justified to our respective civilian populations. Their support was unconditional.
In the latter two wars the objective was fuzzy at best, neither the US or the UK had a clearly defined objective that could be achieved by military means, and neither war had the unconditional support of the domestic electorate.
To suggest we "forgot" how to win wars in Afghanistan is ridiculous. The only way to win would have been to kill every single Afghani (and their Pathan cousins over the border in Pakistan, depopulate the entire country of Pashtuns, and repopulate with people from outside the area.
Do you think the Russians "forgot" as well?
ks!1. Yes we faced an identifiable enemy in 1940. That really wasn't the point. Churchill realised they were a fanatical enemy and took the gloves off. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
2. If Soldiers run wars there is only ever one simple objective, defeat the enemy. In both wars this wasn't the case so the objective was blurred. We didn't take the gloves off!
3. Why would killing every Afghan win the war? You make the same ignorant assumption that EVERY Afghan is/was against us. Not the case I can assure you.
4. Yes, of course the Russians did forget, do you honestly think Stalin would of got the same result? They made the exact same mistake the Yanks did in '65. Don't just take the cities. Always, always take the high ground and keep it. Neither did and they both lost. But that is a separate and bigger debate that doesn't belong in this thread.
TheRealFingers99 said:
I'd agree with a fair bit of that. My first real realisation that people didn't walk (or limp, or get carried away) with neat holes in them was seeing the aftermath of the attack on the market in Sarajevo.
I asked because I came to realise that many of the arguments you were mounting are well to the "right" (for want of a better term) of those in Haaretz, let alone those in the documentary on Deir Yassin (Israeli Jews).
You were at Markale? 94 or 95?I asked because I came to realise that many of the arguments you were mounting are well to the "right" (for want of a better term) of those in Haaretz, let alone those in the documentary on Deir Yassin (Israeli Jews).
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Where did I say that? Kindly point it out to me!
Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
You seem to prefer the "wriggle out of awkward questions" style of debating.Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
Here's a fairly straightforward question - Do you think the majority of either Afghans or Iraqis "wanted" their country to be invaded by the UK and US?
Looks like 18 less Gazans. Killed by Hamas in revenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Edited by Mr_B on Friday 22 August 15:40
Grumfutock said:
Utter bks!
1. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
To quote you, utter bks!1. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
ks.What more should America have done in Vietnam ? Chemical warfare with the defoliants, bombing campaigns that made Laos the most bombed country in the world ever with over 2.5 million tons of ordnance dropped in a relatively tiny area.
Totally levelling North Vietnam infrastructure, including mining Haiphong harbour, the US bombed Hanoi into rubble, then bombed the rubble.
The cost of the war ended up damaging the US economy severely.
The only thing left in the armoury was a case of instant sunshine or Bio weapons ? Because that was all that was left to throw at the North Vietnamese.
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Where did I say that? Kindly point it out to me!
Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
You seem to prefer the "wriggle out of awkward questions" style of debating.Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
Here's a fairly straightforward question - Do you think the majority of either Afghans or Iraqis "wanted" their country to be invaded by the UK and US?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff