So you might have heard about the issue of some Muslims protesting against the Armed Forces coming back to the UK, and shouting abuse like Child Killers, Terrorists, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/ 7935049.stm
I am probably one of the strongest Muslim supporters of our Armed Forces. I am actually annoyed at our Government's lack of seriousness of keeping our Armed Forces in check, in good order and in good condition.
So what can I say to these protesters?
Well actually, I can't say anything against them. While I don't believe UK soldiers are responsible for civilian deaths caused by the blanket bombing of US aircraft (in some cases, bombings of schools and hospitals) in Afghanistan, our country and our military do nothing to stop, prevent, recover from or say anything against those attacks. Our Government does not slam the US when its drones fire missiles at civilian homes full of children.
So what can I say?
Nothing.
British soldiers where to busy doing this to hurt citizens in iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xRXDz-C5KE | |
US is hardcore >.>
| |
Yep, Silk hit the nail right on the head, if your going to accuse the US of these war crimes you need to supply proof otherwise it is just useless propaganda.
Edit: I would also like to note that if the US did bomb a school or hospital in Afghanistan, it was because the Taliban turned it into a base of operation(which happens alot in Afghanistan and Iraq). There is pictures of Iraq where Saddam had anti-aircraft guns attached to merry-go-rounds in school yards. | |
You are probably talking about what happend in luton right? Its a shame that our soldiers are getting abused in our own country for doing the jobs that they were assigned to do... My friend has actually just signed up for 4 years... good luck to him.
| |
Good to see everyone in this thread grabbing for simplistic answers again. Please continue.
Are you saying that you're a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot. One could easily interpret from that statement that you're a ignorant and provincial douchebag, Silk. I hope that wasn't what you intended. | |
TheMonkeyDidIt wrote:
Good to see everyone in this thread grabbing for simplistic answers again. Please continue. Hmm, seems like you did exactly the same thing. | |
Soldierman wrote:
Hmm, seems like you did exactly the same thing. How's that? Don't be shy - elaborate. | |
I'm tired of every foreigner pulling the annoying stereotype that America is so bad we just blow up everything because we don't care. We're not perfect, fine but if your going to sit back and watch and then whine when ever something happens, it's just annoying. There are so many regulations on the America military, it actually constricts us. We're forced to play the better man against our enemies when they wouldn't do the same for us.
Bottom line, if you want to make bad accusations, please show some real proof. | |
Lord of light wrote:
I'm tired of every foreigner pulling the annoying stereotype that America is so bad we just blow up everything because we don't care. We're not perfect, fine but if your going to sit back and watch and then whine when ever something happens, it's just annoying. There are so many regulations on the America military, it actually constricts us. We're forced to play the better man against our enemies when they wouldn't do the same for us. How about dead bodies in friendly fire? or is that not enough proof, which is were the all guns blazing cowboy steriotype comes from. Just wondering why you said "We're forced to play the better man against our enemies" | |
Lord of light wrote:
I'm tired of every foreigner pulling the annoying stereotype that America is so bad we just blow up everything because we don't care. We're not perfect, fine but if your going to sit back and watch and then whine when ever something happens, it's just annoying. There are so many regulations on the America military, it actually constricts us. We're forced to play the better man against our enemies when they wouldn't do the same for us. And yet, you refuse to honour the Geneva Conventions. At least, under Bush you did. Obama hasn't been in power long enough to say either way on his administration. He is shutting down Guantanamo, but we'll see whether extraordinary rendition and other abuses of human rights continue. It's not a matter of stereotypes. It's a matter of cold, hard fact - there have been a number of cases of US troops hitting civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't take a brainwashed nut to know that. For heaven's sakes, missiles were being shot into Baghdad at the start of the war! Playing the better man would be deliberately avoiding civilian targets, being damned careful about what you do hit, not using high explosives in populated areas, and providing prisoners of war with basic human rights. Oh, and not kidnapping nationals of other countries while they're outside the US and exporting them to Egypt so they can be tortured. | |
Jp wrote:
It's a matter of cold, hard fact - there have been a number of cases of US troops hitting civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. When enemy combatants set up base and hide near (or with) civilians, the military has little choice. There is a big difference between collateral damage and soldiers killing civilians for sport. The U.S. takes extreme care to avoid civilian casualties; doing otherwise would sabotage our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. | |
TheMonkeyDidIt wrote:
One could easily interpret from that statement that you're a ignorant and provincial douchebag, Silk. I hope that wasn't what you intended. I don't understand what your problem with my statement was. Care to elaborate? Yes, I have a problem with radical Muslims. No, I don't think all religions are created equally. Muslims have a higher percentage of complete whackos in their ranks. That said, I don't really trust anyone who bases their system of ethics on an ethereal being who exists outside the realm of reality and human comprehension. | |
I liked the old Muslims better, 'Just because they believe in a different way of worshiping god, doesn't mean they are bad, they will still be saved.'
| |
You've over-simplified an extremely complex situation.
Something else I don't think anyone else has pointed out thus far is the difference between criticizing the military, and attacking soldiers and families of soldiers. There's a difference between stating the government's involvement, and spitting on a soldier coming home. At NO point is this okay. People who insult members of the armed forces are scum, no, worse than scum. The men and women in uniform are only doing their job. It's not socially acceptable stand outside car factories ans spit on the workers their is a car is recalled after a defect was found in the model. It's not socially acceptable for people to verbally insult a pharmaceutical worker after a drug their company has made causes a disabling side-effect. So, the argument you're making(which is, as far as I can tell saying you can't object to people insulting those in the armed service) is just ridiculous. I've personally seen the ignorant bastards that you "can't say anything" to in action. I had a friend Killed In Action. At his funeral, there were people protesting the war. And you're daring to state you can't say anything to these people? Honestly, that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard in my life. | |
1. Silk: I was stating that your remark could be construed as a flippant dismissal of Bloke's perspective because he's a muslim. While it's your right to hold whatever beliefs you have, I would hope someone so vehemently striving to be a free thinker would avoid off-handed bigotry and consider the content of the poster's words.
2. By simplistic, it's my opinion that, often, both sides in a dispute build a mythology around their side's 'rightness' (and righteousness) in the situation. I think both the protesters that Bloke is talking about and some of posters in this thread are taking that simpler, easier-to-digest perspective on what's happening over there. The first group fails to accomodate reports that the taliban have used a 'human shield' tactic (Human Rights Watch are among those that corroborate that) and disperse among villages and non-combatants. This makes guerilla wars tremendously tragic and could be avoided by the insurgency. Supporters of the pro-governmental forces (from what I've seen) rarely bring up the fact that Rumsfeld underfunded and undermanned the war by relying on the tactic of 'shock and awe', which itself relied on large amounts of air-to-ground assualt (read: bombs). Because he was careless with U.S. and Afghani lives, the military did not have the numbers, money, or equipment necessary to fight a more humane war. There have been mistakes (remember the A-10 v. wedding party?), and there has been neglect (which is a dangerous side effect of making your enemy a non-human, 2-dimensional cartoon villian). There are, unfortunately, no 100% clear right/wrong/innocent/guilty in this. If there were a simple answer to this, we wouldn't be talking about it. 3. To the soldiers in this thread: I have much respect for what you do. I'd ask that you please remember that, not only are you soldiers, but also citizens. As citizens, you have another duty: to watch and question the government. I know that everything in military culture reinforces a top-down, quick reaction, but occasionally asking yourself, 'Is my leader insane?' or 'Is my congress actually retarded?' is as good for this country as finding that Saudi wahhabist, pencil-dicked, rich-kid who loved guantanamo and water-boarding as much as Cheney did. This serves not only to protect the current nation but the ideal democracy of free thinkers that it was and will be built on. Anyhooooooo...my two cents. | |
1. There are good soldiers and bad soldiers, those who give money out of pocket to help, and then there are those who pull crap like what happend in Abu Ghraib. Arguing that soldiers are demons or angels is retarded on both sides
2. Silk, you said you were leaving byond members, go back to your whitewashed blog where you can moderate your comments so everyone agrees with you. | |
TheMonkeyDidIt wrote:
I would hope someone so vehemently striving to be a free thinker would avoid off-handed bigotry and consider the content of the poster's words. I am a free thinker, and therefore I'm not afraid to call Muslims out on their BS. If you want to talk about what Acebloke wrote, then I'd call it a cowardly, sniveling endorsement of a group of radical Muslim scumbags that has no basis in reality, much less any sort of proof to back it up. This is a black and white issue. A returning war veteran who has been fighting to protect your basic freedoms and security does not deserve to be spat on and accused of imaginary war crimes that he did not commit. Simple as that. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
I am a free thinker, and therefore I'm not afraid to call Muslims out on their BS. These Muslims or all Muslims. Grouping of sets by a single attribute leads to mis-attribution when measuring a separate attribute. BS? Did children die? Yes. Was it at the hands of the pro-governmental forces? Yes. Did these forces cause terror? Yes. Is that a common, sad fact of war? Yes. Do these specific> soldiers deserve the accusations? In all statistical likely-hood (and just, good, and social compassion), no. Even if they did, I don't know of another war where terror and child-killing wasn't part of the whole tragedy. Would I have liked those protesters circling Tony's house instead? Yes. Did the men and women who died in front of those men die for, among other things, the right for those protesters to do what they did? Yes (article 10 in thew U.K., first ammendment in the U.S.) Does that make their homecoming worse? For a minute, I'm guessing. I imagine they're mostly happy to be home (and so am I). As far as what Acebloke wrote, although it contains some rhetoric and hyperbole, his statement is accurate. English government was complicit in aerial strikes against civilian targets in a tech v. guerilla war. It's war, Silk. You can call it morally relativistic, but things are more complicated than what we'd all like them to be. It would be nice if there was such a thing as a righteous/clean war, but there isn't. It's mainly just a waste. I didn't see his statements as endorsement, but that his sympathies are divided. I could be wrong. | |
If you believe the things you wrote, then you are too far gone to even reason with. However, in reference to this statement:
Acebloke wrote:
Are you saying that you're a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot.