downender2 Posted April 22, 2010 Author Share Posted April 22, 2010 off to work some unfinished business here still Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 I suppose the lesson is, if a story seems somehow beyond belief then it probably is. If you get me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 so its ok for politicians to take the piss with expenses and carry on regardless? so its ok for Old Bill to knock :censored: out of a defenceless women exercising her rights to demonstrate and for the copper to carry on regardless? so its ok for all the fat cat bankers to rob the people blind and carry on regardless? Non-sequitur. Non-sequitur. Non-sequitur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 Downender2, none of those other things you posted as "so its ok" are okay. And nobody here as said so. Not sure what the problem is. It's not like the full force of the law was diverted from all those other cases to hit this bloke instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 pathetic...just about sums things up so its ok for politicians to take the piss with expenses and carry on regardless? so its ok for Old Bill to knock :censored: out of a defenceless women exercising her rights to demonstrate and for the copper to carry on regardless? so its ok for all the fat cat bankers to rob the people blind and carry on regardless? but a serving soldier in a war zone, loses his rag for 5 minutes and gives an "enemy soldier" a few extra digs..and he.....after 18 years commended service..loses his job and his pension...?? you just carry on sitting comfortably Sorry, who are you talking to? Me? Is it so outrageous that people don't agree with you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted April 22, 2010 Author Share Posted April 22, 2010 Sorry, who are you talking to? Me? Is it so outrageous that people don't agree with you? no, but it is outrageous that folk seem to have missed the fkin point. and "Non sequitur"....what the is that all about... some folk on here perhaps maybe to fkin smart for an owd like me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 no, but it is outrageous that folk seem to have missed the fkin point. and "Non sequitur"....what the :censored: is that all about... some folk on here perhaps maybe to fkin smart for an owd :censored: like me... Outrageous that many seem to be siding with justice? Non sequitur is Latin for does not follow - it's a logical fallacy "an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists" or a load of :censored:ing bollocks if you prefer - I'm trying to have a reasonable debate. I hate to say it but it is you that is missing the point; the combatant got a bloody good hiding whilst under arrest. Which is illegal. Like it or not. We are not calling into question the assumed 18 years of impeccable service prior to the crime that this Marine put in, we are not individually going to compare this criminal act with other criminal acts to somehow give the beating of a prisoner some credibility, neither are we going to wrongly tally up our brave soldiers that have lost their lives in this theatre to also justify this act, and there isn't double standards. We can't all be wrong... British soldiers aren't meant to beat up injured captured prisoners, as the MP clearly knew. God knows that all sorts of situations might happen and be needed when actually in conflict, but if we are going to claim to be on the right side then this sort of thing really isn't going to help. Don't you just love how they feel the need to build in a slightly xenophobic "political correctness gone maaaad" undertone to distract from the actual point? And I see the Daily Mail are all over it like a rash. Doesn't quite tell the full story, does it? I sympathise with the guy in terms of his having buried friends but, call me a cynic, I suspect the two fellers were left alone with the prisoner for the purpose of giving him a kicking. Now, I have no real sympathy with the prisoner but this guy's an experienced and senior officer and knew full well what the potential consequences were. I find it a bit sickening that you sem to equate people expressing concern at our troops breaking the Geneva Convention with a lack of concern for the casualities we are suffering over there. This is exactly why, come the revolution, stupid people (and Daily Mail readers ... just to mop up any who aren't both) will be removed from the electoral register. :cheguevara smiley: ...and that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 pathetic...just about sums things up so its ok for politicians to take the piss with expenses and carry on regardless? so its ok for Old Bill to knock :censored: out of a defenceless women exercising her rights to demonstrate and for the copper to carry on regardless? so its ok for all the fat cat bankers to rob the people blind and carry on regardless? but a serving soldier in a war zone, loses his rag for 5 minutes and gives an "enemy soldier" a few extra digs..and he.....after 18 years commended service..loses his job and his pension...?? you just carry on sitting comfortably Who said any of those things are ok ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 no, but it is outrageous that folk seem to have missed the fkin point. and "Non sequitur"....what the :censored: is that all about... some folk on here perhaps maybe to fkin smart for an owd :censored: like me... Its outrageous that we think kicking the living day lights out of someone in custody is wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Its outrageous that we think kicking the living day lights out of someone in custody is wrong in the context of the situation, yes, and certainly...and this is my main gripe, not worthy of this soldier being dismissed from the army he has served with distinction for 18 years and losing his pension. I'm am not saying that the other incidents I have raised are "ok"..it was my attempt to show the huge difference between how this soldier has been treated and how other domestic issues have been dealt with. It seems I need to improve on my repartee and use of latin and foreign phrases to emphasise my point more clearly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 in the context of the situation, yes, and certainly...and this is my main gripe, not worthy of this soldier being dismissed from the army he has served with distinction for 18 years and losing his pension. I'm am not saying that the other incidents I have raised are "ok"..it was my attempt to show the huge difference between how this soldier has been treated and how other domestic issues have been dealt with. It seems I need to improve on my repartee and use of latin and foreign phrases to emphasise my point more clearly Your point is crystal clear, its just a terrible one and no one agrees... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Your point is crystal clear, its just a terrible one and no one agrees... explains a lot I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) explains a lot I suppose. What ? That a minority of people in this country see justice unleashed in the form of a vigilantly attack and the majority find this sickening. I suppose it does explain a lot... Edited April 23, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 What ? That a minority of people in this country see justice unleashed in the form of a vigilantly attack and the majority find this sickening. I suppose it does explain a lot... he got a bit of a whacking...no electric cattle prods involved...no water board treatment...no detention without reason...just a few digs...and a wallop with a welly boot. problem here is he got caught doing it, plain and simple...should have just shot the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 he got a bit of a whacking...no electric cattle prods involved...no water board treatment...no detention without reason...just a few digs...and a wallop with a welly boot. problem here is he got caught doing it, plain and simple...should have just shot the You're struggling to win me over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 You're struggling to win me over. it is not my intention. you liberal wet types are safe and comfortable sticking together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 it is not my intention. you liberal wet types are safe and comfortable sticking together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 you liberal wet types are safe and comfortable sticking together Blimey, I've been called many things in my time, but that one is a first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) I know this guy shouldn't have give that bloke a kicking, indeed, if i would have caught that fella laying a mine or whatever, he wouldn't have made it to the cell in the first place. There are people who have done worse, and played for Oldham. Edited April 23, 2010 by Scratch2000uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 There are people who have done worse, and played for Oldham. Did they lose their job as well? That was certainly the outcome in one specific case that leaps to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 it is not my intention. you liberal wet types are safe and comfortable sticking together ...and that concludes the debate. We all know where we stand now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Did they lose their job as well? That was certainly the outcome in one specific case that leaps to mind. Yes, if it's the same individual he did lose his job, but he didn't lose his livelihood, and didn't he get behind the wheel of a car having alledgedly taken cocaine and alcohol, and then go kill someone. That's what i meant by " people have done worse" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) Yes, if it's the same individual he did lose his job, but he didn't lose his livelihood I'm sure this soldier will find the skills gained from employment in the army are exceptionally useful. He may even find better paid employment in the future. None of this appears to justify the act in question though. I still don't get it - in what way has he behaved reasonably? Edited April 23, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I'm sure this soldier will find the skills gained from employment in the army are exceptionally useful. He may even find better paid employment in the future. None of this appears to justify the act in question though. I still don't get it. Aye , there's always summat out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I'm sure this soldier will find the skills gained from employment in the army are exceptionally useful. He may even find better paid employment in the future. None of this appears to justify the act in question though. I still don't get it - in what way has he behaved reasonably? Sorry, everytime i quoted you on your post, it chhanged. Just highlighting comparables, this soldier acted unreasonably and got the sack for it, fair enough. Lee Hughes acted unreasonably that cost someone their lives, yet he still has the same livelihood. I don't get it either. Oh, on the other hand just ignore me........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.