Mid air collision over Porthcawl
- Thread starter Col_Buendia
- Start date
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
where have i done that then liar?
Derf, I hope the people who come and rescue you from the big earthquake that's on the horizon for Indonesia (see you've had 3 +5s today) well, I hope they're the typical Army type, and tie you up and leave you with a piss soaked bag over your head
It's 11pm here now and time to go to bed.
What I do know is that if the British military ever had to come here and rescue me from an earthquake or whatever I could thank them knowing I wasn't being a two faced cunt who had been slagging them off and gloating over the death of their mates.
I can't say I always support the political use of the military especially in Iraq but I support and respect the people who are willing to put on a uniform and risk their lives to help others.
That's something a daft twat with political hate motivated ideas could never do with head held high but I don't suppose you could understand that.
xes
F.O.A.D
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Without wishing to get dragged in to this slanging match, but just ineterested to know what would those who condemn the military for just existing suggest we do for a defence policy in this country! Or would they be happy to be attacked by any aggressor who so choses?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
who the hell are we going to be attacked by and look how invaded new zealand is with their reduced military...
more than unpleasant.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
you could learn a thing or two from the Westboro Baptist Church
eh?
don't compare me to those nutjobs please, or explain your logic at leastdo you support the military and their targetting of youth then?
i've also asked the boys with their tank in town how many of their mates died and have they killed anyone themselves. just trying to be less of a hypocrite myself seee
my logic is the total lack of tact, the ideology over sanity and the inability to understand why most other people think you are wrong (delusional) etc.
Col_Buendia
sort code
I don't know if you are aiming this comment at the bunfighters here, or at the original article that I linked to, but either way it seems like quite a naive comment. That two young girls died is undoubtedly a tragedy, but given that they were well below the age that we generally accept as the minimum for making informed moral decisions, surely it behooves us as a society to ask ourselves some hard questions about why their death happened? When Baby P died, there was a near-instant reaction from the state, in the face of huge public outcry, a whirlwind inquiry and radical changes. Why, when it is a case of two young Welsh girls dying in the care of the state's military, does it become off-limits to ask hard questions about what they were doing there in the first place?
You have in the past, iirc, commented adversely on the disproportionate targeting of poor Welsh communities by the British military. The valleys have provided cheap cannon fodder, that's surely not in question. But in the face of growing public disenchantment with wars of aggression launched on the flimsiest basis, the military has been faced with a recruitment crisis. So out comes the PR offensive. They come to Cardiff Castle and park their baby tanks outside, dress up in shiny uniforms, and let little boys clamber all over the big boys' toys. They sponsor events where they can hoover up the socially & economically disadvantaged (ffs, the army was one of the sponsors of the Cardiff launch of Black History Month recently. Not a trace of irony there, then.) And then they target people so young that they as I said in my earlier post aren't considered responsible enough to buy cigarettes, and look to groom them for a career in the military. That, in my book, is morally repugnant. And a sure sign of their desperation. If you're not old enough to make an informed choice about smoking a cigarette and potentially killing yourself with cancer, how on earth can you be old enough to be being courted by the British military for a future career abroad killing foreigners?
That's an interesting point, and one I wasn't aware of. In fact, it sort of makes my tenuous comparison with the Baby P case slightly less tenuous, for it suggests that there might well have been a cavalier dereliction of care, if the air force was sending teenage cadets up in planes that they knew had safety issues.
And out comes 1927's one and only response to anyone who dares question the British military. And yet every time you trot this somewhat silly line out, you then disappear whenever anyone asks you 'who exactly is looking to attack the UK at the minute?' Surely even you can spot the difference between a war of aggression and self-defence. So tell me, when was the last time the UK military were engaged in self-defence on this island?
No one has been gloating, and it reflects rather poorly on you to bring the notion of "gloating" to a discussion about the deaths of two young girls, the morality of military recruitment and the militarisation of civil society. In fact, I'd say that people are pretty motivated to *avoid* further deaths, and so question the role of the forces. It's a shame ddraig flies off the handle so madly and rises to your baiting, for I don't have any issue with anyone coming into the Wales forum for a chat, but if all you're coming here to do is to drag a debate about the nature of Welsh society into the muck with your prejudices, perhaps I could echo ddraig's sentiment and suggest you refrain?
xes said:
ddraig said:
When I read the thread I hadn't noticed it was in the Wales forum but that has little to do with anything.
My gripe is about disgusting posts like the two quoted above.
Oh look, military bastards dead - they deserve it.
It's a story about 2 kids and their pilots who have died in a terrible accident.
Do these people have no respect for the dead and their families?
It's about the same as those "your sons are in hell posters" carried by those US cretins in the pictures above.
I can only hope that no family of the dead read this forum and see the filthy comments made by some posters.
Right, I've had my rant so I'll shut up now.
Dic Penderyn
Newport Civic Pride!
What the Col Said.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
It wasn't a silly line it was a question which you have decided not to answer.
Does it matter that we are not under imminent threat of attack?
Weren't aware we were discusiing a war of agression or self defence, but the deaths of two teenagers, and I can tell the difference thanks.
Within living memory, so hardly soon enough to be totally disbanding the entire military machine in the UK.
Col_Buendia
sort code
Well, you've ignored the earlier questions put to you about where this mysterious threat to, errr, Porthcawl, is coming from. So I don' t feel under any huge pressure to answer your question, seeing as how the premise is fundamentally flawed.
Very much so. While you rightly acknowledge that the British military has been used in self-defence within living memory, it is only just within living memory. So if we bring things rather more up to date, the British military has been exclusively, illegally and dishonourably employed in wars of aggression for the best part of half a century. If you remove the anomalous example of WW2, and look further back to colonial times, then the pattern stretches even further (hence my amusement at finding the army sponsoring Black History Month).
Lets not be naive about why the two teenagers were there in the first place. They were being groomed for a career in military that routinely engages in wars of aggression. To foreclose on the debate seems to me to be making political football out of their deaths by imposing a self-censoring embargo on discussing the role of the British military, out of some misplaced sense of "respect" for their tragic deaths. So lets really show some respect for their deaths, by working to make sure that no other teenagers from Porthcawl die in the hands of the RAF, and lets put an end to the morally repugnant grooming of immature youngsters by the military, eh? You up for that?
Again, you're off on a strawman argument. So far, no one on this thread has called for a "total disbandment of the entire military machine in the UK". I think we're realistic enough to know we'll have to wait a bit longer for that!
Unless of course a new Hitler turns in. One so easily could.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cu...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED248733
Would that have been an almighty fuck up, or what?
I for one am happy that the men and women who join the services risk their own safety for others.
I salute them all.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
So the fact that Porthcawl is not under imminent danger of attack is reason for not having any UK defence policy? And you accuse me of having a flawed argument!
Again, you're off on a strawman argument. So far, no one on this thread has called for a "total disbandment of the entire military machine in the UK". I think we're realistic enough to know we'll have to wait a bit longer for that!
So the fact that you expect to wait for total disbandment give struth to the fact that ultimately that is what youy wish for, so in truth you would call for it, even if you haven't used those actual words. And the fact that you totally decry any military presence in wales, or anywhere else in the Uk for that matter would indicate your wishes also.
Col_Buendia
sort code
Ah, you're a laugh, 1927. So although we don't need to defend ourselves, as you now admit, you think we should spend billions on being ready to defend ourselves. Against no one in particular, but you can never be too sure. And while you and the rest of the cheerleaders wave the cannon fodder up the line to death in Afghanistan, you seem to overlook the small issue of the threat of domestic terrorism, arguably generated by wars of aggression overseas, and which provides a much greater danger to the public of these islands. What about demilitarising to protect ourselves from generating people with an axe to grind and a rucksack full of explosive?
But here's a different question for you 1927: there's a possibility that Porthcawl will be hit by an enormous meteorite in the next 100million years. Don't you think it is criminally culpable of the WAG not to be spending billions on a scheme to protect Porthcawl against this possible eventuality? (Leaving aside the obvious point that Porthcawl would in all probability be markedly improved were it to be struck by a meteorite.)
(PS: your second paragraph just puts words into my mouth, so it's not worth responding to. )
But here's a different question for you 1927: there's a possibility that Porthcawl will be hit by an enormous meteorite in the next 100million years. Don't you think it is criminally culpable of the WAG not to be spending billions on a scheme to protect Porthcawl against this possible eventuality? (Leaving aside the obvious point that Porthcawl would in all probability be markedly improved were it to be struck by a meteorite.)
(PS: your second paragraph just puts words into my mouth, so it's not worth responding to.
)
likesfish
You can't park here sir
We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
The Military is the attack dog of the state its last defence the contiuation of politics by other means.
where the state fails you don't get a load of vegan coopratives you get hell on earth
now anarchism is a nice idea but until people evolve a bit more its an ism thats best left to students and the like.
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
The Military is the attack dog of the state its last defence the contiuation of politics by other means.
where the state fails you don't get a load of vegan coopratives you get hell on earth
now anarchism is a nice idea but until people evolve a bit more its an ism thats best left to students and the like.
Col_Buendia
sort code
10 out of 10 for cliche and avoidance of any analysis worthy of the name! Thanks for your contribution.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Ah, you're a laugh, 1927. So although we don't need to defend ourselves, as you now admit, you think we should spend billions on being ready to defend ourselves. Against no one in particular, but you can never be too sure. And while you and the rest of the cheerleaders wave the cannon fodder up the line to death in Afghanistan, you seem to overlook the small issue of the threat of domestic terrorism, arguably generated by wars of aggression overseas, and which provides a much greater danger to the public of these islands. What about demilitarising to protect ourselves from generating people with an axe to grind and a rucksack full of explosive?
But here's a different question for you 1927: there's a possibility that Porthcawl will be hit by an enormous meteorite in the next 100million years. Don't you think it is criminally culpable of the WAG not to be spending billions on a scheme to protect Porthcawl against this possible eventuality? (Leaving aside the obvious point that Porthcawl would in all probability be markedly improved were it to be struck by a meteorite.)
(PS: your second paragraph just puts words into my mouth, so it's not worth responding to.
Where did I say that we didn't need to defend ourselves?
Why the obsession with Porthcawl?
Col - I understand your anger/issues but trying to draw moral parallels to Baby P and using the terms "grooming" and "courting" which have been popularised by the tabloid press to describe the actions of paedophiles and child abusers doesn't help.
what is your position on the Irish Army? they are a neutral state and use the army for international peace keeping (Lebanon, Congo etc), internal security, coastal security, formal non-military activities (protecting people during natural disasters and maintaining the functioning of essential services)
what is your position on the Irish Army? they are a neutral state and use the army for international peace keeping (Lebanon, Congo etc), internal security, coastal security, formal non-military activities (protecting people during natural disasters and maintaining the functioning of essential services)
Col_Buendia
sort code
@ PAD1OH: well, I did say in the earlier post that the comparison with Baby P was tenuous, but I think it stands scrutiny. 3 children in the care of the state died - my main point was that refusing to ask the same tough questions about the deaths of Nikkita Walters and Katie-Jo Davies does them a disservice. And I recognise that using terminology such as "grooming" is inflammatory. But what other word best suits a situation where a mature adult premeditatedly tries to persuade a young person, below the socially established age of moral responsibility, into a course of action that endangers their very lives?
I don't know much about the Irish army, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question in much detail. Obviously all the functions you describe and that they carry out can be performed without maintaining an army of aggression. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to deny a people the right to self-defence. And this is where 1927 fails to grasp the finer detail of the argument. There is a huge difference between a community being able to defend itself, and the state desire to maintain a standing professional army capable of launching wars of aggression. 1927 conflates the two in his perennial gripe of "who will defend us if not the army", hence failing to notice that the British army has done little defending of the population of these islands for most of its history... But not knowing much about other examples doesn't preclude me from making focussed criticisms of the very corrupt military system that we have in this country.
I don't know much about the Irish army, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question in much detail. Obviously all the functions you describe and that they carry out can be performed without maintaining an army of aggression. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to deny a people the right to self-defence. And this is where 1927 fails to grasp the finer detail of the argument. There is a huge difference between a community being able to defend itself, and the state desire to maintain a standing professional army capable of launching wars of aggression. 1927 conflates the two in his perennial gripe of "who will defend us if not the army", hence failing to notice that the British army has done little defending of the population of these islands for most of its history... But not knowing much about other examples doesn't preclude me from making focussed criticisms of the very corrupt military system that we have in this country.
Col_Buendia
sort code
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Those two statements do not support each other. ffs.
Its hardly worth having a debate with somene who has as little grasp of the concept as you.
