Hero ??

28 Apr 2009

Quote by Freckledbird
who are the talibans?
are they not members of the afghani people? are they not citizens of other countries who have moved there to follow an ideal and a religious belief?
if we accept this, and the fact that they face overwelming odds, troops, military equipment and training..
should they not be called heroes as well then?
surelly they put their lives on the line, are NOT paid for it (quite often not even trained for it), and do it for a higher purpose
is that not a definition of heroism?
*snipped*
I WILL make the distinction and call heroes those who deserve it and not those who have merely done the duty they chose to take upon themselves and got paid for.
no, not all soldiers are heroes by default.
and whoever does think so should question their motives for thinking just that very hard...with the same intensity I question my own motives when I make up my mind.

Snipped the middle chunk out but I agree with you :thumbup:
Me to, :thumbup: A "hero" to me is someone who goes over & above the call of duty with no gain for themselves (financial or otherwise) A Joe bloggs who jumps in front of an oncoming car to get a child out of its path is a hero

28 Apr 2009

Quote by essex34m
Why is there a spread of terrorism from the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan ??? does the presence of an invading hostile army have a role to play in this ??
I repeat, is the unquestioning support of our troops necessarily a good thing?

You bloody bet it is!!
So you cant see an argument against it then?
Seeing as Kentswingers777 has chosen to ignore this, I may as well quantify this, but my view is, if more people questioned the support of the troops, then the politicians would not be thinking they are doing the right thing by being involved in the first place.
If more people were to voice their opinions, rather than just slap a hastily cut front page of some redtop saying "support our boys" in their front window, politicians may actually listen.
As for heroes, it is a subjective term, and is down to interpretation.
This could be considered a hero, to some, guy could be considered a hero, I'm sure there may well be many thousands who would consider a breakdown recovery guy a hero, not to mention the obvious members of the emergency services who do a sometimes thankless task.
If, what I am reading is right, then it is suggested that there should be unquestioning support of the HM Armed Forces, and by default, they can all be considered heroes.
I certainly wouldnt call the Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment a hero

28 Apr 2009

Widey, I think I love you!

28 Apr 2009

Quote by essex34m
Why is there a spread of terrorism from the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan ??? does the presence of an invading hostile army have a role to play in this ??
I repeat, is the unquestioning support of our troops necessarily a good thing?

You bloody bet it is!!
So you cant see an argument against it then?
Seeing as Kentswingers777 has chosen to ignore this, I may as well quantify this, but my view is, if more people questioned the support of the troops, then the politicians would not be thinking they are doing the right thing by being involved in the first place.
If more people were to voice their opinions, rather than just slap a hastily cut front page of some redtop saying "support our boys" in their front window, politicians may actually listen.
As for heroes, it is a subjective term, and is down to interpretation.
This could be considered a hero, to some, guy could be considered a hero, I'm sure there may well be many thousands who would consider a breakdown recovery guy a hero, not to mention the obvious members of the emergency services who do a sometimes thankless task.
If, what I am reading is right, then it is suggested that there should be unquestioning support of the HM Armed Forces, and by default, they can all be considered heroes.
I certainly wouldnt call the Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment a hero
Not ignoring it at all Essex but....I do have other more important things to do, than sit on here all day.
Unquestioning support of the armed forces eh?
You or anyone else have a problem with the armed forces, then kindly take it up with the people who sent them there..........this Government.
Now if you do not agree YOU like all of us have a chance next year to vote them out. But to say about " unquestionable support " for our armed forces, as I said " yes we bloody well should ".
They are there for OUR national security, and people will never agree on the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan but....the armed forces did not ask to go there, they were sent by their paymasters.
You really think that by people airing their opinions to this Government, will have any effect on their actions, with regards to where our troops are?
I do not think that " unquestionable support " to our armed forces is too much to ask of people, it is the Govenment people should taking their anger against, and not the troops. Full support to our boys and girls.

28 Apr 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Why is there a spread of terrorism from the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan ??? does the presence of an invading hostile army have a role to play in this ??
I repeat, is the unquestioning support of our troops necessarily a good thing?

You bloody bet it is!!
So you cant see an argument against it then?
Seeing as Kentswingers777 has chosen to ignore this, I may as well quantify this, but my view is, if more people questioned the support of the troops, then the politicians would not be thinking they are doing the right thing by being involved in the first place.
If more people were to voice their opinions, rather than just slap a hastily cut front page of some redtop saying "support our boys" in their front window, politicians may actually listen.
As for heroes, it is a subjective term, and is down to interpretation.
This could be considered a hero, to some, guy could be considered a hero, I'm sure there may well be many thousands who would consider a breakdown recovery guy a hero, not to mention the obvious members of the emergency services who do a sometimes thankless task.
If, what I am reading is right, then it is suggested that there should be unquestioning support of the HM Armed Forces, and by default, they can all be considered heroes.
I certainly wouldnt call the Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment a hero
Not ignoring it at all Essex but....I do have other more important things to do, than sit on here all day.
My apologies, you say you have more important things to do, than sit on here all day, I just assumed that as you have answered and commented on others posts, my question to you was worthy of being ignored.
Unquestioning support of the armed forces eh?
You or anyone else have a problem with the armed forces, then kindly take it up with the people who sent them there..........this Government.
Now if you do not agree YOU like all of us have a chance next year to vote them out. But to say about " unquestionable support " for our armed forces, as I said " yes we bloody well should ".
They are there for OUR national security, and people will never agree on the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan but....the armed forces did not ask to go there, they were sent by their paymasters.
I totally agree with you about the armed forces not asking to go, and who sent them there, you say they are there for OUR national security, is that really the case, or is it purely to blindly support the U.S. paranoia?
This only really became an issue since 9/11, if the sole issue is OUR national security, why was there never a bigger presence and deployments to Northern Ireland? How come it was considered crucial to OUR national security, for Saddam Hussein to have his life taken, yet Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are considered 'safe' and 'reformed'
You really think that by people airing their opinions to this Government, will have any effect on their actions, with regards to where our troops are?
You do seem to contradict yourself slightly here, in one breath you say "if you want to make yourself heard then vote" in the next you are saying "nobody will listen, so you are wasting your time."
I do not think that " unquestionable support " to our armed forces is too much to ask of people, it is the Govenment people should taking their anger against, and not the troops. Full support to our boys and girls.
Who said anything about anger against the troops?
As long as people are giving unquestionable support, then nobody is voicing an opinion, therefore nobody will be heard as nobody is saying anything. Giving support is one thing, that support being unquestionable is another, blind faith is only serving to take us down a path of which there is no return, we as a nation seem to be insulting the ethos of the Dunkirk spirit by simply rolling over and accepting what is not asked of us, but dictated to. Unquestionable support of the armed forces is no different than unquestioning support of the government, the support is no different.

28 Apr 2009

Quote by DeeCee
A few points, Al Queda had actually launched other attacks before 9/11 such as the attack on the US embassy in Kenya.

Ok, so they have been behind many bombings... but it wasnt until the WTC attacks that all out war was declared on them.
several years down the line the official line still seems to be the approach that you take.. ie, they need to be wiped out or at the very least prevented from achieving their aims in areas that they consider their homelands or concerning matters that relate to their religious beliefs.
What gives you/they/us the right to try and dictate what goes on in far off lands or in respect of the beliefs of different cultures?
Im only singling you out because You seem to use the same rhetoric as the American and British "intelligence" reports and associated media ( covertly racist propaganda)?
can you safely say, that you arent a possible victim of that propoganda?
You ask what gives us the right to go and fight in far off lands - well if those far off lands are used as springboards for terror in the west and to subjugare their own people and their neighbours - I'd say we have every right ! and no, you can't get away with calling anyone who critiscises islam a "racist" this has been used far too often as a slur to stifle debate.

28 Apr 2009

Good piont RioTony.
Bearing in mind all but 2 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian as is Osama, why arent we fighting them. Their human rights record aint exactly clean either.

28 Apr 2009

Soooooooo as I understand it...military action in Afghanistan is justified because Osama Bin Laden was in hiding there and the the taleban are by extension supporters of al queda.
What would be the result of capturing or killing Bin Laden ??
If in the 70's/80's the ruling council of the I.R.A. had been removed the resulting power struggle would quite possibly led to the implosion of the republican paramilitaries...is this the aim of the allied forces in Afghanistan ??
Removing the head of al queda would do little or nothing,my understanding is that they are structured not along military lines but as a series of autonomous cells who though co-operative act as independant bodies,cut off the head the body remains alive.
Is the military presence there to free the Afghan people from the yoke of taleban oppression ??
The taleban are not defeated they have retreated to the Pakistan border to regroup and have found fertile soil for their beliefs,unless the proposal is for a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan
they will return, and there will be hell to pay for the general population.(Even if a permanent occupation of Afghanistan were possible where does this leave Pakistan??)
There is no possible positive outcome for an armed solution to the problems of the middle east,our invasions and occupations only radicalise more previously moderate muslims,and our futile blind ignorant attempts to solve the problems only serve to make them worse...There is only one way to bring peace to the area and that is by diplomacy.

28 Apr 2009

A brief return from our meander.....
My original post was of course a reference to the current campaign in The Sun...
I am uneasy about this for the following reasons..
It promotes blind nationalism, I have no problem with anyone feeling a sense of pride in their origins,but the type of unthinking tub thumping nationalism promoted by The Sun and it's ilk leads us all down a very dark and dangerous path, the conceit that we are in some way superior to people of other nations or backgrounds is a very dangerous one.
History is littered with the results of unquestioned unrestrained military actions from the slaughter at Troy to the torture at Abu Graib the military have shown that they need to be controlled and policed,the assertion that all soldiers,sailors and airmen are by default heroes flies in the face of an aside ..I am a pacifist I do not believe that killing anyone is the right solution to any problem (though it is often the easy one),I would however be a fool if I didn't recognise that we would live in a very different world without the the historical contributions of the armed forces.
Finally (for now) and I think most importantly the dogmatic insistence that there can be no questioning of every soldiers heroism, of the innate correctness of their actions, masks a wider debate (and in some manner even tries to deny it),the focus on the troops leaves government free to act unchallenged, I have, believe it or not, nothing against soldiers etc.(I have a distaste for their chosen profession) but the focus so firmly and unwaveringly placed on them inevitably leaves the motives of their masters unquestioned.
P.S.I am also rightly ashamed of my punctuation

28 Apr 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Soooooooo as I understand it...military action in Afghanistan is justified because Osama Bin Laden was in hiding there and the the taleban are by extension supporters of al queda.
What would be the result of capturing or killing Bin Laden ??
If in the 70's/80's the ruling council of the I.R.A. had been removed the resulting power struggle would quite possibly led to the implosion of the republican paramilitaries...is this the aim of the allied forces in Afghanistan ??
Removing the head of al queda would do little or nothing,my understanding is that they are structured not along military lines but as a series of autonomous cells who though co-operative act as independant bodies,cut off the head the body remains alive.
Is the military presence there to free the Afghan people from the yoke of taleban oppression ??
The taleban are not defeated they have retreated to the Pakistan border to regroup and have found fertile soil for their beliefs,unless the proposal is for a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan
they will return, and there will be hell to pay for the general population.(Even if a permanent occupation of Afghanistan were possible where does this leave Pakistan??)
There is no possible positive outcome for an armed solution to the problems of the middle east,our invasions and occupations only radicalise more previously moderate muslims,and our futile blind ignorant attempts to solve the problems only serve to make them worse...There is only one way to bring peace to the area and that is by diplomacy.

You continually talk of diplomacy as though it is a magic wand for everything, ok, there are some elements of the Taleban who have joined just because they are poor and get paid to, and these can and should be peeled off by economic and diplomatic efforts. BUT, as many fundamentalists continually say when they are interviewed by journalists " you do not understand that unlike you, we love death more than you love life" ; something that anti war protestors refuse to get their ideologicaly addled heads around. Do you seriously believe that these people are interested in diplomacy other than as a ploy to regroup or gain concessions ?
Currently, in Pakistan, the puny governement conceded control of the Swat Valley region to the Taleban in return for an agreement that they lay down their arms this "peace in our time" was soon broken several weeks later and they advanced to within 70 miles of the capital, using the Swat Valley as a staging post ; do you really trust these people ?

28 Apr 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
the focus on the troops leaves government free to act unchallenged, the focus so firmly and unwaveringly placed on them inevitably leaves the motives of their masters unquestioned.

And thats the crux of the matter for me.

28 Apr 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
At the start of the second world war, thank God we did not have the attitudes of some on here.
We would have got the white flags out on the second day war was announced. Germany would have walked through us like they walked through the rest of Europe.
But no we stood up to the aggressors, lost thousands of decent people, so as others in the future can lead a safe life.....freedom.
Had we not and adopted the attitudes of some, YOU would not be having this conversation on here, you would be locked up and probably shot for your opinions.
Lets just roll over and let the Taliban have their training camps, let them plot to blow us up, let the terrorists lurking in Pakistan have their way. Let us adopt the liberal attitudes but....God help us all.

Seeing as you grasp the concepts you describe above, how come you can't see that the people above were not unquestioning, that the people described above, questioned what they considered wrong, and went to correct those wrongs, yet, and this is purely my opinion, you feel anyone who questions anything that involves our armed forces should be tried for treason?
We are not the Empire any more, we do not have the right to go storming into any country because it serves the interest of ourselves, the United States, Nato, the UN, or anyone else who is in a similar kind of organisation.
We, as a country, do not have the resources to go and correct the wrongs of others, we have gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, to be involved in the 'war against terror' yet we can't defend our own borders, we have a serious immigration problem, we have serious issues with integration, which are so bad, it allows the likes of BNP to exist and prosper, the white flags have been out for years, and as long as anyone is shouted down by the likes of yourself for anything you see as dissention against the forces, when in reality the issue people have is why we are involved in conflicts that will bankrupt us and leave us even more defenceless, then those white flags will fly for a long time.

28 Apr 2009

Looks like you quoted Kenty's post before it was deleted.

28 Apr 2009

Quote by Riotandantony
You continually talk of diplomacy as though it is a magic wand for everything, ok, there are some elements of the Taleban who have joined just because they are poor and get paid to, and these can and should be peeled off by economic and diplomatic efforts. BUT, as many fundamentalists continually say when they are interviewed by journalists " you do not understand that unlike you, we love death more than you love life" ; something that anti war protestors refuse to get their ideologicaly addled heads around. Do you seriously believe that these people are interested in diplomacy other than as a ploy to regroup or gain concessions ?
Currently, in Pakistan, the puny governement conceded control of the Swat Valley region to the Taleban in return for an agreement that they lay down their arms this "peace in our time" was soon broken several weeks later and they advanced to within 70 miles of the capital, using the Swat Valley as a staging post ; do you really trust these people ?

I seriously believe that the only people who can defeat the taliban in Afghanistan are the afghani people any intervention by western forces is only temporary the only people who can create a permanent solution are the afghani people the only way they can be brought to this is through negotiation i.e. DIPLOMACY this not the thinking of an ideologically addled anti-war protester it is pragmatism.
Do you really think that western governments do not make concessions to oppressive regimes all over the world or are you so hell bent on seeing some blood that you're blinded to any only way to permanently solve the problems of Afghanistan is with the co-operation and agreement of it's people imposing a solution by military means can only fail.
Diplomacy is no magic wand but neither is force,negotiated peace is the only lasting solution.
No I do not trust the taliban,nor do I trust the U.S.A. or the government of the U.K.
I do however trust peoples survival instinct anyone when they see the rug being pulled from under them jumps off ...it keeps you on your feet

28 Apr 2009

He was obviously way too quick for me there FB.
I deleted it as am bored with it to be honest.
So am off to do something much more intersting.....wash my hair. cool

28 Apr 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Soooooooo as I understand it...military action in Afghanistan is justified because Osama Bin Laden was in hiding there and the the taleban are by extension supporters of al queda.
What would be the result of capturing or killing Bin Laden ??
If in the 70's/80's the ruling council of the I.R.A. had been removed the resulting power struggle would quite possibly led to the implosion of the republican paramilitaries...is this the aim of the allied forces in Afghanistan ??
Removing the head of al queda would do little or nothing,my understanding is that they are structured not along military lines but as a series of autonomous cells who though co-operative act as independant bodies,cut off the head the body remains alive.
Is the military presence there to free the Afghan people from the yoke of taleban oppression ??
The taleban are not defeated they have retreated to the Pakistan border to regroup and have found fertile soil for their beliefs,unless the proposal is for a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan
they will return, and there will be hell to pay for the general population.(Even if a permanent occupation of Afghanistan were possible where does this leave Pakistan??)
There is no possible positive outcome for an armed solution to the problems of the middle east,our invasions and occupations only radicalise more previously moderate muslims,and our futile blind ignorant attempts to solve the problems only serve to make them worse...There is only one way to bring peace to the area and that is by diplomacy.

the best points made so far on this thread... apart from my own of course wink

were fighting the wrong people, on the wrong front, for the wrong reasons.....expecting miraculous results and without a clue of how it will end or why it truly began.
but isnt it amazing how the bullshit that was spouted by Bush, Blair, Hoon , Rumsfeld and others rubbed off....and is still justified today without any evidence.
it was stage hypnosis at its finest....shame on you if you fell for it
evil

28 Apr 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
He was obviously way too quick for me there FB.
I deleted it as am bored with it to be honest.
So am off to do something much more intersting.....wash my hair.

you see that's your problem,as soon as it looks like someone has a valid point about something...you go all "I'm bored now rolleyes

" then make some silly juvenile remark!

29 Apr 2009

Quote by Mr-Powers
He was obviously way too quick for me there FB.
I deleted it as am bored with it to be honest.
So am off to do something much more intersting.....wash my hair.

you see that's your problem,as soon as it looks like someone has a valid point about something...you go all "I'm bored now rolleyes

" then make some silly juvenile remark!
As usual Powers you choose to knock me, rather than coming up with anything sensible yourself!
Stop taking digs at me. If you want to enter a debate then say something constructive, that is to do with the subject......and you say I am " juvenile ".
IF you bothered, and I very much doubt you have, to read ALL of this thread...then you would realise I have already said many things. You obviously as usual just read the last couple of posts.....shame on you. wink

29 Apr 2009

ANYONE who thinks that the conflict in Afghanistan is winnable is living in another world - just ask the multitude of nationalities that have fought there over the decades - including............................. The British - (we obviously didn't learn our lesson then!).
You have to ask just how committed these people are when they simply place no value at all on life - whereas 'the cause' is everything.
Very very frightening indeed and no answer in sight. A justifiable occupation with damage limitation being the aim is about as good as it is going to get.

29 Apr 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
He was obviously way too quick for me there FB.
I deleted it as am bored with it to be honest.
So am off to do something much more intersting.....wash my hair.

you see that's your problem,as soon as it looks like someone has a valid point about something...you go all "I'm bored now rolleyes

" then make some silly juvenile remark!
As usual Powers you choose to knock me, rather than coming up with anything sensible yourself!
Stop taking digs at me. If you want to enter a debate then say something constructive, that is to do with the subject......and you say I am " juvenile ".
IF you bothered, and I very much doubt you have, to read ALL of this thread...then you would realise I have already said many things. You obviously as usual just read the last couple of posts.....shame on you. wink

on one hand you're right..it would be more sensible to post one's opinion first, and "then" take a dig at someone else..
but I must say I thought exactly what Mr. Powers has said, when I read your last post.

29 Apr 2009

PACIFISM is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

29 Apr 2009

Quote by Riotandantony
PACIFISM is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

I find that quite insulting actually confused

Pacifists think that war is wrong. I can't see why anyone would think that war is right. It's a means often employed, yes - sometimes with a 'reasonable' outcome (and I know that doesn't sound quite 'right') BUT it should be a last resort on the part of whoever starts the war.
Your comment suggests that people who aren't pacifists are better than people who are pacifists. That's incorrect.

29 Apr 2009

Im not sure if
"PACIFISM is a luxury of those protected by better men than they." offends me.
I am amused at the sites that a google search of the phrase turns up. Sometimes we are so lucky we don't have Fox news.

29 Apr 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
He was obviously way too quick for me there FB.
I deleted it as am bored with it to be honest.
So am off to do something much more intersting.....wash my hair.

you see that's your problem,as soon as it looks like someone has a valid point about something...you go all "I'm bored now rolleyes

" then make some silly juvenile remark!
As usual Powers you choose to knock me, rather than coming up with anything sensible yourself!
Stop taking digs at me. If you want to enter a debate then say something constructive, that is to do with the subject......and you say I am " juvenile ".
IF you bothered, and I very much doubt you have, to read ALL of this thread...then you would realise I have already said many things. You obviously as usual just read the last couple of posts.....shame on you. wink

But i'm not knocking you...i'm just making an observation,you have the attitude of "i'm right,fuck everyone else"...and just as soon as it looks like someone else is making a clearer,better point...you get all arsey!
and as to the OP question,i wouldn't consider these soldiers as heroe's...they are men and women doing a very tough job but not heroes...i personally believe that it takes someone to perform a selfless act of bravery to be considered a hero!

29 Apr 2009

Quote by Riotandantony
PACIFISM is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

I can only guess that your measure of manhood is their willingness to kill.
See that Harold Shipman more of a man than you'll ever be flipa

I do so enjoy an adult debate lol

29 Apr 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
PACIFISM is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

I can only guess that your measure of manhood is their willingness to kill.
See that Harold Shipman more of a man than you'll ever be flipa

I do so enjoy an adult debate lol

Did you ever watch Newman and Baddiel, by any chance?

29 Apr 2009

However........
The war in Afghanistan is a battle against a set of beliefs/ideals and these make very difficult targets.
The only way to win an argument (and this is essentially what the war on terrorism is opposing sets of values)is with a better argument,unfortunately guns tend to lack eloquence.

29 Apr 2009

Staggerlee - snide comments won't win you the debate either ! the fact is that pacifists have both the luxury and the freedom to make sanctimonious comments because previous and current generations of men and women fought bravely for their democratic right to do so.
As for the comment about invading Ireland to deal with the IRA ! much of the IRA membership and support actually came from within certain sections of the catholic part of the population, and therefore had to be dealt with there. Moreover, in the USA, the FBI did actually eventually start to take action against IRA fund raising.
Neither is it accurate to state that we only invade muslim countries, NATO took military action against christian Serbia to defend Bosnian muslims.
Pacifism is merely the flip side of tyranny, the jackboot or fundamentalist mullah is allowed to rule where people to not resist it.

29 Apr 2009

Quote by Riotandantony
Pacifism is merely the flip side of tyranny, the jackboot or fundamentalist mullah is allowed to rule where people to not resist it.

Have you ever heard of Ghandi........pacifism and resistance aren't mutually exclusive.
As for "snide remarks" have you ever heard of humour ?Debate and comedy (good or bad....your choice)aren't mutually exclusive

29 Apr 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
PACIFISM is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

I can only guess that your measure of manhood is their willingness to kill.
See that Harold Shipman more of a man than you'll ever be flipa

I do so enjoy an adult debate lol

Staggerlee sometimes your sense of humour tickles me ...To my self confessed shame I found that comment really amusing. :lol:
Am steering clear of this debate me thinks but I bet the jews wished Hitler had been a pacifist. rolleyes