Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Of course some people signed up in order to shoot foreigners. But to say that this is all the US army does is a ridiculous slander. Weapons do give people a feeling of power, and some people may be overcome by this. In the heat of the moment, all the training in the world may be forgotten, and some people may regress to an almost animal state. But this is pessimistic and only applies to a minority. Most soldiers signed up a) to get a decent job for decent pay and/or b) to protect their country.

    Given the scourge of car-bombings in Iraq, the American troops have perhaps a reason to be suspicious of vehicles. And given the conflicting statements about the behaviour of the vehicle, it is going to be tricky to sort the sheep of BS from the goats of truth. The bottom line is that communications with the Italian Secret Service should have been better - but it's a warzone, for goodness' sake! Communications can go down, things can go wrong.

    My guess is that paranioa about car-bombers led the troops to shoot before asking questions. What some people fail to understand is that asking questions first will get you shot by those that don't want to listen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    One end.
    I was hoping for more, but perhaps one of the criteria for being at the 'end' of a spectrum is that my views retain clarity. That would put you somewhere in a fog of irrelevance?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by vienna95)
    I was hoping for more, but perhaps one of the criteria for being at the 'end' of a spectrum is that my views retain clarity. That would put you somewhere in a fog of irrelevance?
    It is strange how one never sees oneself as others see one. I think most of the posters on this forum would understand that you stand at one end of the spectrum of extremity...if the spectrum covers numbers 1 through to 10 - establishing whether you are at the lower or upper end - then I consider that you are either at number 1 or number 10 when considering political viewpoints.

    Regarding the 'fog of irrelevance' - did you mean to personalise me or did you mean 'one' rather than 'you'?

    You don't have to undermine me but I understand why you are driven to do so - it's human frailty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    It is strange how one never sees oneself as others see one. I think most of the posters on this forum would understand that you stand at one end of the spectrum of extremity...if the spectrum covers numbers 1 through to 10 - establishing whether you are at the lower or upper end - then I consider that you are either at number 1 or number 10 when considering political viewpoints.
    ah, so the spectrum relates to this forum and you are naturally at 5?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ah, so the spectrum relates to this forum and you are naturally at 5?
    Did I say that? Funny, I don't remember saying it - must be getting forgetful in my dotage.

    After consideration, and not knowing which end of the spectrum you choose to be at, I would say I'm probably either 3 or 7 as I cannot say I'm absolutely neutral in most things. I am definitely not predictable as I sway from left to right via centre on differing subjects.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    After consideration, and not knowing which end of the spectrum you choose to be at, I would say I'm probably either 3 or 7 as I cannot say I'm absolutely neutral in most things. I am definitely not predictable as I sway from left to right via centre on differing subjects.
    It would be fair to say you dont know where you are, you have your own subjective ideas of what is considered neutral, and thus to consequently assess my standing in this game of numbers seems arbitrary. Unless of course you want to pad it out with some qualitative definitions?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Of course some people signed up in order to shoot foreigners. But to say that this is all the US army does is a ridiculous slander. Weapons do give people a feeling of power, and some people may be overcome by this. In the heat of the moment, all the training in the world may be forgotten, and some people may regress to an almost animal state. But this is pessimistic and only applies to a minority. Most soldiers signed up a) to get a decent job for decent pay and/or b) to protect their country.

    Given the scourge of car-bombings in Iraq, the American troops have perhaps a reason to be suspicious of vehicles. And given the conflicting statements about the behaviour of the vehicle, it is going to be tricky to sort the sheep of BS from the goats of truth. The bottom line is that communications with the Italian Secret Service should have been better - but it's a warzone, for goodness' sake! Communications can go down, things can go wrong.

    My guess is that paranioa about car-bombers led the troops to shoot before asking questions. What some people fail to understand is that asking questions first will get you shot by those that don't want to listen.
    I think you summed up the situation pretty well.

    According to today's Corriere della Sera, the Italian secret services people had met upon arrival, the same day of the shooting, the US liaison officers, and had received their accreditation papers. According to the US responsible, a Captain Green, the US had been informed that the operation was underway, but few details were available at that moment . Finally, the liberation of Sgrena suffered a two-hour delay, and the cars used to take her to the airport were different from those expected by the Americans.

    So, most likely, a problem of defective communications, and some unlucky coincidences.

    The problem is elsewhere: the US rules of engagement in similar situations are not public, and there has been an endless stream of similar incidents over the whole period of US military presence in Iraq. Some cases have received publicity (as for the family with a carload of children shot at a couple of months ago), many more go unreported.

    The US have not given adequate attention to this aspect of restoring normality, and of maintainig acceptable relations with the local civilian population; as with many other aspects of their presence:

    This case is high-profile because of the identity of the people involved and because of its consequences on US/Italian relations, but ordinary Iraqis will simply repeat: when we are killed, nobody cares, when Westerners are killed, it makes the headlines. Two weights, two measures.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by vienna95)
    It would be fair to say you dont know where you are, you have your own subjective ideas of what is considered neutral, and thus to consequently assess my standing in this game of numbers seems arbitrary. Unless of course you want to pad it out with some qualitative definitions?
    That is an unfair assessment.

    We are all prone to be subjective if we have an interest in a particular thing. You, above all, should appreciate that.! :rolleyes:

    You know exactly what extremes in political opinions means - you are not that stupid - and there is no need for me to 'pad' anything out with qualitative definitions in this particular case.

    My 'vacillation' obviously irritates you - but then, blinkered adherence to the interests of left or right irritates me.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=yawn]
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Shadowkin, If you think Vienna is extreme, you take the cake.

    It is amusing though to see both ends of the 'extremity spectrum'.
    nothing to do with politics there. it was just an idiotic comment from shadowkin
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by technik)
    nothing to do with politics there. it was just an idiotic comment from shadowkin
    The comment was from Kondar - and there was lots more justifying the comment that related to the politics of it all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    We are all prone to be subjective if we have an interest in a particular thing.
    So my position on YOUR spectrum is entirely subjective.

    You know exactly what extremes in political opinions means - you are not that stupid - and there is no need for me to 'pad' anything out with qualitative definitions in this particular case.
    Im interested in the basis for your assessment of a spectrum that now appears to be your subjective idea of how I compare to the rest of this forum, void of further input, that is a far cry from an objective appreciation of the political spectrum.

    My 'vacillation' obviously irritates you - but then, blinkered adherence to the interests of left or right irritates me.
    So much that you thought youd cook up a spectrum about it, but true to your word, not really have any clear ideas about how to articulate it when pressed.
    Offline

    13
    [QUOTE=yawn]


    I reiterate: In my subjective opinion you would be placed at 1 or 10 on the spectrum of political opinion depending on whether 1 is 'extreme' right or 10 is 'extreme' right.

    This subjective opinion has been formed by me as an observer, on your very substantial post count and the content therein.

    Here it it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    In my subjective opinion you would be placed at 1 or 10 on the spectrum of political opinion[on this forum] depending on whether 1 is 'extreme' right or 10 is 'extreme' right.
    "It is amusing though to see both ends of the 'extremity spectrum'"

    I think its important to draw the differences between a/your subjective spectrum of the opinions on this forum and a spectrum of political orientation that we can apply across society. Any confusion stems from the fact that you havent told me what justifies labelling me as being 'extreme right wing' on a political spectrum.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by vienna95)
    "It is amusing though to see both ends of the 'extremity spectrum'"

    I think its important to draw the differences between a/your subjective spectrum of the opinions on this forum and a spectrum of political orientation that we can apply across society. Any confusion stems from the fact that you havent told me what justifies labelling me as being 'extreme right wing' on a political spectrum.
    I had hoped that my reply to you would change your usual tactic of asking for justification on my subjective observations. (You always do that whenever someone points out your short-comings )
    This is why I pre-empted you by referring to your many, many posts on the forum which are obviously too numerous to be specific about.
    The overall impression gleaned from your debate is that you are extremely right-wing and I doubt many other of our friends on our site would disagree with me with the exception of those who are of the same ilk as you. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    [QUOTE=yawn]
    (Original post by yawn)


    I reiterate: In my subjective opinion you would be placed at 1 or 10 on the spectrum of political opinion depending on whether 1 is 'extreme' right or 10 is 'extreme' right.

    This subjective opinion has been formed by me as an observer, on your very substantial post count and the content therein.

    Here it it!
    This is my pre-emption statement.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHawk)
    I have been following what you say to people and their responses to you.
    Oh really?

    Your whole arguement is based on opinions, not facts.
    Have I said otherwise?

    Perhaps you should tell that to the serving members of the forces that we have on this forum. There are quite a few of them.
    If you read what I said to Vienna you would realize that I’m not arguing that.

    Oh but didn’t you say?

    I have been following what you say to people and their responses to you.
    Whoops.

    (Original post by shadowkin)
    You could also say Hitler was the catalyst for womens rights. So in reality, feminists should THANK Hitler. Novel idea I know. :rolleyes:

    Are you trying to be emotive?
    Nice to see you just ignore this which is an important part of the argument. It shows how there is inconsistency in such logic.

    So you would rather that your country have no forces? Do you sympathise with those who took down the world trade centre? Perhaps.
    Here we go again. Trying to be emotive. What on earth has this got to do with the topic. You are just trying to fob my argument off by making me out to be some ‘terrorist supporter’.
    I think you need to listen to your own advice from earlier.

    It is no for the soldier to pick and choose who they fight, they are only a tool for what the people want. For we are in a democracy and the people are those who vote in leaders, and leaders are the ones who make the decisions regarding our national forces. So ultimatly you and the people around you are responsible for the actions the military take.
    True to an extent. But it is diverting the issue. The fact is these soldiers are choosing to do this. Other people are not.

    And do you think that all in WW2 were conscripted? If so I think that you should review your history before making such baseless opinions.
    (Original post by shadowkin)
    Seeing as a lot were conscripted I don’t think they had a choice.
    This is what I said.

    I said A LOT. Look, if you’re going to argue against me at least read what I have said properly before accusing me of ‘baseless opinions’. Thanks.


    Why do you feel the blame rests solely on the Army? Do you know we have lots of other things like a Navy (they have boats) an Air Force (they have planes)
    The blame for this INCIDENT. You ARE NOT following what I have been saying at all.

    Marines (they do lots of cool stuff)
    Torturing civilians perhaps? You have made those types of remarks to me, and I will do so to you.

    I know I am trying to dumb down my arguement for you as I'm sure vienna is so that you can understand.
    Is that all you can come up with to save a failing argument?

    For someone with such an open mind as yours would you like to actually answer the following points:

    Why are you comparing WW2 soldiers to those in Iraq. The situation was very different. It seems like you have very little understanding of the history.
    1937 there were 200,000 soldiers in the British army

    That wasn’t enough for the war was it?

    seeing as you have decided to mention the issue of terrorism:
    What is a terrorist and those you mention that you think I support such as Al Qaeda are they the ONLY type of ‘terrorist’. Have you heard of the patriot act? Being so close alongside Americans in war how do you feel about their views on terror? (no this is not off topic)

    (Original post by BlackHawk)
    I know who you are talking about and unless you care to talk properly you are sounding very uneducated on the matter.
    I thought I did talk proper like.
    • CV Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Wiki Support Team
    Do you pm Wzz? He is awaiting your response.

    I will respond to you later, but that marine comment....thanks for the laugh. You really have no idea.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Shadowkin, If you think Vienna is extreme, you take the cake.
    this forum wouldn't be the same without us 'crazy extremists' nowwould it?

    This was an unfortunate accident. This is what happens when you go to war; collateral damage is a grim reality. There have been countless car bombings all over Iraq with a heavy toll on coalition soldiers. If I saw a speeding car coming at me and it refused to stop, I would put every bullet I had into it too.
    Unfortunate accident? A rare accident? What about:
    (from afghanistan let not Iraq-to show that this has happened previously and nothing has changed)

    ''KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. planes bombed a village in central Afghanistan. Afghans said villagers were celebrating a wedding and that scores were killed and injured, including women and children. A nurse at the Kandahar hospital, said he heard that about 120 people were killed by American Forces. ''

    ''ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A hospital inside the Afghan city of Herat was destroyed in a U.S. bombing raid, U.N. officials said Tuesday. ''

    I've also seen several times during the war on afghanistan that helicopters chased and gunned down families.

    I say this because it may add a different dimension to what you are saying.

    What are you on about? Are you trying to seriously argue that all US soldiers are idiots?
    no, I'm not. I told Vienna this before.

    I think your argument is beyond desperate. If you think you can do a better job than the soldiers on the ground, then go enlist and see how far your philosophy gets you. These people target aid workers and doctors, along with military personnel, their hatred and prejudice does not differentiate.
    I think your understanding is beyond desperate. I wouldn't start a:

    'war against terrorism'
    or a
    'war on terror' (whatever that means) I wouldn't start a war in a country when you know very well you are going to create citizens, who just like the soldiers, are confused and don't really know where to turn or are just angry that they don't have clean water, no jobs, no transport ....
    So they turn to the car bombing side of it etc. 'terrorism'.

    Who are 'these people'? What about the example of US bombing a hospital? And that has DEFINITELY happened more than once.

    Disputing the war in Iraq is a completely separate issue.
    I am not doing that though am I? Where have I ever referred to this?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wzz)
    Perhaps you'd like to tell me why I'm an idiot? I've been in the air force for quite a few years now as a pilot. Why does deciding to join my country's military make me an idiot? Drop me a PM if you like, I'd love to see you justify that.
    I think I have cleared the idiot issue up. But I do think joining the army does show a certain character should we say. But someone has to do it eh?

    Are you trying to claim that soldiers on the ground in Iraq are somehow responsible for policy? Or that they're responsible for their country's choices because they took the job without being conscripted?
    I was showing how it was a weak argument to start using the idea of WW2 veterans being compared to soldiers in Iraq. She was using an emotive response. She probably thought how could I ever say anything bad against such veterans etc.


    For someone who doesn't seem to have much understanding about anything relating to the armed forces you're very quick to criticise. Do you actually know anyone in the military? The aircrew I work with are a very intelligent bunch. The majority are degree educated. They all take a deep interest in politics. Whether or not they agree with specific policy issues they're happy to do their job; because their job generally involves helping people on the ground.

    Guys who joined the army at a young age do not make policy and do not decide individual attacks. They do their job; they follow orders, and they don't renege on their contracts.

    You have clearly shown very little understanding of the arguments I have been putting forward.

    Taking a deep interest in politics…having a degree…what is this supposed to show? An educated side to them? I never argued that American and British soldiers are stupid idiots.

    Nick Griffin has a degree from Cambridge on history and law and a deep interest in politics.
    Lets all hear it for Nick!

    :congrats:


    In fact I enevr mentioned British or ?American soldiers as a collective. I didn't even mention British soldiers at all. You really have taken what was meant as a parody of the situation into a whole argument on a scale that I never implied or said.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHawk)
    Do you pm Wzz? He is awaiting your response.

    I will respond to you later, but that marine comment....thanks for the laugh. You really have no idea.

    I can't wait. I really have no idea? Ok, I will love to see you answer all of my points this time. (unlike the last time)
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.