being a soldier.
- Thread starter ohmygodwhathaveyoudone
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Well I agree britain first. But i don't see that I have said anything which contradicts that. The supposedly British government (proudly elected by 25% of the population) joined in with an American imperialist war with the result of increasing danger from terrorist attack to anyone in the uk.
But this risk is still pretty small. We have a good life here but one of the things most threatening it is the increase in beaurocracy and petty regulations. Now you can be chucked in jail for doing absolutely anything, just so long as a court has given you one formal warning not to do it. TThe hype about this war has been used as an excuse to pass a load of regulations which restrict the rights of citizens of this country. The war was justified by a load of nonsense cobbled together as 'intelligence'.
The test you should always ask is not what is the intended use of new legislation. Rather, what use may it be put to by an imaginitive government.
But this risk is still pretty small. We have a good life here but one of the things most threatening it is the increase in beaurocracy and petty regulations. Now you can be chucked in jail for doing absolutely anything, just so long as a court has given you one formal warning not to do it. TThe hype about this war has been used as an excuse to pass a load of regulations which restrict the rights of citizens of this country. The war was justified by a load of nonsense cobbled together as 'intelligence'.
The test you should always ask is not what is the intended use of new legislation. Rather, what use may it be put to by an imaginitive government.
Damocles said:
Those of us who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear from restrictions imposed to protect the majority from the minority. You my friend have harped on about the IRA and its threat when you were or are living in Londinium. Well multiply that by 1000 and that is what the people of Northern Ireland had to deal with and without the strict security even more lives would of been lost. Iraq, no it is not about that, even though you wish it was. It is bigger. The so called restrictions as you call it, or security measures were implemented following 9/11 so get your facts right. They were implemented to protect your sorry a.s.s from the madmen and women who roam freely in our society. So before you comment on things you know F**K all about i suggest you praise the brave men and women of this country who allow you to sleep in your bed at night!!
jasy said:Damocles said:
Those of us who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear from restrictions imposed to protect the majority from the minority. You my friend have harped on about the IRA and its threat when you were or are living in Londinium. Well multiply that by 1000 and that is what the people of Northern Ireland had to deal with and without the strict security even more lives would of been lost. Iraq, no it is not about that, even though you wish it was. It is bigger. The so called restrictions as you call it, or security measures were implemented following 9/11 so get your facts right. They were implemented to protect your sorry a.s.s from the madmen and women who roam freely in our society. So before you comment on things you know F**K all about i suggest you praise the brave men and women of this country who allow you to sleep in your bed at night!!
DITTO !!!!!
Sponsored Links
Rather a negative argument that, 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'.
Rather like the question 'when did you stop beating your wife'? Guilt is imputed whatever you say in answer.
It is a cast iron fact of history that every and all security measure has been abused to take away the rights of citizens. Just today the news had an item about protestors being shot in some Russian client state. Shot in the name of defeating terrorists and restoring order for the people.
I did not hear all the story, but there was also something about some fundamentalist terrorists being sprung from jail when they were facing death sentences. Except they just had the ex uk ambassador on the telly saying he actually knew some of them as members of the 'democratic' peaceful opposition who had been trying to organise a political party to fight elections. Russia and America are in agreement about the need to maintain order and prevent the rise of these 'fundamentalist terrorists'.
So so easy for a 'democratic' state to subvert the 'security' of citizens by claiming one or another group are terrorists. And what is a terrorist, after all, nothing if not an enemy of the established authority. Not at all the same as being an enemy of the people.
I think it is an open question whether all the decades of security measures in Ireland saved lives. The issue has finally reached a semi-peaceful stalemate because everyone is sick of the violence. Maybe they would have got sick of it years ago if we had not been keeping a semblance of control. But if course, if we had done that then we might have lost territory. Something states never do, whatever the cost.
Just how many people were involved in 9/11? No one has been convicted yet, have they? half a dozen? The point about 9/11 was its audacity and that a few people spotted a security flaw which no one else had seen. Also, that American airport security was incredibly lax on its internal flights. Something they have tried to gloss over. They just had not twigged that there were all these explosive missiles easily available to anyone with a death wish and a pilots licence.
Rather like the question 'when did you stop beating your wife'? Guilt is imputed whatever you say in answer.
It is a cast iron fact of history that every and all security measure has been abused to take away the rights of citizens. Just today the news had an item about protestors being shot in some Russian client state. Shot in the name of defeating terrorists and restoring order for the people.
I did not hear all the story, but there was also something about some fundamentalist terrorists being sprung from jail when they were facing death sentences. Except they just had the ex uk ambassador on the telly saying he actually knew some of them as members of the 'democratic' peaceful opposition who had been trying to organise a political party to fight elections. Russia and America are in agreement about the need to maintain order and prevent the rise of these 'fundamentalist terrorists'.
So so easy for a 'democratic' state to subvert the 'security' of citizens by claiming one or another group are terrorists. And what is a terrorist, after all, nothing if not an enemy of the established authority. Not at all the same as being an enemy of the people.
I think it is an open question whether all the decades of security measures in Ireland saved lives. The issue has finally reached a semi-peaceful stalemate because everyone is sick of the violence. Maybe they would have got sick of it years ago if we had not been keeping a semblance of control. But if course, if we had done that then we might have lost territory. Something states never do, whatever the cost.
Just how many people were involved in 9/11? No one has been convicted yet, have they? half a dozen? The point about 9/11 was its audacity and that a few people spotted a security flaw which no one else had seen. Also, that American airport security was incredibly lax on its internal flights. Something they have tried to gloss over. They just had not twigged that there were all these explosive missiles easily available to anyone with a death wish and a pilots licence.
Are you suggesting the Irish are not sick of the violence, that they just want some different terrorists to come along instead?
You are suggesting that before 9/11 the Americans did not believe terrorists existed? Actually I might agree. The Americans were so self-assured that they did not believe anyone would dare do such a thing in their country. So they did not bother about security. As I understand it, the congressional reports rather showed that 9/11 would have been unlikely to happen in the uk because we did bother about security.
You regard blowing up a skyscraper as 'such an extreme measure'? America has been blowing things up in Iraq for some time now. As a matter of government policy. How extreme is that? Is it different because it is done 'officially', rather than by private citizens?
How are victims insulted because I wish there fewer of them? Are they an endangered species?
You are suggesting that before 9/11 the Americans did not believe terrorists existed? Actually I might agree. The Americans were so self-assured that they did not believe anyone would dare do such a thing in their country. So they did not bother about security. As I understand it, the congressional reports rather showed that 9/11 would have been unlikely to happen in the uk because we did bother about security.
You regard blowing up a skyscraper as 'such an extreme measure'? America has been blowing things up in Iraq for some time now. As a matter of government policy. How extreme is that? Is it different because it is done 'officially', rather than by private citizens?
How are victims insulted because I wish there fewer of them? Are they an endangered species?
The anti terrorist measures are there for at least two reasons other than stoppping terrorists.
The first is to demonstrate that government is doing something. Governments always wish to be seen to be doing something, even if what they are doing is completely futile. The idea is to reassure people.
The second is to scare people. Did you not notice that the cabinet actually had meetings to discuss ways of creating reasons for having a war with Iraq? there is an enormous political impetus which requires terrorists to exist. So governments must do whatever they can to make people believe in a threat from terrorists.
So governments at one and the same time need to convince people thay are under threat, and to convince these same people that their government has done something to deal with this threat. This is a quite normal principle of just about every political issue. Hype up a problem and then demonstrate that you have the solution.
If you really want to save a few lifes, train some extra doctors.
I have seen people here slagging off Blair for lying, yet you do not accept the logical consequence of this. If he lied about the reasons and need for the war, how come you now believe him when he says virtually the same thing, that we are facing an extraordinary terrorist threat.
The first is to demonstrate that government is doing something. Governments always wish to be seen to be doing something, even if what they are doing is completely futile. The idea is to reassure people.
The second is to scare people. Did you not notice that the cabinet actually had meetings to discuss ways of creating reasons for having a war with Iraq? there is an enormous political impetus which requires terrorists to exist. So governments must do whatever they can to make people believe in a threat from terrorists.
So governments at one and the same time need to convince people thay are under threat, and to convince these same people that their government has done something to deal with this threat. This is a quite normal principle of just about every political issue. Hype up a problem and then demonstrate that you have the solution.
If you really want to save a few lifes, train some extra doctors.
I have seen people here slagging off Blair for lying, yet you do not accept the logical consequence of this. If he lied about the reasons and need for the war, how come you now believe him when he says virtually the same thing, that we are facing an extraordinary terrorist threat.
D
david and julie
Can you show any post where the anti Blair camp have said they believe him about anything at all? The reason we now have an (presumed) enlightened threat, is precisely because of his actions, however it is not ONLY HIM that is now saying it. Some police chief's have openly said the heightened alert is due to his actions, they are not agreeing with him, some have actually come as close as they dare to actually blaming him, so why shouldn't we believe them?
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
I had a great time way back as a STAB , LOL
I was active for 5yrs , had many Glorious romps , Best was Opo Lion
Heart....
did many cadres to full screw ...great times ...
the Old FANTASTIC Squaddie is so forgotten with the cry baby nation of today ,"OH My Im being bullied Ill kill myself ", =nutcase idiots
the Brit army needs to be more selective to stop these fruitcake /nutters getting a uniform on there backs ...an killing themselves hoping for compo for relatives ...
We all got it rough , but our section commanders were our /MUM ...(mine were Corp Laskey, an McCann , hard nasty bastards but would look after you fully an this was over 25 years ago lol )
these suicide fools need to be shamed an bodies thrown from the camps in the gutter ...
I was active for 5yrs , had many Glorious romps , Best was Opo Lion
Heart....
did many cadres to full screw ...great times ...
the Old FANTASTIC Squaddie is so forgotten with the cry baby nation of today ,"OH My Im being bullied Ill kill myself ", =nutcase idiots
the Brit army needs to be more selective to stop these fruitcake /nutters getting a uniform on there backs ...an killing themselves hoping for compo for relatives ...
We all got it rough , but our section commanders were our /MUM ...(mine were Corp Laskey, an McCann , hard nasty bastards but would look after you fully an this was over 25 years ago lol )
these suicide fools need to be shamed an bodies thrown from the camps in the gutter ...
Sponsored Links
