Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Taliban torture and then shoot in the head, 20 year old.
124 Answers
http://www.dailymail....murdered-Taliban.html
I am absolutely disgusted that there are some on this site who can't wait to condemn our soldiers if they happen to step out of line, or injure a Afghan civilian (if there is such a thing) and yet they are not equally ready to condemn these murderous cowardly savages who could commit a crime such as this.
Here we have a young boy of only 20 years, who must have endured many hours of excruciating torture and then finally shot several times in the head, what that poor lad must have endured, is too frightening to contemplate, and I would not condemn his colleagues if they were to capture one of these murderous scum and carry out the same punishment on him.
But then if this were to happen, the culprits would face a court-martial and a very long jail sentence, so much for the lax military justice that some on this site refer to.
RIP Scott McLaren.
I am absolutely disgusted that there are some on this site who can't wait to condemn our soldiers if they happen to step out of line, or injure a Afghan civilian (if there is such a thing) and yet they are not equally ready to condemn these murderous cowardly savages who could commit a crime such as this.
Here we have a young boy of only 20 years, who must have endured many hours of excruciating torture and then finally shot several times in the head, what that poor lad must have endured, is too frightening to contemplate, and I would not condemn his colleagues if they were to capture one of these murderous scum and carry out the same punishment on him.
But then if this were to happen, the culprits would face a court-martial and a very long jail sentence, so much for the lax military justice that some on this site refer to.
RIP Scott McLaren.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ummmm
/// I think he used the term 'young boy' because of the soldier who stabbed a 'young boy'....there's some sort of twisted logic there. ///
Only if one has a twisted mind.
I made no mention of the soldier who stabbed a young boy.
And my term 'Young Boy' (if it is necessary to explain to you) was because this chap was only 20, and anyone of that very young age is always going to be described as a 'Young Boy', by someone of much more advancing years as myself.
/// I think he used the term 'young boy' because of the soldier who stabbed a 'young boy'....there's some sort of twisted logic there. ///
Only if one has a twisted mind.
I made no mention of the soldier who stabbed a young boy.
And my term 'Young Boy' (if it is necessary to explain to you) was because this chap was only 20, and anyone of that very young age is always going to be described as a 'Young Boy', by someone of much more advancing years as myself.
In the summer when a Neo-nazi went on his shooting spree in Norway, I repeated news reports that his victims were children. There were two 14 year olds and seven 15 year olds amongst the dead. I was corrected by AOG thus/
// Gromit then said "at least 80 children had been shot" they were not children but youths attending a political summer camp. //
Odd then, that he calls a 20 year old, a young boy and explains that
// anyone of that very young age is always going to be described as a 'Young Boy' //
But being consistent has never bothered AOG.
// Gromit then said "at least 80 children had been shot" they were not children but youths attending a political summer camp. //
Odd then, that he calls a 20 year old, a young boy and explains that
// anyone of that very young age is always going to be described as a 'Young Boy' //
But being consistent has never bothered AOG.
AOG - you may feel that using patronising and inaccruate labels to describe younger people is the right of yours gained simply by having lived longer.
I suugest it is not. This soldier was just that - a professional soldier, old enough to get married,m vote, and be trained to use a gun and join an army, he is not by any stretch a young boy'.
And allow me to reiterate once again, that your initial post was as offensive as it was arrogant - assuming that you can decry others for not posting on this news item, and leaving it to you to be the outraged voice of the AB comunity.
You were curiously silent on the points I made in my first post - do now this will draw your ire -but I am in agreement with the majority - you may not have contravened Site Rules, but you have contravened the rules of common courtesy and respect for others on here - something you are quick to leap on if you feel it is aimed in your direction.
I suugest it is not. This soldier was just that - a professional soldier, old enough to get married,m vote, and be trained to use a gun and join an army, he is not by any stretch a young boy'.
And allow me to reiterate once again, that your initial post was as offensive as it was arrogant - assuming that you can decry others for not posting on this news item, and leaving it to you to be the outraged voice of the AB comunity.
You were curiously silent on the points I made in my first post - do now this will draw your ire -but I am in agreement with the majority - you may not have contravened Site Rules, but you have contravened the rules of common courtesy and respect for others on here - something you are quick to leap on if you feel it is aimed in your direction.
<I made no mention of the soldier who stabbed a young boy>
<I am absolutely disgusted that there are some on this site who can't wait to condemn our soldiers if they happen to step out of line, or injure a Afghan civilian>
The soldier I mentioned was the latest to be condemned for his actions. You tried to defend those actions!
<I am absolutely disgusted that there are some on this site who can't wait to condemn our soldiers if they happen to step out of line, or injure a Afghan civilian>
The soldier I mentioned was the latest to be condemned for his actions. You tried to defend those actions!
Gromit
You have shot yourself in the foot Gromit by delving into the archives once again, in a vain attempt to get your point across.
// Gromit then said "at least 80 children had been shot" they were not children but youths attending a political summer camp. //
It was you who was using tactics that you now accuse me of, I was quite correct in what I said, these 14 and 15 year olds were not children they were youths.
/// Odd then, that he calls a 20 year old, a young boy ///
As I have already pointed out, It is perfectly in order to call a 20 year old a young boy, especially by someone of much more advanced years.
How often does one hear someone say in sympathy "what a shame he's only a boy"?
And have you Gromit never had a night out with the 'Boys'?
In no way does it defend your case, by introducing such pedantic attention to detail, this was not a post about the correct terminology in which to describe a male 20 year old.
Get back on track, if you must.
You have shot yourself in the foot Gromit by delving into the archives once again, in a vain attempt to get your point across.
// Gromit then said "at least 80 children had been shot" they were not children but youths attending a political summer camp. //
It was you who was using tactics that you now accuse me of, I was quite correct in what I said, these 14 and 15 year olds were not children they were youths.
/// Odd then, that he calls a 20 year old, a young boy ///
As I have already pointed out, It is perfectly in order to call a 20 year old a young boy, especially by someone of much more advanced years.
How often does one hear someone say in sympathy "what a shame he's only a boy"?
And have you Gromit never had a night out with the 'Boys'?
In no way does it defend your case, by introducing such pedantic attention to detail, this was not a post about the correct terminology in which to describe a male 20 year old.
Get back on track, if you must.
andy-hughes
/// but you have contravened the rules of common courtesy and respect for others on here ///
You must have still been wearing your overused 'rose pink spectacles when you typed that.
When have others ever bothered about showing common courtesy and respect for some on here?
So please don't arrogantly preach to me.
The reason I ignored your previous post was because you had gone back to your old ways, instead of your usual more courteous debatable posts.
You had reverted back to your usual disguised criticism of our armed forces, I am as much against this war as the next, but those who have the unenviable position of carrying out this task, deserve all the support and admiration they richly deserve.
It may be 'dewy-eyed romanticism' for those such as you, who constantly let your hard fast political leanings, get in the way of supporting those that are there to protect their countrymen no matter what particular politics they support.
I cannot believe all this anger and criticism over what should have been a thread of support for our troops and condemnation of a vicious blood thirsty, cowardly and cruel enemy.
/// but you have contravened the rules of common courtesy and respect for others on here ///
You must have still been wearing your overused 'rose pink spectacles when you typed that.
When have others ever bothered about showing common courtesy and respect for some on here?
So please don't arrogantly preach to me.
The reason I ignored your previous post was because you had gone back to your old ways, instead of your usual more courteous debatable posts.
You had reverted back to your usual disguised criticism of our armed forces, I am as much against this war as the next, but those who have the unenviable position of carrying out this task, deserve all the support and admiration they richly deserve.
It may be 'dewy-eyed romanticism' for those such as you, who constantly let your hard fast political leanings, get in the way of supporting those that are there to protect their countrymen no matter what particular politics they support.
I cannot believe all this anger and criticism over what should have been a thread of support for our troops and condemnation of a vicious blood thirsty, cowardly and cruel enemy.
<<I cannot believe all this anger and criticism over what should have been a thread of support for our troops and condemnation of a vicious blood thirsty, cowardly and cruel enemy.>>
Had you couched your original question in *those* terms, AOG, I don't doubt that that is precisely what you have received.
Instead, you chose to approach it from the angle of sneering from the moral high-ground at those you believe harbour treacherous thoughts about our Armed Forces. You received responses entirely in-keeping with that rather distasteful attitude.
Had you couched your original question in *those* terms, AOG, I don't doubt that that is precisely what you have received.
Instead, you chose to approach it from the angle of sneering from the moral high-ground at those you believe harbour treacherous thoughts about our Armed Forces. You received responses entirely in-keeping with that rather distasteful attitude.
AOG -
"When have others ever bothered about showing common courtesy and respect for some on here?"
But you are the only one who ever makes any issue about courtesy to yourself AOG - everyone else accepts posts as they are, and argues their point, they do not complain about discourtesy - unless it is to you - maybe you should acknowledge your own failings in this respect?
"So please don't arrogantly preach to me."
I don't 'preach', arrogantly or otherwise - your misinterperetation is your issue, not mine
"You had reverted back to your usual disguised criticism of our armed forces,"
How can I revert to a position i do not hold? My issue is with the invasion, not the troops concerned, and the romanticism of professioanl soliders as 'our boys and girls' - that I adhere to, and we can agree to differ. i have never directly cricitised any member of the armed forces.
It may be 'dewy-eyed romanticism' for those such as you, who constantly let your hard fast political leanings, get in the way of supporting those that are there to protect their countrymen no matter what particular politics they support.
"It may be 'dewy-eyed romanticism' for those such as you, who constantly let your hard fast political leanings, get in the way of supporting those that are there to protect their countrymen no matter what particular politics they support."
My 'political leanings' do not influence my position, and I dispute that the presence of armed forces in Afghanistan is 'protecting' anyone, but that is a separate debate.
"I cannot believe all this anger and criticism over what should have been a thread of support for our troops and condemnation of a vicious blood thirsty, cowardly and cruel enemy."
It was not a thread of 'support' at all AOG - it was a thread of cricitism for anyone who does not post a sense of outrage at the mutilation and murder of a soldier by terrorists.
You decided to criticise everyone on here who did not post to decry this action, inferring that such an absence was tantamount to support of this dreadful murder - and you reeapred suitable aprobation from everyone who has replied - myself included.
You cannot now turn round and wonder where all this ciricism has come from, by pretending that all you offered was support of the troops. You did not, and yo suggest you did is to ignore your won original post, as well as all those that answered you.
If you cannot answer your critics except by criticising them further, then you are not offering fair debate - as you so often claim to do.
"When have others ever bothered about showing common courtesy and respect for some on here?"
But you are the only one who ever makes any issue about courtesy to yourself AOG - everyone else accepts posts as they are, and argues their point, they do not complain about discourtesy - unless it is to you - maybe you should acknowledge your own failings in this respect?
"So please don't arrogantly preach to me."
I don't 'preach', arrogantly or otherwise - your misinterperetation is your issue, not mine
"You had reverted back to your usual disguised criticism of our armed forces,"
How can I revert to a position i do not hold? My issue is with the invasion, not the troops concerned, and the romanticism of professioanl soliders as 'our boys and girls' - that I adhere to, and we can agree to differ. i have never directly cricitised any member of the armed forces.
It may be 'dewy-eyed romanticism' for those such as you, who constantly let your hard fast political leanings, get in the way of supporting those that are there to protect their countrymen no matter what particular politics they support.
"It may be 'dewy-eyed romanticism' for those such as you, who constantly let your hard fast political leanings, get in the way of supporting those that are there to protect their countrymen no matter what particular politics they support."
My 'political leanings' do not influence my position, and I dispute that the presence of armed forces in Afghanistan is 'protecting' anyone, but that is a separate debate.
"I cannot believe all this anger and criticism over what should have been a thread of support for our troops and condemnation of a vicious blood thirsty, cowardly and cruel enemy."
It was not a thread of 'support' at all AOG - it was a thread of cricitism for anyone who does not post a sense of outrage at the mutilation and murder of a soldier by terrorists.
You decided to criticise everyone on here who did not post to decry this action, inferring that such an absence was tantamount to support of this dreadful murder - and you reeapred suitable aprobation from everyone who has replied - myself included.
You cannot now turn round and wonder where all this ciricism has come from, by pretending that all you offered was support of the troops. You did not, and yo suggest you did is to ignore your won original post, as well as all those that answered you.
If you cannot answer your critics except by criticising them further, then you are not offering fair debate - as you so often claim to do.
notasyoungasiwas - we all know where AOG was coming from - the moral high ground he inhabits when he thinks he has a divine right to be outraged by such a callous act - and no-one else cares a fig because we didn't post onhere to say so.
It has nothing to do with is disgust at the Taliban - his disgust was fairly and squarely aimed at AB posters, and he reaped the reward he deserved.
And for heavens sake, this man was a MAN and a profesional soldier, let's accord him appropriate dignity comensurate with his occupation and personal couragge.
It has nothing to do with is disgust at the Taliban - his disgust was fairly and squarely aimed at AB posters, and he reaped the reward he deserved.
And for heavens sake, this man was a MAN and a profesional soldier, let's accord him appropriate dignity comensurate with his occupation and personal couragge.
-- answer removed --
AOG made reference in his post to //the lax military justice that some on this site refer to. //
Those references were made by me in reference to the 10 year old boy stabbed by the drunken squaddie and the 18 months sentence he got.
It is extremely disingenuous (not surprisingly) so of him to now try and pretend that he was not refering to this.
Let us also not forget that this soldier joined the Army knowing full well what he was likely to be doing - there is no conscription and this war has been going on since before he was a teenager.
He had the luxury of choice, a choice not granted to the uncounted thousands of civillians killed in their own country by British and US forces.
And please don't tell me how he was fighting for his country - last time I looked there were not thousands of Afghans poised to invade Surrey.
Those references were made by me in reference to the 10 year old boy stabbed by the drunken squaddie and the 18 months sentence he got.
It is extremely disingenuous (not surprisingly) so of him to now try and pretend that he was not refering to this.
Let us also not forget that this soldier joined the Army knowing full well what he was likely to be doing - there is no conscription and this war has been going on since before he was a teenager.
He had the luxury of choice, a choice not granted to the uncounted thousands of civillians killed in their own country by British and US forces.
And please don't tell me how he was fighting for his country - last time I looked there were not thousands of Afghans poised to invade Surrey.
For the record AOG - the following AB'ers have responded with varying degrees of disagreement about the text of your oroginal post -
Jackthehat 3 times
Ummmm 5 times
Kromovaracun 5 times
Sunny-dave twice
Atrollope
Nox
EM10
Boxtops twice
Grommit 3 times
DTCrosswordfan twice
Laygun
Zeuhl twice,
and me four times.
Do you see something of a pattern emerging here?
Anything to say to the people you have offended?
Jackthehat 3 times
Ummmm 5 times
Kromovaracun 5 times
Sunny-dave twice
Atrollope
Nox
EM10
Boxtops twice
Grommit 3 times
DTCrosswordfan twice
Laygun
Zeuhl twice,
and me four times.
Do you see something of a pattern emerging here?
Anything to say to the people you have offended?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul47 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.