Quizzes & Puzzles1 min 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.
Why was the post removed that expressed confidence in Highlander McLaren's courage under duress?
<I'm sure he died like a man>
and contrasted it with patronising and derogatory terms used about this soldier by other posters
<and not like Old Git's young boy>
I would have thought referring to this soldier with respect is the least one can do in the circumstances rather than trying to diminish him.
<I'm sure he died like a man>
and contrasted it with patronising and derogatory terms used about this soldier by other posters
<and not like Old Git's young boy>
I would have thought referring to this soldier with respect is the least one can do in the circumstances rather than trying to diminish him.
I don't read many posts from Taliban apologists on this thread all I read is AOG's rant about people not posting being Taliban apologists, or that's what I take from it.
That's a very odd place to come from AOG/4846 and I'm almost wary of trying to question why.
However whether our Troops should be in Afghanistan is an argument for somewhere else. We should be proud of the fact that our Armed Forces in general have the discipline and training to deal with situations like this properly.
While it would be difficult to condone a revenge attack in this horrific case, I trust that the training our Officers receive continues to instill the same levels of discipline and values we learned 25 years ago to lead our troops properly and with the levels of respect for our enemies that our military have demanded for years.
Our troops are the finest anywhere on the planet, please don't look as a lack of comment or a fomenting rage about something as a lack of support for our troops.
That's a very odd place to come from AOG/4846 and I'm almost wary of trying to question why.
However whether our Troops should be in Afghanistan is an argument for somewhere else. We should be proud of the fact that our Armed Forces in general have the discipline and training to deal with situations like this properly.
While it would be difficult to condone a revenge attack in this horrific case, I trust that the training our Officers receive continues to instill the same levels of discipline and values we learned 25 years ago to lead our troops properly and with the levels of respect for our enemies that our military have demanded for years.
Our troops are the finest anywhere on the planet, please don't look as a lack of comment or a fomenting rage about something as a lack of support for our troops.
-- answer removed --
"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. "
Okay.
Nobody here is saying that troops don't deserve support. Nobody here hates our armed forces - incidents like these are tragic losses. That's a point of universal consensus. You have made a straw man here, and you've done it deliberately.
But that support does not mean that our services are totally immune from scrutiny or having their actions questioned - that's the very essence of a truly democratic society. Some of us also view the violence inflicted on civilians in Afghanistan -by either side- to be tragic. And if there are instances where people in UK uniforms have done it, then we should know about it and we should care about including it in our opinion on the war. The reason that people are eager to post about it is because rightly or wrongly there's a perception that people such as yourself will often fail to do so.
"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. "
That's not how you framed the question AOG, as Jack pointed out. You targeted your question at ABers - you began it with "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. " - which implies that people do not want to condemn it. An implication which, as others have already explained to you, is utterly false.
While I'm here, I'd also like to say that I've interpreted your failure to retort successfully to my earlier post regarding what you said about Afghan civilians to mean that I have successfully proved the flaws in your argument.
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. "
Okay.
Nobody here is saying that troops don't deserve support. Nobody here hates our armed forces - incidents like these are tragic losses. That's a point of universal consensus. You have made a straw man here, and you've done it deliberately.
But that support does not mean that our services are totally immune from scrutiny or having their actions questioned - that's the very essence of a truly democratic society. Some of us also view the violence inflicted on civilians in Afghanistan -by either side- to be tragic. And if there are instances where people in UK uniforms have done it, then we should know about it and we should care about including it in our opinion on the war. The reason that people are eager to post about it is because rightly or wrongly there's a perception that people such as yourself will often fail to do so.
"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. "
That's not how you framed the question AOG, as Jack pointed out. You targeted your question at ABers - you began it with "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. " - which implies that people do not want to condemn it. An implication which, as others have already explained to you, is utterly false.
While I'm here, I'd also like to say that I've interpreted your failure to retort successfully to my earlier post regarding what you said about Afghan civilians to mean that I have successfully proved the flaws in your argument.
First let me say thanks to notasyoungasiwas and 4846 for their welcome support.
In foresight perhaps I should have made two separate threads:
One to ask for the feelings of others, regarding the brutal death that this soldier endured.
And one to highlight the fact, that no matter what, criticism of certain groups are a complete no, no, according to some on this site.
When has one ever seen a criticism of some Muslims or black persons on this site, no matter how evil their deeds may have been?
I have never seen anyone in Andy-hughes list enter such a post, but they are always there ready to condemn others if they dare to do so.
Andy also asks me "Do you see something of a pattern emerging here"?
I will answer and say, "yes they are the usual anti AOG crew who are never happy about anyone holding opposite views to their own.
In foresight perhaps I should have made two separate threads:
One to ask for the feelings of others, regarding the brutal death that this soldier endured.
And one to highlight the fact, that no matter what, criticism of certain groups are a complete no, no, according to some on this site.
When has one ever seen a criticism of some Muslims or black persons on this site, no matter how evil their deeds may have been?
I have never seen anyone in Andy-hughes list enter such a post, but they are always there ready to condemn others if they dare to do so.
Andy also asks me "Do you see something of a pattern emerging here"?
I will answer and say, "yes they are the usual anti AOG crew who are never happy about anyone holding opposite views to their own.
-- answer removed --
"
I will answer and say, "yes they are the usual anti AOG crew who are never happy about anyone holding opposite views to their own."
This is more than a little crass. As has been explained to you numerous times (including myself I think), people arguing with you does not mean they can't stand people thinking otherwise. It just means that you've ventured an opinion they disagree with, so they want to argue with it and explain why they think it's wrong.
Again, it would be dishonest of me not to say that I'm having a hard time believing that this should need explaining to you.
I will answer and say, "yes they are the usual anti AOG crew who are never happy about anyone holding opposite views to their own."
This is more than a little crass. As has been explained to you numerous times (including myself I think), people arguing with you does not mean they can't stand people thinking otherwise. It just means that you've ventured an opinion they disagree with, so they want to argue with it and explain why they think it's wrong.
Again, it would be dishonest of me not to say that I'm having a hard time believing that this should need explaining to you.
<the usual anti AOG crew>
oh, is that what we all are?
It seemed to be a list of people who don't suffer fools gladly, are not afraid to challenge wooly-thinking, dishonest (some might say deliberately provocative) misrepresentations and ill-constructed arguments, and might even still (despite all the evidence) think there is a slim possibility that an intelligent exchange of ideas might be possible.
But if someone needs their ego to be boosted by the idea that they are battling against the odds then, I ask you, who are we to spoil their little delusion?
oh, is that what we all are?
It seemed to be a list of people who don't suffer fools gladly, are not afraid to challenge wooly-thinking, dishonest (some might say deliberately provocative) misrepresentations and ill-constructed arguments, and might even still (despite all the evidence) think there is a slim possibility that an intelligent exchange of ideas might be possible.
But if someone needs their ego to be boosted by the idea that they are battling against the odds then, I ask you, who are we to spoil their little delusion?
"I have never seen anyone in Andy-hughes list enter such a post, but they are always there ready to condemn others if they dare to do so."
Don't include me in that group, AOG - I'll condemn anyone who commits atrocities, whether they are Muslim, Christian, nothing, pink or green. I just don't like your post. It's inflammatory and inaccurate.
This was a serving soldier - soldiers are taught in their training and on site in a war zone to expect anything - he's not a young lad who just happened to be in the wrong place, but disobeying orders, and was set upon. It's a war zone - horrid, but it happens.
Don't include me in that group, AOG - I'll condemn anyone who commits atrocities, whether they are Muslim, Christian, nothing, pink or green. I just don't like your post. It's inflammatory and inaccurate.
This was a serving soldier - soldiers are taught in their training and on site in a war zone to expect anything - he's not a young lad who just happened to be in the wrong place, but disobeying orders, and was set upon. It's a war zone - horrid, but it happens.
Kromovaracun
I never have an objection against anyone disagreeing with me, it is the way they go about it that concerns me.
One has only to read some of their rather childish taunting, insults etc, to see what I mean, triggerhippy is a prime example, that is why I never join in a debate with such as him.
There's is just no place for it in a mature debate.
I never have an objection against anyone disagreeing with me, it is the way they go about it that concerns me.
One has only to read some of their rather childish taunting, insults etc, to see what I mean, triggerhippy is a prime example, that is why I never join in a debate with such as him.
There's is just no place for it in a mature debate.
"
I never have an objection against anyone disagreeing with me, it is the way they go about it that concerns me. "
I'm sure. But when you say...
"yes they are the usual anti AOG crew who are never happy about anyone holding opposite views to their own."
...you're quite strongly implying that other people do have a problem with people disagreeing with them - and you often seem to interpret people attacking what you say/disprove what you argue as attempts to stifle you. As has been said numerous times, this is plainly inaccurate.
I never have an objection against anyone disagreeing with me, it is the way they go about it that concerns me. "
I'm sure. But when you say...
"yes they are the usual anti AOG crew who are never happy about anyone holding opposite views to their own."
...you're quite strongly implying that other people do have a problem with people disagreeing with them - and you often seem to interpret people attacking what you say/disprove what you argue as attempts to stifle you. As has been said numerous times, this is plainly inaccurate.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Editor's Blog16 mins ago
Society & Culture19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 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.