Forgive them, for they know not what they do...

[sandyRoe]

http://www.heraldsun....nd134gw-1226459969074


Shouldn't their superior officers have told them there were sensibilities about the Koran?

[Duncer]

With attendant hypocrisy thrown in for good measure.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// The Taliban are NOT freedom fighters. ///


Oh sorry I have been told they were so many times on AB that I began to think that I must be getting them wrong, and that the others were right after all.

[Zeuhl]

<freedom fighters>
<I have been told they were so many times on AB>

when? by whom?

The most frequent 'anti invasion' argument i have seen on AB is that the Taliban are Afghans fighting foreign invaders shipped in to bolster a competitor Afghan regime they are in conflict with.

That would seem to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the situation but is a long way from describing them as 'freedom fighters'

In fact, the converse would be more accurate; more like 'control freaks'

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

/// The most frequent 'anti invasion' argument i have seen on AB is that the Taliban are Afghans fighting foreign invaders shipped in to bolster a competitor Afghan regime they are in conflict with ///

And if they are indeed being invaded (which they are not) then are they not fighting for their 'freedom to take charge'?

That sounds like a freedom fighter to me.

[Zeuhl]

<That sounds like a freedom fighter to me>

ahah

so it's you who interprets Taliban actions as those of 'freedom fighters', not, as you first asserted, that other ABers had claimed they were such.

after all they are mostly engaging foreign troops. hard to blame them if they consider that an invasion, even if another afghan faction have invited them in to attack their fellow countrymen.

Can you recall or imagine a situation in which large numbers of foreign troops are fighting and killing British people in the UK and that wouldn't be considered an invasion, regardless of which party 'invited them in'?

ca

[naomi24]

The Taliban Freedom Fighters? Tell that to the ordinary people! Some freedom!

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

<That sounds like a freedom fighter to me>

You have taken my words out of context, read my second paragraph I began it 'AND IF'.

They are not freedom fighters to me but murdering terrorists.

/// Can you recall or imagine a situation in which large numbers of foreign troops are fighting and killing British people in the UK and that wouldn't be considered an invasion, regardless of which party 'invited them in'? ///

Various parties have invited large numbers of foreign persons into the UK and yes some have killed British people in the UK.

So are you then calling these 'INVADERS' also?

[Zeuhl]

<<Various parties have invited large numbers of foreign persons into the UK >>

Old Git - I'm intrigued.

When have foreign troops last been welcomed into the UK by British parties in order to attack and kill British people?

[sandyRoe]

Was it 1066 or thereabouts?

[Zeuhl]

1066 LOL
That'll be a 'moot' point.
I know our new French masters claimed as much, the Bayeux Tapestry says so.

Talking of the French, I seem to recall that during the Jacobite unpleasantness, foreign troops were invited in by certain parties

[sandyRoe]

The year of the French, 1798. After the battle of Ballinamuck no good came of it.

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl
<<Various parties have invited large numbers of foreign persons into the UK >>

Old Git - I'm intrigued.

When have foreign troops last been welcomed into the UK by British parties in order to attack and kill British people?

Do you actually read and understand what you see?

Did I mention 'FOREIGN TROOPS'? No.

But I did mention 'FOREIGN PERSONS' a slight but important difference.

[andy-hughes]

"I know there wouldn't have be any remorse from the WW2 Allied Troops if Hitler's Mein Kampf had been burnt."

A poor comparison to bolster your poijnt AOG.

There is a world of difference between a book written by a living writer and considered to be worthwile by a relatively small number of Nazis, and a holy book which is reverenced by many millions of people the world over.

there would have been no remorse from the Allied troops, but similarly, there would have been no outcry by peope who feel that the tract of their faith has been defiled by unbelievers.

[FredPuli43]

So by 'various parties' and your precise use of 'foreign persons' do you mean 'various political parties' and 'immigrants' , aog ?

[Zeuhl]

Q: <imagine a situation in which large numbers of foreign troops are fighting and killing British people in the UK?>

A: <Various parties have invited large numbers of foreign persons into the UK and yes some have killed British people in the UK.>

Yes Old Git, I did read your non-sequitur reply but as it was such a stupid attempt to distort a serious question about foreign troops being deployed into a snide remark about (I assume) immigration I chose to ignore it to save your embarassment and give you another chance to post a sensible reply.

However, as you have chosen instead to highlight your own silliness, perhaps you would now care to explain why you equate our Service Men and Women doing their duties overseas with economic migrants who come to this country and then turn out to be criminals.

How our troops and those criminals equivalent in your mind?

How is our army and air force deployment similar to the immigration process in your mind?

How are the immigrants who go on to commit murder the same as our troops on duty in Afghanistan in your mind?

[FredPuli43]

And the last time foreign troops were invited to invade was the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. Some leading Tories and a few Whigs invited William of Orange to invade with a Dutch army and fleet, with a view to deposing James II. He did, James II fled, and William and his wife, Mary, became joint sovereigns. The proposed enterprise would have involved the consequent deaths of British people,they being members of the opposing army and, possibly, some supporters of James.

[Zeuhl]

Good point Fred

Did that involve years of military campaigning by the Dutch against indigenous English opposition?

[FredPuli43]

Er...no, zeuhl, the Glorious Revolution didn't involve years of campaigning, though it well might have done if James II had the loyal forces and the stubborness of Charles I. There are, however, plenty of examples in history of foreign forces, aided by local people, conducting campaigns against other local people, and for years . Curiously, the foreign forces seem to be there in the interests of their own goverment more than those of any local people, but that may be me being too cynical !

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

Touch a raw nerve did I?

/// Yes Old Git, I did read your non-sequitur reply but as it was such a stupid attempt to distort a serious question about foreign troops being deployed into a snide remark about (I assume) immigration I chose to ignore it to ///

You chose to ignore it eh?

Some much so, that you not only went on to post more insults and falsities, and if you did actually read my reply, how is it that you could not see the words 'AND IF' and the fact that I also did not say 'Foreign Troops' as you suggested that I did, but 'Foreign Persons', both of which you still failed to address.

Regarding 'Our Servicemen and Women' it was you who chose to mention them not I.

So perhaps you yourself would do well to question how our troops and those criminals equivalent in your own mind and not mine?

I will not be addressing you any further on this issue, because I am finding it rather boring answering issues that are not only way off topic, but also a waste of my time.

I am also finding it most difficult pointing out to you your continued discrepancies over and over again, only for you to repeatedly spew forth your insults, it only goes to prove that you have lost the argument and your sole purpose is to hurt rather than enter into an adult and sensible debate.

Good Afternoon.

[Zeuhl]

Your running away is not impressing anyone Old Git.

Your posts become increasingly confused and petulant.

< I also did not say 'Foreign Troops' as you suggested>

I never suggested you did - show me where i did.

Foreign troops was the subject of the question i set that you chose to reply to by shifting to <foreign persons>

However, perhaps you are not as dishonest or as weasely as your posts suggest.
Perhaps you are simply incapable of developing or responding to a logical and rational argument.

That would probably explain your embarassingly unconvincing 'flounce' on this thread.