Accrington Web - View Single Post

Guinness · 08-11-2013, 23:05

An insurgent is defined by the UN as someone who is recognised as a legitimate rebel against an established government who is not belligerent. Belligerent is defined as aggressive or warlike behaviour. To me that means an insurgent is someone who chains himself to the gates of Buckingham Palace, digs up a cricket pitch on the eve of a test match or stands in front of a tank in Tienamen Square with his arms outstretched, whilst a belligerent is someone who picks up a gun with intent to kill someone who disagrees with his ideals.

By definition a belligerent insurgent is a terrorist.

So in the case of Marine A...why has the court martial classed the wounded man as an insurgent and not as a terrorist? I see no distinction between the Taliban, UDA, IRA, Black September and this man on a battlefield carrying an AK47 and a grenade.

I'm not defending what 'marine A' did, just arguing against the way the media is playing to the Dads Army ideal 'I say Private Pike, that's just not cricket only a Nazi would do that'. The media are censoring words heard in infant playgrounds across the country but playing with glee the sound of a shot that takes a mans life.

Military experts (i.e. mercenaries), are being dragged in for their two pennorth..'it gives them a reason to fight us more fiercely', 'it gives them propaganda', 'it will make them target British soldiers'....yeah right, like these 'insurgents?' who behead people on youtube, fly planes into buildings, use cars laden with C4 driven by brainwashed acolytes into military bases and place IED's near schools and mosques, need reasons and propaganda to commit atrocities.

Blair put our guys there because he was a Bush sychophant. Cameron keeps them there because 'we are there to keep the country safe'..

Well there's a contradiction... if we are there to keep the country safe that must mean that if we were not there it would be unsafe. Logically it follows that people who make it unsafe must be people with guns and grenades..would that be people with AK47's and grenades on battlefields in Helmand..and if we shoot those people carrying AK47's and grenades (even if they are wounded) to reduce the number of flag draped coffins at Wootton Bassett (for our local indigenous insurgents to spit on and protest against)...is that wrong?

So....if this wounded 'terrorist' had survived, thanks to the skills of the British army field hospital, paid for by our taxes, could he have become the next Abu Hamza, Bin Laden, Amin or Hitler? Is the only good terrorist a dead terrorist? Should you kick a man when he is down so that he doesn't get up when your back is turned and stick you with a carving knife?

Add to this the constant stress of losing your life every time you leave the 'iffy' safety of your compound, coupled with the boredom of being forced to stay in your compound when off duty, yet still be aware of the threat of attack from 'insurgents' at any time..and all the time you are told by politicians you are 'peacekeepers'. You are the good guys!

We are the guys in white hats, only guys with black hats can do bad stuff, they can kill, maim, rape and indoctrinate kids to become human bombs...but us guys in the white hats..we have to be totally beyond reproach, St Francis of Assissi, Saul on the road to Tarsus...we have to turn the other cheek, pluck out our eyes and flagellate ourselves for the whole world to see.

When was the last time the Taliban court martialled one of their own for a beheading?

08-11-2013, 23:05	#1
Guinness Senior Member Texas Holdem Poker Champion! Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,134 Liked: 929 times Rep Power: 79785	Where do you draw the line? An insurgent is defined by the UN as someone who is recognised as a legitimate rebel against an established government who is not belligerent. Belligerent is defined as aggressive or warlike behaviour. To me that means an insurgent is someone who chains himself to the gates of Buckingham Palace, digs up a cricket pitch on the eve of a test match or stands in front of a tank in Tienamen Square with his arms outstretched, whilst a belligerent is someone who picks up a gun with intent to kill someone who disagrees with his ideals. By definition a belligerent insurgent is a terrorist. So in the case of Marine A...why has the court martial classed the wounded man as an insurgent and not as a terrorist? I see no distinction between the Taliban, UDA, IRA, Black September and this man on a battlefield carrying an AK47 and a grenade. I'm not defending what 'marine A' did, just arguing against the way the media is playing to the Dads Army ideal 'I say Private Pike, that's just not cricket only a Nazi would do that'. The media are censoring words heard in infant playgrounds across the country but playing with glee the sound of a shot that takes a mans life. Military experts (i.e. mercenaries), are being dragged in for their two pennorth..'it gives them a reason to fight us more fiercely', 'it gives them propaganda', 'it will make them target British soldiers'....yeah right, like these 'insurgents?' who behead people on youtube, fly planes into buildings, use cars laden with C4 driven by brainwashed acolytes into military bases and place IED's near schools and mosques, need reasons and propaganda to commit atrocities. Blair put our guys there because he was a Bush sychophant. Cameron keeps them there because 'we are there to keep the country safe'.. Well there's a contradiction... if we are there to keep the country safe that must mean that if we were not there it would be unsafe. Logically it follows that people who make it unsafe must be people with guns and grenades..would that be people with AK47's and grenades on battlefields in Helmand..and if we shoot those people carrying AK47's and grenades (even if they are wounded) to reduce the number of flag draped coffins at Wootton Bassett (for our local indigenous insurgents to spit on and protest against)...is that wrong? So....if this wounded 'terrorist' had survived, thanks to the skills of the British army field hospital, paid for by our taxes, could he have become the next Abu Hamza, Bin Laden, Amin or Hitler? Is the only good terrorist a dead terrorist? Should you kick a man when he is down so that he doesn't get up when your back is turned and stick you with a carving knife? Add to this the constant stress of losing your life every time you leave the 'iffy' safety of your compound, coupled with the boredom of being forced to stay in your compound when off duty, yet still be aware of the threat of attack from 'insurgents' at any time..and all the time you are told by politicians you are 'peacekeepers'. You are the good guys! We are the guys in white hats, only guys with black hats can do bad stuff, they can kill, maim, rape and indoctrinate kids to become human bombs...but us guys in the white hats..we have to be totally beyond reproach, St Francis of Assissi, Saul on the road to Tarsus...we have to turn the other cheek, pluck out our eyes and flagellate ourselves for the whole world to see. When was the last time the Taliban court martialled one of their own for a beheading? __________________ The only problem drinker is the one that doesn't stand his round Last edited by Guinness; 08-11-2013 at 23:07.