Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on January 10, 2004, 12:25:07 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3386075.stm
And they wonder why no-one wants to be part of the Iraqi police-force.
If it's not Hussein loyalists trying to kill you, it's American troops.
-
Can you all say "Indochina" and "deja vu"? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by an0n
[url]If it's not Hussein loyalists trying to kill you, it's American troops.
You left out the British troops.
-
Obviously. I'm trying to rally people against America, here. Not present facts.
-
:lol:
-
I need my title changed to FOX News.
-
"At least one is said to have been shot by a British soldier after throwing grenades at an armoured vehicle."
The shock! He threw a grenade at them, and they returned fire! Bastards, how could they dare :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
"At least one is said to have been shot by a British soldier after throwing grenades at an armoured vehicle."
The shock! He threw a grenade at them, and they returned fire! Bastards, how could they dare :p
[color=66ff00]He's probably thinking that he got ripped off as he chucked a grenade and expected something at least as expensive in return. *shrugs*
[/color]
-
I've never liked BBC, all their news reports have a bias in them, and they tend to 'forget' to put in facts.
-
:blah:
-
Is it just me or is BBC trying to take over my satallite :nervous: I have now 4-5 BBC channels on my dish. Wait..... :shaking:
-
well if you live outside of Blighty you're not paying so you're okay:ick
hey, my first ick!
-
From the report:
They began throwing stones and explosive devices at the Iraqi police and British forces.
Coalition officials said one man had came forward and thrown two grenades and, as he was trying to throw a third, he was shot by a British soldier.
What's your point, an0n?
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
well if you live outside of Blighty you're not paying so you're okay:ick
hey, my first ick!
No I live in Florida, me thinks BBC is trying to take over the world!
maybe I'll join :drevil:
-
BBC = British Bubblehead Corporation? :D
-
*starts to devise a plan of blowing BBC back from wence it came (hell)*
-
By all accounts, the BBC I get (BBC Worldwide) is vastly superior to the BBC news in britain. What's up with that? I have a friend who regularly tavels back and forth from the UK (she lives in Norwich) and she said that the BBC TV and Radio there are completely slack, but when she listens to the BBC Worldwide stuff, its like relevant and factual and complete and less biased.
Weird stuff.
-
Well said Mik, I get regular BBC here in England (duh) and it's every bit as useless as the papers. However on a holiday out in Portugal I took time out to watch some of the BBC Worldwide broadcasts - and learn't a hell of a lot more than I have before from standard BBC piped out in the UK only.
Irritating that "useful" news is broken down to the masses here...
-
Originally posted by Corsair mk. 2
BBC = British Bubblehead Corporation? :D
Maybe the UK is being run by them :lol:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
What's your point, an0n?
My point was that there's like 3 [US-Aligned] people saying he was throwing grenades and about 5 million Iraqi protesters saying he wasn't.
-
So what does that mean? The Pentagon lies. Yay.
Did we not know this before?
-
Wait... who said the Iraqis had any rights?
-
We just sort of assumed that they do... seeing as how they are people too...
-
I don't care what the Ameri****s do as long as they make their goddamn mind up.
Either it's okay to kill Iraqis in which case they shoulda been rail-cannon'd from orbit, or it's bad, in which case they should leave the goddamn country.
-
BBC - Bastards Broadcasting Communism
apparently.
-
I guess people are more in favor of lies than truth these days. :sigh:
And those people are mostly the idiots! :nod:
-
Right, any who exactly are you reffering to?
I'm with anon on this one. If you've got a handful of UK soldiers saying A, trying to cover their asses, and a whole whack of Iraqis saying the opposite, who's lieing now? I'de go with the Iraqis, 'cause the Coalition has a long and frequently proven track record of lies.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
I've never liked BBC, all their news reports have a bias in them, and they tend to 'forget' to put in facts.
Shows that they've learned from FOX
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Right, any who exactly are you reffering to?
I'm with anon on this one. If you've got a handful of UK soldiers saying A, trying to cover their asses, and a whole whack of Iraqis saying the opposite, who's lieing now? I'de go with the Iraqis, 'cause the Coalition has a long and frequently proven track record of lies.
Iraq
-
Originally posted by Rictor
the Coalition has a long and frequently proven track record of lies.
And the Iraqis don't?
-
No.
They said "We ain't got no WMD's" and, lo and behold, they didn't have any WMD's.
-
Please, don't even think about comparing FOX to BBC. I think that FOX officially put the "News" in quotes, to reflect their journalistic idealogy.
The BBC on the other hand is one of the least biased news sources available. Though the temptation to become an anti-FOX (like FOX, but with the opposite viewpoint) is always there, they stick to the facts and make sure you get the whole story. You're comapring one of the best with one of the worst.
Coalition Lies
-Jessica Lynch
-Saddam's Capture
-WMD
-Bombing of a civilian target early during the war (debunked by Robert Fisk)
Those are just the ones which I can think of without trying too hard, and also only the ones which were exposed. WHo knows how many countless others 1) I'm forgetting and b)were never found out. But even with those four, is it not reasonable to think that the Coalition will lie whenever necessary to cover their asses and make themselves look good.
-
They probably had them and found some way to get rid of them
Fox never lies :nod:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Please, don't even think about comparing FOX to BBC. I think that FOX officially put the "News" in quotes, to reflect their journalistic idealogy.
The BBC on the other hand is one of the least biased news sources available. Though the temptation to become an anti-FOX (like FOX, but with the opposite viewpoint) is always there, they stick to the facts and make sure you get the whole story. You're comapring one of the best with one of the worst.
sarcasm man, sarcasm.
-
Didn't you used to admin over at NW?
:doubt:
-
This was Sarchasm. :lol:
-
Originally posted by an0n
My point was that there's like 3 [US-Aligned] people saying he was throwing grenades and about 5 million Iraqi protesters saying he wasn't.
There were also a lot of Iraqis who said Saddam was Da Man™ and was pussy cat once you got to know him
-
They meant he kept coughing up hair-balls and ****ting on the rug........and murdering Kuwaitis
-
Like 5 million people had a perfect view of this guy that was supposedly throwing grenades...
You think you can count on protestors actually admitting that their own people were throwing grenades?
And like they interviewed everyone.. pfft. Lies.
-
Well, I doubt it was as good as the view that the troops had from the sights of their high-powered automatic weapons, but still.......
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Well said Mik, I get regular BBC here in England (duh) and it's every bit as useless as the papers. However on a holiday out in Portugal I took time out to watch some of the BBC Worldwide broadcasts - and learn't a hell of a lot more than I have before from standard BBC piped out in the UK only.
Irritating that "useful" news is broken down to the masses here...
Yeah, sometimes Australia gets simulcasts of BBC (both local and worldwide editions) when big stuff is happening in the world (like 9/11) - BBC Worldwide owns the local version silly. Hurrah for censorship. :doubt:
-
Heh, like either side is some kinda saintly group of innocents.
Like it even matters, really. Iraqis and "Coalition" soldiers seem to be killing each other pretty indiscriminately these days, and both sides have done naughty things which in some ideal world aren't perfectly ordinary in a wartime situation. Truth is, our soldiers, being soldiers, are way too trigger-happy, and that anyone who's standing around throwing **** (grenades, rocks, whatever) at a bunch of trained killers carrying automatic weapons but doesn't make damn sure whatever they're throwing kills 'em on impact gets what's coming to them. There are a looot of stupid resistance fighters in that area, but using actual weaponry on soldiers in an open space, which would guarantee return fire, and not taking the five seconds required to make sure you're actually doing something strikes me as too dumb to be at all likely.
If he was throwing rocks, like all the protestors say, well, he's a moron, but at least one can kinda see how he wouldn't necessarily expect what came next, and hence not head for cover instantly or have an escape plan. As he got killed instantly, and didn't actually hurt anybody or even apparently come close (which the news services would certainly have reported on- they practically call it a guerilla attack every time somebody calls a policeman a nasty name out there right now), seems that that wasn't the case.
-
Evidently no one in the crowd was aware of Niven's first two laws.
1) Never throw **** at an armed man
2) Never stand next to someone throwing **** at an armed man.
Whether it was rocks or grenades it was pretty damn stupid.
-
Yeah, throwning **** at people who invaded you country and bombed the crap outta all your infastructure, as well as practically nation-ciding your people 10 years previous, is a really stupid thing to do. :doubt:
-
The reason isn't ****. Doing it when they are likely to fire back at you for doing it isn't at all clever. If you really have a problem try fighting with proper weapons.
-
Or just sit on the road. No military is insane enough (well, maybe China) to drive an APC over protesters.
Not to mention no stone-based infantry has won a battle since...ooh...er..ever?
-
At the end of the day, I throw a grenade or even a ****ing rock at a probably nervous guy with a gun, I should expect to be going home in a London ambulance
-
You're optimistic :p
-
No, you should expect them to show some ****ing restraint. Considering the armed forces are there to risk their lives in defence of the people.
If a few rocks being thrown at your helmeted ass is enough to make you trigger-happy then you shouldn't be in the army in the first place.
-
So what when he starts throwing hand grenades?
Wait, you don't think he was throwing grenades, do you? On the strength of the testimony of a bunch of his mates.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No, you should expect them to show some ****ing restraint. Considering the armed forces are there to risk their lives in defence of the people.
If a few rocks being thrown at your helmeted ass is enough to make you trigger-happy then you shouldn't be in the army in the first place.
That sounds funny.
You're here to protect us, so let us stone you calmly, m'k? :D
-
I'm more inclined to believe a man riddled with bullets than I am a man who could be spending the next 5 years in prison if he actually did shoot someone for no reason.
-
Originally posted by Nico
That sounds funny.
You're here to protect us, so let us stone you calmly, m'k? :D
Don't delude yourself. They weren't there to protect them, they were there to shoot them if they started trying to rally people against the Coalition Troops.
-
So protesters accuse occupying troops of an act of brutality. Do you also belive the story of every girl who cries rape without any more evidence than a BBC news report?
If you're going to accuse British troops of murdering civilians for speaking out of line you better have some damn good facts to back it up
-
Hows about the fact that they've been proven time and time again to be killing civillians?
Everytime they see a car zooming along the street they chase it down and kill everyone inside.
-
OK, now you're doing a Stryke and just spouting random bull****. I'm going to bed (early morning shift tomorrow)
-
They learned that from a certain nation not too far (a wee bit) from Iraq.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So protesters accuse occupying troops of an act of brutality. Do you also belive the story of every girl who cries rape without any more evidence than a BBC news report?
Do you believe it every time someone tells you the Nazi's were comitting atrocities?
Of course you do.
And why is that?
Because they ****ing were.
-
According to history, the German army regularly crucified soldiers in Belgium during WWI. Research has proven this to be an urban legend stemming from one unconfirmed incident. But in 1919, Britain was still obssesed with the supposed horrific actions of German soldiers.
Anyway. What and where is your evidence that British soldiers regularly murder civilians without provocation? Why exactly are you saying this? Because you read reports of troops firing on protestors or the drivers or technicals ramming tanks?
-
The fact that like 20 times there's been reports of British and American troops killing, most notably, Iraqi police.
-
er, dg, its not random its happened.
Ahem ("http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3212156.stm")
-
He's saying British troops though.
Narrows the field some.
-
I'm not passing comment on US troops. Their training seems to involve a lot of screaming at recruits and attempting to turn them psycho.
You keep telling me Uk troops murder Iraqis on a day-to-day basis. Show me some actual evidence. And I don't mean during protests or anything like that where by soldiers might perhaps rightfully claim provocation or self-defense or something. Show me a case of an Iraqi being shot becase he stood on a soap-box and bad mouthed Bush
-
Originally posted by an0n
If a few rocks being thrown at your helmeted ass is enough to make you trigger-happy then you shouldn't be in the army in the first place.
Except that a lot of people join the army because it's a job and one that they can definitely get. It's not necessarily the "best" of any countries young people, nor those who want to "be all they can be" to quote the US Army's old motto.
As The Onion once put it, "Bottom 10% of this year's high school graduating class to take on Saddam's army."
-
Yeah, so they're giving guns to people too stupid to even tie their own ****ing shoe-laces, putting them with the other 5% who're decent soldiers and expect bad **** not to happen.
-
Originally posted by Corsair mk. 2
It's not necessarily the "best" of any countries young people, nor those who want to "be all they can be" to quote the US Army's old motto.
Well, if you're missing a leg from an RPG, it's hard to be all you once were, never mind 'all you can be'.
-
That's why they don't let cripples into the army.
What's your point?
-
whooooshh!
-
You're a dog?
I fail to see how that's relevant.
-
You're not a dog.
I see. It's all so clear now.
-
That's the sound of the point going over your head.
Tell you waht, I'll give you another few tries and explain it. Slowly. In big letters if you need me to.
-
I got the bit about "People shoot at soldiers", which seemed kinda too obvious to warrant a post being made about it.
Maybe you should post it in big letters.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I got the bit about "People shoot at soldiers", which seemed kinda too obvious to warrant a post being made about it.
Maybe you should post it in big letters.
Right. So there was no need for the smart arse (well, more dumb arse) post you made, then.
Maybe next time, just for your benefit, I will. Though I suspect it's your head and not your eyes that need help.
-
The point of that post was to ask you to post in big-letters.
Which you haven't done.
-
Why help you? After all, hatred is the way to victory or some pish along those lines.
-
Yeah, so you've realised you had no point and decided not to explain it so everyone could see the blatant flaws in your argument.
Kudos for the almost Iraqi-like retreat from my superior position, knowledge and intelligence.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I'm not passing comment on US troops. Their training seems to involve a lot of screaming at recruits and attempting to turn them psycho.
As someone who was one of the US troops, shut the **** up. Boot camp does NOT involve a lot of screaming at recruits and attempting to turn them psycho.
Maybe if you some of you ****wits would actually join the military and get a ****ing clue about what it is actually like, and what you actually do in the miltary, you could form an informed opinion instead of spouting off about **** you don't know a goddamn thing about.
-
Aside: Normally, I'd brag and laugh, but I get the feeling he's about to turn on me too.
-
[q]Boot camp does NOT involve a lot of screaming at recruits and attempting to turn them psycho.[/q]
[q]shut the **** up[/q]
[q]Maybe if you some of you ****wits would actually join the military and get a ****ing clue[/q]
Tee hee@irony :D
-
Yeah, if he meant it as irony.
If he did, he's surpassed all previous levels of sublety, satire and sarcasm ever even attempted on these boards.
-
That's not saying much, an0n. Who's ever been subtle around here?
-
The ones you don't even pick up as making a point about something.
-
Ah... that would explain it.
Who likes subtlety anyway? I just like speaking my mind, it's much easier to communicate that way. :D
-
Subtlety is generally useless here, so I'm not even attempting it. You're discussing stuff you don't know anything about. You discussing it from the comfy confines of your home offices and computer rooms and computer labs. With the exception of a few of you, no one here knows what its like to take up arms to defend your friends and family. Aside from a few of you, none of you know what its like to look down the wrong end of a gun, have a missile pointed at you, to be a target. With the exception of a few of you, none of you know what its like to have people trying to kill you, or what its like to give an order that puts other servicemen in harm's way. The most vehement of you, the most vociferous of you, are speaking from a position of safety, happily sucking on the media nipple. Your knowledge of what those troops are going through, what they're experiencing and how they're feeling, comes from movies and television. Get a clue, or at the very least, get a life.
Like I said, join the military, go in harms way, and then talk about whether or not those men are psychos or if they're justified shooting at people attacking them. Until you do, you simple cannot know.
-
Yeah. Subtelty is for fags.
Yey for paradoxical, subtle irony.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Subtlety is generally useless here, so I'm not even attempting it. You're discussing stuff you don't know anything about. You discussing it from the comfy confines of your home offices and computer rooms and computer labs. With the exception of a few of you, no one here knows what its like to take up arms to defend your friends and family. Aside from a few of you, none of you know what its like to look down the wrong end of a gun, have a missile pointed at you, to be a target. With the exception of a few of you, none of you know what its like to have people trying to kill you, or what its like to give an order that puts other servicemen in harm's way. The most vehement of you, the most vociferous of you, are speaking from a position of safety, happily sucking on the media nipple. Your knowledge of what those troops are going through, what they're experiencing and how they're feeling, comes from movies and television. Get a clue, or at the very least, get a life.
Like I said, join the military, go in harms way, and then talk about whether or not those men are psychos or if they're justified shooting at people attacking them. Until you do, you simple cannot know.
The irony of it all is so ****ing immense that it's not even funny and borders on the hypocritical.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, so you've realised you had no point and decided not to explain it so everyone could see the blatant flaws in your argument.
Kudos for the almost Iraqi-like retreat from my superior position, knowledge and intelligence.
Why argue with you?
History has proven that you have some sort of mental disability that requires people to hate you, which requires that you make deliberately controversial statements designed soley to either cause offense or make you look like some sort of deranged sociopath-come-tyrant.
-
[troymclure] Wow, it's like you've known me all my life! [/troymclure]
-
Is this going anywhere, or shall I just lock it? Right now I'm leaning towards ending yet another pointless political thread where we all chase the same arguements round and round in circles while an0n tries to come across as if he's something unique from the rest of us.
-
I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..........
Kill it.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Is this going anywhere, or shall I just lock it? Right now I'm leaning towards ending yet another pointless political thread where we all chase the same arguements round and round in circles while an0n tries to come across as if he's something unique from the rest of us.
Probably.
I'm not really bothered though. I doubt an0n will make a valid point beyond trying to annoy people, and I can't be arsed getting inot a fight where I can't actually hit anyone. Which isn;t really a fight, after all.
More a poncy slagging match disguised as an intellectual discussion, which I was foolish enough to get drawn into on another thread. 'twas somewhat semi-conscious then, granted.
Originally posted by an0n
Always gotta get the last word, eh?
No, feel free.
-
Always gotta get the last word, eh?
-
This has been a reasonable one I thought, wish other people would join in.
-
It's far more entertaining to watch than participate in. Most people here have their settings stuck on "spaz" after about two posts in a political thread, and it's not eloquent enough spazzing to be worth a good troll even.
-
More or less - but it's not really needed. No doubt a week or so will pass, something else will happen in the big wide world and the whole lot will get talked about and debated again.
For now though...