BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:32 AM

20x20 hindsight is a marvellous thing Lox, absolutely fuck all use to you if you are charged with providing fire support for your colleagues who you know for a fact to be already under fire. You then observe an ambush being set up in their path of advance, you relay your gun camera pictures to your controller infroming him of what you are seeing, he then gives you permission to engage that target. That simple, anybody then coming onto that scene to render assistance to those engaged in setting up that ambush is to be considered an enemy - Again downright simple.

No murder - No war crime.

"If you care to ressurect that thread, you will see that I watched the video then too, and to me it was blidingly obvious that that van did not contain dissidents."

The only things that were blindingly obvious Lox was that there was no way of knowing who or what was in that van. It was absolutely impossible for you or anybody else at the time to claim with any degree of confidence that it did not contain "dissidents" (That word conjures up a picture of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn crouched in the van dashing off a quick chapter on his way home).

Anyone arriving on the scene are not permitted to remove anything. The gun thing came from the transcripts, the crews of the helicopters were of the opinion that guns and bodies were going to be removed.

"And I remember your deep and insightful comments along the lines of "well those who died were idiots who deserved it for being thick."

Yep, absolutely right, the driver of that van was thick, bone thick in fact, and a downright lousy parent totally incapable of exercising good judgement to boot.

"one minute you are orgasming over the power of a 30mm cannon"

Well no actually Lox I just said that they were loud, the point being made was that it is pretty difficult not to hear them, and no "I did not see any vehicle being blown to bits" in the video I looked at.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 07:01 AM

Oh, incidentally, well googled Terry - but the words I used I have in my late wife's handwriting as she took them down from Alex Campbell personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 08:34 AM

Best tell Alan Francis that then Richard so that he can alter his notes, he seemed pretty certain that he had changed Alex campbell's original words.

But none of which detracts from the point made that it was a Labour Government that took us into armed conflict twice and they, hopefully, will not be in any position to do so again for a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:06 AM

Well, it's entirely possible that my late wife did make it up, she was a Pisces and frequently followed by the CIA and FBI, and it's equally possible that Alex Campbell had by the time she took the words down from him adopted an Alan Francis revision, and was not letting on that the new version was not his. It's the sort of thing that a man would do with a pretty girl around.

However, Conservative governments have got us involved in plenty of armed conflicts (Korea, Suez, Falklands etc, etc) and persistently have a more warlike persona. If you really really think that they won't do it again I think you will be disappointed, and I think history is on my side.

This thread is about the con-dems attach on welfare. Yesterday it came out that hardship payments will be withheld from those who refuse to do conscript community service. It really is a forced labour scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM

"there was no way of knowing who or what was in that van"

"It was absolutely impossible for you or anybody else at the time to claim with any degree of confidence that it did not contain "dissidents"

"The gun thing came from the transcripts, the crews of the helicopters were of the opinion that guns and bodies were going to be removed."


Thank you Teribus.


Lets look at what you said.

1. There was NO EVIDENCE of who or what was in the van.

2. The Hlicopter crews OPINION was that the occuants were a threat.

Opinion based on what?

On No Evidence thats what.

In other words, shoot first and ask questions later.

Evidence is the key Teribus and you're wilfully ignoring some very important evidence ... the pilots desperation to be allowed to obliterate the Van and his satisfaction once he had done so.

The fact that it didn't blow up was just providence. I've seeen what 30mm cannon rounds can do to a house, much less a van - and if you are to be believed, you certainly know what 30mm shells are capable of - so you are as disingenuous as you are preposterous.

That attack was not motivated by any recognizable threat.

It was motivated by a desire to destroy.

There is no evidence of the former, but there is of the latter.

What we saw was a man dying and a van pulling up to pick him up, before attempting to drive off again before he was in properly, and some asshole begging to be allowed to rip it to pieces rather than allow their "kill" to escape and survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:16 AM

The idea that the tories wouldn't have done exactly the same - if not worse - in Iraq is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 12:12 PM

"The idea that the tories wouldn't have done exactly the same - if not worse - in Iraq is a joke."

Most of the lefty posters here are a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 12:58 PM

Yep, I pay my taxes, every bit to the letter of the law.

That makes me dishonest then.

Luckily, as wrong as this government are on so many issues, at least they aren't failed weird beards with a warped view due to that ruddy great chip on their shoulder.

If we must have such a pissing contest, choose your weapons. Mine is a personal tax bill last year of £123K.

Good job for HM Treasury that I am so dishonest then.

Oh, and I know what money is too. I have made enough of the damned stuff, as some pathetic idiot pointed out in another thread.... Ah, but do i know the value? No. Can't say that I do. That's perhaps the one thing I have in common with armchair socialists, except my no concept of not appreciating value is that I believe in the concept of personal wealth, which is a bit more than I can say for Trotsky & co.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 01:14 PM

And you think, Willie, that having that money makes you a better person?

And why do you think that you have "made" money rather than "taken" it?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 01:28 PM

"at least they aren't failed weird beards with a warped view due to that ruddy great chip on their shoulder.
If we must have such a pissing contest, choose your weapons. Mine is a personal tax bill last year of £123K."

Well at least we're all clear about what precisely counts as "failure" and success for the likes of Bonzo and Willie. It's all about how much money you either do or do not make. Nice one.

Mind you, as another Mudcatter put it to me (not Richard incidentally) if Willie brays on about how fat his paycheck is in any more posts, s/he will also "start steaming".

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:47 PM

Any one remember that Harry Enfield character, the nouveau-riche Brummy? 'Oi am roight of course, because oi am so much richer than yow!'

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:59 PM

Loadsamoney!!!!!

Satire....but not as we know it, Captain!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

"Evidence is the key Teribus and you're wilfully ignoring some very important evidence

Awww God Bless "Evidence is the key" when you are under fire and under threat - Don't you fuckin' believe it sunshine. I will tell you with absolute certainty when it kicks off and the bulets start flying, there is you, your mates and your shadow on the floor - evidence does not even enter into it, if you want to come out of it alive. But there again Lox I have been there you have not.

"I've seeen what 30mm cannon rounds can do to a house, much less a van"

Ohhh come on Lox I'd love to hear the story behind this fairytale!!!

You pal do not even have the foggiest bloody notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM

Please - as far as we know Willie acquired his money in zero sum games, so apparently he did not make it he took it.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:31 PM

"when you are under fire and under threat"

Round and round in circles ...

... they were 5kn away in a nice cool air conditioned helicopter watching it on a TV screen.

Sorry mate, but NONE of your assertion stands up - not even the mealy mouthed whinge for sympathy.

I don't think there's anything left to mop up.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 03:05 AM

'Oi am roight of course, because oi am so much richer than yow!'

Not quite Loadsamoney Ake, different characters. See here: Stanley and Pammy

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 03:38 AM

"when you are under fire and under threat"

"... they were 5kn away in a nice cool air conditioned helicopter watching it on a TV screen."

The MNF and Iraqi troops on patrol on the ground weren't 5 kilometers away though were they Lox? Your Reuters men had hurried to the scene at the invitation of the insurgents so that Reuters could get their "scoop" and film the ambush from the insurgents side. That is why they were not wearing their vests and helmets - and that plus the company they were in is what made them legitimate targets - and that is what Reuters concluded after having seen the "evidence" within 14 days of the incident happening. The patrol had already come under fire which is why the helicopters were there.

Please Lox tell us about your experience of seeing what 30mm cannon fire can do, As I said I am absolutely dying to hear this fairy-story. You have been inside a house hit by 30mm fire? Standing near a house that was being hit? You were firing a 30mm cannon at a house? Or have you just seen video or photographs? If the latter then you would have to know what ammunition was being used to talk about the effects of that fire. Tell us all what ammunition was being used by the Apache's in the Reuters incident? I can and it would explain why nothing was "blown to bits".

But no murder - no war crime

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 06:45 AM

"The MNF and Iraqi troops on patrol on the ground weren't 5 kilometers away though were they Lox?"

And they didn't Obliterate the van.

The guys who did weren't in any danger.

And your attempts to wriggle and squirm and change the subject to hide the fact that your argument has been utterly picked to pieces, and your assessment of the facts has been shown to be utterly off the mark won't change that.

Maybe the apaches were loaded for bear?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 07:55 AM

Willie hasn't got a bean actually, his real me has He is a silly name from a person who Willie is describing, someone who thinks it hilarious how sanctimonious whingers get irate if somebody has something they haven't.

The bloke behind this absurd Willie character has been skint and has been very comfortable, and I know which he prefers.

He has also earned not taken. in fact the only thing he ever took was, I suppose, child benefit.

In fact the only reason this came out was having to put up with self confessed moaners saying nobody is allowed money, nobody with a bean should have any say in anything blah blah.

Stupid hypocrites.

Stop having opinions please, you are putting society back with your failed utopian nonsense. And then, I will stop having mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:22 AM

"The MNF and Iraqi troops on patrol on the ground weren't 5 kilometers away though were they Lox?"

And they didn't Obliterate the van.

The guys who did weren't in any danger."

Oh sorry Lox I forgot in your Camberwick Green / Trumpton world you must give the enemy a chance to kill you before you can kill them, how bloody stupid of me.

What the hell do you think providing cover or support involves you fool, you, hopefully from a position of safety, undetected by the enemy, kill those who are about to kill your colleagues, and that Lox is exactly what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

Yes, Willie - we know which you prefer - which is why no doubt all your arguments seem directed to keeping YOU that way and sod everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:03 AM

"The Canada Revenue Agency has significantly disenfranchised the tax avoidance/tax planning right of a tax payer by developing a general anti-avoidance rule (GARR), a vague provision that allows the tax agency to disallow a tax benefit if the tax payer's avoidance measure "abused" the Income Tax Act."

IMHO the wrong turning in UK tax law was taken when the maxim "there is no equity in a taxing statute" was adopted. I thought it came from IRC -v- Westminster, but I maybe wrong. What there is, certainly, is a purpose.

In my view, tax evasion involves escaping the purpose of taxing statutes. Whatever steps are taken are taken with a view to reducing the payer's liability from what it would otherwise be, and thus the tax revenue raised below what it would otherwise be.

In all other statutory interpretation "the mischief rule" would allow the examination of purpose and the application of the statute so as to give effect to that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM

"you must give the enemy a chance to kill you before you can kill them"

This could go on for ever ...

The guys who destroyed the Van weren't in Danger.

They had time and space to look for evidence of a threat from the Van.

"kill those who are about to kill your colleagues,"

There was no evidence that the Van was a threat of any sort.

Round and round and round we go, supporting discredited arguments with conclusions based on the same discredited argumnents.


There was no threat from the Van.

The guys who Dstroyed the Van saw no evidence of a threat from the Van.

The Guys who destroyed the Van were not under fire.

They had time to make an informed decision from the safety of 5 miles away.

So none of your arguments apply.


You're just making shit up.


The only evidence concerning their motivation is their eagerness to be allowed to destroy the van and their satisfaction once they have done so.


I suspect you will say something like "but they were at risk" or "but they were under fire" or "but they were defending their colleagues on the ground from attack" again, because you appear to be too thick to stop repeating it ad infinitum.

Go on say it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:33 AM

"your Camberwick Green / Trumpton world"

Again, so wide of the mark that it would have been better for those in the Van if you had been the gunner on duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:41 AM

"Stop having opinions please, you are putting society back with your failed utopian nonsense."

Failed utopian nonsense, like a decent education for working-class / lower income folk presumably? Then again, as the criteria for being a *success* in life, is all about the money, fuck all that failed utopian education bullshit! Let's ensure young lowly educated lasses are a real *success* in life by doing work experience on how to be like Jordan instead!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:01 PM

Hmm, in fact I reckon should start reading The Star, then maybe I could finally make something of myself! And to think of all the hours I wasted reading books with funny sounding words in.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:13 AM

Who knows? if you had understood the funny words, you might not type such twaddle.

Perhaps I didn't make it too clear. After all, so many misconceptions (starting with the emotive crap about labour camps, assassinating elected politicans blah blah...) I must admit, I did (for the first time here) get a bit disgruntled when some people thought it OK to say that paying what I owe in taxes isn't enough, and that not being on the scrapheap is something I should be ashamed of. I was told I was being dishonest by making sure I don't pay a penny more than I should. A number of times I pointed out that if anybody feels that to be the case, they can make voluntary Inland Revenue contributions, but I think I pay enough.

Hilarious to be told to pay more by those who claim to pay less. One of the problems with any society is the lust for greed, usually wrapped up in wanting a fairer society. Don't believe a word of it. The true colours of the would be dangerous (if they could get out of their armchairs) failed socialist weird beards are all on view for all to see on this thread and other contemporary ones, (usually started by Richard III.) Regular little Bonapartes...

Luckily, we live in a Western democracy, so the vast majority of decent thinking pragmatic people outnumber the silly little trots by a wide margin, so society can afford to marginalise you, ignore you and when it suits, point and laugh at you.

Why i am setting out to be so nasty to your point of view? Something about people here condoning violence, misrepresenting situations, black propaganda against an incompetent government, (you don't need to spout lies, they resemble a one legged man at an arse kicking contest without your ruddy help.)

The list goes on, but look at the average person, with his flat screen telly, PC, car that works and 2.3 kids. He isn't interested in your scare stories, even if they were factual he would say (and does say according to the polls) that something must be done because be buggered to funding an underclass with no sense of dignity of work. Something must be done to change the mindset..

Pity those with the chance of changing it are not capable, but we can't have it all ways, eh? The need for a look at society and all we get are ruddy Tories, ones that believe their own philosophy too, worse luck. I don't know what the answer is, but I bet it doesn't have a beard, and I bet it has to be elected too. Just like this lot were. (Oh, if you think they weren't then I cannot help with your failure to grasp the rules of Parliamentary democracy. Nobody has to like the outcome, but you place a bet on the understanding you might not back the winner.)