Cops investigate Ibrox soldiers

[BrahimHemdani 1]

This country is completely and utterly fucked.

 

Specifically because of this debate or just in general terms?

 

Care to elaborate?

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I don't feel the need to elaborate on something so evidently prevalent.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't feel the need to elaborate on something so evidently prevalent.

 

Do you mean it's an established fact?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Well, Afghanistan was and is the main breeding place for Taliban fighters, local or not.

 

And why is that? Don't get me wrong. I detest the medieval barbarism of the Taliban - but there is a reason that Afghan men are drawn to them.

 

And, some Saudi sheikhs aside, probably still finances much of the Taliban weapon deals with drug money.

 

Interesting that you should mention drugs.

 

In July 2000 the Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas

 

In December 2001, a UN meeting Bonn, decided to reestablish the State of Afghanistan. The UK was designated the lead country in addressing counter-narcotics issues in Afghanistan. In 2004, Hamid Karzai became president of Afghanistan.

 

Two of the following three growing seasons saw record levels of opium poppy cultivation. Under the Western occupation, drug production has soared.

If the West is ensuring that drugs are being produced, then drugs are being sold. Who do you think is making the money from the sales of these drugs? Clue; it isn't some guy wearing sandals and a rag on his head, who lives in a house made of mud.

 

Another Incovenient Truth, brought to you tonight by your sponsors NATO.

"NATO....hey!, what's in a name?"

 

That said, I have no clue what the British troops do over there, the Germans were rebuilding local infrastructure as well as defending the more level-headed locals from the Taliban.

 

OK, you've said *what* they do there, but *why* are they there? (Clue: See above.)

 

 

In any case, those who are offended by what the troops did at Ibrox don't care whether British troops are in Afghanistan, Gibraltar, or London.

 

What Timothy thinks or doesn't think about the armed forces, or indeed any subject under the sun, is of supreme indifference to me.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

That totally misses the point, which is that the soldiers have to go where their political masters send them.

 

The rights and wrongs of Afganistan, or any other conflict for that matter, should not be an issue in debating whether or not it is appropriate to honour our troops and the best maner in which to do so.

 

Sorry BH, but that is an utterly bizarre thing to say.

 

Look. Here's the thing about Western Democracy. Nobody is forced to do anything at the point of a gun. We *all* have personal responsibility for our actions - and that includes people who decide to join the army and invade other people's countries. So let's not get fooled by the flag waving hysteria that demands we 'support' our troops come what may - particularly when this 'support' disappears like snow off a dyke when these soldiers leave the forces and are unable to receive the treatment or support they need to cope with the stress and trauma they suffered whilst service.

 

A wee google on ex-military homelessness, mental illness and alcoholism might be eye opening for many. Have a read about that, then get back to me about 'supporting' the troops.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Will our support back an independent Scottish army in the same way we back a British army? I have my doubts, which would question the legitimacy of most of the arguments in this thread. It's laughable that people think the modern armed services exist to defend our freedoms and liberty.

 

True dat.

Our armed forces are quite simply an economic tool and you might as well have a parade of Keynsian economists marching up and down the Ibrox pitch.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

This country is completely and utterly fucked.

 

If by that you mean Scotland? then i'm beginning to think so too, however England has a way to go yet before i would say that imho.

[der Berliner 3,292]

And why is that? Don't get me wrong. I detest the medieval barbarism of the Taliban - but there is a reason that Afghan men are drawn to them.

 

Yep, (monotheistic) religion with certain "medieval" rules attached to it has its draws.

 

Interesting that you should mention drugs.

In July 2000 the Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas

In December 2001, a UN meeting Bonn, decided to reestablish the State of Afghanistan. The UK was designated the lead country in addressing counter-narcotics issues in Afghanistan. In 2004, Hamid Karzai became president of Afghanistan.

Two of the following three growing seasons saw record levels of opium poppy cultivation. Under the Western occupation, drug production has soared.

If the West is ensuring that drugs are being produced, then drugs are being sold. Who do you think is making the money from the sales of these drugs? Clue; it isn't some guy wearing sandals and a rag on his head, who lives in a house made of mud.

 

So in essence you'd rather say that NATO et al got involved in another sort of Opium War like the same nations did in China 100 years earlier? Obviously, it would, on the face of it, be one of the very few positives of Taliban rule that drug production was reduced. Somehow, I have my doubts that the Taliban solely finance their war via foreign money input.

 

Another Incovenient Truth, brought to you tonight by your sponsors NATO.

"NATO....hey!, what's in a name?"

 

My sponsors?

 

OK, you've said *what* they do there, but *why* are they there? (Clue: See above.)

 

I'd be hesitant to follow that clue.

 

What Timothy thinks or doesn't think about the armed forces, or indeed any subject under the sun, is of supreme indifference to me.

 

To each his/her own.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Yep, (monotheistic) religion with certain "medieval" rules attached to it has its draws.

 

and where was the problem with medieval islam before 1989, say? If you want to suggest that Islam is the problem (rather than the occupation of Islamic countries) why did we have no problem with Islam before the fall of the Soviets?

 

 

So in essence you'd rather say that NATO et al got involved in another sort of Opium War like the same nations did in China 100 years earlier? Obviously, it would, on the face of it, be one of the very few positives of Taliban rule that drug production was reduced. Somehow, I have my doubts that the Taliban solely finance their war via foreign money input.

 

I would not rather say that NATO got involved in any war - and I'm at a loss as to why you would say that or how you can reach that conclusion.

As to the drugs issue, it's interesting that you ignore the facts of Western involvement resulting in more drug production, but rather that prefer to harp on about how drug money funds the Taliban. Initially you claimed that drugs money funded "much" of Taliban weaponry. Now, you've moved on to saying that they don' "solely" rely on drugs money. Face facts.

 

My sponsors?

'Eure', nicht 'deine' - a reference to American style adverts.

 

 

 

I'd be hesitant to follow that clue.

 

Quite.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Sorry BH, but that is an utterly bizarre thing to say.

 

Look. Here's the thing about Western Democracy. Nobody is forced to do anything at the point of a gun. We *all* have personal responsibility for our actions - and that includes people who decide to join the army and invade other people's countries. So let's not get fooled by the flag waving hysteria that demands we 'support' our troops come what may - particularly when this 'support' disappears like snow off a dyke when these soldiers leave the forces and are unable to receive the treatment or support they need to cope with the stress and trauma they suffered whilst service.

 

A wee google on ex-military homelessness, mental illness and alcoholism might be eye opening for many. Have a read about that, then get back to me about 'supporting' the troops.

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on your fundamental premise; although I certainly do agree that all the latter categories are deserving of our support, albeit in a different and perhaps more tangible way.

 

For example Rangers fans support for Erskine Hospital is legend and rightly so.

 

I also think that I have made it clear that I am not comfortable with the way these tributes have been held up until now and I would not support them being used as one in the eye for Celtic FC or their fans.

 

However, I have no problem with a dignified military parade and a military display along the lines of the Edinburgh Festival. Discussing this on the way back from Brechin yesterday, one friend suggested that part of the issue is that 400 is just too many personnel; and I think that is valid. Perhaps the services could take turn about and send 100-200 at the most who could do marching displays etc.

 

I don't want to be rude or be accused of avoiding the issue so I'll say now that I won't be adding to these comments.