RugbyRebels

start a petition for the perpetually offended

that'l show the bastards

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

Zhivago wrote:

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

It's even worse (and the incident you mention is also dreadful) because these friendly chappies with the guns in the video are supposed to be elite professional members of our armed forces, supposedly protecting our freedoms. Seen from the eyes of the far right, it legitimises and normalises violence directed against politicians - and the left is the prime target of this, as seen by the tragic assassination of a Labour MP by the far right just a couple of years ago. Don't forget there was also that anonymous general who threatened a coup d'etat if Corbyn ever got in power.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

I'm disappointed it took so long to post it. Twitter and Facebook have been entertaining today.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

It's even worse (and the incident you mention is also dreadful) because these friendly chappies with the guns in the video are supposed to be elite professional members of our armed forces, supposedly protecting our freedoms. Seen from the eyes of the far right, it legitimises and normalises violence directed against politicians - and the left is the prime target of this, as seen by the tragic assassination of a Labour MP by the far right just a couple of years ago. Don't forget there was also that anonymous general who threatened a coup d'etat if Corbyn ever got in power.

So, you claim this has been organised by senior British Army Officers, and is part of a wider conspiracy to launch a coup d’etat.

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

The Bonfire Societies in Lewis and surroundings are very far from being “mobs of random people”. They are, in fact, very highly organised groups.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

The Bonfire Societies in Lewis and surroundings are very far from being “mobs of random people”. They are, in fact, very highly organised groups.

But no-one has ever heard of a Bonfire Society Coup taking over a country if they don't like an elected politician though. There's connotations involved with the Armed Forces declaring an opposition leader worthy of target practice that just aren't there with a Bonfire Society.

Don't get me wrong, this incident's nothing too serious or worth getting het up about, but it is a level different to burning a Guy.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

The Bonfire Societies in Lewis and surroundings are very far from being “mobs of random people”. They are, in fact, very highly organised groups.

But no-one has ever heard of a Bonfire Society Coup taking over a country if they don't like an elected politician though. There's connotations involved with the Armed Forces declaring an opposition leader worthy of target practice that just aren't there with a Bonfire Society.

Don't get me wrong, this incident's nothing too serious or worth getting het up about, but it is a level different to burning a Guy.

Puja

How many times now has the British Army attempted to overthrow the British State. If all the Bonfire Societies were doing was burning a guy, I would agree with your comparison. They’re not. Their effigies include serving British Prime Ministers.

OptimisticJock wrote:I'm disappointed it took so long to post it. Twitter and Facebook have been entertaining today.

Fuck both those cancers.

p.s. Like me.

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Look what a nice democratic country we are, our military is using the leader of the opposition for target practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... byn-poster

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment... friends of yours, chaps?

How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

I'd assume this is more a minor act of idiocy than any underlying threat against Corbyn or any idea the military wouldn't accept rule of a Labour government under Corbyn. And too I assume over the years the armed forces will have shot at any number of ill advised posters from Irish and Iranian leaders, famous European leaders, famous porn stars, famous sports people, indeed I'd be astonished if Kermit the frog hasn't been shot over and over. Young people have a tendency for such acts which isn't curtailed by giving themguns

So yes we need another reminder and a strong one to members of the armes forces about their responsibilities, but we don't need to forget standards of behaviour have probably never been better in the military

It also wouldn't hurt if the leader of the opposition wasn't such a Brit hating, terrorist sympathising, risk to national security

Digby wrote:
I'd assume this is more a minor act of idiocy than any underlying threat against Corbyn or any idea the military wouldn't accept rule of a Labour government under Corbyn. And too I assume over the years the armed forces will have shot at any number of ill advised posters from Irish and Iranian leaders, famous European leaders, famous porn stars, famous sports people, indeed I'd be astonished if Kermit the frog hasn't been shot over and over. Young people have a tendency for such acts which isn't curtailed by giving themguns

So yes we need another reminder and a strong one to members of the armes forces about their responsibilities, but we don't need to forget standards of behaviour have probably never been better in the military

It also wouldn't hurt if the leader of the opposition wasn't such a Brit hating, terrorist sympathising, risk to national security

If you're one of the permanently offended, like Zhivago, everything is an attack on democracy.
The scariest thing about the video is the poor standard of accuracy shown by these "elite troops", followed by the poor range drills.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
How is this any different to the good citizens of Lewes burning effigies of Alex Salmond?

The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

I'd assume this is more a minor act of idiocy than any underlying threat against Corbyn or any idea the military wouldn't accept rule of a Labour government under Corbyn. And too I assume over the years the armed forces will have shot at any number of ill advised posters from Irish and Iranian leaders, famous European leaders, famous porn stars, famous sports people, indeed I'd be astonished if Kermit the frog hasn't been shot over and over. Young people have a tendency for such acts which isn't curtailed by giving themguns

So yes we need another reminder and a strong one to members of the armes forces about their responsibilities, but we don't need to forget standards of behaviour have probably never been better in the military

Oh yeah, completely agree with all that. It's a minor act of idiocy rather than anything sinister, but better that it's avoided entirely and someone's given a bollocking for not thinking about how it looked.

My point was that it's a definite step above burning a Guy, simply because an Armed Forces shooting at a British politician they disagree with is not a good image, nor something we particularly want to normalise.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
The armed forces attacking an effigy of an opposition politician does have very different connotations from a mob of random people. I mean, neither's great, but this is very different.

Puja

I'd assume this is more a minor act of idiocy than any underlying threat against Corbyn or any idea the military wouldn't accept rule of a Labour government under Corbyn. And too I assume over the years the armed forces will have shot at any number of ill advised posters from Irish and Iranian leaders, famous European leaders, famous porn stars, famous sports people, indeed I'd be astonished if Kermit the frog hasn't been shot over and over. Young people have a tendency for such acts which isn't curtailed by giving themguns

So yes we need another reminder and a strong one to members of the armes forces about their responsibilities, but we don't need to forget standards of behaviour have probably never been better in the military

Oh yeah, completely agree with all that. It's a minor act of idiocy rather than anything sinister, but better that it's avoided entirely and someone's given a bollocking for not thinking about how it looked.

My point was that it's a definite step above burning a Guy, simply because an Armed Forces shooting at a British politician they disagree with is not a good image, nor something we particularly want to normalise.

Puja

Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'd assume this is more a minor act of idiocy than any underlying threat against Corbyn or any idea the military wouldn't accept rule of a Labour government under Corbyn. And too I assume over the years the armed forces will have shot at any number of ill advised posters from Irish and Iranian leaders, famous European leaders, famous porn stars, famous sports people, indeed I'd be astonished if Kermit the frog hasn't been shot over and over. Young people have a tendency for such acts which isn't curtailed by giving themguns

So yes we need another reminder and a strong one to members of the armes forces about their responsibilities, but we don't need to forget standards of behaviour have probably never been better in the military

Oh yeah, completely agree with all that. It's a minor act of idiocy rather than anything sinister, but better that it's avoided entirely and someone's given a bollocking for not thinking about how it looked.

My point was that it's a definite step above burning a Guy, simply because an Armed Forces shooting at a British politician they disagree with is not a good image, nor something we particularly want to normalise.

Puja

Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
Oh yeah, completely agree with all that. It's a minor act of idiocy rather than anything sinister, but better that it's avoided entirely and someone's given a bollocking for not thinking about how it looked.

My point was that it's a definite step above burning a Guy, simply because an Armed Forces shooting at a British politician they disagree with is not a good image, nor something we particularly want to normalise.

Puja

Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Actually, you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. I assume that you, like most of the population including myself, couldn't give a rats arse about about a bunch of southern pansies marching with burning crosses, burning effigies of our Prime Minister, a Pope, and various other world leaders while carrying a banner that states "No Popery". It's just a bit of harmless fun, and similar happens every year (six months out of phase) on the streets of Northern Ireland and large tracts of Central Scotland (well, maybe not the burning crosses).

What I'm a bit baffled by is everyone getting bent out of shape by a bunch of squaddies punching holes in a poster carrying the image of a known IRA sympathiser - someone who has never repudiated his support for various terrorist organisations both domestic and foreign.
Do I think it was advisable? No.
Do I think it was admirable? No
Do I think that those involved should get their arses kicked by their superiors? Yes
Do I think it's an assault on our democratic institutions and the harbinger of an attempted military coup? No more so than organised groups of civilians who do similar things to effigies of the British Prime Minister and march with burning crosses without much comment from anyone.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Actually, you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. I assume that you, like most of the population including myself, couldn't give a rats arse about about a bunch of southern pansies marching with burning crosses, burning effigies of our Prime Minister, a Pope, and various other world leaders while carrying a banner that states "No Popery". It's just a bit of harmless fun, and similar happens every year (six months out of phase) on the streets of Northern Ireland and large tracts of Central Scotland (well, maybe not the burning crosses).

What I'm a bit baffled by is everyone getting bent out of shape by a bunch of squaddies punching holes in a poster carrying the image of a known IRA sympathiser - someone who has never repudiated his support for various terrorist organisations both domestic and foreign.
Do I think it was advisable? No.
Do I think it was admirable? No
Do I think that those involved should get their arses kicked by their superiors? Yes
Do I think it's an assault on our democratic institutions and the harbinger of an attempted military coup? No more so than organised groups of civilians who do similar things to effigies of the British Prime Minister and march with burning crosses without much comment from anyone.

In which case, we've both got the wrong end of the stick, cause I'm definitely not arguing that it's an assault on our democratic institutions and the harbinger of an attempted military coup. It is, as Digby said, just some gary boys being dicks.

However, I am disagreeing with the equivalence you've drawn with the burny men. While I don't believe that this is the harbinger of an impending coup, the armed forces is a group of people that we pay and train with the main purpose that they kill people at the behest of the government of the day. Any suggestion that an opposition politician is a viable target for them should be quashed very quickly - not because I think there is any real risk of a coup, but because we don't want even the slightest hint of that being acceptable. Better to make an issue out of the small issue of a few squaddies shooting a poster, rather than run even a tiny risk of anything bigger growing from it.

Puja

I wouldn't for now even get hung up on the idea they're shooting at an image of a politician they perhaps disagree with. We don't know they disagree with the Dear Leader, and if they do we don't know they don't also happily shoot images of politicians they do agree with

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
Oh yeah, completely agree with all that. It's a minor act of idiocy rather than anything sinister, but better that it's avoided entirely and someone's given a bollocking for not thinking about how it looked.

My point was that it's a definite step above burning a Guy, simply because an Armed Forces shooting at a British politician they disagree with is not a good image, nor something we particularly want to normalise.

Puja

Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Seriously, I agree with Puja on this one. You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see how fucked up it is that the armed forces deems it appropriate to shoot up a picture of the leader of the opposition as target practice, and think that some bonfire in a two-horse town is comparable, I don't know what to say to you.

It seems rather overblown to say the armed forces as opposed to a tiny group within the armed forces

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Seriously, I agree with Puja on this one. You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see how fucked up it is that the armed forces deems it appropriate to shoot up a picture of the leader of the opposition as target practice, and think that some bonfire in a two-horse town is comparable, I don't know what to say to you.

Neither SoG or HM Armed Forces deem it appropriate.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Effigies burned at the Lewes Bonfire in recent years include:
Donald Trump
Theresa May
David Cameron
Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel

So, definitely, just burning a guy....


Aye, it's all just a bit of fun

Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Seriously, I agree with Puja on this one. You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see how fucked up it is that the armed forces deems it appropriate to shoot up a picture of the leader of the opposition as target practice, and think that some bonfire in a two-horse town is comparable, I don't know what to say to you.

Not a single thing that you have written in this post is accurate, therefore it is simply pointless in me responding to it.

Stones of granite wrote:

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:
Ooookay, you seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of this Bonfire Society, whoever they are, and really want to defend them on the internet. Not the case - never heard of them before you mentioned them. You want to censure them, off you go.

I still find a military deeming an opposition politician an acceptable target to be more problematic that a bunch of random nutters who like to burn things, but if you've got a specific issue with the burney men, you go off and picket them. You do you.

Puja

Seriously, I agree with Puja on this one. You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see how fucked up it is that the armed forces deems it appropriate to shoot up a picture of the leader of the opposition as target practice, and think that some bonfire in a two-horse town is comparable, I don't know what to say to you.

Not a single thing that you have written in this post is accurate, therefore it is simply pointless in me responding to it.

Dude, just about every post you've made is "but but but the bonfires!" as if that's a viable comparison to members of the armed forces shooting at a portrait of the leader of the opposition.

cashead wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

cashead wrote: Seriously, I agree with Puja on this one. You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see how fucked up it is that the armed forces deems it appropriate to shoot up a picture of the leader of the opposition as target practice, and think that some bonfire in a two-horse town is comparable, I don't know what to say to you.

Not a single thing that you have written in this post is accurate, therefore it is simply pointless in me responding to it.

Dude, just about every post you've made is "but but but the bonfires!" as if that's a viable comparison to members of the armed forces shooting at a portrait of the leader of the opposition.

You realised it’s ‘members of the armed forces’ rather than ‘the armed forces’ as a whole. If you now row back from the assertion that ‘the armed forces deems it appropriate to shoot up a picture of the leader of the opposition’ we’ll be really getting somewhere.