View previous topic | View next topic

Guardsman identification

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Davini994
482573.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:36 am Reply with quote

What I mean is, to demand an apology everytime someone states their distaste for agents of war isn't particularly realistic.

It's quite a common opinion (if not one that I particularly hold): getting your knickers in a twist will be the sole result of demanding an apology.

Explaining why you think they are wrong, as you've done, is more productive.

 
Confucius
482576.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 am Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
What I mean is, to demand an apology everytime someone states their distaste for agents of war isn't particularly realistic.

It's quite a common opinion (if not one that I particularly hold): getting your knickers in a twist will be the sole result of demanding an apology.

Explaining why you think they are wrong, as you've done, is more productive.


Point taken.

 
Neotenic
482775.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:34 am Reply with quote

Maybe you would like to review post 154360, Confucious.

I'm sure once you have apologised to BBC staff, homosexuals, environmental activists and the mentally disabled, an apology from Mr Wilson will be forthcoming.

Either that, or you could just suck it up like a big boy.

 
Confucius
483112.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:19 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Maybe you would like to review post 154360, Confucious.

I'm sure once you have apologised to BBC staff, homosexuals, environmental activists and the mentally disabled, an apology from Mr Wilson will be forthcoming.

Either that, or you could just suck it up like a big boy.


Dig long enough and hard enough and you'll find whatever you seek.

Never post when pi$$ed boy, never post when pi$$ed.

 
bobwilson
483264.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:51 pm Reply with quote

hmm - interesting lesson to be learnt here. Note to self:

Post short pithy comments rather than long explanatory rambling texts as these appear to be more favourably received.

Immediately breaks rule of note to self:

Mike - I don't think I've actually killed anyone with satire (or by any other means - I've never even been involved in a car crash so I'm pretty sure that I haven't killed anyone).

Confucius - I don't think my wording was ambiguous. Nor is it an insult aimed at members of the military. It's a statement of facts as perceived by me.

Quote:
Oh, and rather simply put our military are only allowed to use 'lethal force' as a last resort. Ideally a military goal would be obtained without killing anyone.


Now that is ambiguous. Tis true that UK military must only use "lethal force" as a last resort - and ideally a military goal would be obtained without killing anyone. You could say the same (regarding the latter) for the Weathermen, the SLA, EOKA, the IRA, ETA, etc. If they can obtain their goals without killing anyone they'd be delighted.

As for using lethal force as a last resort - that's seriously ambiguous.

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group