
Originally Posted by
ono

Originally Posted by
Oggie

Originally Posted by
amat
All freedom of speach means is that Anthony Small is not breaking any laws by doing this. There are other freedoms too, like the freedom to judge him as an asshole. He's obviously an idiot and an ass, that much is clear no matter what supposed cause he is fighting for. If someone had a sign that said all blacks go to hell, all doctors go to hell, etc. then yea he would be allowed to have that sign but you also are allowed to label him an idiot. He is obviously, political leanings aside.
Just doing this for attention. Isn't he the guy who took his nickname from Sugar Ray, Jones and Ali? Like Sugar Ray Clay Jones Jr. or something? I'm positive it is and if it is then he shouldn't really be taken seriously here.
I agree with this, it pretty much sums up what I said in my original post. Freedom of speech is not a one way street, everyone always has different views and at the end of the day, people have to accept this whether they agree with the views or not.
My personal view on the situation is that Anthony Small was being a dick by targeting the wrong people. The soldiers are just doing their job, technically speaking. I'm thinking a lot of them signed up for the military probably believing it would be more like a fitness exercise.

I'm sure a lot of them come back home eaten by guilt and what not, it is hard to avoid taking innocent lives in war. Of course there are crazed killers in the military too, they couldn't give a flying f*ck who gets in their way.
The governments are the ones who make the decisions though, and for that, the burden of guilt must ultimately rest on their shoulders. This works both ways! Al Qaeda /The Taliban were wrong to do what they did, but the coalition side were wrong to do the exact same thing back in return.
But at what point do Soldiers have to take reponsibility for their actions, regardless of who's giving them their orders. By just doing their job, you mean killing...which i'm sure is quite obvious when you sign up for the military, or at least it is to anybody with a brain cell. So with that in mind, i can't believe that soldiers are totally exempt from any criticism.
I keep hearing that politicians are bent and the government are bent, yet people are volunteering to kill 'for their country' on their behalf. I don't know whether it's blind patriotism, or stupidity or naivety. I genuinely don't know.
Demonstarting during a march is a little insensitive, but at the same time, so is invading another country whilst lauding the soldiers as heroes. But whatever, i guess i'll get told we're right and we're fighting terrorism and the darkies are the bad guys etc etc etc (not by you Oggie btw)
I can see where you are coming from man, of course soldiers can't be exempt from criticism. If an innocent person is killed, someone had to pull a trigger or whatever... but I would imagine it is a madly tense situation out there, and that no amount of training could prepare you for it. You also have to remember that a lot of these guys are constantly following orders. I guess it is just situational judgment really.
As for people volunteering to go killing, there are always those heavily patriotic people that would 'die for their beloved country!' I simply meant that not everyone that signed up for military service (prior to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway) ever genuinely expected to be in the situation they were put in.
Most probably expected peacekeeping or heavy exercise, haha. I know a lot of people in the military that only joined for the money and fitness that it brings, but the fact is, if Ireland somehow ever gets invaded (impossible as it seems!), those guys will be asked to kill... and that is not something that I think they never realistically expect. I imagine it could have been the same for a lot of young men that joined the British (and other) military too... though I could be wrong!
I think the governments naturally have to take most of the responsibility though, because without them, the soldiers wouldn't even be there in the first place. This is the case especially when it comes to Iraq, where the invasion there was highly questionable and convenient to say the least. Many thousands of innocents have died there so far, and I'm still yet to hear a genuine reason why. The coalition forces have basically done the exact same thing that was done in their own home countries, except on a much more epic scale. The same thing that we kept hearing was 'pure evil' and 'terrorism at its worst.' They have lost many of their own men and women too...

Bookmarks