Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Harrods ban soldiers on Remembrance Day

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Fair enough. But if that is your attitude then I would expect you to keep quiet on any issue that affects any less than the entirety of humanity.

    How do you work that one out?
    carlito wrote:
    And for the record, I didn't make an assumption, did I? I didn't quote you or address you directly, and gave you the courtesy of reading through your previous comments to ascertain whether the post was addressed to you or not when you asked. Then I qualified my response to say that it probably did.

    You made an assumption that I thought that was all soldiers did. You had no evidence on which to base that. In fact, if you see my question about what was the use of some wars, you could maybe gather from that that I think the British Army being in the Balkans or possibly the Falklands may have had some value. You'll also be able to work out that maybe I question the value of the British Army being in Iraq or Afghanistan. I may also have issues with the NI conflict.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    I fail to see how they don't serve functions 1,3,4 and 5 nowadays. Plenty of peacekeeping operations, natural disasters, and whilst there is no immediate threat of external aggression (beyond terrorism which is a seperate issue) who knows how soon we will be in need of protection...

    Admittedly since the end of the Cold War their primary function has been number 2. If you want to drive around in a car, eat cheap food, consume more than the vast majority of the world's population: well then you should be thankful that the armed forces exist and are ready to give their lives for you to have an easy life. Not that you in particular would ask for this Aladdin, being such a paragon of socialist virtue - but the vast majority of the population of the UK and the western world want this.
    No, actually I am not thankful to anyone that our armed forces are being used to further the geopolitical and economic interests of the government and our masters in Washington. And I think you'll find the very few people in this country would justify embarking in illegal wars and causing, whether directly or indirectly, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    Most fucking countries in the the West manage to get normal-priced oil and other commodities without having to invade sovereign nations illegally and unleashing hell upon others, thank you very much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Most fucking countries in the the West manage to get normal-priced oil and other commodities without having to invade sovereign nations illegally and unleashing hell upon others, thank you very much.

    Without wishing to be cynical could that be because others do it for them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    How do you work that one out?

    You say that you aren't interested in whether Harrods ban soldiers because they are no more or less important than anyone else. Which group are more or less important than anyone else?
    You made an assumption that I thought that was all soldiers did. You had no evidence on which to base that. In fact, if you see my question about what was the use of some wars, you could maybe gather from that that I think the British Army being in the Balkans or possibly the Falklands may have had some value. You'll also be able to work out that maybe I question the value of the British Army being in Iraq or Afghanistan. I may also have issues with the NI conflict

    I appreciate that you do not wish anybody to attribute statements to you that you haven't made, but as I said I didn't make that assumption, as I think is fairly obvious to anybody from my post. At the same time there is some evidence that that was your view: your question "what soldiers do soldiers do for us", a question to which I provided five services that they perform, and your comment about the conflict in Northern Ireland.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    You say that you aren't interested in whether Harrods ban soldiers because they are no more or less important than anyone else. Which group are more or less important than anyone else?

    No one is more or less important than anyone else.
    carlito wrote:
    I appreciate that you do not wish anybody to attribute statements to you that you haven't made, but as I said I didn't make that assumption, as I think is fairly obvious to anybody from my post.

    Nonsense. You assumed that I "probably" held a certain view, when in fact I haven't fully stated my view.
    carlito wrote:
    At the same time there is some evidence that that was your view: your question "what soldiers do soldiers do for us", a question to which I provided five services that they perform,

    Yes, a post which I have yet to comment on.
    carlito wrote:
    and your comment about the conflict in Northern Ireland.

    Yes. What about it? Know anything about the history of Ireland?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No, actually I am not thankful to anyone that our armed forces are being used to further the geopolitical and economic interests of the government and our masters in Washington. And I think you'll find the very few people in this country would justify embarking in illegal wars and causing, whether directly or indirectly, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    Yes, as I said I didn't think you would do - my point was that most people in this country (and Harrods) depend on soldiers risking their lives for our geopolitical and economic interests. And to be honest, it doesn't seem that they care that much having voted in the government who implemented an illegal war for a third term - or perhaps they actively approved of it.
    Most fucking countries in the the West manage to get normal-priced oil and other commodities without having to invade sovereign nations illegally and unleashing hell upon others, thank you very much.

    But they depend on western military and political hegemony for this privilege. At any rate this isn't the point. The people of the UK and America want and expect cheap oil, which depends on military subjugation of other territories. In which case they ought to be thankful to those who are willing to give their lives in this military subjugation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Nonsense. You assumed that I "probably" held a certain view, when in fact I haven't fully stated my view.

    Yes, just as I assume that a die will probably not result in a six when it is rolled. Of course its perfectly possible that it will.

    Yes. What about it? Know anything about the history of Ireland?

    A certain amount, yes. I wouldn't consider myself an expert.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Yes, just as I assume that a die will probably not result in a six when it is rolled. Of course its perfectly possible that it will.

    Eh?
    carlito wrote:
    A certain amount, yes. I wouldn't consider myself an expert.

    Do you realise that the British Army have a history of oppression in Ireland?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Eh?

    I said that it probably applied to you because the comments you made that I had read suggested that: I did not say it certainly or absolutely absolutely applied to you. Clearly it doesn't - I rolled a six.
    Do you realise that the British Army have a history of oppression in Ireland?

    Yes. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    I said that it probably applied to you because the comments you made that I had read suggested that: I did not say it certainly or absolutely absolutely applied to you. Clearly it doesn't - I rolled a six.

    You've lost me.
    carlito wrote:
    Yes. :confused:

    Oh, good. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Do you realise that the British Army have a history of oppression in Ireland?

    1798 hardly had much relevance to 1969 does it though? The question do you realise that the IRA have a history of murdering those who don't want a united Ireland? is a much better one given that's why Operation Banner went on so long.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You've lost me.

    I'm trying to explain to you the idea of probability, since you didn't seem to understand my original qualification.
    Oh, good. :confused:

    I'm sorry, the reason I am confused is that I don't see the relevance of your question to this thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    I'm trying to explain to you the idea of probability, since you didn't seem to understand my original qualification.

    I see. You assumed I was playing dice when actually I was playing backgammon. You must have had a reason to factor me into your probabilty. I'm telling you that you're making a silly assumption. I'm well aware that the army has lots of functions.
    carlito wrote:
    I'm sorry, the reason I am confused is that I don't see the relevance of your question to this thread.

    You don't? Blimey. Ok then - someone posted NI as an example of what the army do for us. I questioned the wisdom of that, based on a little knowledge of the history of British imperialism and oppression in NI.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    :confused::confused:

    Could you explain ?

    Yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    This is a politics and debate forum. I'm saying my point of view is that Harrods should let soldiers into their premises for the reasons I have provided. If you disagree then do so but whether we are personally affected or not is not the point.

    You are saying that they should let them in, thus dishonouring those men yourself. Harrods should only make a decision which suits them, this isn't about respecting soldiers, this is about their freedom to stop anyone coming into their stores. They have done so, they are a private organisation so there is no argument here and nothing to debate really.
    and the worse the record of our servicemen at home and abroad is going to be.

    Okay, I agree with the signing up part, but please explain what you mean by this...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are saying that they should let them in, thus dishonouring those men yourself. Harrods should only make a decision which suits them, this isn't about respecting soldiers, this is about their freedom to stop anyone coming into their stores. They have done so, they are a private organisation so there is no argument here and nothing to debate really

    Absolutely agree - but then others should feel free to complain about Harrod's decision and to withdraw our custom (which is a moot point as I've never been anyway).

    Private companies have a right to do what they want within the law. But that doesn't mean that customers cannot complain. Its no different from people who boycott Marks and Sparks because they trade with Israel or people boycotting Nestle due complaints about how they sell baby milk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Absolutely agree - but then others should feel free to complain about Harrod's decision and to withdraw our custom (which is a moot point as I've never been anyway).

    Ditto, but not because of the soldiers aspect, but because I don't want to line the owner's pockets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ditto, but not because of the soldiers aspect, but because I don't want to line the owner's pockets.

    Too expensive, don't like the phoney pharoh and in my case the uniform adds another reason (not just soldiers - though that's a major one, but anyone in uniform whether thats a peeler popping in whilst walking past to have a quick look what to see what to get for his kid's birthday or an ambulance driver popping into to get a sandwich on their lunch break).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its no different from people who boycott Marks and Sparks because they trade with Israel or people boycotting Nestle due complaints about how they sell baby milk.

    I've never understood that. You can find produce in any supermarket, technology in most computers and drugs in any hospital that's from Israel. Picking on M&S I suspect has more to do with the store being founded by a Jewish Pole. I know anti-Israeli protestors who sometimes protest outside M&S on Oxford Street have evoked some unpleasant memories in some Holocaust survivors who were around when protestors previously protested outside Jewish shops. Nasty stuff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never understood that. You can find produce in any supermarket, technology in most computers and drugs in any hospital that's from Israel. Picking on M&S I suspect has more to do with the store being founded by a Jewish Pole. I know anti-Israeli protestors who sometimes protest outside M&S on Oxford Street have evoked some unpleasant memories in some Holocaust survivors who were around when protestors previously protested outside Jewish shops. Nasty stuff.

    I don't boycott it myself, but people have a freedom to do so, just as M&S has the right to buy stuff from where it likes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Without wishing to be cynical could that be because others do it for them?
    I don't think so, no. Those who go to such extremes as to wage war on others to control their resources keep all the pie to themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Yes, as I said I didn't think you would do - my point was that most people in this country (and Harrods) depend on soldiers risking their lives for our geopolitical and economic interests. And to be honest, it doesn't seem that they care that much having voted in the government who implemented an illegal war for a third term - or perhaps they actively approved of it.
    Or perhaps the opposition was an even worse prospect and even more warmongering than the government itself.


    But they depend on western military and political hegemony for this privilege. At any rate this isn't the point. The people of the UK and America want and expect cheap oil, which depends on military subjugation of other territories. In which case they ought to be thankful to those who are willing to give their lives in this military subjugation.
    Rubbish. People everwhere hopes (not 'expects') for cheap oil. But you don't see any other country on earth invading other nations and bombing them to fuck to achieve it.

    Why, some countries even go to the extraordinary and indeed revolutionary concept of entering amicable trading agreements with the suppliers of fossil fuels.

    An alien concept to some, no doubt.

    And if you think anyone should be thankful to soldiers for breaking international law and taking part in an abhorrent and morally repugnant war you've got another thought coming. Feel sorry for them, sure. But nothing to be thankful for in Iraq.

    I'd be thankful if there had been a mass mutiny, from the foot soldiers to the high ranking officers, in which they told Blair and Bush to go fuck themselves instead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I don't think so, no. Those who go to such extremes as to wage war on others to control their resources keep all the pie to themselves.

    So no cheap oil for France, then. They better start budding up to Chavez :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I should imagine France pays what everybody else does. The only things putting the price up for everyone are the obscene imperialistic adventures of Bush and Blair. An irony no doubt lost on the two great leaders.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Or perhaps the opposition was an even worse prospect and even more warmongering than the government itself.
    Not to mention the fact that the vast majority didn't vote for the government, and therefore didn't give their permission for military action in the name of our geo-political and economic benefit. In fact, since the two viable governments both had a similar position on this issue, I think it says more that 40% of voters weren't motivated enough to vote.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never understood that. You can find produce in any supermarket, technology in most computers and drugs in any hospital that's from Israel. Picking on M&S I suspect has more to do with the store being founded by a Jewish Pole. I know anti-Israeli protestors who sometimes protest outside M&S on Oxford Street have evoked some unpleasant memories in some Holocaust survivors who were around when protestors previously protested outside Jewish shops. Nasty stuff.

    troll.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.