To want to leave this website for making me think about that one.

[filee777]

It's really really upset me, I've had some great support on this forum but I think I have to be off.

Such a shame.

Well there are definitely lessons to be learnt from that, but the lessons certainly should not be 'bomb every fucker who is different to us to free them from themselves' which is what we seem to have taken from it.

I actually think its horrendous that our WW11 veterans honour is alongside the current conflicts, that a group of people who fought at home and abroad to stop us being taken over by a fascist cunt are put in the same league as people who go abroad and fight wars nothing to do with us and that do nothing but impede on our safety.

I think its absolutely disgraceful.

beer I would never run into a thread where a social worker has behaved inappropriately and defend them all blindly.

I cannot see how you can compare the two, a social worker becomes one because they want to help people and make a change, why do people join the army? Really, honestly why? To become heroes? To shoot people? Because its so so obvious from pretty much every modern war that its certainly not to defend us.

Hi Filee - just in case my last post got lost, here it is again:

So, just so I have this straight...

You'd advocate conscription in the event of a war? Even though that would mean your husband (probably) being called up and going to a war zone for months; after only a couple of weeks 'training'?

And the currently members of the Forces? What should they do?

As I say - I'm genuinely interested.

Can we all remind you of all guidelines, with particular emphasis on the bit about personal attacks. We will delete threads that are becoming bunfights...

Yes i would advocate conscription in event of a war, it a hell of a lot better than just having an army and thinking 'hmmm who can we fuck over next to make our army useful' i actually think plenty of people would want to protect the country.

The current members of the forces can get jobs here or abroad that dont involve dropping bombs and terrorising people, just like the rest of us.

Kate it is already isn't it?

filee777, I don't think it is accurate to say "I think that the 2nd and the 1st world wars proved that when under threat, that we can summon an army and defend ourselves rather well" when the people who were fighting that war initially were regular members of the armed forces. As Nancy66 says, we were incredibly unprepared for WW2 (and to some extent WW1), and that was the case with a standing army. If we hadn't had one, the war (WW1) probably would have been all over by Christmas!

it's only the internet FFS

Thing is, it's not only the internet, it's the real life for many many people some of whom may be actually reading this at the moment and who cannot even speak up because of the fear of getting flamed and verbally abused. It's actually insulting saying it's only the internet.

I would really like someone to point out where the OP has personally attacked anyone one individual on this thread!

There is plenty of information available to back up OP's points.

The deeply saddening and horrific attack in Woolwich was carried out specifically against an armed forces member, by two young extremists because of hatred toward the UK as revenge for acts carried out abroad by UK military during war time. They specifically said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Two young men of foreign heritage did that because they felt their loved ones were facing brutality at the hands of UK foreign policies. That was their reasoning! That was their motive! They are not the only extremists or terrorists to have made this statement. The UK's foreign policies over generations has made many an extremist enemy abroad. And they pre-meditatively picked a member of the armed forces to carry out this 'revenge' attack on because they felt it was symbolic of their fight. When you watch the video of the young man who carried out the attack, he stated explicitly that he did it because this is the level of brutality he felt his people were facing at the hands of the British military, what women and children he loves see and suffer through every day.

AND BEFORE YOU ALL START ACCUSING ME OF INSENSITIVITY, I WAS HORRIFIED AND BEYOND SHOCKED OVER THAT YOUNG MAN'S DEATH.

littlemiss no one has ever said your partner is a rapist or any other such nonsense. No one has attacked you personally.

The military does recondition your mind, that is why soldiers find it so hard to readjust to civilian life isn't it? Isn't it an accepted fact that soldiers are conditioned and then reconditioned because of what the job entails?

If you work in the armed forces, you are part of an institution that kills people, whether for the greater good or not, that is what happens. I will repeat again, that members of my own family, including my own father, have been to war and killed people. It is disingenuous to act as if calling a member of the armed forces a killer is wrong, that is what the armed forces do, even when it is done in defence of ones country and loved ones, it is still killing others.

The 77 bombers also cited the war abroad as reasoning for their actions.

I am not saying it WAS a reason for their actions because nothing should excuse terrorism. But it shows that the biggest threats to us now come from our behaviour abroad. People do NOT like us abroad, when you get these bigots who spout loads of crap about Muslim people making martyrs of suicide bombers and holding them in high esteem, well spin it round and imagine how it looks when a troop of men come home to a 'heroes' welcome and its all spread across the newspapers when actually a few of them have been out raping women or harming kids.

You have to spin it around to see how it would look if the shoe was on the other foot. These men and women are out with our nations flag emblazoned on their chests and they should not be behaving in moral reprehensible ways. It is damaging to all of us.

It is disingenuous to act as if calling a member of the armed forces a killer is wrong, that is what the armed forces do

There are thousands of members of the Forces who fix vehicles, work in hospitals, protect people (eg Bodyguards), move equipment.

Let's get away from calling them all 'killers'. It's as incorrect as labeling them all 'heroes'.

Yes but they work in hospitals and fix aircraft for a company that kills people as its main function.

Its like saying that the person on a drilling rig who does the paperwork has nothing to do with oil.

I was about to say the same thing filee

The Army, as a 'company' kills people
Some people in the Army kill people
Not all people in the Army kill people

Everyone on here is intelligent enough to make the distinction and avoid the sweeping generalisations which aren't specifically true.

Again - imagine someone saying all Social Workers are utterly useless based on the tragedy that was Victoria Climbie.

You might be fine with that.

Bu tI bet it would upset your husband.

Now imagine you were being labelled a 'killer' and how that would affect him....

If you said 'all people in the Army support people who kill', I may not have a point.

But you didn't...

I really dont understand what my husband has to do with it?

But again, I would not for a second spend time on a thread talking about rogue rubbish social workers bringing the name of being a social worker down, talking about how marvellous some of them are.

Plus being a social worker is not being part of a machine which has the aim of war and death, being in the army does. I dont see how the two are comparable.

Neither did i say 'all people in the army kill' MrsB i said they are all part of a company that kills. For that reason i think its pretty safe to assume that people who want to kill, cause suffering and pain and be misogynistic
cunts will seek to join the army, for those reasons.

i dont think thats a huge leap to make.

No you didn't filee... but poppin did.

I won't read back through the whole thread but I don't think anyone has called soldiers on here 'marvellous' have they? (I stand to be corrected though...)

I was talking about your husband, because I'm sure he would leap to your defence. Just like some of the wives on here have about their husbands.

If I was talking directly about anyones husband i could understand it, but i am not. I am talking about the culture of the army, what is deemed as acceptable and what is not. It is not right.

Are you still planning on leaving Mumsnet filee

If I was talking directly about anyones husband i could understand it, but i am not. I am talking about the culture of the army, what is deemed as acceptable and what is not. It is not right

and by extension generalising about people who have worked somewhere for more than 20 years in some cases, some of whom have done so at great personal cost to themselves and their families.