# Mid air collision over Porthcawl



## Col_Buendia (Feb 11, 2009)

According to one account, they were two military light aircraft. Apparent fatalities, although no confirmed number yet 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7883338.stm


----------



## ricbake (Feb 11, 2009)

Begining to look like two dead 
latest 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...mid-air-collision-between-light-aircraft.html


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 11, 2009)

I live about half a mile from there. I must have missed seeing it by a matter of minutes this morning as i was late in to work today. I'll have a look later and see whats going on - if the roads are open that is.  Sounds horrible whoever is involved.


----------



## Clint Iguana (Feb 11, 2009)

looks like four dead http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7883338.stm


----------



## ddraig (Feb 11, 2009)

stiff upper lip, must.carry.on
WOTWOT, nothing to see here


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 12, 2009)

Bugger - 2 of the dead are wee girls age 13 and 14 , probably dead excited about being taken up in the planes.

Their poor families


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 12, 2009)

Flippin' 'eck. My ex's 3 girls were in the cadets and the eldest learned to fly with them ...


----------



## ddraig (Feb 12, 2009)

felixthecat said:


> Bugger - 2 of the dead are wee girls age 13 and 14 , probably dead excited about being taken up in the planes.
> 
> Their poor families


<speculation>
and what's the chances of the 'trainers' "showing off" and aiming at each other i wonder 
</speculation>


----------



## ddraig (Feb 12, 2009)

felixthecat said:


> Bugger - 2 of the dead are wee girls age 13 and 14 , probably dead excited about being taken up in the planes.
> 
> Their poor families



been shown the 'glamour' side of the forces
pathetic 
oh and in a run down high unemployment area
typical


----------



## waterloowelshy (Feb 12, 2009)

ddraig said:


> been shown the 'glamour' side of the forces
> pathetic
> oh and in a run down high unemployment area
> typical



or they could just enjoy being active air cadets?

loads of kids go to air cadets. i didnt personally, but i know loads of mates that used to go and really enjoyed it. If you want to become a pilot its a great place to learn the ropes and get a great experience at an early age. Its just grim that an accident like this has happened this time. 

Really not sure how you can turn such a tragic accident into some form of propaganda against the forces. now that is pathetic.

Shouldnt you keep your hatred of the military to the thread on St Athan?


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 12, 2009)

ddraig said:


> <speculation>
> and what's the chances of the 'trainers' "showing off" and aiming at each other i wonder
> </speculation>



Almost 100% I reckon. I bet they were trying to get as close to each other as possible.


----------



## pk (Feb 12, 2009)

Pure speculation.


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 12, 2009)

pk said:


> Pure speculation.



<removed just in case>


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 4, 2009)

waterloowelshy said:


> Really not sure how you can turn such a tragic accident into some form of propaganda against the forces. now that is pathetic.



The only propaganda being served up is by the military, who actively look to - how can I say "brainwash" without offending your delicate sensibilities, Water? - _unduly influence_ the outlook of young people too young to buy cigarettes, have sex or vote. How on earth can it be right that young people - whom society judges too immature to engage in those activities - are allowed to be groomed by the military for a future career which basically involves having to kill other people, if push comes to shove.

It's a sad reflection on the way the military is allowed to creep into all facets of our civilian lives. Good article on this at the South Wales Anarchists blog.


----------



## xes (Mar 4, 2009)

people going into the army in "we died" shocker. 

Shame about the littlun's but fuck the rest of the murderous cunts.


----------



## derf (Mar 5, 2009)

xes said:


> people going into the army in "we died" shocker.
> 
> Shame about the littlun's but fuck the rest of the murderous cunts.



You total and utter pillock.

A couple of kids and two people who were willing to risk their lives in combat for fucking twats like you are dead.
You manage that bollocks of a post.

Fuck off and die.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

derf said:


> You total and utter pillock.
> 
> A couple of kids and two people who were willing to risk their lives in combat for fucking twats like you are dead.
> You manage that bollocks of a post.
> ...



fuck off out of this forum cunt

the kids shouldn't have been there at all!
exactly how are they risking their lives for fucking twats like us anyway
who is a threat to the people of Porthcawl then?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

waterloowelshy said:


> or they could just enjoy being active air cadets?
> 
> loads of kids go to air cadets. i didnt personally, but i know loads of mates that used to go and really enjoyed it. If you want to become a pilot its a great place to learn the ropes and get a great experience at an early age. Its just grim that an accident like this has happened this time.
> 
> ...



how did i miss this?! 
course they could enjoy it, don't make it right do it?
they would probably enjoy good youth clubs and activities if they were properly funded and looked after, probably not a lot of that round Porthcawl as everywhere else these days.
lost of kids go into air cadets, maybe because there's not much else to do?
they are from a military family and are expected to/coerced?
how many who do go to the cadets actually get to fly and be pilots i wonder?
just grim, yeah that's right, stiff upper lip, let's carry on like the good general said on the news that night!

do you think the active and zealous recruitment of youth in poor areas and from traditionally "difficult" areas and backgrounds is acceptable and ethical? woudl you agree that these 2 young girls killed in this tragedy would still be alive today if it were not for the air force/military?

to me it is not propaganda against the forces, it is my point of view, something that has been noted by others before and criticised by communities targeted. 
*why are you such an apologist for all things establishment???* 

and i'll mention my hatred of the military on any thread involving them thanks


----------



## derf (Mar 5, 2009)

ddraig said:


> fuck off out of this forum cunt
> 
> the kids shouldn't have been there at all!
> exactly how are they risking their lives for fucking twats like us anyway
> who is a threat to the people of Porthcawl then?



The kids were on an air experience flight as I did when I was that age.
Poor little sods were out to learn and have a great time but died.
I can only send best wishes to the families.
As for the pilots. Like all service men and women they join a service to defend Britain from an Enemy that would attack the UK. The fact that sometimes political masters misuse that loyalty is not their fault.
The sad death of these two pilots is not something to gloat about.

Anyone that does is nothing but a bastard so fuck off and die you useless cunts.


----------



## xes (Mar 5, 2009)

ddraig said:


> fuck off out of this forum cunt
> 
> the kids shouldn't have been there at all!
> exactly how are they risking their lives for fucking twats like us anyway
> who is a threat to the people of Porthcawl then?



anyone who joins the armed forces knows that they risk death. For what? For cunts in suits playing games. If they're fucking stupid enough to go in the armed forces, then they're stupid enough to be dead. 

Fuck them, and fuck you


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

derf said:


> The kids were on an air experience flight as I did when I was that age.
> Poor little sods were out to learn and have a great time but died.
> I can only send best wishes to the families.
> As for the pilots. Like all service men and women they join a service to defend Britain from an Enemy that would attack the UK. The fact that sometimes political masters misuse that loyalty is not their fault.
> ...



so not too young then?
what enemy is going to attack Porthcawl?
no not their fault but their death, oh well never mind, plenty more canon fodder in the valleys/north/scotland eh
who is gloating?

even if i thought it was brave/honourable and other crap to serve your country (which i don't) it doesn't make it less true that if you join up there is a likelyhood that you could be killed. straight forward no?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

xes said:


> anyone who joins the armed forces knows that they risk death. For what? For cunts in suits playing games. If they're fucking stupid enough to go in the armed forces, then they're stupid enough to be dead.
> 
> Fuck them, and fuck you



NOOOOOOOOOOO fUCK you
YOU who can#'t quote


----------



## derf (Mar 5, 2009)

xes said:


> anyone who joins the armed forces knows that they risk death. For what? For cunts in suits playing games. If they're fucking stupid enough to go in the armed forces, then they're stupid enough to be dead.
> 
> Fuck them, and fuck you



Maybe one day your worthless life may be in danger and i do hope that someone works out what you have said in the past and leaves you and your family to die.

The sooner the better bastard.

That is of course unless you are willing to meet the families of the dead and tell them what you think.
No way a daft fucker like you would have the guts to do it.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

derf said:


> Maybe one day your worthless life may be in danger and i do hope that someone works out what you have said in the past and leaves you and your family to die.
> 
> The sooner the better bastard.
> 
> ...



seee i wouldn't expect them to!

i would actually say it to the families along the lines of
"so sorry for your terrible loss, personally i think the air force and cadets are to blame by endangering our young people in stupid ways"

but then we know you're a complete apologist (even for policemen that murder children) and not worth the depressing of plastic keys for.
my ear wax has more guts than you trollboy


----------



## derf (Mar 5, 2009)

ddraig said:


> seee i wouldn't expect them to!
> 
> i would actually say it to the families along the lines of
> "so sorry for your terrible loss, personally i think the air force and cadets are to blame by endangering our young people in stupid ways"
> ...



If you would walk up to a family who had just suffered such a loss and say that you are an even bigger cunt than I thought you were.

What policeman murdering who?
I assume you are talking about a Greek cop and a flasher.
Did I miss the trial or is it fine to bypass the whole innocent until proven guilty bit if it suits your fucking stupid politics?

I do hope you are up a welsh mountain one day waiting for the RAF SAR helicopter. The pilots just happen to be reading this forum while having a cuppa and pissing themselves laughing at you freezing your bollocks off.

But no, not going to happen. Those guys would risk their lives even to save a fucking daft cunt like you.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 5, 2009)

Zero to multi-directional bunfight in 10 posts!  

well done.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

derf said:


> If you would walk up to a family who had just suffered such a loss and say that you are an even bigger cunt than I thought you were.
> 
> What policeman murdering who?
> I assume you are talking about a Greek cop and a flasher.
> ...


cuntBILEcuntbileCUNT!
yes dear


----------



## derf (Mar 5, 2009)

ddraig said:


> cuntBILEcuntbileCUNT!
> yes dear



The sad thing is that you can't see what a fucking tosser you are gloating at the death of four people.
Same goes for any other idiot tosspot with the same warped idea.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 5, 2009)

ddraig said:


> <speculation>
> and what's the chances of the 'trainers' "showing off" and aiming at each other i wonder
> </speculation>


almost none.   the most likely event will be that the radar in the grob fucked up... 

it's been a known issue since they retired chipmunks...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 5, 2009)

ddraig said:


> seee i wouldn't expect them to!
> 
> i would actually say it to the families along the lines of
> "so sorry for your terrible loss, personally i think the air force and cadets are to blame by endangering our young people in stupid ways"
> ...


mate whilst i don't disagree with you assement of derf...

Having been in the air cadets and been on similar things flown in planes etc by them i have to say it's not really anything other than scouts with wings and whilst theres and argument to say that it's a breeding ground for authoritarian conformism and insitutionalising militarism in reality few cadets become members of the armed forces and often it turns people off (as it did with me).


----------



## xes (Mar 5, 2009)

Derf, I hope the people who come and rescue you from the big earthquake that's on the horizon for Indonesia (see you've had 3 +5s today) well, I hope they're the typical Army type, and tie you up and leave you with a piss soaked bag over your head


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

derf said:


> The sad thing is that you can't see what a fucking tosser you are gloating at the death of four people.
> Same goes for any other idiot tosspot with the same warped idea.



where have i done that then liar?


----------



## derf (Mar 5, 2009)

xes said:


> Derf, I hope the people who come and rescue you from the big earthquake that's on the horizon for Indonesia (see you've had 3 +5s today) well, I hope they're the typical Army type, and tie you up and leave you with a piss soaked bag over your head



It's 11pm here now and time to go to bed.
What I do know is that if the British military ever had to come here and rescue me from an earthquake or whatever I could thank them knowing I wasn't being a two faced cunt who had been slagging them off and gloating over the death of their mates.

I can't say I always support the political use of the military especially in Iraq but I support and respect the people who are willing to put on a uniform and risk their lives to help others.

That's something a daft twat with political hate motivated ideas could never do with head held high but I don't suppose you could understand that.


----------



## xes (Mar 5, 2009)

derf said:


> That's something a daft twat with political hate motivated ideas could never do with head held high but I don't suppose you could understand that.



naah, sorry you've lost me 


sleep well


----------



## 1927 (Mar 5, 2009)

Without wishing to get dragged in to this slanging match, but just ineterested to know what would those who condemn the military for just existing suggest we do for a defence policy in this country! Or would they be happy to be attacked by any aggressor who so choses?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2009)

cummon man who's seriously going to attack Cymru? apart from the engerlish who we can fight in the streets like


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 6, 2009)

1927 said:


> Without wishing to get dragged in to this slanging match, but just ineterested to know what would those who condemn the military for just existing suggest we do for a defence policy in this country! Or would they be happy to be attacked by any aggressor who so choses?



who the hell are we going to be attacked by and look how invaded new zealand is with their reduced military...


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 6, 2009)

ddraig said:


> seee i wouldn't expect them to!
> 
> i would actually say it to the families along the lines of
> "so sorry for your terrible loss, personally i think the air force and cadets are to blame by endangering our young people in stupid ways"
> ...




you could learn a thing or two from the Westboro Baptist Church


----------



## bendeus (Mar 6, 2009)

Shit thread is shit


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2009)

The two young girl victims are being used as political footballs and it's deeply unpleasant.


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 6, 2009)

editor said:


> The two young girl victims are being used as political footballs and it's deeply unpleasant.



more than unpleasant.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 6, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> you could learn a thing or two from the Westboro Baptist Church



eh?  don't compare me to those nutjobs please, or explain your logic at least

do you support the military and their targetting of youth then? 

i've also asked the boys with their tank in town how many of their mates died and have they killed anyone themselves. just trying to be less of a hypocrite myself seee


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 6, 2009)

ddraig said:


> explain your logic at least




my logic is the total lack of tact, the ideology over sanity and the inability to understand why most other people think you are wrong (delusional) etc.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 6, 2009)

editor said:


> The two young girl victims are being used as political footballs and it's deeply unpleasant.



I don't know if you are aiming this comment at the bunfighters here, or at the original article that I linked to, but either way it seems like quite a naive comment. That two young girls died is undoubtedly a tragedy, but given that they were _well_ below the age that we generally accept as the minimum for making informed moral decisions, surely it behooves us as a society to ask ourselves some hard questions about why their death happened? When Baby P died, there was a near-instant reaction from the state, in the face of huge public outcry, a whirlwind inquiry and radical changes. Why, when it is a case of two young Welsh girls dying in the care of the state's military, does it become off-limits to ask hard questions about what they were doing there in the first place?

You have in the past, iirc, commented adversely on the disproportionate targeting of poor Welsh communities by the British military. The valleys have provided cheap cannon fodder, that's surely not in question. But in the face of growing public disenchantment with wars of aggression launched on the flimsiest basis, the military has been faced with a recruitment crisis. So out comes the PR offensive. They come to Cardiff Castle and park their baby tanks outside, dress up in shiny uniforms, and let little boys clamber all over the big boys' toys. They sponsor events where they can hoover up the socially & economically disadvantaged (ffs, the army was one of the sponsors of the Cardiff launch of Black History Month recently. Not a trace of irony there, then.) And then they target people so young that they as I said in my earlier post aren't considered responsible enough to buy cigarettes, and look to groom them for a career in the military. That, in my book, is morally repugnant. And a sure sign of their desperation. If you're not old enough to make an informed choice about smoking a cigarette and potentially killing yourself with cancer, how on earth can you be old enough to be being courted by the British military for a future career abroad killing foreigners?




GarfieldLeChat said:


> almost none.   the most likely event will be that the radar in the grob fucked up...
> 
> it's been a known issue since they retired chipmunks...



That's an interesting point, and one I wasn't aware of. In fact, it sort of makes my tenuous comparison with the Baby P case slightly less tenuous, for it suggests that there might well have been a cavalier dereliction of care, if the air force was sending teenage cadets up in planes that they knew had safety issues.



1927 said:


> Without wishing to get dragged in to this slanging match, but just ineterested to know what would those who condemn the military for just existing suggest we do for a defence policy in this country! Or would they be happy to be attacked by any aggressor who so choses?



And out comes 1927's one and only response to anyone who dares question the British military. And yet every time you trot this somewhat silly line out, you then disappear whenever anyone asks you _'who exactly is looking to attack the UK at the minute?'_ Surely even you can spot the difference between a war of aggression and self-defence. So tell me, when was the last time the UK military were engaged in self-defence on this island?



derf said:


> The sad thing is that you can't see what a fucking tosser you are gloating at the death of four people.
> Same goes for any other idiot tosspot with the same warped idea.



No one has been gloating, and it reflects rather poorly on you to bring the notion of "gloating" to a discussion about the deaths of two young girls, the morality of military recruitment and the militarisation of civil society. In fact, I'd say that people are pretty motivated to *avoid* further deaths, and so question the role of the forces. It's a shame ddraig flies off the handle so madly and rises to your baiting, for I don't have any issue with anyone coming into the Wales forum for a chat, but if all you're coming here to do is to drag a debate about the nature of Welsh society into the muck with your prejudices, perhaps I could echo ddraig's sentiment and suggest you refrain?


----------



## llantwit (Mar 6, 2009)

/\ what he said.


----------



## derf (Mar 6, 2009)

Col_Buendia said:


> No one has been gloating, and it reflects rather poorly on you to bring the notion of "gloating" to a discussion about the deaths of two young girls, the morality of military recruitment and the militarisation of civil society. In fact, I'd say that people are pretty motivated to *avoid* further deaths, and so question the role of the forces. It's a shame ddraig flies off the handle so madly and rises to your baiting, for I don't have any issue with anyone coming into the Wales forum for a chat, but if all you're coming here to do is to drag a debate about the nature of Welsh society into the muck with your prejudices, perhaps I could echo ddraig's sentiment and suggest you refrain?






			
				xes said:
			
		

> anyone who joins the armed forces knows that they risk death. For what? For cunts in suits playing games. If they're fucking stupid enough to go in the armed forces, then they're stupid enough to be dead.
> 
> Fuck them, and fuck you






			
				ddraig said:
			
		

> so not too young then?
> what enemy is going to attack Porthcawl?
> no not their fault but their death, oh well never mind, plenty more canon fodder in the valleys/north/scotland eh
> who is gloating?



When I read the thread I hadn't noticed it was in the Wales forum but that has little to do with anything.
My gripe is about disgusting posts like the two quoted above.

Oh look, military bastards dead - they deserve it.

It's a story about 2 kids and their pilots who have died in a terrible accident.
Do these people have no respect for the dead and their families?
It's about the same as those "your sons are in hell posters" carried by those US cretins in the pictures above.

I can only hope that no family of the dead read this forum and see the filthy comments made by some posters.

Right, I've had my rant so I'll shut up now.


----------



## Dic Penderyn (Mar 7, 2009)

What the Col Said.


----------



## cesare (Mar 7, 2009)

Well said Col.

I hadn't realised the extent of economic conscription that appears to be going on there.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 7, 2009)

Col_Buendia said:


> And out comes 1927's one and only response to anyone who dares question the British military. And yet every time you trot this somewhat silly line out, you then disappear whenever anyone asks you _'who exactly is looking to attack the UK at the minute?'_ Surely even you can spot the difference between a war of aggression and self-defence. So tell me, when was the last time the UK military were engaged in self-defence on this island?




It wasn't a silly line it was a question which you have decided not to answer.

Does it matter that we are not under imminent threat of attack?

Weren't aware we were discusiing a war of agression or self defence, but the deaths of two teenagers, and I can tell the difference thanks.

Within living memory, so hardly soon enough to be totally disbanding the entire military machine in the UK.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 7, 2009)

1927 said:


> It wasn't a silly line it was a question which you have decided not to answer.



Well, you've ignored the earlier questions put to you about where this mysterious threat to, errr, _Porthcawl_, is coming from. So I don' t feel under any huge pressure to answer your question, seeing as how the premise is fundamentally flawed.



1927 said:


> Does it matter that we are not under imminent threat of attack?



Very much so. While you rightly acknowledge that the British military has been used in self-defence within living memory, it is *only just* within living memory. So if we bring things rather more up to date, the British military has been exclusively, illegally and dishonourably employed in wars of aggression for the best part of half a century. If you remove the anomalous example of WW2, and look further back to colonial times, then the pattern stretches even further (hence my amusement at finding the army sponsoring Black History Month).



1927 said:


> Weren't aware we were discusiing a war of agression or self defence, but the deaths of two teenagers, and I can tell the difference thanks.



Lets not be naive about why the two teenagers were there in the first place. They were being groomed for a career in military that routinely engages in wars of aggression. To foreclose on the debate seems to me to be making political football out of their deaths by imposing a self-censoring embargo on discussing the role of the British military, out of some misplaced sense of "respect" for their tragic deaths. So lets really show some respect for their deaths, by working to make sure that no other teenagers from Porthcawl die in the hands of the RAF, and lets put an end to the morally repugnant grooming of immature youngsters by the military, eh? You up for that?



1927 said:


> Within living memory, so hardly soon enough to be totally disbanding the entire military machine in the UK.



Again, you're off on a strawman argument. So far, no one on this thread has called for a "total disbandment of the entire military machine in the UK". I think we're realistic enough to know we'll have to wait a bit longer for that!


----------



## derf (Mar 7, 2009)

1927 said:


> Within living memory, so hardly soon enough to be totally disbanding the entire military machine in the UK.



Unless of course a new Hitler turns in. One so easily could.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cu...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED248733

Would that have been an almighty fuck up, or what?

I for one am happy that the men and women who join the services risk their own safety for others.
I salute them all.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 7, 2009)

Col_Buendia said:


> Well, you've ignored the earlier questions put to you about where this mysterious threat to, errr, _Porthcawl_, is coming from. So I don' t feel under any huge pressure to answer your question, seeing as how the premise is fundamentally flawed.



So the fact that Porthcawl is not under imminent danger of attack is reason for not having any UK defence policy? And you accuse me of having a flawed argument!





> Again, you're off on a strawman argument. So far, no one on this thread has called for a "total disbandment of the entire military machine in the UK". I think we're realistic enough to know we'll have to wait a bit longer for that!




So the fact that you expect to wait for total disbandment give struth to the fact that ultimately that is what youy wish for, so in truth you would call for it, even if you haven't used those actual words. And the fact that you totally decry any military presence in wales, or anywhere else in the Uk for that matter would indicate your wishes also.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 7, 2009)

Ah, you're a laugh, 1927. So although we don't need to defend ourselves, as you now admit, you think we should spend billions on being ready to defend ourselves. Against no one in particular, but you can never be too sure. And while you and the rest of the cheerleaders wave the cannon fodder up the line to death in Afghanistan, you seem to overlook the small issue of the threat of domestic terrorism, arguably generated *by* wars of aggression overseas, and which provides a much greater danger to the public of these islands. What about demilitarising to protect ourselves from generating people with an axe to grind and a rucksack full of explosive?

But here's a different question for you 1927: there's a possibility that Porthcawl will be hit by an enormous meteorite in the next 100million years. Don't you think it is criminally culpable of the WAG not to be spending billions on a scheme to protect Porthcawl against this possible eventuality? (Leaving aside the obvious point that Porthcawl would in all probability be markedly improved were it to be struck by a meteorite.)

(PS: your second paragraph just puts words into my mouth, so it's not worth responding to.  )


----------



## likesfish (Mar 7, 2009)

We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
       Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

The Military is the attack dog of the state its last defence the contiuation of politics by other means. 

where the state fails you don't get a load of vegan coopratives you get hell on earth 
 now anarchism is a nice idea but until people evolve a bit more its an ism thats best left to students and the like.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 7, 2009)

10 out of 10 for cliche and avoidance of any analysis worthy of the name! Thanks for your contribution.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 7, 2009)

Col_Buendia said:


> Ah, you're a laugh, 1927. So although we don't need to defend ourselves, as you now admit, you think we should spend billions on being ready to defend ourselves. Against no one in particular, but you can never be too sure. And while you and the rest of the cheerleaders wave the cannon fodder up the line to death in Afghanistan, you seem to overlook the small issue of the threat of domestic terrorism, arguably generated *by* wars of aggression overseas, and which provides a much greater danger to the public of these islands. What about demilitarising to protect ourselves from generating people with an axe to grind and a rucksack full of explosive?
> 
> But here's a different question for you 1927: there's a possibility that Porthcawl will be hit by an enormous meteorite in the next 100million years. Don't you think it is criminally culpable of the WAG not to be spending billions on a scheme to protect Porthcawl against this possible eventuality? (Leaving aside the obvious point that Porthcawl would in all probability be markedly improved were it to be struck by a meteorite.)
> 
> (PS: your second paragraph just puts words into my mouth, so it's not worth responding to.  )



Where did I say that we didn't need to defend ourselves?

Why the obsession with Porthcawl?


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 7, 2009)

Col - I understand your anger/issues but trying to draw moral parallels to Baby P and using the terms "grooming" and "courting" which have been popularised by the tabloid press to describe the actions of paedophiles and child abusers doesn't help. 

what is your position on the Irish Army? they are a neutral state and use the army for international peace keeping (Lebanon, Congo etc), internal security, coastal security, formal non-military activities (protecting people during natural disasters and maintaining the functioning of essential services)


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 7, 2009)

@ PAD1OH: well, I did say in the earlier post that the comparison with Baby P was tenuous, but I think it stands scrutiny. 3 children in the care of the state died - my main point was that refusing to ask the same tough questions about the deaths of Nikkita Walters and Katie-Jo Davies does them a disservice. And I recognise that using terminology such as "grooming" is inflammatory. But what other word best suits a situation where a mature adult premeditatedly tries to persuade a young person, below the socially established age of moral responsibility, into a course of action that endangers their very lives?

I don't know much about the Irish army, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question in much detail. Obviously all the functions you describe and that they carry out can be performed without maintaining an army of aggression. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to deny a people the right to self-defence. And this is where 1927 fails to grasp the finer detail of the argument. There is a huge difference between a community being able to defend itself, and the state desire to maintain a standing professional army capable of launching wars of aggression. 1927 conflates the two in his perennial gripe of "who will defend us if not the army", hence failing to notice that the British army has done little defending of the population of these islands for most of its history... But not knowing much about other examples doesn't preclude me from making focussed criticisms of the very corrupt military system that we have in this country.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 7, 2009)

1927 said:


> ... Porthcawl is not under imminent danger of attack...





1927 said:


> Where did I say that we didn't need to defend ourselves?


----------



## 1927 (Mar 7, 2009)

Col_Buendia said:


>



Those two statements do not support each other. ffs.

Its hardly worth having a debate with somene who has as little grasp of the concept as you.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 7, 2009)

likesfish said:


> The Military is the attack dog of the state its last defence the contiuation of politics by other means.


I think that Col's general point is that the use of the military is far from a last resort, these days. It's used very often, indeed, and in wars of agression in far away lands, not in the defence of the home community.
The other point he makes is that the kids sent off to fight and die (or get poisoned by depleted uranium) are predominantly poor kids from poor areas who have little other choice, and who are aggressively courted by a military machine who make the most of their lack of other decent life choices.

@1927 it seems pretty clear to me that Col's argument is not naive, and it doesn't show a lack of understanding to me. It's quite clear. 
The self-defence line of argument can't legitimately be used to defend the actions of military as it stands today. Because it's primary purpose is not to defend the nation, but to fight dodgy wars of aggression in foreign lands for spurious reasons.
I'm pretty sure that no-one is arguing that self-defence in the name of a community under attack is wrong, here. The col certainly wouldn't argue that.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 7, 2009)

sfdvvdsvv


----------



## 1927 (Mar 8, 2009)

llantwit said:


> I think that Col's general point is that the use of the military is far from a last resort, these days. It's used very often, indeed, and in wars of agression in far away lands, not in the defence of the home community.
> The other point he makes is that the kids sent off to fight and die (or get poisoned by depleted uranium) are predominantly poor kids from poor areas who have little other choice, and who are aggressively courted by a military machine who make the most of their lack of other decent life choices.
> 
> @1927 it seems pretty clear to me that Col's argument is not naive, and it doesn't show a lack of understanding to me. It's quite clear.
> ...



I agree that we shouldnt be fighting wars that have fuck all to do with us, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and would happily withdraw all troops tomorrow, dont have any issue with you, The Col or Ddraig on that one. I only disagree in that I believe we should have a defence force, but that it appears that The Col and Ddraig both believe that the military by their very existence are evil and shouldnt be tolerated. I beleive its a nececcsary evil, for defence purposes, and the fact that Porthcawl isnt under imminent attack doesn't diminish my view about its necessity.


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 8, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> almost none.   the most likely event will be that the radar in the grob fucked up...
> 
> it's been a known issue since they retired chipmunks...



   What radar ? Grob a trainer hasen't got a radar .Pilots messed up somehow 
probably.Air experince flight are probably the fluffiest thing the military does 
next to search and rescue.
   Cadets are primary a youth organisation.Recruiting is a distant second purpose .Going off on one about how evil the military is seems in poor taste on this incident.No one wants to hoodwink people into joining it may shock you but Ross Kemps Tv show seems to be the biggest reason for people looking to join at the moment ,After the credit crunch .


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Mar 8, 2009)

dylanredefined said:


> What radar ? Grob a trainer hasen't got a radar .Pilots messed up somehow
> probably.Air experince flight are probably the fluffiest thing the military does
> next to search and rescue.
> Cadets are primary a youth organisation.Recruiting is a distant second purpose .Going off on one about how evil the military is seems in poor taste on this incident.No one wants to hoodwink people into joining it may shock you but Ross Kemps Tv show seems to be the biggest reason for people looking to join at the moment ,After the credit crunch .



I amybe mistaken but one i flew in out of linton had radiar be screen centre console


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 8, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I amybe mistaken but one i flew in out of linton had radiar be screen centre console



   I bow to your superior knowledge I googled and got a cockpit layout  no apprent radar .It appears they were formation flying when something went wrong so radar wouldnt have saved them .
   Did you have to wear parachute etc.When I flew in chipmunks had to wear all the gear great fun .Terrible shame lives were lost .


----------



## llantwit (Mar 8, 2009)

1927 said:


> it appears that The Col and Ddraig both believe that the military by their very existence are evil and shouldnt be tolerated. I beleive its a nececcsary evil, for defence purposes, and the fact that Porthcawl isnt under imminent attack doesn't diminish my view about its necessity.


Yeah, but they don't say that at all.
I 'm pretty sure they'd both agree with you that some kind of defence force is needed, just that it shouldn't look like the military we've got today.
From what they've said I think that Col and Ddraig believe that the 'defence' argument is used to justify military spending and a military aparatus that far exceeds the needs for simple defence (hence the New Zealand example - a country which maintains a defence force but does not think it necessary to have a military which could participate in the kinds of foreign adventures Britain has participated in almmost non-stop for the last century).
You seem to think they're wooly pacifists who want to leave us undefended. They aren't. They just imagine a military which is truly only a defence force.
I agree with them. I think that it's a pure myth that we need a military as big and and as expensive as ours, and that the defence argument is used as an alibi for maintaining an over-sized military that can be used for misguided disasters like Iraq.
The fact that Porthcawl isn't under immediate threat isn't just a simple argument about Porthcawl. The way they're using it it's an emblematic argument. Porthcawl in this case stands for the whole of Wales or the whole of the UK - the fact that none of 'our' communies (bar the Falklands, and NI, maybe - but should 'we' have been in either of these places in the 1st place?) haven't really been under threat from invasion in the last 50 years, and has only really been under major threat once in the last century is used as proof that we don't really need an army/military like the one we have now. 
This, coupled with 'our' history of military aggression, is suggestive of the fact that the real reason we have a military like this is so our rulers can maintain their position as an aggressive world 'player', and not to actually defend our country/community after all.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 25, 2009)

more nice free propaganda for harvesting youth!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7961897.stm

so who thinks this young lad 'Ashley' is old enough to be running around with guns and being groomed to kill people?





all a bit touchy feely this article, it can get your fat kids fit AND keep them out of trouble! magic cures all round




			
				bbc said:
			
		

> Sgt Griffiths, a member of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh, has been working at the college since October 2007 and said he felt the courses were "invaluable" - both for the students and the armed forces themselves.
> 
> "It gives the kids a realistic insight into the army and lots of different regiments. So they are 100% sure of what they want to do."
> 
> ...


----------



## derf (Mar 26, 2009)

So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths


----------



## cesare (Mar 26, 2009)

derf said:


> So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths



He's got as much right to post his views on the subject, as you have to post yours on the thread about the murder of that kid in Greece.


----------



## derf (Mar 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> He's got as much right to post his views on the subject, as you have to post yours on the thread about the murder of that kid in Greece.



I'll be happy to argue with you on that thread.


----------



## cesare (Mar 26, 2009)

derf said:


> I'll be happy to argue with you on that thread.




I've got no intention of arguing on that thread - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position on this one.


----------



## derf (Mar 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> I've got no intention of arguing on that thread - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position on this one.



Well shut the fuck up then.


----------



## cesare (Mar 26, 2009)

derf said:


> Well shut the fuck up then.



That's very impolite on a thread about the death of 4 people at the hands of the military, derf


----------



## llantwit (Mar 26, 2009)

derf said:


> So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths


He's not adding politics to anything - it's usually there already if you care to look for it.
So death canot have a politics of its own, eh Derf? Death is usually, if not always, political, imo. How about the deaths of soldiers in Iraq - should we keep schtum about them too, even though they shouldn't be there in the first place? Or deaths in a high-school shooting in the US which perhaps could have been avoided with more stringent political decisions around gun control, or deaths at the hands of Islamist terrorists which might well have been avoided were it not for the USA's funding of Islamism in Afghanistan against the evil ruskies, or if you want a few less highflutin' examples the deaths of people in road traffic accidents that might have been avoided if there were fewer cars on the road and we lived in a political climate more amenable to adequately funding public transport, or the deaths of shopkeepers stabbed by desperate junkies doing their tills over because they need money for a fix in a society that refuses to see drug dependence as a medical problem and only sees it as a crime?
Nah, better to keep a respectful silence. It'd be a pity to rock the boat at all and start thinking about the *reasons* people die, and what we can do to stop such tragic losses in the future.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 26, 2009)

derf said:


> So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths



1 - it is totally relevant as it is again youths who are being recruited and groomed - they could be dead next.

2 - the 2 girls in the OP would be alive now if it was not for similar grooming by military

3 - i'll post here as and when i want thanks

is that clear enough for you?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 26, 2009)

cesare said:


> He's got as much right to post his views on the subject, as you have to post yours on the thread about the murder of that kid in Greece.





cesare said:


> I've got no intention of arguing on that thread - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position on this one.


nail on head!



derf said:


> Well shut the fuck up then.


not very nice is it!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Mar 27, 2009)

ddraig said:


> 1 - it is totally relevant as it is again youths who are being recruited and groomed - they could be dead next.
> 
> 2 - the 2 girls in the OP would be alive now if it was not for similar grooming by military
> 
> ...



whats with the obsession with grooming? could the kids not just enjoy learning to fly? its always a consipracy with you.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 27, 2009)

waterloowelshy said:


> whats with the obsession with grooming? could the kids not just enjoy learning to fly? its always a consipracy with you.



would your sensitive ears/eyes prefer 'enthusiastically prepared' instead?

oh and either way it's not a conspiracy, it's rather blatant and there for all to see


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 27, 2009)

so, have you actually brought your views to any of the families of dead soldiers?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 27, 2009)

why would i do that and upset them further?

do you disagree with my point(s)?


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 27, 2009)

i'm anti-war and anti-military aggression but I don't think we made the leaps from the days of conscription by making politics out of accidental deaths. 

you're "point" isn't that radical at all but you just need to find constructive ways to communicate it and to actually do something about it.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 27, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> i'm anti-war and anti-military aggression but I don't think we made the leaps from the days of conscription by making politics out of accidental deaths.
> 
> you're "point" isn't that radical at all but you just need to find constructive ways to communicate it and to actually do something about it.



you gonna teach me then boss?


----------



## llantwit (Mar 27, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> i'm anti-war and anti-military aggression but I don't think we made the leaps from the days of conscription by making politics out of accidental deaths.
> 
> you're "point" isn't that radical at all but you just need to find constructive ways to communicate it and to actually do something about it.


You saying the same as Derf?
That somehow these deaths weren't political? I don't understand that.


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 27, 2009)

llantwit said:


> That somehow these deaths weren't political? I don't understand that.



Sometimes it's easier to understand an issue and present a stronger position on it when you dissassociate it from your own personal dogma.

Everything *can* be political but that doesn't mean we have to make it so.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 27, 2009)

You're making a fairly big assumption there, mate (re: dogma - dogma suggests rigid belief... I'm perfectly able to change my mind on stuff if provided with convincing reasons to). And in quite a patronising tone (I understand the issue quite well, thanks). 
That aside, I disagree with your logic. You suggest that the event itself is apolitical until people make it so or not by talking about it in certain ways. That 'we' are making these deaths political somehow.
The way I see it most acts and events are political in that they take place within a social context. Or put slightly differently, most events and acts have causes which are inherently political.
I gave a load of examples to back this up in post #75 below. That's just a basic philosphical difference we seem to have.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 27, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> so, have you actually brought your views to any of the families of dead soldiers?


That would be a bit crass, wouldn't it? Don't understand why this would be a good idea. 
But their deaths are a matter of public importance as well as private grief, and I don't think that the tragic fact that people died should stop us discussing the fact that these deaths may have been unneccessary, and fit into a wider political context that affects our communities in a very real and detrimental way.
Too often accusations of 'playing politics' are bandied around as a kind of 'discursive stopper' - like a trump card people can play to close down debate about impoartant issues they don't want discussed. I don't think this goes for you, btw (I think you're arguing we shouldn't be making our points in a certain way, not that we shouldn't be making them at all) but it does to that dick Derf.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Mar 29, 2009)

llantwit said:


> That would be a bit crass, wouldn't it? Don't understand why this would be a good idea.
> But their deaths are a matter of public importance as well as private grief, and I don't think that the tragic fact that people died should stop us discussing the fact that these deaths may have been unneccessary, and fit into a wider political context that affects our communities in a very real and detrimental way.
> Too often accusations of 'playing politics' are bandied around as a kind of 'discursive stopper' - like a trump card people can play to close down debate about impoartant issues they don't want discussed. I don't think this goes for you, btw (I think you're arguing we shouldn't be making our points in a certain way, not that we shouldn't be making them at all) but it does to that dick Derf.



How would it be crass? put your money where your mouth is and make your point properly or dont make it at all. either you believe whole heartedly in your point of view or you dont. i bet the dead childrens parents will be able to sleep much better after they have it explained to them that their deaths were a result of military grooming!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Mar 29, 2009)

ddraig said:


> would your sensitive ears/eyes prefer 'enthusiastically prepared' instead?
> 
> oh and either way it's not a conspiracy, it's rather blatant and there for all to see



i dont mind what you call it. Its clear you like to refer to it as grooming though, so carry on. It makes your argument sound even sillier!  tin hats at the ready!


----------



## PAD1OH (Mar 30, 2009)

llantwit said:


> And in quite a patronising tone (I understand the issue quite well, thanks).



sorry, didn't mean to be patronising. no point in taking this further because we fundamentally agree on the issue just not the means/place/context of discussing it.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 30, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> sorry, didn't mean to be patronising. no point in taking this further because we fundamentally agree on the issue just not the means/place/context of discussing it.


Fairy nuff.


----------



## ddraig (May 1, 2009)

great activity this air cadet stuff, nice and safe and honourable for our kids! 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8028475.stm


> An air cadet instructor who had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl, has been jailed for five years.
> 
> Paul Nicholls, 39, from Pontygwaith in Rhondda Cynon Taf, was found guilty of two counts of sexual activity with a girl under 16 at a previous hearing.
> 
> His victim reported him to police after 13-year-old Cherrell Ardle, who was also believed to be in a sexual relationship with him, hanged herself.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 1, 2009)

ddraig said:


> great activity this air cadet stuff, nice and safe and honourable for our kids!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8028475.stm



One person?  Out of how many instructors?

Why dont you just say that all teachers are pedophiles while you are at it!


----------



## ddraig (Jan 13, 2011)

apols about bumping this mad thread, inquest reports
*Warning system 'may have prevented' Bridgend air crash *
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-12182535
no shit!
so would not pissing about in military planes with children 





RIP Katie-Jo Davies and Nikkita Marie Walters


----------

