[Closed] Channel 4 news - another soldier shooting a dog ... P**s me off big time.

My cat would have shot that dog, gheylord that it is! 😉

The Talib would cut your head off while the dog will remain loyal forever

Hehe.. and you are meant to be into dogs?

Dogs do whatever you train them to do. They have no morals at all. It'd rip your head off if someone trained it to.

Taliban on the other hand are extremely loyal. They fight to the death, sacrificing their own lives for their cause.

Now I'm not sticking up for the Taliban, nor do I hate dogs; I am just pointing out how completely batty your arguments are.

But then again you must surely be trolling...

I would've nuked that dog from orbit with a sweet headshot
BAM!

I think the way this thread is going is a bit over the top. Just because the herbert who fired the shot was a pisspoor shot and missed, it doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have shot at the dog. And it must have been terrifying for the poor little bugger - so I reckon chewie still has a point.

Although I still don't understand why he's got it in for the Taliban 😕
..... after all, apparently they are dog lovers like him and want dog fighting banned

All I can say is a dog is 'mans best friend' because it loves unconditionally (not argues unneccesarily like on STW) !!

muggomagic - Member

Has TJ joined up? maybe the dog was not under control and was causing annoyance/disturbance to the other people in the compound?

LOL

My cyberdog meets you - you are dogmeat.

Or

OK shooting a dog is bad form - but compared to the thousands and thousands of innocent Afghanis that have died? Be indignant about something that matters please

All I can say is a dog is 'mans best friend' because it loves unconditionally (not argues unneccesarily like on STW) !!

some people say a dog is a mans best freind, others maintain a mans wife is his best freind. Its easily settled- lock em both in the boot of your car for a few hours and see who's pleased to see you when you open the lid 🙂

chew ewe is actually (I believe) a very famous person who has heard that STW contains a fair and accurate representation of the british public..

I believe his original post was intended to prove that the majority of STW (British)infidels consider some human life (Talib) to be significantly lower than that of a dog.. so that he could use the statistics against the infidel in his next video message to the world from his remote mountain hide-out..

Unfortunately for Osama.. the plan backfired when the argument became much more about grammar.. the OPs intelligence.. miscellanious pedantry and assorted silly jokes..

I've always quite fancied Afghanistan.. and many of the 'stans in general (particularly around the Hindu Kush) to be excellent looking MTB destinations..

anyone up for a bit of adventure trekking?

chewkw - you write in a very strange manner. Are you Yoda?

Taliban on the other hand are extremely loyal. They fight to the death, sacrificing their own lives for their cause.

They don't like to fight as much now, preferring the cowardly roadside bomb. They are also child abusers (its cultural blah blah), extremely against equality for women and happy to use mentally disabled children as suicide bombers. So I can happily state that I value a dogs life more. Or indeed a squirrels. Or a meerkats. But not a badgers, I hate badgers.

I hate dogs

I can't believe this OP. I've just watched the video. As a dog owner and dog lover I'm not particualarly bothered about the dog compared to the "home" owner. Poor sod lives in a mud hovel which he appears to be in the process of being destroyed and he's now got a bunch of homeless kids in the middle of a warzone fire fight. It's a tragic situation that probably is replicated millions of times over the whole country. Compared to this what's happening to the dog is insignificant.

Just because the herbert who fired the shot was a pisspoor shot and missed, it doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have shot at the dog. And it must have been terrifying for the poor little bugger - so I reckon chewie still has a point.

Well, yes, but in this context it's not something I'm going to get too upset about. I wouldn't be too happy if soldiers were going round shooting/shooting near dogs for kicks but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[img] [/img]

Not going to get involved in this fight, but can I recommend this. Got given it for Xmas and it's a very good read. Might give the OP an alternative view of things, as it was written by a Marine.

Available on Amazon if your interested (flippin link thing won't work)

Peabrain,

When you use [i]it's[/i] with an apostrophe, it's to indicate a missing letter.

The possessive is [i]its[/i]: [b]shoot [i]its[/i] brains out with a gun[/b], for example.

Apostrophising the possessive its is like apostrophising his or hers.

And if you wrote [b]it is her's[/b], or [b]it was hi's[/b], you would look like a bloody peabrain. 🙂

[img] [/img]

has the owner used gel on this dog? nice comb over

Peabrain,

When you use it's with an apostrophe, it's to indicate a missing letter.

The possessive is its: shoot its brains out with a gun, for example.

Apostrophising the possessive its is like apostrophising his or hers.

And if you wrote it is her's, or it was hi's, you would look like a bloody peabrain.

😆

That’s how you win an argument!

[hijack]

why do they call bombs, IEDs? 'Bomb' is easier to say and accurately describes itself? Is it a marketing thing, similar to saying 'insurgent' instead of freedom fighter?

[/hijack]

What annoys me more than soldiers firing warning shots over animals in a warzone is people in this country who seem to think they have more rights to the countryside than anyone else.

And that if they see a dog off lead, they have automatic kicking rights.

When I was growing up (in the country, natch), we were taught how to behave around dogs.

Now you get ignorant weekenders coming out on stupid expensive bikes who suddenly expect everyone else to change their ways so as not to upset delicate city sensibilities.

why do they call bombs, IEDs? 'Bomb' is easier to say and accurately describes itself? Is it a marketing thing, similar to saying 'insurgent' instead of freedom fighter?

Yep, it's PRopaganda, isn't it. IED sounds very technical, and our high-tech laser-guided Army is far too clever to get itself blown up by something as 20th-Century-sounding as a plain old bomb.

You might be interested in 'Unspeak' by Steven Poole, which is a very readable and interesting taking-apart of how language is used to distort.

chewkw what happened to the "d;p" sign-off?

I think re-instating it would really improve your credibilty

If you can do any better why don't you join up and stop moaning about what's going on there. The most dangerous you have probably done is watch the telly!

What else will you be moaning about the weather!

Get a life and stop bitching!

🙂

Backhander - Taliban are undoubtedly bad by our standards, however they are loyal. Loyalty means not switching sides. It doesn't mean they're good people.

Dorset Knob - I grew up in the country, but I never had a dog. And I take exception to people who don't control their own dogs properly, having been bitten a few times and trodden in/ridden through a lot of dogsh*t.

Just because you live in the countryside does not give you automatic moral superiority over anyone who doesn't, so you can f*ck right off. If your 'ways' include letting your dog bother people then they damn well do need changing, rustic quaint country oo-ar yokel or not.

molgrips - lol - I'm talking about who people who see a dog off lead then sh1t [i]themselves[/i], whether the dog is under control or not. They should learn how to behave around dogs.

I 'never had' a dog when I was growing up, either, but that didn't stop my parents explaining how to placate over-excited, nervous or friendly dogs, in the same way they taught me how to cross a field of cows, what do when we encountered horses, bulls, or wildlife, and how to cross the road, etc.

As to the question of where I live, you're more likely to find me among the metrosexuals of Farringdon than in the 'rustic quaint' land of 'oo-ar yokels' of your imagination.

Anyway, this is thread hijack. Back to the fun…

Just because you live in the countryside does not give you automatic moral superiority over anyone who doesn't,

Yes it does 🙂

So, are we saying its Ok to shoot dogs? Or are people the preferred option? This thread has gone on so long i've lost track 😕

Just because you live in the countryside does not give you automatic moral superiority over anyone who doesn't,

Yes it does

+1 😀

[b]Dorset_Knob[/b] - Member

Just because you live in the countryside does not give you automatic moral superiority over anyone who doesn't

Yes it does

Brilliant! 😆

I 'never had' a dog when I was growing up, either, but that didn't stop my parents explaining how to placate over-excited, nervous or friendly dogs, in the same way they taught me how to cross a field of cows, what do when we encountered horses, bulls, or wildlife, and how to cross the road, etc.

I grew up in the country, and I don't sh!t myself when I come across a dog off the lead, even if it's being a bit arsey. But common courtesy still applies and it's up to the owner to keep it under control, not for everyone else to put up with it.

The bit about ignorant weekenders thinking they have more right to the countryside is also off. I don't think I have [i]more[/i] right to it than anyone else, I think I have [i]as much[/i] right to it as anyone else, including people who can't be bothered to control their dogs.

Well, what bothers me is when my dog is trotting along perfectly innocently, gets alternately spooked /excited by cyclists whizzing past without bothering to slow down or warn us of their advance, and then, on top of that, risk getting a Sidi in the face just for having the temerity to be on the same piece of land as a human-rights-aware cyclist.

Not read all of this but just wondering if you would be quite so upset if the soldier had killed the dog by had while the dog still had its teeth in the soldiers leg?

has the owner used gel on this dog? nice comb over

I'm sure he taught me physics in 2nd year

gets alternately spooked /excited by cyclists whizzing past

Alternatively, if your dog can't cope with cyclists, maybe he should be on a lead or in close contact?

50/50 as far as I'm concerned. We all need to be considerate, dog owners or cyclists.

than in the 'rustic quaint' land of 'oo-ar yokels' of your imagination

That was sarcasm mate. Like I say, I grew up in the country, and I don't mean a posh village in the home counties, I mean where land rovers are 30 years old and held together with bits of wood and baler twine and have a sheep in the back instead of Pandora and Zachary and a frigging bugaboo pushchair.

They should learn how to behave around dogs

I disagree. Dogs are not the default position of the countryside. Someone brings the dog into contact with other people, so how is it the responsibility of the non-dog owner to deal with it? That's like saying car drivers should be able to do whatever they like and pedestrians and cyclists have to learn how to deal with it.

I was told when I was 4 how to deal with dogs, but actually doing it required maturity, courage and a fair bit of experience which took me many years (and bites) to master.

Alternatively, if your dog can't cope with cyclists, maybe he should be on a lead or in close contact?

If, say, I was walking my dog through a bike shop, or round a velodrome or we were at the Big Bike Bash then I'd say that's a perfectly valid argument. But when I'm out walking in the back of beyond, on a bridleway, then I'm not sure it applies. This is where your 50-50 point comes in. But what constitutes 'considerate' seems less important on this forum than what constitutes 'my rights'.

I grew up in the country, and I don't mean a posh village in the home counties, I mean where land rovers are 30 years old and held together with bits of wood and baler twine and have a sheep in the back instead of Pandora and Zachary and a frigging bugaboo pushchair.

Issues, much?

That's like saying car drivers should be able to do whatever they like and pedestrians and cyclists have to learn how to deal with it.

No, it's like saying car drivers should be aware of how pedestrians and cyclists behave on the road, and drive accordingly.

That was sarcasm mate. Like I say, I grew up in the country, and I don't mean a posh village in the home counties, I mean where land rovers are 30 years old and held together with bits of wood and baler twine and have a sheep in the back instead of Pandora and Zachary and a frigging bugaboo pushchair.

😆

I do live in the "home counties" and that is pretty much bang on. Quite a few 2010 plate Defenders are being driven around that have cleaner paintwork than most BMW's 🙄

it required maturity, courage and a fair bit of experience

You'll get there some day. 😉

where land rovers are 30 years old and held together with bits of wood and baler twine and have a sheep in the back

Did you grow up in Salisbury?

What an insane thread.

I'm trying to remember how many Lebanese dogs are in the guy's dream at the start of Waltz With Bashir, but I can't. 😕

I read that as lesbian dogs, which seemed a rather odd thing to dream about. 🙂

It would indeed...

It's 26. Not that I really care. Anyway, the point is they're all the Lebanese dogs that the protagonist shot during the 1982 war. 🙂

Aha.
I just watched the first bit on youtube, but with the sound off, so wasn't too sure what the dogs were about. That's not to say I would have been wiser with the sound 🙂

---- on a bike steamed past me and the dog yesterday - on a dirt track closed to vehicles. Dog about three metres ahead of me, pootling about. It was windy as hell, so didn't hear him approach from behind.

He shot past me and I shouted my dog's name - dog turned round and [i]just[/i] had time to skip out of the way - very nearly got flattened.

I shouted some random abuse at the guy along the lines of; "You are allowed to shout and warn people" or something equally lame but no acknowledgement.

Wouldn't have minded a warning shot from an SA80 (or whatever they're using these days).

But what constitutes 'considerate' seems less important on this forum than what constitutes 'my rights'.

Not just on here, but any time when the average person is ranting about a disembodied 'other' person. Face to face people are much nicer. Which I think is pretty weak to be honest. Think about what you say/write even when the person you're denigrating isn't there or is merely hyopthetical.

Issues, much?

That was an attempt at humour!

But in any case we all agree it's a two-way streak, and we need to post on forums like we believe it 🙂

Think about what you say/write even when the person you're denigrating isn't there or is merely hyopthetical.

Fair comment, point taken 🙂

But in any case we all agree it's a two-way streak, and we need to post on forums like we believe it

🙂

Back to work…

Taliban are undoubtedly bad by our standards, however they are loyal. Loyalty means not switching sides.

Hehe I would say the complete opposite 🙂

Switching sides is a national pastime in Afghanistsn.

What we call the "Taliban" is actually a multitude of loose groups which have constantly shifting loyalties. When the Taliban swept to power in the 1990s it was not so much as the result of impressive military victories, the 'true' Taliban were very much what their name implies - students - mostly young, inexperienced, and driven by religious zeal (and ****stani Inter-Services Intelligence money)

The way they achieved power was mostly through doing deals and buying the loyalties of various groups and warlords. With every new deal they controlled a bit more territory, and as their power grew it became more rapid as more and more groups and warlords became tempted to switch sides and align themselves with them.

The bandits, smugglers, and drug dealers, which represent the bulk of the armed groups in Afghanistan (and have done so for decades), have always been prepared to switch sides if they feel it is in their interests to do so. Something which Western countries exploited hugely in the eighties, and are again now considering as a "solution" to this unwinnable war.

The only groups within the Afghan Mujahideen which are incorruptible, won't do deals, and can't be bought imo, are the Arab volunteers which we now call Al Qaeda. They are also by far the best fighters, and their fierce determination and impressive tenacity provided the front line troops for the original Taliban which was made up largely of frighten young students.

I don't believe however, that the Taliban even in government, were ever able to control them. Which made the Nato demand that Mullah Omar hand over Osama bin Laden as a precondition for not invading Afghanistan in 2001, totally unrealistic - as well they knew.

IMHO

.

sofatester - Member

So, are we saying its Ok to shoot dogs? Or are people the preferred option? This thread has gone on so long i've lost track

Yes, I think this thorny question has been mostly ignore. As far as I'm concerned whilst I like war as much as the next person, I really draw the line at shooting animals.

All dogs should be shot. End of story!

binners, better hide your wife then!

[img] http://clouddragon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/troll.jp g" target="_blank">http://clouddragon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/troll.jp g"/> [/img]

Surely some of you have been on here or CF long enough to know that Chewy isn't a troll and his 'interesting' viewpoints are usually hilarious. BTW his english is pretty good for a 'geordie' originally from East Timor (or somewhere around there) 😉

I can sleep well if the dog is not hurt otherwise this sort of action pisses me off big time.

1 dog life is worth thousand times that of the Talib(meaning pupil btw). Yes, I know you are saying Talib is human with brain etc but get this ... they are the ones with AK47, RPG and IED.

🙄

but get this ...

Bollox 😐 ........ I see what you mean now