[/align]they won't even look after their own...
Jesus LOVES killing
[align=center]
Frasier actor conned by fake fallen soldier from Fife
Lauren Chalmers struck up a friendship with Kelsey Grammer on Twitter, but then pretended to have been killed in Afghanistan.
By Jennifer Crichton
10 June 2010[/align]
A young Fife woman who struck up an online friendship with Frasier actor Kelsey Grammer has been forced to apologise to him after she pretended to have died on active service in Afghanistan.
Lauren Chalmers began conversing with the comedian on Twitter last month and told him she was a soldier about to be posted to Afghanistan. She then pretended to be her own mother, posting a message to him saying she had been killed by an improvised explosive device.
The devastated actor, who had posted signed photos to her parents Kirkcaldy home as a homecoming surprise, used his own site to pay tribute to her bravery and even set up an armed forces tribute site. However, it quickly emerged Chalmers had conducted a sick hoax from her home in Kirkcaldy and had never served in the armed forces at all.
The 28-year-old was sitting at home in Fife when she sent Mr Grammer a message, under the online name Kirkcaldy2010, saying: "Well im in London right now, thank you for your reply Leaving in 2 hours. limited access nxt 6 months". She later added: "just to let you know i got here ok. lovely aghanstan, 6 months of hell im guessing."
However, Lauren then decided to pretend she had been killed and, posing as her mother, she told the actor: "This is not a hoax, Mr Grammer,in case you think it is. She passed away in an IED attack." She went on to thank the actor for his signed photographs, saying her 'daughter' had been looking forward to seeing them when she returned from Afghanistan.
Kind Kelsey said he was distraught by the death and told his 23,038 followers to "send her a prayer - her Mom needs our love now" He also told his fans he was honoured to have become friends with Lauren, saying: "@kirkcaldy2010 was so excited I responded little did she know I was even more excited she cared about this actor was quite honored". The actor's fans flooded his page with tributes to the fallen British soldier. However, despite the comedian's reassurances, some members of the armed forces discussion forum began to express concern about the legitimacy of the story.
Chalmers then set up a new Twitter account under the name Laurenc82 and attempted to blame the con on a "sick" friend or relative. And she told Mr Grammer "this is a cruel trick been played on u and myself", later adding: "This is the 1st contact ive had with you, i am boiling and very upset.i had nothing to do with this. i hope u know that."
However, Lauren was later forced to admit she was responsible for the hoax, prompting the Christian star to write: "May you ask God for forgiveness @laurenc82 I have forgiven you for this mess". In turn, on Wednesday she wrote to him again, saying: "thanks for your forgivness.i went to church and i prayed".
No female member of the British armed forces has died in Afghanistan since 2008.
-------------------------
A pretty twisted story for sure, but I wonder how he'd have responded if she'd said that she'd killed loads of people? Would he have offered prayers for them?
Frasier actor conned by fake fallen soldier from Fife
Lauren Chalmers struck up a friendship with Kelsey Grammer on Twitter, but then pretended to have been killed in Afghanistan.
By Jennifer Crichton
10 June 2010[/align]
A young Fife woman who struck up an online friendship with Frasier actor Kelsey Grammer has been forced to apologise to him after she pretended to have died on active service in Afghanistan.
Lauren Chalmers began conversing with the comedian on Twitter last month and told him she was a soldier about to be posted to Afghanistan. She then pretended to be her own mother, posting a message to him saying she had been killed by an improvised explosive device.
The devastated actor, who had posted signed photos to her parents Kirkcaldy home as a homecoming surprise, used his own site to pay tribute to her bravery and even set up an armed forces tribute site. However, it quickly emerged Chalmers had conducted a sick hoax from her home in Kirkcaldy and had never served in the armed forces at all.
The 28-year-old was sitting at home in Fife when she sent Mr Grammer a message, under the online name Kirkcaldy2010, saying: "Well im in London right now, thank you for your reply Leaving in 2 hours. limited access nxt 6 months". She later added: "just to let you know i got here ok. lovely aghanstan, 6 months of hell im guessing."
However, Lauren then decided to pretend she had been killed and, posing as her mother, she told the actor: "This is not a hoax, Mr Grammer,in case you think it is. She passed away in an IED attack." She went on to thank the actor for his signed photographs, saying her 'daughter' had been looking forward to seeing them when she returned from Afghanistan.
Kind Kelsey said he was distraught by the death and told his 23,038 followers to "send her a prayer - her Mom needs our love now" He also told his fans he was honoured to have become friends with Lauren, saying: "@kirkcaldy2010 was so excited I responded little did she know I was even more excited she cared about this actor was quite honored". The actor's fans flooded his page with tributes to the fallen British soldier. However, despite the comedian's reassurances, some members of the armed forces discussion forum began to express concern about the legitimacy of the story.
Chalmers then set up a new Twitter account under the name Laurenc82 and attempted to blame the con on a "sick" friend or relative. And she told Mr Grammer "this is a cruel trick been played on u and myself", later adding: "This is the 1st contact ive had with you, i am boiling and very upset.i had nothing to do with this. i hope u know that."
However, Lauren was later forced to admit she was responsible for the hoax, prompting the Christian star to write: "May you ask God for forgiveness @laurenc82 I have forgiven you for this mess". In turn, on Wednesday she wrote to him again, saying: "thanks for your forgivness.i went to church and i prayed".
No female member of the British armed forces has died in Afghanistan since 2008.
-------------------------
A pretty twisted story for sure, but I wonder how he'd have responded if she'd said that she'd killed loads of people? Would he have offered prayers for them?
[align=center]Human rights protection ruling overturned for British troops
Supreme court quashes landmark decision over rights of UK soldiers deployed abroad and conditions they serve in
Karen McVeigh
guardian.co.uk,
30 June 2010[/align]
The supreme court today quashed landmark rulings that British troops deployed abroad are protected by human rights legislation on the battlefield. The majority ruling, by six of the nine justices who heard the case, overturned previous high court and court of appeal judgments over the death of a soldier, Private Jason Smith, who died of heatstroke while on a UK base in Iraq.
In March, the Ministry of Defence appealed against a court of appeal ruling that sending military personnel into battle or patrol with defective equipment could breach their human rights. The court was asked to rule on whether a British soldier on military service in Iraq is subject to UK jurisdiction and covered by human rights laws wherever they were serving, not only when on a British military base or hospital.
James Eadie QC, representing the MoD, had told the March hearing it would never be possible to guarantee rights under the European convention to soldiers on duty wherever they are in the world. "Effective and faithful application of the convention means that not only must the state have exclusive legal and physical control over persons who benefit from it but also legal and physical control over both the area of its application and over those other persons within that area. The court of appeal's approach, if correct, would impose an obligation upon the UK to be able to ensure that a British soldier on duty in say a market in Kabul, Afghanistan, can enjoy convention rights without hindrance, even from those Afghans over whom the UK has no legislative or practical control and where the territory is not controlled by the UK."
Eadie said the reasoning of the appeal judges could mean that the state had a special duty to protect soldiers from all risks, including those caused by conflict, and argued the decision would make it harder for military commanders forced to make rapid and difficult decisions on the ground.
Smith, 32, from Hawick, Roxburghshire, was a reservist deployed in Iraq in June 2003. He repeatedly told medical staff he was feeling unwell due to high temperatures – sometimes over 50C (122F) – before reporting sick in August the same year. He was found lying face down and taken to hospital, but had suffered a cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead.
The government conceded at a high court hearing that soldiers on UK military bases or hospitals do come within the Human Rights Act but Mr Justice Collins ruled that a state might be in breach of its human rights obligations if it could have taken steps to avoid or minimise a known risk to life but did not do so.
Court action was begun by Smith's mother, Catherine, after she was initially denied access to crucial documents at an inquest into her son's death. Andrew Walker, the assistant deputy coroner for Oxfordshire, recorded at his inquest in November 2006 that the soldier's death was caused "by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate".
The justices also heard from lawyers representing Smith's mother, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Oxfordshire coroner during the three-day hearing.
--------------------
The hired killers want human rights protection? The hypocrisy of that should be unbelievable, but these days all 'soldiers are heroes', regardless of whether they (such as UK and US troops) are involved in illegal wars. If they are involved in an illegal war, they are war criminals. They're no better than a street gang member - and actually a fuck of a lot worse.
Supreme court quashes landmark decision over rights of UK soldiers deployed abroad and conditions they serve in
Karen McVeigh
guardian.co.uk,
30 June 2010[/align]
The supreme court today quashed landmark rulings that British troops deployed abroad are protected by human rights legislation on the battlefield. The majority ruling, by six of the nine justices who heard the case, overturned previous high court and court of appeal judgments over the death of a soldier, Private Jason Smith, who died of heatstroke while on a UK base in Iraq.
In March, the Ministry of Defence appealed against a court of appeal ruling that sending military personnel into battle or patrol with defective equipment could breach their human rights. The court was asked to rule on whether a British soldier on military service in Iraq is subject to UK jurisdiction and covered by human rights laws wherever they were serving, not only when on a British military base or hospital.
James Eadie QC, representing the MoD, had told the March hearing it would never be possible to guarantee rights under the European convention to soldiers on duty wherever they are in the world. "Effective and faithful application of the convention means that not only must the state have exclusive legal and physical control over persons who benefit from it but also legal and physical control over both the area of its application and over those other persons within that area. The court of appeal's approach, if correct, would impose an obligation upon the UK to be able to ensure that a British soldier on duty in say a market in Kabul, Afghanistan, can enjoy convention rights without hindrance, even from those Afghans over whom the UK has no legislative or practical control and where the territory is not controlled by the UK."
Eadie said the reasoning of the appeal judges could mean that the state had a special duty to protect soldiers from all risks, including those caused by conflict, and argued the decision would make it harder for military commanders forced to make rapid and difficult decisions on the ground.
Smith, 32, from Hawick, Roxburghshire, was a reservist deployed in Iraq in June 2003. He repeatedly told medical staff he was feeling unwell due to high temperatures – sometimes over 50C (122F) – before reporting sick in August the same year. He was found lying face down and taken to hospital, but had suffered a cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead.
The government conceded at a high court hearing that soldiers on UK military bases or hospitals do come within the Human Rights Act but Mr Justice Collins ruled that a state might be in breach of its human rights obligations if it could have taken steps to avoid or minimise a known risk to life but did not do so.
Court action was begun by Smith's mother, Catherine, after she was initially denied access to crucial documents at an inquest into her son's death. Andrew Walker, the assistant deputy coroner for Oxfordshire, recorded at his inquest in November 2006 that the soldier's death was caused "by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate".
The justices also heard from lawyers representing Smith's mother, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Oxfordshire coroner during the three-day hearing.
--------------------
The hired killers want human rights protection? The hypocrisy of that should be unbelievable, but these days all 'soldiers are heroes', regardless of whether they (such as UK and US troops) are involved in illegal wars. If they are involved in an illegal war, they are war criminals. They're no better than a street gang member - and actually a fuck of a lot worse.
Last edited by faceless on Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
SquareEyes
- admin
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 4:32 pm
- Location: Vienna, Austria
This is disgusting! But... when you sign on that dotted line you are, essentially, signing your life away.
I'm trying to convince my oldest son that by signing he's going to put his life on the line too. He sees the glamour of this, but not the horror. I'm sure, if he gets in, the horror won't be far behind.
I'm trying to convince my oldest son that by signing he's going to put his life on the line too. He sees the glamour of this, but not the horror. I'm sure, if he gets in, the horror won't be far behind.
-
funkyfunkpants
- admin
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:42 pm
I think this a good point. I think when we are not actively engaged in a just war we shouldn't have a standing army. People who choose to join the existing one are well aware that all conflicts since 1945 have had absolutely nothing to do with keeping the UK safe and protecting our freedom. Far from it it has made our streets much less safe.faceless wrote:If they are involved in an illegal war, they are war criminals. They're no better than a street gang member - and actually a fuck of a lot worse.
Having made this choice to be actively involved in terror making and the destabilisation of regimes the elite aren't fond of they really should accept the consequences of that decision. Unfortunately for some of them that is the loss of their lives. I can't say I feel any more sympathy for them than I do for anyone else who loses their life in a reckless manner or in the undertaking of dubious nefarious activities.
Perhaps this will dissuade him and others from joining. https://www.collateralmurder.com/
[align=center]<object id="ce_92532800" width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="https://current.com/e/92532800/en_US"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="https://current.com/e/92532800/en_US" width="640" height="360" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>[/align]
This documentary from the Vanguard series on Current tv looks at the large amount of soldiers who bring their bloodthirsty 'skills' back to society and end up in jail for their violent thuggery.
This documentary from the Vanguard series on Current tv looks at the large amount of soldiers who bring their bloodthirsty 'skills' back to society and end up in jail for their violent thuggery.
It's fun to kill in Afghanistan, says top US commander
The US military, still recovering from the shock of the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal, its top commander in Afghanistan – is facing fresh problems over revelations that another top commander declared that it was "fun to shoot people" in Afghanistan.
A video of General James Mattis making his comments was yesterday spreading through the Muslim world at a fraught time in Afghanistan for the US and it's Western allies. General Mattis has been named as successor to General David Petreaus as head of US Central Command. General Petraeus is moving to Afghanistan after McChrystal's sacking over derogatory remarks made about President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine. But General Mattis has yet to be confirmed by the US Senate. The general led the controversial US military assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.
The comments which have come back to haunt him were made at a leadership seminar in 2005. He said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know it's a helluva hoot. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you get guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil ... guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, said that the remarks were made five years ago and General Mattis had learnt his lesson. But one senior American officer serving in Kabul, said: "This is not what we want to see happen after a very difficult time in the campaign. But we don't think the Senate will block his appointment.
"The fact is people in the forces tend not to speak like bishops. We'll have to make clear to Afghans that what he was talking about related to the Taliban, who oppress women, and certainly not Afghans and Muslims as a whole."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 23155.html
The US military, still recovering from the shock of the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal, its top commander in Afghanistan – is facing fresh problems over revelations that another top commander declared that it was "fun to shoot people" in Afghanistan.
A video of General James Mattis making his comments was yesterday spreading through the Muslim world at a fraught time in Afghanistan for the US and it's Western allies. General Mattis has been named as successor to General David Petreaus as head of US Central Command. General Petraeus is moving to Afghanistan after McChrystal's sacking over derogatory remarks made about President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine. But General Mattis has yet to be confirmed by the US Senate. The general led the controversial US military assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.
The comments which have come back to haunt him were made at a leadership seminar in 2005. He said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know it's a helluva hoot. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you get guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil ... guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, said that the remarks were made five years ago and General Mattis had learnt his lesson. But one senior American officer serving in Kabul, said: "This is not what we want to see happen after a very difficult time in the campaign. But we don't think the Senate will block his appointment.
"The fact is people in the forces tend not to speak like bishops. We'll have to make clear to Afghans that what he was talking about related to the Taliban, who oppress women, and certainly not Afghans and Muslims as a whole."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 23155.html
-
pirtybirdy
- 'Native New Yorker'
- Posts: 2829
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:33 pm
- Location: FL USA
- Contact:
[align=center]<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/VwwMF6biCJU&am ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/VwwMF6biCJU&am ... S&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/align]
This is from 2007, but it doesn't lose any value with time. What gets me is that there were people after the Vietnam war saying pretty much the same things, so why were there so many ready to kill innocent civilians in Iraq? They can't claim ignorance.
This is from 2007, but it doesn't lose any value with time. What gets me is that there were people after the Vietnam war saying pretty much the same things, so why were there so many ready to kill innocent civilians in Iraq? They can't claim ignorance.