What on earth are you on about?!

You didn't seem to appreciate earlier that 'bigoted' involved intolerance of other's views. Then you accuse me of a lack of understanding when it is in fact you that needs to 'gain an understanding'.

Might be wise to come down off your high horse too.

To be clear, if I said that black people were little more than animals and ought to be treated as such, do you think it would be bigotry for a person not to tolerate my views?

According to the dictionary definition of bigotry it could be.

All people are animals.

Goodbye, bigot.

Goodbye bigoted free speech denier.

Nice evasion. Any chance you could answer the actual question I asked?

I am of course no such thing, but I do note that you acknowledge you are a bigot. Honest, at least.

If you were to explain in what actual way I am in your strange world "bigoted", that would be useful for reference.

Oh what a shocker. He said 'Goodbye' and then re-appears a few hours later when he can't handle not having the final word.

Denying someone's right to be 'bigoted', even in their own heads? Dear me. Sounds like some kind of anti free speech, thought police type coercive society. I've heard North Korea is nice this time of year

You are so stupid it isn't fair.

I wrote "Goodbye, bigot" never expecting you would agree you were one.

The point of it was for you to blurt back some defence as to how or why you are not a bigot, and then I planned to explain you MUST be a bigot according to YOUR definition, since you are intolerant of numerous things.

However, a certain level of wit and slow thought, probably Neanderthal or thereabouts, was required on your part for it to work.

I overestimated you.

Turning briefly to your puerile ramblings, I did not deny someone's right to be bigoted, I said I did not support someone being bigoted. Feel free to be as bigoted as you like in that head of yours. Why would someone who is opposed to bigotry SUPPORT you being bigoted, though? I would not support it one bit. Indeed, I would find it extremely unfortunate and regrettable. Is this too hard for you? Maybe you could get your dictionary out again, it could I suppose help.

Also I do not see that "having the final word" comes into it. Certainly not from my side. I will post for as long as I feel interested enough, thus exercising my right of free speech. If you don't say something else idiotic, or as another option which may be easier for you, if you post something too stupid to bother with, in either of those cases you are very welcome to "the last word", if that is what makes you happy.

Well yes you did....

"I don't even remotely support their "right" to be bigoted in their own heads".

So you [ido[/i actually support the right for someone to be bigoted.

Which means that you have either:

1) Changed your opinion in the space of a few days; or

2) Incorrectly expressed your own opinions in your initial post.

The rest of your post is just claptrap which is not worthy of a substantive response.

FFS I said I don't support the right to be bigoted. That right sadly exists, otherwise there would be no right for me not to support, now would there, you thick ?


Translation: "I can't think of anything to say, but am too childish to know when to shut up".

Resorting to insults because you know you have been outsmarted.

Next time maybe your 'Goodbye' should actually mean goodbye. Save yourself getting too het up because someone challenges you on the internets

The bigot doth protest too much, methinks. You really are a very silly boy. The idea of being challenged by you brings Denis Healey's dead sheep to mind.

But there I think I'll leave it, unless you improbably actual have any thoughts, as opposed to puerile nonsense.

Would that be denier 15? I personally prefer sheer.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27346071Another witch hunt in full flight...[/url

An investigation is underway after a couple of lads in the RAF regiment dared to take a picture of themselves with a dead Taliban after that big attack on Camp Bastion in 2012. So, should they: A- apologise, B- be sacked, C- resign, D- face jail, or E- get a bit of a bollocking and everyone man up and get on with their lives. I vote E.

I despair. We train these lads to kill and get all worked up over 2 pictures when they've done their job. A picture isn't mistreatment, it's a picture. It may not be particularly dignified but these boys are in the killing game, a picture is probably the least of that dead chap's worries.

[url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c15_1396568591Link to original pictures, some NSFW but not particularly graphic.[/url

Pathetic.

I suspect they will get major administrative action, or pinged with Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline, which is a catch-all offence to deal with things the military don't like.

I also think there is something in the Geneva Convention about posing with dead bodies.

Stupid thing to do, should be disciplined harshly enough so that it's a deterrent to others but not a sacking or anything like that.

It seems to me that the BDLT (Big Daft Lad Theory © Jerry Chicken) applies here.

Absolutely. Stupid and deserves a slapped wrist, but it's a million miles from something like Abu Graib. It's a couple of lads, probably just been through that fierce firefight, taking a picture of the moment.

Jerry might be surprised to know I've quoted his theory many times, and I bet I'm not the only one.

The Big Daft Lad theory is a broad church and welcomes all applicants.

Yep, it needs to be made clear it's not acceptable, because could you imagine the outrage in this country if pictures of Taliban fighters/Iraqi soldiers etc posing with dead British soldiers had been released.
It's wrong, but not the crime of the century and seems to me to be a silly/stupid thing that happened rather than a deliberate attempt at abuse.
I'm also surprised this hasn't happened before to be honest.

sorry, they should be sacked and shamed, worthless animals that they are. To kill in the course of duty is one thing, to brag about it is what makes squaddies morons.

Suppose it had to happen one day, i agree with that.

I remember a droll commentary during the Iraq war to a video of a Cruise missile going down a shaft and expertly blowing up a building; the punch line, a second or so before it hit, was something like "And this is my counterpart's headquarters in Baghdad" or something like, which raised a few chuckles as no doubt dozens of Iraqis in the building met gruesome death.

What, in essence, is the difference between the soldier posing for the picture, and the commander gloating over a good kill on worldwide TV?

Exactly right FA. Although I suppose it would depend on what level of hypocrisy you are comfortable with.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news to our over excitable contributors, but there are literally thousands of photos and videos of these sort of acts on line.

A none event for me, and simply yet another exhibition of the Service's gallows humour. Which unless you have lived it, will not be understood by outsiders.