I agree , but then they other people maybe less successful if our troops were better equiped. At least for once the Mail have had the decency to avoid the inclusion of a grinning Littlejohn of ‘money off’ banner on such a serious front page.
Judging by the lack of quotation marks I assume this is a headline made up bt the mail. I doubt a grieving widow would make such a barely disguised political swipe.
This is one of the ugliest, most amateur front pages they’ve ever devised. Pictures in pictures, no alignment, text squashed at the bottom. They should be ashamed.
And with such conflicting arguements on the provision of equipment how can we be possibly sure if the army is any more less well equipped than they have been in the past.
Comparsions of Military transport between us and the USA is always going make us look less equipped, for starters they have more troops in afghanistan.
Well we’ve had the ZanuLabMcBroon bash but where’s the tory promise to male British soldiers immortal in combat?
Honestly, the guff these tw@ts shovel out day in day out.
Newsflash, war is a sh*tty deadly business and people get hurt and die.
But.
180 or so British deaths are minute compared to any ‘proper’ war losses to date and God only knows what the opposition’s casualty numbers are like.
Nevermind.
Onward with peddling the childish fantasy that a couple more armored cars and helicopters will see an end to all future British casualties.
Has that woman actually given a quote or interview to the Mail? I’m sure she’ll be thrilled to learn her image and grief are being used to emotionally manipulate readers of a right-wing newspaper.
I don’t like this use of people going through horrible grief and mourning as some sort of politically-aimed attack tool. It’s vulgar and inappropriate. Look, it’s a weeping widow/orphaned child! And it’s ALL LABOUR’S FAULT!
Even if she didn’t say it, what the Mail is trying to say is correct (god I hate when that happens). But I’ll agree with the others, its rather morbid to use something like this for political purposes.
do any of the sensible people on here ever comment on commentisfree at the guardian. if not please do, we need your help – the comments are becoming a mouthpiece for the extreme right.
I agree, it’s like a charicature of the DM/DT/DE website.
Bl*ody aweful most of the time
(excepting the footy comments which reasonably often have some hilarious banter).
‘do any of the sensible people on here ever comment on commentisfree at the guardian. if not please do, we need your help – the comments are becoming a mouthpiece for the extreme right.”
I always saw the Guardian as the liberal version of the DM/DE.
Soldiers. Trained to kill, sent to places with people that will try to kill them.
I agree , but then they other people maybe less successful if our troops were better equiped. At least for once the Mail have had the decency to avoid the inclusion of a grinning Littlejohn of ‘money off’ banner on such a serious front page.
Panthers Claw is a major offensive,sadly people will die on both sides.
Jeez, this looks more like the front cover of “Take a Break” or “Chat” magazines.
Judging by the lack of quotation marks I assume this is a headline made up bt the mail. I doubt a grieving widow would make such a barely disguised political swipe.
Emotion p0rn.
This is one of the ugliest, most amateur front pages they’ve ever devised. Pictures in pictures, no alignment, text squashed at the bottom. They should be ashamed.
It’s war, thats what happens….
And with such conflicting arguements on the provision of equipment how can we be possibly sure if the army is any more less well equipped than they have been in the past.
Comparsions of Military transport between us and the USA is always going make us look less equipped, for starters they have more troops in afghanistan.
Well we’ve had the ZanuLabMcBroon bash but where’s the tory promise to male British soldiers immortal in combat?
Honestly, the guff these tw@ts shovel out day in day out.
Newsflash, war is a sh*tty deadly business and people get hurt and die.
But.
180 or so British deaths are minute compared to any ‘proper’ war losses to date and God only knows what the opposition’s casualty numbers are like.
Nevermind.
Onward with peddling the childish fantasy that a couple more armored cars and helicopters will see an end to all future British casualties.
Has that woman actually given a quote or interview to the Mail? I’m sure she’ll be thrilled to learn her image and grief are being used to emotionally manipulate readers of a right-wing newspaper.
I don’t like this use of people going through horrible grief and mourning as some sort of politically-aimed attack tool. It’s vulgar and inappropriate. Look, it’s a weeping widow/orphaned child! And it’s ALL LABOUR’S FAULT!
Even if she didn’t say it, what the Mail is trying to say is correct (god I hate when that happens). But I’ll agree with the others, its rather morbid to use something like this for political purposes.
do any of the sensible people on here ever comment on commentisfree at the guardian. if not please do, we need your help – the comments are becoming a mouthpiece for the extreme right.
bantutzu
I agree, it’s like a charicature of the DM/DT/DE website.
Bl*ody aweful most of the time
(excepting the footy comments which reasonably often have some hilarious banter).
‘do any of the sensible people on here ever comment on commentisfree at the guardian. if not please do, we need your help – the comments are becoming a mouthpiece for the extreme right.”
I always saw the Guardian as the liberal version of the DM/DE.