Briton fighting in Syria 'killed himself' to avoid IS capture

[jak2002003]

6 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

point is, f ing system is wrong and bloody and there is nothing to be proud by being a soldier.

 

Yes, armies and soldiers are disposable things.... used by governments and those in power for their own gains.  I feel pity for them... putting their lives on the line for corrupt greedy people, having to kill other human beings that are trapped in the same situation. 

 

 

 

 

[freebyrd]

1 hour ago, phoneguy702 said:

Then keep quiet about those who are willing to take up a gun and defend the  lives of others, we are not killing machines we just see what we feel must be done and do it.  We do not ask for anything but for those who are not willing to face the horror face to face to just sit down and shut up.  

Good post

[freebyrd]

43 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

point is, f ing system is wrong and bloody and there is nothing to be proud by being a soldier.

 

And what has your contribution to protecting the lives of others been?

[freebyrd]

50 minutes ago, Galactus said:

how many families were protected by soldiers and how many families were killed by soldiers?

i am sure number people killed by soldiers are a lot more than the ones protected throughout the history.

of course a soldier is a tool.  it is all about their masters, the ones on the higher grounds. generals, politicians etc.

You are sure? It must be a joy to be perfect. You don't have a friend with a thatched hairstyle by any chance?

[Galactus]

13 minutes ago, freebyrd said:

And what has your contribution to protecting the lives of others been?

at least i contribute by not being a solider and i dont kill people, by orders or not.

 

11 minutes ago, freebyrd said:

You are sure? It must be a joy to be perfect. You don't have a friend with a thatched hairstyle by any chance?

nobody is perfect but at least we try our best.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

6 hours ago, dazzz said:

No you can sit in your home like a coward and let the killing machines protect you , your democratic lifestyle your family and your constitution and then slag them off . I have words to describe people like you but rules prohibit me from using them on here .

 

 

It is very difficult for me to see how Brits killing Argentinian people and together with Americans killing Iraqi and Afghani people have made me more secure. If my country is threatened, then I like generations before me would do everything to come to its defense. Defending anachronistic colonial outposts or taking up arms against a religion are not examples of just causes.

 

Morons and absolutists should not be involved in my defense. Calling another member a coward is a clear demonstration of weakness and the invalidity of whatever argument you are trying to make, which is not entirely apparent except for some quite mindless bluster.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, phoneguy702 said:

Then keep quiet about those who are willing to take up a gun and defend the  lives of others, we are not killing machines we just see what we feel must be done and do it.  We do not ask for anything but for those who are not willing to face the horror face to face to just sit down and shut up.  

 

A person with a gun demanding that citizens' voices be silenced.

 

Having been born after WWII, there is not one instance of my life being protected by someone else 'picking up a gun'. Your sentiment gives license to murder. It is not surprising that some do not care for this. They should be able to voice their concerns without your violent threats.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Laughing Gravy]

The fella was 20 so although young still was a man and made his own decisions. He obviously felt the need to take up arms and like many others in many countries and times, people stand up for what they believe in. I respect him for that. I do however feel that as an ex soldier he should have had proper training and gone into the 'conflict' as best prepared as possible.  I find it funny how some people condemn those who fight for their beliefs but they rely on the police, army etc when they are in need or need protecting.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The fella was 20 so although young still was a man and made his own decisions. He obviously felt the need to take up arms and like many others in many countries and times, people stand up for what they believe in. I respect him for that. I do however feel that as an ex soldier he should have had proper training and gone into the 'conflict' as best prepared as possible.  I find it funny how some people condemn those who fight for their beliefs but they rely on the police, army etc when they are in need or need protecting.

What is your view on mercenaries?

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What is your view on mercenaries?

It is a too broad subject to discuss here Grouse and depends on each situation. Some could argue that most soldiers are mercenaries to some extent.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, phoneguy702 said:

Then keep quiet about those who are willing to take up a gun and defend the  lives of others, we are not killing machines we just see what we feel must be done and do it.  We do not ask for anything but for those who are not willing to face the horror face to face to just sit down and shut up.  

"we just see what we feel must be done and do it."

 

Really? 

 

Just take the law law into your own hands? Declare war on whomever you so desire?

 

God help us!

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is a too broad subject to discuss here Grouse and depends on each situation. Some could argue that most soldiers are mercenaries to some extent.

Fair comment!

 

I just wonder if we should view people differently if they join the team we like rather than the team we don't like? What happens when they come home brutalised, scarred or injured? Difficult moral question.

[dazzz]

21 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

It is very difficult for me to see how Brits killing Argentinian people and together with Americans killing Iraqi and Afghani people have made me more secure. If my country is threatened, then I like generations before me would do everything to come to its defense. Defending anachronistic colonial outposts or taking up arms against a religion are not examples of just causes.

 

Morons and absolutists should not be involved in my defense. Calling another member a coward is a clear demonstration of weakness and the invalidity of whatever argument you are trying to make, which is not entirely apparent except for some quite mindless bluster.

And your argument is apparent ? Do you live in the same world as me ? What you have said is a complete load of rubbish . I was a british soldier for 12 years and i was proud to be one . How can you or anyone say we do not need soldiers .
 Education lesson for you . Not everybody in the world is loving and peacefull . If they were we would not need soldiers but the fact is any country without an arm would immediately be attacked by its neighbours.
 Lesson 2 . Killing argentinians was not meant to make you more secure but to make the falkland islanders more secure and to protect the islanders from the argentinians who would have without a doubt kicked them out and destroyed them.
 Lesson 3 iraq and iran was not about making you safe it was about saving the people from the abuse and murder of their extremely violent leaders  it did not work as  the west did not realize how much they wanted to kill each other.
 Lesson 4  how many millions would be slaughtered if not for un forces in places like bosnia croatia rhiwanda , sudan .Not entirely succefull but helped . If no country had soldiers the slaughter of the innocent would be millions  as the world is not just hussein , assad etc there are people like mugabe, , idi amin , kim jong , pol pott etc there are lots . These people would rule the world without soldier

[Deepinthailand]

3 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Without soldiers / sailors / airmen....  how would that island get invaded in the first place?

 

Its just a vicious circle.... 

Of course it would do you think all countries play by the rules. No soldiers in the free west means places like N KOREA would rule the world. ISIS would be in the west killing as they pleased.

[Deepinthailand]

55 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

It is very difficult for me to see how Brits killing Argentinian people and together with Americans killing Iraqi and Afghani people have made me more secure. If my country is threatened, then I like generations before me would do everything to come to its defense. Defending anachronistic colonial outposts or taking up arms against a religion are not examples of just causes.

 

Morons and absolutists should not be involved in my defense. Calling another member a coward is a clear demonstration of weakness and the invalidity of whatever argument you are trying to make, which is not entirely apparent except for some quite mindless bluster.

You have no idea have you. So a nation can decide they want a particular piece of land/island go there with force and take it against the indigenous populations wishes. Then the ruling nation of that land according to you are not allowed to liberate that land.

Ps was it ok for Argentines to kill British then!

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

39 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The fella was 20 so although young still was a man and made his own decisions. He obviously felt the need to take up arms and like many others in many countries and times, people stand up for what they believe in. I respect him for that. I do however feel that as an ex soldier he should have had proper training and gone into the 'conflict' as best prepared as possible.  I find it funny how some people condemn those who fight for their beliefs but they rely on the police, army etc when they are in need or need protecting.

 

Fine sentiments. All very Hemmingway and the Spanish Civil War. Quite romantic. I happen to personally support the same cause this person apparently died for. I believe the Kurds should be entitled to self determination. I have worked in Kurdistan and know many Kurds but I wonder at the motivation for someone to enrol in another country's armed services to fight a war that is clearly not their own.

 

Do you romanticism this person? You seem to support him 'fighting for his beliefs'. What is the difference between this person and Jake Bilardi, the Melbourne teenager who fought for ISIS http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/bilardi-left-bomb-making-material-home-before-leaving-to-join-is/6307370 and apparently died in a suicide bombing. Do you estend the same respect to him and the many UK citizens who have similarly joined ISIS?

 

I don't suppose so. Wrong beliefs I would guess.

 

The State was the first corporate body politic developed by humans. It's enduring responsibility has been to protect its citizens. For that, citizens pay taxes. The idea that a citizen should not be protected because they may question the use of arms is quite fascist in my view. The logical consequence of your view is to justify an eternal belligerence against any and all who don't share your views. Which may just describe US foreign policy now.

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

"we just see what we feel must be done and do it."

 

Really? 

 

Just take the law law into your own hands? Declare war on whomever you so desire?

 

God help us!

 

When a certain organisation was bombing and shooting civilians in their own backyard, and their neighbours, who else is going to try and stop them.

A soap box hero?

All it takes for evil to exists etc etc

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, dazzz said:

And your argument is apparent ? Do you live in the same world as me ? What you have said is a complete load of rubbish . I was a british soldier for 12 years and i was proud to be one . How can you or anyone say we do not need soldiers .
 Education lesson for you . Not everybody in the world is loving and peacefull . If they were we would not need soldiers but the fact is any country without an arm would immediately be attacked by its neighbours.
 Lesson 2 . Killing argentinians was not meant to make you more secure but to make the falkland islanders more secure and to protect the islanders from the argentinians who would have without a doubt kicked them out and destroyed them.
 Lesson 3 iraq and iran was not about making you safe it was about saving the people from the abuse and murder of their extremely violent leaders  it did not work as  the west did not realize how much they wanted to kill each other.
 Lesson 4  how many millions would be slaughtered if not for un forces in places like bosnia croatia rhiwanda , sudan .Not entirely succefull but helped . If no country had soldiers the slaughter of the innocent would be millions  as the world is not just hussein , assad etc there are people like mugabe, , idi amin , kim jong , pol pott etc there are lots . These people would rule the world without soldier

 

My argument was in direct response to your challenge that the so called 'killing machine' protects me, my democratic lifestyle, my family, my constitution etc. I posed the novel idea that no soldier killing an Argentinian, Iraqi or Afghani has ever achieve such a thing by doing so. Me, my democratic lifestyle, my family and my constitution have remained perfectly safe during my lifetime from the avoidance of killing and he use of multilateral and democratic institutions to resolve conflicts.

 

But now you wish to change the goal posts. You now argue other issues in a quite vain attempt to justify your first issue. This is a logical fallacy known as 'moving the goalposts' https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

 

You now argue the dangerousness of the World. Your solution is the mobilization of national armies. I do not agree. You now say that soldiers are not protecting me as an individual but others who are threatened such as the occupant of the Malivas Islands. A silly and gratuitous conflict that not even the Americans supported that could have been resolved in other ways. I do feel that the collapse of the military junta as a result of the re-conquest of the islands was a good outcome but probably not worth the lives of those who died on land and at sea. You now say that Iraq and I presume Afghanistan was about saving the Iraqi and Afghan people, not me. OK but was it necessary to kill so many of them? And now we have started down that road, why are you not advocating similar actions against other strong men who are oppressing their citizens e.g. Mugabe, Kim Jong Un, etc. You now justify the use of armed forces in preventing mass slaughter in a range of global previous and current hotspots. I would say that in almost all of these cases, you will find that multilateral action by nations and institutions resulted in the cessation of mass slaughter and generally through political and diplomatic means rather than through conquest.

 

You seem to think that I argue against 'the soldier'. I am not. I am arguing against the mentality expressed by Jack Nicholson's character in 'A Few Good Men':

 

You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall

http://www.monologuedb.com/dramatic-male-monologues/a-few-good-men-colonel-nathan-r-jessep/

 

At some point, deployment of a soldier may be necessary but it should be realized that multilateral action creates more strength than ever increasing tonnage of munitions and negotiation is a far more successful tool to end conflict than bullets.

 

Australian soldiers killing Vietnamese people did not make me safe, nor did it make the Vietnamese people safe (To save the village we have to destroy it). British soldiers killing Argentinians in the Malvinas did not protect my democratic lifestyle. Americans killing Iraqis in Baghdad did not protect my constitution.

 

Mindless, unthinking and uncritical support for soldiers who engage in armed conflict should no longer be an expectation. Passing the blame to political leaders who deploy soldiers into armed conflict should no longer be an excuse. The abuses by soldiers against civilians and combatants in the Middle East conflicts of the past few decades is clear demonstration of this anachronistic point of view. The era of the 'Good Wars' is over.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Laughing Gravy]

34 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

Fine sentiments. All very Hemmingway and the Spanish Civil War. Quite romantic. I happen to personally support the same cause this person apparently died for. I believe the Kurds should be entitled to self determination. I have worked in Kurdistan and know many Kurds but I wonder at the motivation for someone to enrol in another country's armed services to fight a war that is clearly not their own.

 

Do you romanticism this person? You seem to support him 'fighting for his beliefs'. What is the difference between this person and Jake Bilardi, the Melbourne teenager who fought for ISIS http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/bilardi-left-bomb-making-material-home-before-leaving-to-join-is/6307370 and apparently died in a suicide bombing. Do you estend the same respect to him and the many UK citizens who have similarly joined ISIS?

You are making assumptions. Tell me where I have said I support him. You are reading something and coming up with your own conclusions. As for romanticizing you are delusional. There is nothing romantic about war anytime people die but some things are worth dying for. I did not say that this mans death was worth it. It would seem you are passionate about the cause this man was involved in. I commented on the fact that he fought for his beliefs but wasn't properly trained for the task. That is it.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Laughing Gravy

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

44 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

You have no idea have you. So a nation can decide they want a particular piece of land/island go there with force and take it against the indigenous populations wishes. Then the ruling nation of that land according to you are not allowed to liberate that land.

Ps was it ok for Argentines to kill British then!

 

I see that you have no knowledge of or experience with International Law. It is the civilized way for nation stats to engage with each other. Recidivist or obstructionist nation states can be dealt with through the strength of united action deploying a range of non lethal strategies that could resolve issues.

 

The question is not whether I think that it is ok for Argentinians to kill British people - and to make it very clear, you made this statement, not me - the question is what were the British soldiers doing on those islands and whether that was an appropriate response to Argentine aggression.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

10 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You are making assumptions. Tell me where I have said I support him. You are reading something and coming up with your own conclusions. As for romanticizing you are delusional. There is nothing romantic about war anytime. It would seem you are passionate about the cause this man was involved in. I commented on the fact that he fought for his beliefs but wasn't properly trained for the task. That is it.

 

Of course I am making assumptions. I based those assumptions on the words you use. You say you 'respect' the person for 'standing up for his beliefs' and I ask whether you respect Jake Bilardi or any of the UK citizens who fought for ISIS in the same way. You don't want to answer the question? Fine, but my inferences from your words seems to be quite consistent with the core sentiment in the first half of your post.

[Grouse]

24 minutes ago, overherebc said:

 

When a certain organisation was bombing and shooting civilians in their own backyard, and their neighbours, who else is going to try and stop them.

A soap box hero?

All it takes for evil to exists etc etc

Enlighten me.....

[overherebc]

34 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Enlighten me.....

Early 70's home ground.

[overherebc]

2 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

A person with a gun demanding that citizens' voices be silenced.

 

Having been born after WWII, there is not one instance of my life being protected by someone else 'picking up a gun'. Your sentiment gives license to murder. It is not surprising that some do not care for this. They should be able to voice their concerns without your violent threats.

Anything spring to mind in the UK in the late 60's early 70's.?

[Deepinthailand]

52 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I see that you have no knowledge of or experience with International Law. It is the civilized way for nation stats to engage with each other. Recidivist or obstructionist nation states can be dealt with through the strength of united action deploying a range of non lethal strategies that could resolve issues.

 

The question is not whether I think that it is ok for Argentinians to kill British people - and to make it very clear, you made this statement, not me - the question is what were the British soldiers doing on those islands and whether that was an appropriate response to Argentine aggression.

You are spouting absolute rubbish and you know it I won't bother replying as I have little doubt you are a troll and replying would result in myself getting a ban and trust me you are not worth the effort. When it comes time when you count on your soldiers to save you please put a black cross on your house door so we know not to bother.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

27 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Anything spring to mind in the UK in the late 60's early 70's.?

 

You refer to the 'Troubles'? Military intervention by British soldiers did not resolve that conflict.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

26 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

You are spouting absolute rubbish and you know it I won't bother replying as I have little doubt you are a troll and replying would result in myself getting a ban and trust me you are not worth the effort. When it comes time when you count on your soldiers to save you please put a black cross on your house door so we know not to bother.

 

I argue the role of international law and multilateral agreements and institutions in resolving conflict. I question Thatcher's use of armed force to resolve the Malvinas issue.

 

You respond with crude bluster demonstrating an attitude that I would argue should disqualify a person from being armed and authorized by the State to kill people. But no matter. You clearly don't have the chops to refute my argument. You are dismissed.

[Thorgal]

Don't know if this young Briton would have so many respect if he would have died as a volunteer fighting the same enemy ISIS in let's say Assads army ?

It's not clear why people make this different although they are engaged for the same war...

Same same that Russian, Hezbollah and foreign Iranian fighters are engaged in this same war against ISIS.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

Early 70's home ground.

Ah! Yes I see!

 

Don't have an answer for that....

[freebyrd]

6 hours ago, Galactus said:

at least i contribute by not being a solider and i dont kill people, by orders or not.

 

nobody is perfect but at least we try our best.

I have never killed anyone, just the same as many thousands of other servicemen who were involved in that war didn't. The point is, that you patently can't grasp, is we were ready, as are the present generation, to sacrifice ourselves so that others could survive and be free.