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

[Galactus]

5 minutes ago, freebyrd said:

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.

 

so you say, soldiers sacrificed themselves before did this for the great future we are living at the moment?

funny.

[freebyrd]

4 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

so you say, soldiers sacrificed themselves before did this for the great future we are living at the moment?

funny.

If they hadn't perhaps none of us, you included, would be here at the moment. Enough, I've never suffered fools gladly and you are a fool. By the way, congratulations for finally spelling soldiers correctly you nothign needs some work though.

[Deepinthailand]

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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.

[You sir are pathetic I would dismiss you in a heart beat

Edited February 2, 2017 by Deepinthailand

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

35 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

[You sir are pathetic I would dismiss you in a heart beat

 

Why do you assume i am male?

 

You make this about me. You could have responded to what I said. Thus proving my point that you do not have the capacity to engage on these issues as a gentleman. For that reason, your insults are like your character, wholly inadequate.

 

Please, continue making this about me. It is my favorite topic of discussion.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[overherebc]

5 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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.

 

And while your institutions spend weeks and months discussing the facts that you probably decide are the facts people are dying. 

The end result of all your negotiations will be a 3000 page document with the blood of innocents on every carefully worded page that only other institutions and bodies of PC idiots will pay any attention to.

The first time armed terrorists burst into your home or neighbourhood I'm sure you will make tea and serve cream buns while you discuss with them the error of their ways and they will leave with their heads hanging in shame.

Sorry to say, but, some of us have seen the real world.

You cannot negotiate with people who have no moral compass or compassion.

For your sake I hope the real world never jumps up and bites you in the backside.

[overherebc]

6 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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

You obviously weren't there.

[overherebc]

17 minutes ago, overherebc said:

You obviously weren't there.

As a self named Red Bull, an aggressive animal, why do you post as an intelligent pacifist?

PS

You don't need a period and question mark at the end of a question.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

37 minutes ago, overherebc said:

You obviously weren't there.

 

No I was not there. Would it have made a difference? I asserted that military intervention in Northern Ireland did not resolve the issue. Since you did not address that, I assume that I am correct on this issue. I was in the process of moving from short pants to long pants during that period. I do remember Bobby Sands. I also remember watching Gerry Adams talk on TV with his face blacked out and his words spoken by a voice actor. I also remember watching Crying Game. Is this enough to allow me to hold and to express an opinion?

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

35 minutes ago, overherebc said:

As a self named Red Bull, an aggressive animal, why do you post as an intelligent pacifist?

PS

You don't need a period and question mark at the end of a question.

 

With your grammatical critique, do you refer to this sentence below? You do realize that a question mark comes with a period fully installed. Otherwise, I really can't work out what you are saying on that issue.

 

7 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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

You are also wrong in your assumption about being self named. I have the honor to take the name ascribed to me in the local Thai press when being attacked by the Office of the Minister of Finance Somkid Jatusripitak 15 years ago. As you may know, Thai defamation laws are quite strict so defamatory attacks often use initials or aliases. You probably won't have seen it since it was in Thai. It was my 15 seconds of fame in the office in the MOF in which I worked at the time. So I wear it with pride. Please be precise when you reference it, the translation is Western Red Bull in the original word order, which I have switched around.

 

Enough off topic chit chat about me although like I said to the other poster that you earlier quoted, talking about me is my favorite past-time. All grammatical critique welcome of course.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[overherebc]

18 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

No I was not there. Would it have made a difference? I asserted that military intervention in Northern Ireland did not resolve the issue. Since you did not address that, I assume that I am correct on this issue. I was in the process of moving from short pants to long pants during that period. I do remember Bobby Sands. I also remember watching Gerry Adams talk on TV with his face blacked out and his words spoken by a voice actor. I also remember watching Crying Game. Is this enough to allow me to hold and to express an opinion?

Generally to hold and express an opinion on anything you actually have to have experienced something so you know what you are talking about.

Reading reports and watching TV news programmes doesn't really qualify anyone to express an informed opinion.

[overherebc]

14 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

With your grammatical critique, do you refer to this sentence below? You do realize that a question mark comes with a period fully installed. Otherwise, I really can't work out what you are saying on that issue.

 

You are also wrong in your assumption about being self named. I have the honor to take the name ascribed to me in the local Thai press when being attacked by the Office of the Minister of Finance Somkid Jatusripitak 15 years ago. As you may know, Thai defamation laws are quite strict so defamatory attacks often use initials or aliases. You probably won't have seen it since it was in Thai. It was my 15 seconds of fame in the office in the MOF in which I worked at the time. So I wear it with pride. Please be precise when you reference it, the translation is Western Red Bull in the original word order, which I have switched around.

 

Enough off topic chit chat about me although like I said to the other poster that you earlier quoted, talking about me is my favorite past-time. All grammatical critique welcome of course.

Not really interested in that part of your history as it has no bearing on the topic.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

 

And while your institutions spend weeks and months discussing the facts that you probably decide are the facts people are dying. 

The end result of all your negotiations will be a 3000 page document with the blood of innocents on every carefully worded page that only other institutions and bodies of PC idiots will pay any attention to.

The first time armed terrorists burst into your home or neighbourhood I'm sure you will make tea and serve cream buns while you discuss with them the error of their ways and they will leave with their heads hanging in shame.

Sorry to say, but, some of us have seen the real world.

You cannot negotiate with people who have no moral compass or compassion.

For your sake I hope the real world never jumps up and bites you in the backside.

 

I will certainly be on the look out for potential invaders of my home. I wonder what information I would find if I searched for the statistics on home invasion and specifically home invasion by terrorists - I presume you mean Islamic Terrorists since we now live in a time where attaching the religious tag demonstrates how tough we are being on terrorism. The answer is that I would be more likely to be killed by a shark in a tornado or something equally as improbable.

 

You assume that anyone who argues against war is a pacifist. I have read a bit about Quakerite pacifism when studying American history. I also mean to watch the movie Hacksaw Ridge when i get time. I have learned from this and other sources that equating pacifism with a lack of courage is woefully mistaken. However, I am not a pacifist. You assume a naïveté that is similarly mistaken. I did my first project in Afghanistan in 2005 and my latest visit on my current project was December 2016. I take full security precautions now (unlike 12 years ago when travel by armored vehicle was unnecessary). I observed in 2005 that the only way to resolve the Afghanistan conflict was through negotiation with the Taliban. 10 years and many lives and many billions of dollars later, the US military came to the same conclusion. This is jus tone example. Pick a war. Very few, if any are resolved by military means. This is not the same as saying that the military and soldiers are not necessary. I have never said that. You and others merely assume this.

 

I will not attempt to sway your opinion of international bodies and the role of negotiation, laws and multilateral cooperation in dealign with armed conflicts. I believe your position on such matters will be unchangeable, to wit, your boringly predictable use of the term PC. I will merely say that I believe that there is plenty of evidence to support my view and very little to support your view, if your view is that only military action can resolve international conflicts.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Generally to hold and express an opinion on anything you actually have to have experienced something so you know what you are talking about.

Reading reports and watching TV news programmes doesn't really qualify anyone to express an informed opinion.

 

Well, I thought Crying Game was a jolly good movie.

 

The rest of your statement is demonstratively rubbish.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

3 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Not really interested in that part of your history as it has no bearing on the topic.

 

And yet you waste bandwidth, time and mental exertion on grammatical issues and projections of another member's context. If you make a post about me, then you should really be prepared for a response about me. Assumed indifference is a little transparent in this case.

[overherebc]

1 minute ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Well, I thought Crying Game was a jolly good movie.

 

The rest of your statement is demonstratively rubbish.

So all your opinions on solving conflicts around the world is based on what you see and hear on TV and a movie?

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

5 minutes ago, overherebc said:

So all your opinions on solving conflicts around the world is based on what you see and hear on TV and a movie?

Well, wouldn't such a belief be as improbable as a belief that one has to have donned the kit and done duty on the streets of Belfast against the IRA to be able to express an opinion on the subject.

 

You didn't like the Crying Game? Stephen Rae's portrayal of an ex Squaddie not realistic enough for you?

Edited February 2, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[overherebc]

3 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

Well, wouldn't such a belief be as improbable as a belief that one has to have donned the kit and done duty on the streets of Belfast against the IRA to be able to express an opinion on the subject.

 

You didn't like the Crying Game? Stephen Rae's portrayal of an ex Squaddie not realistic enough for you?

Might come as big shock to you but just because a movie is in colour it doesn't actually mean it's real.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Might come as big shock to you but just because a movie is in colour it doesn't actually mean it's real.

 

Well thank you for that clarification. I will ponder its cryptic meaning overnight. Please, take the last word. If it is as incomprehensible as your last couple of posts, then I would struggle to find an appropriate, on topic response.

[Scott]

Next off-topic remark will earn a suspension.   Stay on topic.  

[Galactus]

16 hours ago, freebyrd said:

If they hadn't perhaps none of us, you included, would be here at the moment. Enough, I've never suffered fools gladly and you are a fool. By the way, congratulations for finally spelling soldiers correctly you nothign needs some work though.

ho hum. i wrote soldier wrong blah blah blah. quotes from someone fool, conceded and nothing to say:)

you know some of us work and need to type fast hence spelling mistakes. not everyone sit on bar stool constantly like you.

 

thinking again for the dead Briton and actually feel bad for him. RIP.

hopefully this will be a lesson for other foreign mercenaries roaming in the dangerous cursed lands.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Galactus

[freebyrd]

8 minutes ago, Galactus said:

ho hum. i wrote soldier wrong blah blah blah. quotes from someone fool, conceded and nothing to say:)

you know some of us work and need to type fast hence spelling mistakes. not everyone sit on bar stool constantly like you.

 

thinking again for the dead Briton and actually feel bad for him. RIP.

hopefully this will be a lesson for other foreign mercenaries roaming in the dangerous cursed lands.

I don't believe you care about anyone other than yourself.

[Celer et Audax]

 
No I was not there. Would it have made a difference? I asserted that military intervention in Northern Ireland did not resolve the issue. Since you did not address that, I assume that I am correct on this issue. I was in the process of moving from short pants to long pants during that period. I do remember Bobby Sands. I also remember watching Gerry Adams talk on TV with his face blacked out and his words spoken by a voice actor. I also remember watching Crying Game. Is this enough to allow me to hold and to express an opinion?

I would be careful about forming an opinion based on the "Crying Game" which as s film was a work of fiction

[Laughing Gravy]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 3:48 PM, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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.

I suggest you take a chill pill fella. Yes fella. Call it intuition or the way you write, suggesting you are male. I don't see ISIS as  a worthy  cause just terrorists. I could give you countless reasons why but I will not bother. Just look at the news, take Paris yesterday. all in the name of god eh. You can keep it.

[dazzz]

On 2/2/2017 at 3:30 PM, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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.

I dont need to write a big post of rubbish .; My argument is simple . In this world full of evil people if the good countries do not have armies then the evil will wreak destruction and  horror upon the innocent people of this world world . There so many evil people in this world the need for a soldier is imperitive .

[dazzz]

On 2/2/2017 at 3:30 PM, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

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.

Sorry just noticed THEY ARE NOT THE MALVINAS YOU ARGIE  X?>(*& they are the falkland islands Like to see you  there when i was there with my  7.62

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

19 hours ago, dazzz said:

Sorry just noticed THEY ARE NOT THE MALVINAS YOU ARGIE  X?>(*& they are the falkland islands Like to see you  there when i was there with my  7.62

 

I do not believe that making death threats is the sign of a mature and cultivated mind. In fact it is a very low class thing to do. Since you maintain that the world is full of evil people, I suppose this encompasses those who threaten others with death?

 

It is very apparent that with the relegation of the British military to below third grade as a result of it ineffectiveness in Afghanistan and Iraq the the Malvinas Islands will be recognized as Argentinian territory in the near future. The decision to have British people shed blood for a tiny group of subsidized sheep farmers was a grubby political exercise with no global consequence.

 

Britons should stay at home and leave the World to the new masters.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[roo860]

 

I do not believe that making death threats is the sign of a mature and cultivated mind. In fact it is a very low class thing to do. Since you maintain that the world is full of evil people, I suppose this encompasses those who threaten others with death?

 

It is very apparent that with the relegation of the British military to below third grade as a result of it ineffectiveness in Afghanistan and Iraq the the Malvinas Islands will be recognized as Argentinian territory in the near future. The decision to have British people shed blood for a tiny group of subsidized sheep farmers was a grubby political exercise with no global consequence.

 

Britons should stay at home and leave the World to the new masters.

Do you have something against the UK?

As for the Falkland Islanders accepting any sort of rule from Argentina, I think there's more chance of plaiting snow.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

27 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Do you have something against the UK?

As for the Falkland Islanders accepting any sort of rule from Argentina, I think there's more chance of plaiting snow.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

 

The UK? Not at all. The Little Englanders, most definitely.

 

In any case, my original issue was to question of whether the deaths of Britons (and other Westerners) fighting for the other side should be heralded as much as much as Mr. Lock and why his presence on the battlefield is more legitimate and heroic than those on the other side.

 

Clearly I understand the chauvinism behind such reasons.

 

As for the Malvinas Islands, there is clear historic legal precedent for British occupation however it is in dispute. In a rational world such a dispute should be managed according to international law. Why does the UK not accept this?

 

I have been to Kurdistan and worked in Irbil. It is a very safe and until the collapse in the gas prices, a very prosperous place. The UK participating in a multilateral effort to assist the Kurds is consistent with international law. Individual UK citizens do not have that luxury unless, it seems, that they fight for one particular side.

[roo860]

The Falklanders accepting any form of rule from Argentina is very very doubtful, they have long memories regarding the Argentine invasion.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 minutes ago, roo860 said:

The Falklanders accepting any form of rule from Argentina is very very doubtful, they have long memories regarding the Argentine invasion.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

I do not dispute that and even though this is way off topic now, I would just comment that I believe the economic contribution of the Malvinas Islands to the UK is negative. I recall an analysis from that time indicating that the entire population could be put up the Savoy for the rest of their lives at less cost to the UK taxpayer than the subsidies required to maintain their economy.

 

The feelings of a few thousand may not be enough to maintain the status quo. In any case, the control of the islands is in dispute. I have no view on the merits of the dispute but that dispute should be heard and arbitrated through provisions under international law. Otherwise UK participation in armed conflicts over other disputed territory is unethical.