Defending your country is not murder.

[Tez3]

Lol. Allow me to sum this up. Conspiracies don't exist, but the British are the masters of them. Also, evil people don't rule, but we're all fallen in the end.

Illusions.

If you want things to change, give up the illusions of religion, of nationalism, and of violent authority. Then, withhold your consent. That is as practical as it gets as far as making things better goes.

I said your conspiracies don't exist, the ones you think everyone but you are in, mmm perhaps that's the problem we've left you out of our plans and you feel sad.

I think you are having conversation with yourself because more than half of what you write makes no sense. I actually have no idea what you mean when you say 'evil people don't rule, but we've all fallen in the end', is it something weird and mystical?

What is evil? Is it leaders who believe they are doing the best for their country but in doing so cause problems for others? I don't think Carter was evil when he bankrolled the Taliban, I think he was stupid and was poking his nose where he shouldn't, I think America does interfere too much in other countries but I don't think it's evil, I think your leaders think they are doing it for the good of their country. I think it's high handed but not evil. Evil is invading other countries as Hitler did, evil is killing millions of people as the Nazis did, as the Khmer Rouge did. The world is full of people who meaning well and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The British thought that they were doing good for the 'natives' of the countries they ruled as well as enriching Britain and themselves, not in itself evil but seriously wrong and misguided. Again high handed and egotisical but not actually evil.
Withold my consent to what? To the killing of twunts that throw acid in the faces of school girls? I'd kill them myself given the chance. To stopping suicide bombers who kill their own people indiscriminately? I'd happily blow them to kingdom come.
Do you think I should stop voting? When good women have suffered and even died to get me that vote, oh no not a chance. Mouthing 'withhold your consent' is meaningless I'm afraid, it's nothing more than cant.

 

[Makalakumu]

The world is full of people who mean well and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The "good intentions" are some of the illusions of which I speak and "hell" is the result of believing in illusions.

Ultimately, you have to judge for yourself. So, what is the truth?

 

[Makalakumu]

On withholding consent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html#_ftn1

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.[/FONT]

Perhaps an Englishman can read the words of a Frenchman without holding their nose too high...

 

[Tez3]

On withholding consent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html#_ftn1



Perhaps an Englishman can read the words of a Frenchman without holding their nose too high...

You make too many assumptions and some of them are insulting. You believe too many fallacies such as that of English people and the French, shame on you.

You also talk in generalities, what dictators, consent to what, serve who? Man up and say what you actually mean...if you actually mean anything.

 

[Sukerkin]

Steady now, ladies and gents - I get the distinct impression here that your arguments are passing over each others shoulders rather than meeting in the middle before your eyes so that you can consider what you are talking about intelligently and reasonably.

 

[Tez3]

I'm afraid you're a bit off there, I'm immensely amused. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I don't mind a good argument but how anyone can argue intelligently against things as vague as 'don't consent', 'there's evil leaders about' 'get rid of your illusions' and keep a straight face is beyond me. there is no intelligent argument to be made against or for such statements. What can you say about 'rid yourself of illusions about religions'...is it the illusions they don't exist, they don't work or that they do exist and they do work? What illusions? As for illusions about governments and our glorious leaders, good grief who on earth has illusions about them anymore? Good intentions are evil? Really?
All I want is a reasonable argument, straight forward statements, I don't want vague words that have been waved about in a hippie tent over a smoke or two of some illegal substance. Say what you mean and stand by it. We might not agree but it will be a down to earth discussion rather than an ethereal one.

 

[K-man]

This confusion is all the fault of the English. If it wasn't for language we wouldn't be having this fascinating exchange. I think we should take a look at definitions. (I've taken the liberty of using the US version of the Oxford dictionary as I am aware that Americans don't always use the meaning of words as they understood in the UK and countries with strong British links, like Australia. )

Definition of illusion
noun
a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses:
the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background
a deceptive appearance or impression:
the illusion of family togetherness
the tension between illusion and reality
a false idea or belief:
he had no illusions about the trouble she was in
Phrases


be under the illusion that


believe mistakenly that:
the world is under the illusion that the original painting still hangs in the Winter Palace
be under no illusion (or illusions)


be fully aware of the true state of affairs.
Derivatives


illusional


Pronunciation: /-ZHənl/ adjective
Origin:


Middle English (in the sense 'deceiving, deception'): via Old French from Latin illusio(n-), from illudere 'to mock', from in- 'against' + ludere 'play'


Definition of delusion


noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder:
the delusion of being watched
the action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded:
what a capacity television has for delusion


Phrases


delusions of grandeur


a false impression of one’s own importance.
Derivatives


delusional


Pronunciation: /-ZHənl/ adjective
Origin:


late Middle English (in the sense 'act of deluding or of being deluded'): from late Latin delusio(n-), from the verb deludere (see delude)

I feel in this thread the words are being mixed. For example, religion is being called an illusion. Is it really illusion, or is it delusion? Are our leaders creating an illusion, or are they deluding us?


Then we have conspiracy theory. What is the reason for the US involvement in Afghanistan? Initially 9/11 and Al Qaeda, but what are we there for now? Bin Laden is dead and Al Queda has moved to other countries. So Makalakumais right in saying we shouldn't still be there. If you want conspiracy theory, how about this? American arms manufacturers would go out of business if there were no wars and American politics are oiled by donations from such companies. Or, the US uses a disproportionate amount of natural resources, eg oil, and rather than upset the US voters by restricting supply to suit local production. That is why we are all mired in the Middle East. If we were really concerned with right or wrong wouldn't we be involved in Somalia or Zimbabwe?


But let's look at the situation. What ever the cause of the conflict, we are in the ***** together.

NATO-ISAF aims to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, to help provide security, and to contribute to a better future for the Afghan people. NATO-ISAF, as part of the overall international community effort and as mandated by the United Nations Security Council, is working to create the conditions whereby the government of Afghanistan is able to exercise its authority throughout the country.

Our presence in Afghanistan is not an illusion. We may be deluded in thinking we can impose our way of life on people who really have no intention of changing their way of thinking but we are not there because 'evil' leaders have sent us there. We have made terrible mistakes. Innocent civilians have lost their lives and homes at the hands of our troops, but tens of thousands more have lost their lives and freedom to the Taliban. The Afghan government is corrupt and when our troops do withdraw, I predict there will be massive unrest and loss of life as the warring factions try to take control.


But, I am squarely behind Tez when it comes to backing our troops. They are under strict rules of engagement and unless there is a deliberate flouting of those rules we should not be prosecuting them when mistakes are made under the stress of war. There are examples where courts martial is appropriate, such as the incident in Iraq, exposed by Wikileaks, that severely embarrassed the US government. How many other cover ups have there been?


Then we have this, old news I know, but interesting nevertheless.

In case you missed it:


US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war:


Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."


In case you missed it:


Incinerating Iraqis; the napalm cover up :


Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had "lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq". (06-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims.

We have been lied to by the US government, but that does not make all those politicians evil. There may be some that believe the end justifies the means, but that would not be the majority. And, have they been spun a pack of lies by vested interests in the Pentagon? Did they inadvertently mislead the world?


Regardless, this is not a black and white issue. But Tez is right on the money when she says that the British troops are honourable. Along with the Australian and other coalition troops they are trying to play the best hand they can with a stacked deck. The question is, who stacked the deck? Mmm! :asian:

 

[Tez3]

You can always trust an Aussie to put his finger exactly on the point, no bluster, no spin just plain truth in plain language. Cheers!

and the Aussie troops are second to none, enterprising, brave and the holders of the most amazing sense of humour. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

All I want is a reasonable argument, straight forward statements, I don't want vague words that have been waved about in a hippie tent over a smoke or two of some illegal substance. Say what you mean and stand by it. We might not agree but it will be a down to earth discussion rather than an ethereal one.

Okay, so here is a recap.

1. A thread was started with the title "Defending your country is not murder" and I clicked, because, on the surface, I would agree with that statement.

2. I continued reading and discovered that the "defense" in question was Afghanistan and that we were discussing the details of five Marines who were awaiting trial for a particular killing of an armed resistor.

3. I challenged the concept of "defense" and showed how this war was actually an act of aggressive nation building, which makes the details of why the victim died unimportant. Then, I listed a basic moral principle that was being violated, thus all of the killings could be considered murder.

4. I took the point further and listed the various evil acts that were occurring. I listed acts from the double tap drone strikes, to the night raids, to the use of DU in the field, showing that the war was unquestionably immoral. Then, I wondered out loud how people could continue to participate in this when it was so obviously immoral.

5. I was told my several posters that it was something I couldn't understand because I had not pledged myself to serve a higher ideal.

6. I challenged this by showing how these higher ideals served the government and by showing the convoluted reasons why the governments in questions may actually be participating in the war. (Unocal/Pipelinistan, CIA drug dealing to the tune of 500 billion dollars, and one of the largest concentrations of rare earth elements - the kind that make this computer possible - that are located in Afghanistan.)

7. It was responded that the "higher ideals" were separate from the government and even though all of those reasons I listed were valid reasons corrupt governments actually were involved in Afghanistan, it didn't matter. There was a "higher ideal" to serve and it wasn't possible to simply quit or immediately pull out.

8. I responded that I thought those "higher ideals" were illusions and that the only thing that really mattered was the results on the ground. Then, I listed the various evil acts, showed how the war was not only an aggressive act of nation building, but also an extension of the same mercantilistic foreign policies that have dominated western nations for centuries.

9. Then, it was argued that I simply didn't understand Afghan and that our presence was important there for human rights.

10. To which I replied that it was no longer possible to call this war a "defense of the country" and then I listed the human rights abuses that were caused by our side for the last 40 years and that we had created the very problems that were taking place now. Taking it further, I suggested again that people involved should not serve a government that would have you engage in these evil acts because democracy had failed to stop the corrupt governments up to this point.

11. Again, "higher ideals" were brought up and I riposted that these were illusions and if you really wanted to make a moral calculation, you needed to look at the results.

12. Then, I post materials on how withholding your consent from evil is one way to take away it's power. I opined that people should quit, resign, and not even enlist in the military if they wanted to remain morally good in this kind of environment.

This is all paraphrased of course, but maybe now you can see how this train of thought developed.

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay, so here is a recap.

1. A thread was started with the title "Defending your country is not murder" and I clicked, because, on the surface, I would agree with that statement.

2. I continued reading and discovered that the "defense" in question was Afghanistan and that we were discussing the details of five Marines who were awaiting trial for a particular killing of an armed resistor.

3. I challenged the concept of "defense" and showed how this war was actually an act of aggressive nation building, which makes the details of why the victim died unimportant. Then, I listed a basic moral principle that was being violated, thus all of the killings could be considered murder.

4. I took the point further and listed the various evil acts that were occurring. I listed acts from the double tap drone strikes, to the night raids, to the use of DU in the field, showing that the war was unquestionably immoral. Then, I wondered out loud how people could continue to participate in this when it was so obviously immoral.

5. I was told my several posters that it was something I couldn't understand because I had not pledged myself to serve a higher ideal.

6. I challenged this by showing how these higher ideals served the government and by showing the convoluted reasons why the governments in questions may actually be participating in the war. (Unocal/Pipelinistan, CIA drug dealing to the tune of 500 billion dollars, and one of the largest concentrations of rare earth elements - the kind that make this computer possible - that are located in Afghanistan.)

7. It was responded that the "higher ideals" were separate from the government and even though all of those reasons I listed were valid reasons corrupt governments actually were involved in Afghanistan, it didn't matter. There was a "higher ideal" to serve and it wasn't possible to simply quit or immediately pull out.

8. I responded that I thought those "higher ideals" were illusions and that the only thing that really mattered was the results on the ground. Then, I listed the various evil acts, showed how the war was not only an aggressive act of nation building, but also an extension of the same mercantilistic foreign policies that have dominated western nations for centuries.

9. Then, it was argued that I simply didn't understand Afghan and that our presence was important there for human rights.

10. To which I replied that it was no longer possible to call this war a "defense of the country" and then I listed the human rights abuses that were caused by our side for the last 40 years and that we had created the very problems that were taking place now. Taking it further, I suggested again that people involved should not serve a government that would have you engage in these evil acts because democracy had failed to stop the corrupt governments up to this point.

11. Again, "higher ideals" were brought up and I riposted that these were illusions and if you really wanted to make a moral calculation, you needed to look at the results.

12. Then, I post materials on how withholding your consent from evil is one way to take away it's power. I opined that people should quit, resign, and not even enlist in the military if they wanted to remain morally good in this kind of environment.

This is all paraphrased of course, but maybe now you can see how this train of thought developed.

Or maybe I could have saved my time and posted this article.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/11/05/270612/invade/

"Study: Britain invaded 90% of the countries in the world. Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain."

Can you call it defense when this is your history? How much propaganda did it take to convince people that you could call it defense despite the history?

BTW - I'll take the Beatles, Iron Maiden, Motörhead, etc as a British Invasion. I bet even the Afghans would have liked John Lennon. Send in the Beatles!

Oh, and I like these guys because I think they may have an answer to the questions I posed above.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U

 

[K-man]

Sorry but, although I can agree with some of your statement, I cannot accept all of what you say. Let's look back.

In the end, NATO is the aggressive force occupying Afghanistan. The people living there, with the drone strikes, the night raids, and wedding massacres, have every right to defend THEIR HOMES. They can change the rules and make whatever kind of crazy "rules of engagement" they want and it doesn't matter. NATO needs to do the right thing and leave Afghanistan. The people who put the troops in this situation need to be held responsible.

That might be your opinion but I doubt it can stand scrutiny. People living in a war zone take their lives in their own hands if the choose to open fire on occupying forces. The fact is, the forces are there. I happen to agree with you that we should not be there and for that you can blame the 50% of eligible American voters who could not be bothered voting. If the American public wanted out, they can make it happen. But is won't happen unless the US public get of their collective arses and demand withdrawal. This is nothing to do with NATO. The coalition forces are there because America is there! Australian forces are not there because of NATO. We are there to show support for the US in combatting terrorism. I don't believe the UK is there because of NATO either. IMO they are also there to back the US.

in the end it is not NATO that is the aggressive force occupying Afghanistan. The US is the aggressive force and they do not occupy Afghanistan. They are there bogged down as they were in Vietnam 45 years ago. Talk about repeating mistakes!


So let's look at 'rules of engagement'. I can only surmise what they are as they are not publicly available for obvious reasons. However, they are based on the Geneva convention and they are designed to give protection to civilians and forces alike. They also include treatment of the enemy and that is what this is all about.


Now, you might know something that I don't, but the details of this incident have not been made public. From my reading you can have the situation where a Taliban fighter can kill as many coalition forces he likes then when it looks like he is in trouble, he throws away his weapon and surrenders. I wouldn't blame any soldier for killing such a person on the spot if he has just seen his mates killed by this person. These Taliban fighters are not 'protecting their homes'. They are actively trying to kill our forces and I would give our forces full support in getting rid of such people.


So, back to this situation. The guy was shooting at British troops who returned fire. The guy is wounded. We don't know whether his injuries are life threatening or not. There is something on a computer that shows British troops discussing what they should do but not what caused the death of the man. Was he killed or just left to die? Do you know what actually happened? You are judging these guys without knowing any of the facts apart from the fact that you believe they shouldn't have been there in the first place.


Now, let's look at who put the troops there as you say they are responsible. Well, when the World Trade Centre came down your fellow citizens were the ones who sent in the troops. Nearly 3,000 civilians died that day and Geoge Bush's approval rating rose to 90% with his declaration of war on terror. Congress passed the Unlike Iraq which was invaded on a bunch of lies, Afghanistan was targeted because of their harbouring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Would you have turned the other cheek and waited for them to blow up another four airliners? Perhaps even take out the White House? What do you imagine Russia would do if some terrorist group blew up the Kremlin, or the Indians if the same group took out the Taj Mahal. Most of the world supported US action in Afghanistan but it should have been short and sharp.


You also say NATO should do the right thing and get out. There are a about 130,000 troops in Afghanistan. Of these 90,000 are US, 10,000 UK, Germany 5,000, Italy 4,000 and France and Australia around 3,000 each. That leaves about 15,000 from the other 44 countries. In one form or another, 49 countries are supporting the US, not NATO. The US President was the one who put the troops there after Congress passed the act supporting intervention against countries harbouring terrorists.

On September 14, 2001 a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress authorizing U.S. Presidents to fight terrorists and the nations that harbor them called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

Are you really suggesting that these elected people of your country and President Bush should be held responsible when they had the support of 90% of your citizens? I know you don't really have a democracy (I was told some time back that you have a Representative Republic), but I would think a majority of nine to one would pretty much authorise the use of force in this situation.

Which brings me around the Royal Marines. It doesn't matter if they shot that guy in accordance with the rules of engagement. It's wrong no matter what. The poor sods signed their lives away to a corrupt government that fed them a bunch of lies and sent them away to kill people over a boogeyman myth. If they are being victimized in any way, it's by the twisted corporate bureaucrats with their obfuscated convoluted self serving agendas. The soldiers, the civilians, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda are merely pawns to them.

no wonder Tez took offence. What is written here is an emotive untruth. In war it is not wrong to kill the person who is trying to kill you, within the rules of engagement. And, they did not sign their lives away to a corrupt government. To suggest the British Government is corrupt is just plain garbage. That the government fed them lies is also wrong. Intelligence was right that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were, at that time based in Afghanistan, aided and harboured by the Taliban and Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Where are the lies and who is the bogeyman? Where is the myth? And, who are these 'twisted corporate beurocrats with their obfuscated, convoluted self serving agendas'? Now, I can't speak for the US but in Australia and I also believe in Britain, the Public Service does a fantastic job in keeping our politicians informed and advised. I have seen no evidence to back your extravagant claims.

So, anyone who shoots back at an aggressor is an "enemy soldier"? That's ridiculous. I don't think NATO know who the "bad guys" are anymore. They've aggressed against so many people and turning the population against them. Here is an example of a simple moral principle in regards to self defense, If I pick a fight with you, you defend yourself, and I kill you, is it morally justifiable for me to call you my "enemy" and walk away? If a man initiates force in response to NATO's aggression, in response to the constant terror of living with drones flying overhead, night raids, and family members dying unjustly, that man is justified in taking up arms. If NATO invaded Texas and did the same damn things, you'd have cowboys doing what any red blooded man has a moral right to do.


That said, I'm not willing to overlook the broader context in favor of arguing about the minutiae of a convoluted system of engagement. Even when NATO soldiers follow the rules, they're still committing an evil act. The only reason NATO has the rules in the first place is so they can pretend it's justifiable. "Enemy" is simply a convenient label that has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong.

So, how do we define 'aggressor'?

aggressor - someone who attacks
assailant, assaulter, attacker
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
ambusher - an attacker who waits in a concealed position to launch a surprise attack
avenger, retaliator - someone who takes vengeance
brute, savage, wildcat, beast, wolf - a cruelly rapacious person
bludgeoner - an assailant who uses a bludgeon
bully, hooligan, roughneck, rowdy, ruffian, yob, yobbo, yobo, tough - a cruel and brutal fellow
harrier, harasser - a persistent attacker; "the harassers were not members of the regular army"
iconoclast - someone who attacks cherished ideas or traditional institutions
marauder, piranha, predator, vulture - someone who attacks in search of booty
night rider, nightrider - member of a secret mounted band in United States South after the American Civil War; committed acts of intimidation and revenge
raper, rapist - someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse
shedder, spiller - an attacker who sheds or spills blood; "a great hunter and spiller of blood"
slasher - someone who slashes another person
stabber - someone who stabs another person
lapidator, stoner - an attacker who pelts the victim with stones (especially with intent to kill)
2. aggressor - a confident assertive person who acts as instigator
initiator, instigator - a person who initiates a course of action

Which one of these describes the British troops involved in this incident? Remember, they were the ones fired upon. (It is a separate argument if they should be in Afghanistan.)

This guy was an insurgent.

Definition
Noun:
A rebel or revolutionary.

He was not supporting his government, however flimsy that government may be. In this situation, he was the aggressor. He fired on the troops first. He was supporting the Taliban and it was the Taliban supporting Bin Laden that initiated the conflict in the first place.


So, to your analogy. If the good citizens of Texas authorised the hijacking of four airliners and flew them into heavily populated centres killing 3,000 innocent people, there would be no response from your National Guard? And if there was, that the good citizens of Texas would be justified in doing what 'every red blooded man has the moral right to do'? I don't think so.

Come on mate, these servicemen are being hung out to dry for some nefarious reason. They are not murderers, they were doing their job to the best of their ability and they are innocent until proven otherwise and I believe the authorities are doing them a grave injustice, them and the rest of the coalition forces.

 

[Tez3]

Okay, so here is a recap.

1. A thread was started with the title "Defending your country is not murder" and I clicked, because, on the surface, I would agree with that statement.

2. I continued reading and discovered that the "defense" in question was Afghanistan and that we were discussing the details of five Marines who were awaiting trial for a particular killing of an armed resistor.

Royal Marines

3. I challenged the concept of "defense" and showed how this war was actually an act of aggressive nation building, which makes the details of why the victim died unimportant. Then, I listed a basic moral principle that was being violated, thus all of the killings could be considered murder.
So you think the deaths of the military are murder?


4. I took the point further and listed the various evil acts that were occurring. I listed acts from the double tap drone strikes, to the night raids, to the use of DU in the field, showing that the war was unquestionably immoral. Then, I wondered out loud how people could continue to participate in this when it was so obviously immoral.

Major thread drift indeed. You took the thread and used it for your own thoughts and ideas and in the process made a mockery of any ideals that service people had.

5. I was told my several posters that it was something I couldn't understand because I had not pledged myself to serve a higher ideal.

No you were told that you didn't understand the military because you hadn't served. There was nothing about higher ideals. If I started telling people about living in Hawaii you'd shoot me down very quickly because I have never lived there.

6. I challenged this by showing how these higher ideals served the government and by showing the convoluted reasons why the governments in questions may actually be participating in the war. (Unocal/Pipelinistan, CIA drug dealing to the tune of 500 billion dollars, and one of the largest concentrations of rare earth elements - the kind that make this computer possible - that are located in Afghanistan.)

As 'higher ideals' weren't mentioned....... We do know about the machinations of governments, politicians, multi national companies etc, you aren't telling us anything we don't know.We know what's in Afghanistan and who wants it.

7. It was responded that the "higher ideals" were separate from the government and even though all of those reasons I listed were valid reasons corrupt governments actually were involved in Afghanistan, it didn't matter. There was a "higher ideal" to serve and it wasn't possible to simply quit or immediately pull out.

Again we aren't talking about 'higher ideals' this is something you brought in. We are saying you can't understand the mindset of the military and how and why they serve despite everything.

8. I responded that I thought those "higher ideals" were illusions and that the only thing that really mattered was the results on the ground. Then, I listed the various evil acts, showed how the war was not only an aggressive act of nation building, but also an extension of the same mercantilistic foreign policies that have dominated western nations for centuries.

If you insist on using this phrase, the 'higher ideals' belong to the actual service personnel, we all know politicians etc don't have any.

9. Then, it was argued that I simply didn't understand Afghan and that our presence was important there for human rights.

You don't understand what is happening from an Afghan point of view and no one has said it's important for us to be there for human rights. The military themselves, as I told you, have taken it on themselves to help the local people as much as they can. It hasn't come from any higher power, it's not a policy, it's the service personnel trying to make a difference because they don't seen themselves as killers of all human life.

10. To which I replied that it was no longer possible to call this war a "defense of the country" and then I listed the human rights abuses that were caused by our side for the last 40 years and that we had created the very problems that were taking place now. Taking it further, I suggested again that people involved should not serve a government that would have you engage in these evil acts because democracy had failed to stop the corrupt governments up to this point.

Actually I pointed out that Carter and co had started this whole merry go round and I also pointed out that our military don't serve the government. Here we've never thought it was the defence of our country but to stop the Talin supporting the Al Queda who were and are trying to blow us up. We had bombings here too you know...7/7.


11. Again, "higher ideals" were brought up and I riposted that these were illusions and if you really wanted to make a moral calculation, you needed to look at the results.

Always the higher ideals with you..... and I agree with K Man you are using the wrong word when you say illusions.

12. Then, I post materials on how withholding your consent from evil is one way to take away it's power. I opined that people should quit, resign, and not even enlist in the military if they wanted to remain morally good in this kind of environment.

and if you have no military how long do you think you will be able to keep voicing your views?

This is all paraphrased of course, but maybe now you can see how this train of thought developed.

No I can't see, you have twisted and turned people's words into something you think we mean. You've cause major thread drift just to go on your hobby horse about how stupid you think we all are.

 

[Tez3]

Oh and in case you think our 'rulers' leave all the fighting to the minions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19516079.

 

[Makalakumu]

I have seen no evidence to back your extravagant claims.

We are all typing this on computers right? What are they made of? How do we get to work? Who is Hamid Karzai's again? How many times is the past have empires gone to war to plunder other people's stuff? How many of those wars were based off of false pretenses? Go back and check out some links and have a little less faith in your governments.

In the end, let's assume that the 9/11 story is straight and upstanding against all scrutiny, except let's pin it on a group of religious fanatics in Texas or Britain or Austrailia. Now, lets imagine that a hyper power demands that you hand over your own people without any sort of evidence and then invades when you balk. Maybe it's still justifiable at this point. Maybe. In 2006, a poll was conducted and the average Afghan tribesman knew nothing about 9/11.

Now, ten years later, the war has expanded, we've got double tap drone strikes, night raids, and DU sprayed everywhere. The war has expanded to not just the particular group of religious fanatics, in your home land. People you know are getting killed everyday. Your children can't go to school because it'll be bombed. You can't walk around in a group larger than three or you'll be bombed. You can't open your mouth and complain or some neighbor might take reward money and claim you've been working with the "enemy" bringing a night raid to your household where who knows is going to get shot, maybe your daughter.

Maybe you come home from work one day and your house is destroyed and the only thing that is left of your family are bits and pieces of their clothing fluttering in the trees?

Would you pick up a weapon and repel the invaders? Would you want revenge? How do soldiers on the other side know who is an enemy and who is simply a guy who had enough and decided to sell his life to remove this threat to everyone he knows? If you would attempt to repel this threat, then the rules of engagement don't matter. You agree that it's justifiable, you agree that you would do the same. Therefore it doesn't matter why or how the insurgent died, because the resistance is justified.

Your point about democracy is valid, maybe if we don't consider propaganda and vote rigging, but lets assume that democracy is clean and squeaky and always results in the will of the people. The soldiers on the ground, when faced with an obvious case of being thrust into an immoral situation by there governments have a choice to end the war, at least for themselves. They could quit. They could leave the field. They could refuse to engage. Vietnam probably ended because of this more than anything else. People weren't willing to fight anymore. It's the individual that could make a difference in the end.

 

[Tez3]

Ok I start a thread on a simple premise..that if a country sends it's soldiers to fight ( on whatever pretext etc) it should then look after those soldiers. It has turned into a mire of nonesense about computers, illusions and goodness knows what else.
I don't actually care about the politics at this moment and the attempt to portray us as the poor dumb stooges of the whoever is plotting to take over the world this week. It's simple, the military is sent to do a job and they should, with the proviso that they behave withing the bounds of all acceptable treaties, conventions and rules of engagement, be looked after by those that sends them to do this job.

This thread is about the Covenant with the Armed Forces of Great Britain being broken, please start a new thread if you want to bang on about legalities of war, illusions and the corrupt press.

 

[Makalakumu]

Would you pick up a weapon and repel the invaders? Would you want revenge? How do soldiers on the other side know who is an enemy and who is simply a guy who had enough and decided to sell his life to remove this threat to everyone he knows? If you would attempt to repel this threat, then the rules of engagement don't matter. You agree that it's justifiable, you agree that you would do the same. Therefore it doesn't matter why or how the insurgent died, because the resistance is justified.

One last question then. How does this not relate to the topic in question?

 

[Tez3]

One last question then. How does this not relate to the topic in question?

How do you know that the Taliban soldier that was killed/died from wounds received was an Afghan? Half of the Taliban in Afghan aren't from afghanistan but Pakistan. The Taliban is seeking to regain the power in Afghanistan it lost. They gained that power orginally by overthrowing the legitimate government there so who then is the invader? If only things out there were as simple as you seem to think they are.
However this thread isn't about the insurgents or enemies real and imagined it's about the duty a country owes to it's service personnel. Even if the Afghan were illegally invaded, that they were completely innocent the fact a country sends it's soldiers to fight means that the country then owes those soldiers an obligation to look after them. It's as simple as that, you send your army to work for you you look after them. Argue the toss about the invasion and everything else in another thread.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, to your analogy. If the good citizens of Texas authorised the hijacking of four airliners and flew them into heavily populated centres killing 3,000 innocent people, there would be no response from your National Guard? And if there was, that the good citizens of Texas would be justified in doing what 'every red blooded man has the moral right to do'? I don't think so.

My analogy is that the good citizens of Texas had no idea of what happened, watched their country be invaded, watched their kinsman be slain, heard a story about some group of religious fanatics did something wrong far away. Watched as more neighbors were mistakenly lumped in with a group of religious fanatics...and then decided to fight back.

The Taliban are not Al Qaeda. The Taliban offered the Americans Osama Bin Laden. America invaded anyway. America installed a representative as puppet dictator from the same oil company that was frustrated by the Taliban. Imagine if a foreign power did that in Texas? Imagine if a foreing power decided to get rid of the Texan government by force so that they could install a more friendly government?

 

[Tez3]

My analogy is that the good citizens of Texas had no idea of what happened, watched their country be invaded, watched their kinsman be slain, heard a story about some group of religious fanatics did something wrong far away. Watched as more neighbors were mistakenly lumped in with a group of religious fanatics...and then decided to fight back.

The Taliban are not Al Qaeda. The Taliban offered the Americans Osama Bin Laden. America invaded anyway. America installed a representative as puppet dictator from the same oil company that was frustrated by the Taliban. Imagine if a foreign power did that in Texas? Imagine if a foreing power decided to get rid of the Texan government by force so that they could install a more friendly government?

Imagine keeping to the spirit of the thread ie the covenant between a country and it's military......

 

[Makalakumu]

Imagine keeping to the spirit of the thread ie the covenant between a country and it's military......

What if the covenant was undermined from the very beginning?