Defending your country is not murder.

[Makalakumu]

and that's different to saying all governments are corrupt gangsters and all service personnel murderers? Really?

What you can't accept is that the majority of governments aren't so much corrupt as just behaving in the way that human beings do, governments are no different from any group of people you will find anywhere. The biggest problems with governments is sheer incompetence, the sheer size of them and the red tape. Our politiicans gangsters, yeah right when they get caught fiddling their petty cash, you'd think such 'gangsters' would be able to at least manage that wouldn't you!
Do you think that when the Allies went into 'save' Kuwait which we all know was actually for the oil, that it was just the government that benefitted or did you think that the fuel you put in your car should be more expensive than it is because that's what would have happened if the Gulf War didn't happen, you benefit as much as any from these 'gangsterish' activities of your government. If the gangster polititicians hadn't decided to fight the UK for your freedom you'd still have our monarch as your head of state. If the gangster polititians hadn't declared war on Grmany many more than 6 million people would be dead, there most likely would be no Jews in Europe or the UK.
No, it's not I who doesn't listen, I've listened far more than many would but you are so convinced of your beliefs you don't actually question whether you are right or not, at least I do, I also accept that people are human and behave as humans do.

I see you question a lot and I see lots of rationalization. Don't you think that at some point we need to draw a line and say enough is enough?

 

[Makalakumu]

Self-defence by Violence
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.
Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by *****. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.
But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.
Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.

Source: The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi​

I believe in self defense. I understand self defense. What is the fundamental principle that must be violated for self defense to exist?

This principle, which i have mentioned many times, has been the point the entire thread.

 

[Tez3]

I see you question a lot and I see lots of rationalization. Don't you think that at some point we need to draw a line and say enough is enough?

I see that you haven't answered any question I've asked you. You have taken seriously complicated situations and reduced them to 'the government is corrupt and the service people murderers' end of. Life isn't like that
I do question a lot, in fact I question everything, all the time, I acccept nothing until I have looked at it, thought about and researched it if I haven't had experience of it. I suggest that's a good way to understanding life (the universe and everything) either that or read all of Terry Pratchett's books.

 

[Tez3]

Tell you what...you hand me the proof that the British government is corrupt and I will personally see that something is done, it will be handed over to the police and the Parliamentary committees as well as the press. Or you can do it yourself.
http://www.parliament.uk/pcs
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ns-select/standards-and-privileges-committee/
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

and in case you don't trust the police http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/

 

[Makalakumu]

Tell you what...you hand me the proof that the British government is corrupt and I will personally see that something is done, it will be handed over to the police and the Parliamentary committees as well as the press. Or you can do it yourself.
http://www.parliament.uk/pcs
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ns-select/standards-and-privileges-committee/
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

and in case you don't trust the police http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/

Well, don't you already know this?

It seems to me you think you are the first one who has realised that governments are at best useless at worst corrupt, do you know how many governments we've had? More than enough to have long ago realised what politics is about. We are pragmatic and cynical about politics and you are teaching your grnaparents to suck eggs when you claim to educate us about politics and big business.

Lol

 

[Makalakumu]

I believe in self defense. I understand self defense. What is the fundamental principle that must be violated for self defense to exist?

This principle, which i have mentioned many times, has been the point the entire thread.

This is the point. This is what got me riled in the first place.

 

[Tez3]

This is the point. This is what got me riled in the first place.

So I start a thread about something and you are telling it me I don't know what it's about? that it's actually about something you say it is? You're doolally mate.

Sorry, my thread so it's about what I bloody well say it is....the treatment of service personnel by the government.

 

[K-man]

Alarm bells are ringing. "Zeitgeist"! :lurk:

 

[Makalakumu]

Alarm bells are ringing. "Zeitgeist"! :lurk:

The communist robots are coming...lol.

 

[Tez3]

The communist robots are coming...lol.

What is it with you lot and communists?

Ah, I see, you think we are all socialists in the UK and therefore are obviously corrupt, penny drops.

 

[Makalakumu]

What is it with you lot and communists?

Ah, I see, you think we are all socialists in the UK and therefore are obviously corrupt, penny drops.

It has nothing to do with the UK. The "zeitgeist" movement includes this thing called the Venus Project, which literally says it will redistribute all property with communist robots. The association with me is a really funny strawman. Lol.

 

[Tez3]

It has nothing to do with the UK. The "zeitgeist" movement includes this thing called the Venus Project, which literally says it will redistribute all property with communist robots. The association with me is a really funny strawman. Lol.

Oh wow, imagine that, and you thought I was so ignorant I didn't know, how kind you are to inform me....again. Patronise much?
Actually you've missed my point....again and gone off on a tangent as usual. I do wish you'd actually read what I wrote instead of reading it while composing an answer that expounds your theories.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Folks, this seems to be getting a little tense, and some of the comments are riding the ragged edge of ending up in the moderator forums. Please, let's all try to keep it civil, shall we?

 

[arnisador]

"All veterans are saints" on one side, and "All veterans are criminals" on the other.

 

[Makalakumu]

"All veterans are saints" on one side, and "All veterans are criminals" on the other.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Some violence is obviously legitimized. Some is not. What is the benchmark?

 

[Tez3]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Some violence is obviously legitimized. Some is not. What is the benchmark?

The point of the thread is simple, you have repeated wandered off topic. It's not about whether the military or governments are good or bad but the covenant between the country and the military. Everytime we try to haul it back on topic it's disrailed. it's not about what is 'legitimate' violence and what isn't. It's not about good soldiers or bad soldiers, surely we are adult and wise enough in the ways of the world that we know life isn't black and white. It's actually a very simple subject and I've asked repeatedly that you start your own if you want to talk politics, I want to just talk about the care of the military when they need it, that's what this thread is about.

 

[Makalakumu]

The point of the thread is simple, you have repeated wandered off topic. It's not about whether the military or governments are good or bad but the covenant between the country and the military. Everytime we try to haul it back on topic it's disrailed. it's not about what is 'legitimate' violence and what isn't. It's not about good soldiers or bad soldiers, surely we are adult and wise enough in the ways of the world that we know life isn't black and white. It's actually a very simple subject and I've asked repeatedly that you start your own if you want to talk politics, I want to just talk about the care of the military when they need it, that's what this thread is about.

The title of this thread is "defending your country is not murder" it's about some royal marines who killed someone, apparently unjustly, in Afghanistan.

I have questioned the word "defense" in the title of this thread and held up some examples that paint a bleak picture.

If you want to talk about a covenant between soldiers and the government, you are in luck. That's what I've been discussing the entire time. The covenant was broken before the war even started.

How about a new conenant where the government doesn't define "defense" as the old imperialistic foreign policy?

The essential question of this thread remains, "What is the benchmark required for something to be called defense?"

Otherwise, it's just murder.

 

[Tez3]

No you are wrong again. The Royal Marines were doing what their country required of them, defending themselves in a time of war, just because you define that war as illegal, just because you decide that defence is wrong doesn't make it so. This country decides what it does, not you, this country decides how it utilises it's troops, not you. The country has the loyalty of it's troops who believe in their country, albeit in their own disrespectful way, you have an agenda to push that doesn't and shouldn't involve Her Majesty's troops.
I'm not as perhaps some think being acrimonious about this, I'm just very tired of being patronised by you and with having you preach on something that is very little to do with this thread. The premise is simple, the country uses it's troops it should look after them, that's it, no arguments, no who's right, who's wrong. You use the troops you owe it to them to look after them and if they are killed in action their families, it really is as simple as that. the covenant isn't political, it's practical, it's about looking after the troops. The issue of whether they should be used in such wars is the subject of other discussions, other movements and certainly has nothing to do with the practical care of our troops. Our government used the Royal Marines in a war therefore they should treat them correctly not use them to score political points, again it really is as simple as that. The point of whether they should be there or not is a different discussion.
If you want to start a thread about defence, imperialism etc be my guest but don't keep derailing this one to harrass and badger me. I understand your point of view, I even respect it but again your points aren't the point of this thread. The fact is there is a war, the troops are fighting in it and therefore the government has to treat the troops properly. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Tez3]

I ask you to stand with me

For both the injured and the lost

I ask you to keep count with me
Of all the wars and what they cost

I ask you to be silent with me

Quietly grateful for our lot

As I expect you're as thankful as me

For the health and life we've got

I ask that you wish them well with me

All those still risking their all

And I ask that you remember with me

The names of those that fall

I expect that you are proud like me

Of this great nation of ours too

So enjoying all its freedoms like me

Support those upholding them for you

I hope that you are hopeful like me

That we'll soon bring an end to wars

So you'll have to stand no more with me

And mourning families no different from yours

Til then be thankful you can stand with me

Thinking of those who now cannot

For standing here today with me

At least we show they're not forgot

Dave
(Royal Marines)

 

[WC_lun]

Unfortunately, at times we have done the same in this country as well. We ask young men and women to serve our country in war, then want to ignore the results of that upon thier bodies and minds. The term that pops to my minds is using them as "fodder." If a country asks it soldiers to risk or give up thier lives, it is the country's obligation to take care of those soldiers afterwards, or thier families if the soldier dies. If a country doesn't have enough money to do this, then it doesn't have enough money to go to war.