Disgusting Mail article, need to rant...

Castiel said:
Most are simply taking the road of least mortal danger to themselves. Far easier to sit in a jail cell than up to your armpits in blood and crap in a war-zone. They are quite happy for others to take the risks while they look down their noses at them in the safety afforded them by those they despise.

Some exhibit a bravery of their own, but most are simply pacifists or objectors through fear and cowardice.
Click to expand...

Harsh man - really harsh. Is it that simple to write off someone that wants a (admittedly unrealistic) better place where there isn't a need to drill a 308 through some dudes head? I'd fight if needs be but in wanting there to be no need I'm all of a sudden a frightened pacifist coward or a moralising coward? It's a sad little world where that's the full scope of your aspirations.
 
britboy4321 said:
Actually nowadays I think they do not sit in a jail cell -- they are shipped off to

1) Work in a military hospital
2) Do something like clear minefields, disarm bombs, cook or other things not directly combat oriented etc.
3) Do something like logistics or interpreting on the front line
Click to expand...


Is that right, you think that anyone in our Military is a "Conscientious Objector"?

Some are given civilian alternatives, but you will not find a CO defusing IED's in Afghanistan or having any contact with combat operations at all.

A CO is against military service, why would they join the military. Even in places with National Service or Conscription, where there is a non-combat alternative, it is usually a far safer alternative to actually sitting in a firefight.



britboy4321 said:
None of which they can play the 'conscientious objector' card, and all of which are probably as dangerous as fighting the enemy.
Click to expand...

While working in a hospital is admirable and there are many civilian post that are crucial to combat operations, none of them are as mortally dangerous as being on the front line.

Field Medics, Bomb Disposal, Catering Corp all have to be able and willing to fight if necessary. A CO would not be found in these situations.

britboy4321 said:
Generally they just refuse to kill another human being they've never met because some bloke with a few stripes on his arm tells him to ..

I think conscripts that just always take the path of least resistance are the real cowards. After all, if they were heroes, they'd have volunteered ..
Click to expand...

Conscientious Objection is always the safer route, regardless of whether they have a real objection or are merely chicken.
 
SteveOBHave said:
Harsh man - really harsh. Is it that simple to write off someone that wants a (admittedly unrealistic) better place where there isn't a need to drill a 308 through some dudes head? I'd fight if needs be but in wanting there to be no need I'm all of a sudden a frightened pacifist coward or a moralising coward? It's a sad little world where that's the full scope of your aspirations.
Click to expand...

I think you may want to actually reread what I wrote before making some kind of moral judgement on my motivations and aspirations or attempting to bottleneck my experience in some "sad little world" analogy.

Taking specific note of the "Some exhibit a bravery of their own..."
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I think you may want to actually reread what I wrote before making some kind of moral judgement on my motivations and aspirations.

Taking specific note of the "Some exhibit a bravery of there own..."
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't mean 'you' - I meant it in a general sense - I think it does take a certain bravery to stand up and say no. Like those pilots that refused to bomb their own people in Libya and flew to Malta instead. Sure there are some that are just downright afraid but others have a genuine moral standpoint. In all honesty being scared out of your tree is as good a reason as any to take a step back. Hell if you're going to war you want to have someone next to you that isn't going to bottle it at the first sound of gunfire.
 
No idea what the fuss is about to be honest.

The guy was doing his job, war isn't pretty.

On a lighter note..... with the current cuts in defence spending the fact he only used one bullet he should be congratulated :D
 
edscdk said:
i think the taliban have on purpose killed afgan civilians where as the american accidently kill them either by thinking they are taliban or accidently killling them...
Click to expand...

Second world war veteran quote:

"When the Germans sent their bombs, the British ducked. When the British sent their bombs, the Germans ducked. When the Americans sent their bombs, everybody ducked."
 
SteveOBHave said:
Sorry I didn't mean 'you' - I meant it in a general sense - I think it does take a certain bravery to stand up and say no. Like those pilots that refused to bomb their own people in Libya and flew to Malta instead. Sure there are some that are just downright afraid but others have a genuine moral standpoint. In all honesty being scared out of your tree is as good a reason as any to take a step back. Hell if you're going to war you want to have someone next to you that isn't going to bottle it at the first sound of gunfire.
Click to expand...

I thought it was an attack on me personally, sorry.


I would agree with what you say. However there is a substantial difference between a conscientious objector as it is normally defined and a soldier who refuses an unlawful order as was the case with the Libyan Pilots.

There are cases in the UK armed Forces were a previously combat ready soldier has expressed a moral objection to a specific action or has because of what ever reason become a conscientious objector after joining the service. There are procedures for dealing with this, including moving the combat soldier from combat operations and/or release from service. The Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors deal with such cases.

There is a charity called At Ease, that help such soldiers.

http://www.atease.org.uk/info_05_01_30.htm
 
Dirk said:
Are you referring to the US Army or the Taliban?
Click to expand...

Neither specifically. I was referring to illegal non-state Terrorist Organisations whose sole purpose is the spread of terror to further their own political and ideological agendas and those who support them.
 
vonhelmet said:
I'm not really seeing the problem here.

Has OP never watched any war films or played any war games? Call of Duty? Storming the beaches for fun?
Click to expand...

War games do not in any way reflect real life :confused:

That's like saying "have you watched a war movie before?, yes?, so what's your problem with murder???"
 
Castiel said:
Neither specifically. I was referring to illegal non-state Terrorist Organisations whose sole purpose is the spread of terror to further their own political and ideological agendas and those who support them.
Click to expand...

2 points:

1. "illegal" depends on who makes the law. So if a fascist entity was in charge, you or I would hardly consider their laws "legal". Also, your statement above is based largely on an ideology which regularly sanctions the spread of terror for its own political agenda, disregarding the "law" (need I remind you of Iraq, WMD, Shock and Awe?).

Secondly and far more importantly, it always helps not to kill the cousin of your appointed replacement president in your hurry to show these terrorist scum the "law": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12700630
 
steve-h said:
War games do not in any way reflect real life :confused:

That's like saying "have you watched a war movie before?, yes?, so what's your problem with murder???"
Click to expand...

Right, so in that case it's better to enjoy the article than to enjoy a war film or game.

And no, it's nothing like comparing a war movie to murder. Legal killings during a war are not murders.
 
Random Guy said:
2 points:

1. "illegal" depends on who makes the law. So if a fascist entity was in charge, you or I would hardly consider their laws "legal". Also, your statement above is based largely on an ideology which regularly sanctions the spread of terror for its own political agenda, disregarding the "law" (need I remind you of Iraq, WMD, Shock and Awe?).
Click to expand...


Illegal as agreed under the auspices of majority international agreement and note that I specifically said "non-state" terrorist organisations, If you disagree with Democratic ideologies or a recognised Governments actions that is a different debate entirely.

Iraq was illegal?.....when was that decided?


Random Guy said:
Secondly and far more importantly, it always helps not to kill the cousin of your appointed replacement president in your hurry to show these terrorist scum the "law": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12700630
Click to expand...

The Taliban are not Terrorists, so your points fail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom