If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Soldiering can be summed up thus:
General:We live in a free country, it is our job to protect that freedom.
Soldier:What do you mean?
General:Well see those chaps over the channel with funny red armbands? They want to come over here and kill you, your family and your friends because of who you are. Now the only way you can prevent them taking away our freedom is by shooting them first. Got that?
Soldier:Yes sir.
If you knew anything about pyschology or sociology shimmer, you would know by now that humans are the most territorial animals on this planet. You would know that EVERY major advancement in science, medicine and technology has been brough about as a result of that territorial nature.
Now, here's the lesson. Because of our territorial nature (which is hardwired into the brains of most people to different degrees) we will either try and take things that don't belong to us, or protect those things from people trying to take them from us.
Our territorial nature is easily seen in children fighting over toys. We don't share by nature, we take and until you get that fundamental truth into your head you're really not going to win us around with your flawed, just-started university reasoning.
You know, I've thought and i've thought, and I can't think of anyone who pays to soldier. No one. Everyone who does it gets paid for it or is bullied into it.
And I am sorry, I don't understand the difference between being paid by someone to kill and being paid by someone to kill.
That's because there is no difference. Who cares what lies people tell while they take cash to murder?
I am German, and it's for the fatherland. Take cash - shoot.
I am English and I am defending against the germans - take cash - shoot.
I am Big Vern and I need to pay the mortgage - take cash - shoot.
Do soldiers extend the principle of defensive force to everyone else, btw?
If soldiers exist to defend against others who might injure them, then the first thing they should do is start an army to attack the current domestic army.
Do you have any evidence at all that anyone ever has wanted to kill someone else just because they exist?
And really, go and watch kids play. They understand property rights instinctively. It's hardwired.
You mean like the British Army did in the Balkans/Sierra Leone/malaya etc?
Ok, do they do that in Moss side?
Squaddies handing out rifles to people so they can defend themsleves against predators in tower hamlets maybe as well?
If I remember correctly, you didn't understand my reference to the police.
Ho Hum.
BTW Flash is correct, this is like arguing with a stupid 12-y-o. If you don't understand what you are talking about I suppose we cannot expect you to understand our responses.
Of course I don't understand you. You are claiming there is a difference where none exists, not validating your claim and then getting upset with me for not following you.
Like I said, outline your steps, because I cannot follow you.
One man pays another to kill for him and this is exactly the same no matter which two men we are talking about. Easy enough to understand, really.
The principle you claim - paying another to murder is valid if you might be at risk is fine. But then when I apply it to other people who don't wear costumes you get all huffy. In my local area, for example, the people most likely to injure me are either the police or local drug dealers. Why don't you advocate me paying someone else to murder them?
The principle is identical. It's you who is confused, not I.
Because we don't agree with you having that authority, and have already paid someone to shoot you if you should try anything.
If you really want to get grown up about this, define freedom, and then we'll discuss whether it can be defended by soldiers or not.
I prefer to think of it as rejecting opinion and stating facts.
I'm with stupid.
So, the principle is that whoever is strongest makes the rules. Fair enough, but what's all this moral hypocrisy that has been added on?
Soldiers are different than the biggest bully, they have different motivations, they are special people etc etc ad nauseam.
I'm not too fussed with you saying it's exactly the same but they are better killers, that's fair enough and is what I think as well. It's not moral or rational though, it's just brute force and is what my position has always been.
The are just people who kill for money and they are good at it. So good in fact that they deter others from trying it. There is no morality here, just men and women taking cash to kill. Evil, weak, stupid men and women, with no morals, no humanity, just guns and a desire for pay. (Oh and an ability to tlie to themselves and bullshit others).
So, to veer dangerously on topic - it really doesn't matter what token you pay murderers in. The iron cross is just as good as any other trinket you hand a murderer in recognition of being really good at human slaughter, like employee of the month in an abbatoir.
A job like any other?
Gunned anyone down at work recently?
Bombed some small children into a fine red mist for no other reason than you were told to?
Jesus.
I'm unclear if you've read the rules or not but I'll have to point you to the following rule -
2. Racist, hateful, defamatory or otherwise illegal posts are not suitable.
Your statement above hardly applies to those posters here who have been soldiers and nor does it apply to those people I know who are in the army. The rule above usual applies in cases of racism, homophobia and sexism but the bigotry in your post clearly requires it to be applied here. Your comment is such a blanket accusation without foundation, reason or logic that it is simply staggering in its ignorance.
I may entirely disagree with some conflicts or even all conflicts the military are involved in but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to complete dismiss soldiers as less than human.
Put simply, your level of discriminatory hatred shown here is entirely inappropriate under the rules of this forum.
You have two choices Shimmer, you can post here within the acceptable rules and as a reasoning human being, or you can post hate through other organisation's websites.
Ok.
I will refrain from doing that again.
Can I ask for a similar caution for the other posters who made personal attacks on me?
1. Please respect the opinions of others. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t give you the right to make personal attacks on that person.
A psychology student, no mind to read.seriously kid little low life with no friends,,Fuckwit.an idiot very stupid twelve year old etc etc
I've taken a lot of flak here for what is a very simple and obvious position - that soldiers kill people for pay and therefore it doesn't really matter what sort of medal you give them. I've tried my best to ignore it and just debate properly.
Thanks.
Jesus what? Yes it's a job like any other. And if it wasn't for the armed forces doing it for me, yes, I probably would have gunned someone down recently, or been gunned down myself, as would you. I absolutely guarantee that if you didn't live in this country with the armed forces, then you would certainly have killed someone yourself by now, or would have been dead yourself. You seem to be of the opinion that it would be okay to shoot someone to protect yourself or your own family, but that if money is brought into the equation, and someone is paid to do it on behalf of everyone else, it somehow becomes immoral? You seem to have a problem with the payment rather than the act. Of course in one sense, it's simply a case of choosing the least immoral act, which is what I've argued. And like I said, I have the statistics to back my side of the argument up. All you have is some idealistic concept, with no basis in reality whatsoever. In a perfect world, I would agree with you, but in an imperfect world, we pick the option that causes the least suffering, and that is the one we currently have. And as long as you have that imperfect world, you need people who are willing to do that necessary job, and that is soldiers.
But no, you can't expect the same or similar caution - what they have posted wasn't pleasant or acceptable, but is a world away from the kind of hatred and bigotry you posted.
This is just it.
If I do it, it's wrong, If I pay someone to kill those who I feel are a threat to me, that's a bad thing.
If Gordon Brown does it, it's fine and I am a bad person for saying that it's exactly the same. This is absolutely grounded in reality. You are making special exceptions for different human beings based on nothing other than whim, as far as I can see.
The problem I have is not so much with what we decide is the right thing to do, but that whatever we decide applies to all of us. No hypocrisy.
If paying somone to murder is ok, then it's ok for everyone.
If it's not ok, it's not ok for everyone.
What's the criteria for saying one is ok and the other isn't? What objective basis do you have for dividing the world into two groups - those with the magical power to order murder and those without?
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone, because the logical conclusion of saying its ok for everyone is that we all die pretty quickly and there is no basis for dividing humans into two groups that can be pointed to that makes any rational, empirical sense.
Ok.
I will not ask again.
I said people kill each other for things the other person has, not just because they exist.
And as for evidence? How about all of human history, is that good enough for you?
No, not really. A specific instance would be much better, rather than some mythical entirety.
All I see when I look at history is humans trading with each other, increasing wealth, with bursts of being murdered by other humans who have been paid to with the stolen fruits of that trade. I don't see any evidence of protection of anyone by any soldier ever.
For fear of repeating myself...
Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone
There are also numerous defences of countries from invasion throughout history...
You obviously have a different meaning for the word protect than I do.
You really should look at what really happened rather than relying on mythology.
You wouldn't be showing some open curiosity there, Kingofglasgow, would you?
Are you sure you don't just want to call me names and tell me I am retarded without answering any points instead?
Oh well.....
Protect - to keep safe from harm, to look after, to preserve, to watch over.
I see no evidence of any soldier doing that ever. Never happens.
.. and you don't think that happened in any of the examples I gave...?
Of course not.
Even though until that point the Serbs had been massacring the Bosnians...?
Yep, no lives saved, no one prtected.
Just more people killed.
Explain your thinking then...