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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
xxxxs
Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind-
Shakespeare
What amuses me is that if we substitute "violence" for "terrorism" we just heard Balddog condemning Cromwell, Jefferson, Washington... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
Amazing how it looks so different from the other side, isn't it?
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
Well if violence and terrorism meant the same thing then you would have a point..Seeing as they dont, you dont.
Now im no expert on either area of history but im pretty sure that neither Cromwell, Jefferson or Washington EVER massacred thousands of innocent civilians who werent involved in any way.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Of course, of course. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
I agree that there is some distinction between "violence" and "terrorism."
But when does "pure" violence cross that fuzzy line into being terrorism? I'm sure Jeff and Co. were painted in pretty dark colours by the British, weren't they? And what about these cries that some on these boards still make like "The IRA are the only free men in the UK"?
What I was driving at was an acknowledgement that to put a blanket condemnation on all forms of violence is to condemn many people we would prefer to admire. Which means, of course, that either our feelings of admiration are misplaced or the principle of non-violence is wrong.
That song "Tommy" was one I heard once years ago. The sentiment stuck in my mind, even though the words didn't. Thank you for posting it.
:: Tips hat. ::
I did write a reply saying how it was a very thin line between the two but having thought about it ive realised that thats just not the case. Theres a huge difference between a just fight and terrorism.
The second a group decides to kill innocents who have nothing to do with the problem in order to influence those who they are against, then that group becomes terrorists.
When you decide to sink to the lowest depths of humanity and deliberately slaughter innocent women and children to make your point then you become a terrorist.
Incidentally, freedom fighters are rarely called terrorists but rather 'rebels'. I doubt the Brits called the revolutionaries terrorists. The Americans didnt kill the children of the Brits in order to coerce the Brit govt, they fought the Brit military.
Diesels comments about the IRA are plain wrong but he doesnt know any better so he can be forgiven. Nobody who knows the real actions of both sides of the NI troubles could ever call them freedom fighters.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
History is written by the victors, which the defeated must endure...until next time!
Well, looks like all the new toys are working, expect we'll be dusting off most of the Taliban on their way to the caves tonight...shily ol things...don't they know that we, US, know?
As for those who will not fight...given the only allowable choise they will fight...and I consider a medic just as much in the fight as a warrior. Duty is Action; Fight or Die!
Diesel
88888888
Hell no...Theres NOTHING holy about either the loyalists or the republicans.
I think the word scum describes both sides well enough.
Not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better .
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena ,
Whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood ;
Who errs and comes short again and again ;
Who knows the great enthusiasms ,
The great devotions ,
And spends himself in a worthy cause ;
Who , if he wins , knows the triumph of high achievement ;
And who , if he fails , at least fails while daring greatly ,
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat .
Those that won't fight, you will always be the cold and timid souls.
Lucky there are people who have and will fight on your behalf.
MOK, to quote you" PACIFIST:
Someone who enjoys the freedoms won by those willing to fight for them, using these hard won freedoms to criticise those very actions."
so very true.
"not as peaceful as you think child"
I guarantee you this, the day the government announces it intends to bring in conscription, there will be a massive outcry, and riots on the streets and the government will be brought down.
Personally, NO-ONE will tell me to go and kill other human beings.
War is Authorised Murder and nothing less than that.
What about the murdering terrorists how about condeming them ???
And don't worry there will always be people with balls to defend you.
peacechild
I am a pacifist and proud of it too.
My defintion of war is simply this:-
If you go out tomorrow and kill someone you have never seen in before in your whole life, someone who has not done you or your family any harm at all, and you'll get put in prison for murder.
But if you go out in a war and do the same thing, you'll get a medal for it. that is the hypocrisy of War.
War is an obscene and primitive act and should now be outlawed now in the 21st century.
And just how, now be realistic here, do you intend to stop war???
peacethingy
Erm Stuey, I suggest you read the entire thread. This is a hypothetical situation that we are talking about. If things turn to shit and the Brit army is devastated, the UK will be in an awful lot of danger..Thats what we are talking about NOT whether being conscripted in todays situation is valid or not.
If you go out tomorrow and kill someone you have never seen in before in your whole life, someone who has not done you or your family any harm at all, and you'll get put in prison for murder.
But if you go out in a war and do the same thing, you'll get a medal for it. that is the hypocrisy of War.[/quote]
Sorry but that definition is totally wrong. If you go out and kill a total stranger for no reason then yes, you should be put in jail forever...Wars arent usually fought for no reason whatsoever against people nobody has ever seen before. We didnt just go after Afghanistan on a whim, they didnt close their eyes and stick a pin in a map to choose who they attacked. We are attacking the Taliban because they are protecting and training an organisation that justmurdered 7000 people. Those were peoples families and id say they had been done some harm.
Fine, you take a stroll to some african republic or afghanistan/iran/iraq etc and tell them how obscene and primitive they are..If they listen to you and completely disarm and give up their warlike ways then the rest of us can follow suit. Until you can GUARENTEE that no other nation will use violence then you cannot with any conscience outlaw war in your own nation.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
But why does this world think that to solve everything, they have to send two very large groups of men out to kill and mutilate eachother, while the politicians wallow in the glory of it all.
You have a nerve calling yourself ‘peacechild’ ranting your war mongering sentiments.
The SS divisions that ran the holocaust camps did nothing to us personally. Slobodan Milosevic did nothing to do personally. Stalin did nothing to us personally. Napolean did nothing personal to us, neither did ANY of the countries we currently have peacekeeping forces in. Saddam did nothing to us personally..
I guess we shouldnt have bothered to do anything against those people right? After all, they didnt hurt us PERSONALLY..What a selfish little man you are Stuey..If an old woman was being raped across the street, would you intervene even though it wasnt against you PERSONALLY?
Well its quite simple..One group of people send their soldiers out to invade and kill people (Hitler, Saddam etc). Now these people dont listen to reason or diplomatic arguments and they dont back down..Thats when the other group decides to help out and sends its soldiers out to kill the other soldiers.
Sometimes war IS the only way to solve something.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
I don’t to have any answers, but I know that killing any person is wrong, especially if they have committed no wrong against you personally.
>Your sort never have the answers do they and war is different isn't it.
But why does this world think that to solve everything, they have to send two very large groups of men out to kill and mutilate eachother, while the politicians wallow in the glory of it all.
> I'm OK with the politicians killing each other, then we get to kill who's left.
You have a nerve calling yourself ‘peacechild’ ranting your war mongering sentiments.
>Ok as you want to make it personal; I'll call myself tosspot if that will make you happy and you've got a nerve calling yourself Stuey ranting your crap.
tosspot
You seem to have changed topic. You made a statement about war in general and now this statement is about conscription. As has been said earlier in the thread, there is the option for contiencious objectors..The original question was would you fight or not..Please read the thread <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
The two sides in this are somismatched, Afghanistan does not posses the military capabilities to stand up to the US and UK anyway, it's like throwing a 5-year-old child into the ring with Mike Tyson and for Tyson to beat the hell out him for 12 rounds, while the crowd cheers.
But that won't be the end of the matter, not for years to come, Bush & Blair have made sure that each and everyone of us is a legiatmate target for reprisal attacks forever.
Good night!
So you want to kill people regardless of the reasons, you are a real idiot!
[This message has been edited by Stuey (edited 15-10-2001).]
You make yourself look like a child when you post like this.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Hmmm, I think I've made my views clear about what I think of the idea of forcing people against thier wil to kill others (conscription) and the horrific barbaric act of war in general and I'm not aware I've been asked any questions, just had abuse thrown at me, becuase you don't like what I'm saying.
I don't like what you're saying becuase:
(a) you fail to recognise that growth and progress stem from conflict;
(b) you would rule out a course of action that is frequently the only effective one.
Is that abusive? No, I don't think so. It's just an attack on astounding naivete.
As people like putting up poems etc. I thought I would add one, its only the end of the poem, but I was reminded of it earlyer.
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."
Wilfred Owen - 'Dulce et Decorum est.'
I like that one <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
It isnt about believing in the leaders, it is about believing in the country,and the welfare of the nation as a whole. Besides, it isnt the politicians who give the orders, it is still in the hands of the generals. If the army chiefs thought it too risky to attack Afghanistan then they wouldn't.
As for Stueys comment about my post, in a war deserters are the lowest of the low. They shirk their responsibilities, and endanger their comrades. If I knew someone was going to betray me and run away and leave me to die, then I would want him dead. Regardless if they think the war is bad or not.
would it not then be prudent to use my own judgement on what I believe to be the best for the nation, especially if my life is at stake?