What's The Difference?

2008-10-20 04:06:49

#1

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6290|Éire

I've heard a lot of people (on this forum and elsewhere) claim that they signed up to the military primarily because they wanted "to see some action". This "action" one can generally assume to be the opportunity to experience a real-life battlefield environment, the opportunity to operate one's weaponry, and ultimately the opportunity to kill another human being. Oftentimes it seems the identity of "the enemy" is only a secondary detail.

My question is what is the difference between this mentality and that of a Muslim extremist who signs up to a terror group for the opportunity to "kill some infidels"?

Is it simply that the mentality of the soldier is one of cold, detached professionalism while that of the extremist is fueled by hatred and intense emotion? Because at the end of the day people get killed whatever way you look at it and both sides believe they are killing "the enemy".

Last edited by Braddock (2008-10-20 04:31:44)

2008-10-20 04:19:13

#2

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6810|Nårvei

There is no difference, we each fight for what we believe in ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-10-20 04:27:57

#3

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6519|Πάϊ

when they wake up this will get ugly

and lots of fun

_ƒ³

2008-10-20 04:35:14

#4

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6373|Kyiv, Ukraine

I signed up to fight for the white Christian heritage of my homeland...and the kick-ass army breakfasts!

2008-10-20 04:54:21

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6153|what

Best analogy for this would be the old saying -

One mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter.

2008-10-20 04:55:50

#6

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6411|'Murka

Most people who say that regret it after they have actually "seen some action".

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-10-20 05:07:48

#7

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6290|Éire

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Best analogy for this would be the old saying -

One mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter.

"One man's soldier is another man's terrorist" never quite caught on as a saying for some reason!

I was watching In The Valley Of Elah last night and it struck me how soldiers are almost automatically given hero-status for their service and are worthy of their fellow citizen's thanks for what they have done... why then do so many people find it shocking that terrorists are held up as heroes in certain societies too? It's the exact same thing... it's just a matter of subjectivity.

I know people will jump in here with the usual arguments of terrorists targeting civilians and children and so on but many children have died as a result of bombs and bullets fired by soldiers too and it's all very well talking about intent but try telling that to the relatives of the bereaved.

2008-10-20 05:24:42

#8

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

I can't say I have heard anyone that is not an idiot say they were joining the military to "see some action", and I don't think we have any idiots on the forums in this case.

Methinks you're making up quotes.

2008-10-20 05:25:43

#9

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6223|Escea

Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't. Unless they're part of those genocidal armies that you sometimes get in like Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe.

2008-10-20 05:30:17

#10

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

MOAB wrote:
Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't.

But some armies take so little care to avoid civilians it doesn't make a lot of difference if civilians are targeted or not.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-10-20 05:33:46

#11

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6153|what

M.O.A.B wrote:
Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't. Unless they're part of those genocidal armies that you sometimes get in like Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe.

Or in America during the conquest of The Sioux, the Cherokee, the Aztec, the Inca, ...

Soldiers targeting civilians isn't something confined to those countries alone.

2008-10-20 05:36:18

#12

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Vietnam?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-10-20 06:12:13

#13

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6646

People who want to kill for sake of killing are all the same, yes, but thats not how it works. You'll find few people who join up just to "get some action" as you seem to put it. And if they do, they're either stupid or just fucking crazy.

However, failing to differenciate between a terriost and a soldier is just pathetic.

2008-10-20 06:35:37

#14

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6519|Πάϊ

Like Dilbert said, countries like Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are full of mines that still kill innocent children today - years after the war has ended and the regular armies who placed them there have left.

Also we could talk about the case of the Israeli army and what they proceed to do to little Palestinians but that's not such a popular subject around here. Come to think of it, fuck you and your regular armies.

_ƒ³

2008-10-20 06:44:51

#15

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6290|Éire

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I can't say I have heard anyone that is not an idiot say they were joining the military to "see some action", and I don't think we have any idiots on the forums in this case.

Methinks you're making up quotes.

Well I beg to differ, I have definitely seen this attitude from posters on this forum. I did try and dig the quotes up but "see some action" just returns a mountain of unrelated stuff in the search function.

2008-10-20 06:46:15

#16

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6290|Éire

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
People who want to kill for sake of killing are all the same, yes, but thats not how it works. You'll find few people who join up just to "get some action" as you seem to put it. And if they do, they're either stupid or just fucking crazy.

However, failing to differenciate between a terriost and a soldier is just pathetic.

I wouldn't say pathetic, I'd say subjective. The Nazis were soldiers... actually, does Germany have a Veteran's day?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-10-20 06:46:36)

2008-10-20 07:56:19

#17

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6394|The Gem Saloon

i would love to know who said that they are signing up, or have already done so to "see some action" or to "operate ones weaponry".....

cause i have done both....and i was never in the military.

2008-10-20 08:11:36

#18

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6343|tropical regions of london

Parker wrote:
i would love to know who said that they are signing up, or have already done so to "see some action" or to "operate ones weaponry".....

cause i have done both....and i was never in the military.

good job!

2008-10-20 08:12:41

#19

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6343|tropical regions of london

to murder women and children and throw puppies off of cliffs ofcourse

2008-10-20 08:24:15

#20

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6223|Escea

TheAussieReaper wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't. Unless they're part of those genocidal armies that you sometimes get in like Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe.
Or in America during the conquest of The Sioux, the Cherokee, the Aztec, the Inca, ...

Soldiers targeting civilians isn't something confined to those countries alone.

I'm talking recent, such as the war in Bosnia, Kosovo, actions in Burma, Sudan.

2008-10-20 10:08:51

#21

IG-Calibre: comhalta; +226|6742|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

M.O.A.B wrote:
Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't. Unless they're part of those genocidal armies that you sometimes get in like Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe.

really? out of interest if you study the statical data of the "troubles" (fairly macabre granted) you find that the republican "Terrorists" killed more crown forces than civilians and the armed forces killed more non-combatant civilians than "terrorists" and almost exclusively murdered civilians when the crown took off their uniforms and put on their balaclavas - scuppers that theory imo..

https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/charts/troubles_deaths_by_status_organisation.gif

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-10-20 10:21:39)

2008-10-20 11:35:02

#22

destruktion_6143: Was ist Loos?; +154|6626|Canada

M.O.A.B wrote:
Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't. Unless they're part of those genocidal armies that you sometimes get in like Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe.

Really? bc of the united states invasion of Iraq, 655,000 more civilians have died than would've if never invaded. might not be directly targeting but its actions have equal or greater devastation.

2008-10-20 11:51:23

#23

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6445|The Land of Scott Walker

Braddock wrote:
My question is what is the difference between this mentality and that of a Muslim extremist who signs up to a terror group for the opportunity to "kill some infidels"?

The soldier puts on a uniform of his country and engages an armed enemy on the battlefield. A Muslim extremist engages unarmed civilians who are not committed to any battlefield.

2008-10-20 11:52:14

#24

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6714|US

destruktion_6143 wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Terrorists usually target civies, soldiers won't. Unless they're part of those genocidal armies that you sometimes get in like Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe.
Really? bc of the united states invasion of Iraq, 655,000 more civilians have died than would've if never invaded. might not be directly targeting but its actions have equal or greater devastation.

[facepalm]
...and who is doing the majority of the killing?

2008-10-20 12:00:40

#25

jord: Member; +2,382|6678|The North, beyond the wall.

Wish I found this thread earlier, ahhh well I'm too tired now. Maybe tomorrow.

For now you call all chew on this little statement...

What soldier wants to spend 12 years shooting wooden targets and firing blanks at each other? What soldier doesn't want to put his training into practice? Who joined a combat arm of their military to do drill and learn about the characteristics of their weapons system and never use it?

BF2S Forums What's The Difference?

TheAussieReaper wrote:

MOAB wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Parker wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Braddock wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Board footer