BF2S Forums What's The Difference?

Braddock wrote:

I think some people have gotten distracted from my original point here. The debate shouldn't really be centring around the morality of a soldier's role versus that of a terrorist; my point was about the mentality of some soldiers who sign up simply because they want "to see some action". My point being that this mentality is as morally detached and 'evil' as that of an extremist who wants to indiscriminately kill 'infidels'.

as long as they have the code of Harry & even if they don't wear a uniform it's ok  Dexter teaches us this!!

They did some experimentation regarding this back in the Vietnam war with American soldiers.

When I can remember the name of the report that was generated I'll post a link. 

Until then, take this one from WW1 which may also answer a few questions.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/information/ … ng_JCH.pdf

Indeed, Swank and Marchand’s study of US infantry in north-west Europe showed that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 per cent of surviving soldiers were likely to have become psychiatric casualties of some kind, whether of combat exhaustion, acute anxiety state or depression. In the remaining two per cent, who were capable of enduring a sustained period of combat, they encountered a predisposition to an ‘aggressive psychopathic personality’.

If I remember right, the other report from Vietnam era pegs it at 3 to 5% at the top of the scale will refuse to kill (yet still go through the motions of shooting a weapon or participating in some way), while at the bottom 3 to 5% are certified psychopaths that actually become sexually aroused by killing in combat.  This held true for all sides and cut across all cultures.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-10-21 09:32:03)

jord wrote:

jord wrote:

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?

Nobody going to address this? (greyfox doesn't count, his opinion means nothing)

There's always firing competitions to best yourself with a firearm.
If it's applying your training and killing then you can always go hunting.  Animal hunting.
If you really hunger for military/tactical combat you can always apply for something like domestic SWAT or join a PMC.  They'll put you to work.

Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-21 09:58:33)

jord wrote:

Icleos wrote:

jord wrote:

Nobody going to address this? (greyfox doesn't count, his opinion means nothing)

There's always firing competitions to best yourself with a firearm.
If it's applying your training and killing then you can always go hunting.  Animal hunting.
If you really hunger for military/tactical combat you can always apply for something like domestic SWAT or join a PMC.  They'll put you to work.

What's he point in joining armed police if you can join the Army with tons more benefits?

I would shoot at the weekend as it's fun, but if my life revolved around storming buildings with plastic dummies inside in preparation for the real thing then I never got the chance to use my years of training... I'd be pretty pissed.

Actually, i heard police raided and arrested 5 terrorists in Sparkhill yesterday, a 5 minute walk from me, actually.

But, Armed Police don't get attacked by their own countrymen, as many RAF officers were.

jord wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

jord wrote:

What's he point in joining armed police if you can join the Army with tons more benefits?

I would shoot at the weekend as it's fun, but if my life revolved around storming buildings with plastic dummies inside in preparation for the real thing then I never got the chance to use my years of training... I'd be pretty pissed.

Actually, i heard police raided and arrested 5 terrorists in Sparkhill yesterday, a 5 minute walk from me, actually.

But, Armed Police don't get attacked by their own countrymen, as many RAF officers were.

I wouldn't join the Police if I was on 500k a year, thanks.

Oh and Police get more shit and get attacked more than armed forces easily. Millions hate the Police, millions respect the Army/Marines.

That RAF incident is in a place well known for such behaviour, people that just need to fuck off to Puerto Rico with the rest of the scroungers and cunts.

What about working for a private military company?

Last edited by Icleos (2008-10-21 10:19:03)

Icleos wrote:

jord wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

Actually, i heard police raided and arrested 5 terrorists in Sparkhill yesterday, a 5 minute walk from me, actually.

But, Armed Police don't get attacked by their own countrymen, as many RAF officers were.

I wouldn't join the Police if I was on 500k a year, thanks.

Oh and Police get more shit and get attacked more than armed forces easily. Millions hate the Police, millions respect the Army/Marines.

That RAF incident is in a place well known for such behaviour, people that just need to fuck off to Puerto Rico with the rest of the scroungers and cunts.

What about working for a private military company?

What about it? I'd do it, but they don't hire people with no previous military experiance...

SEREVENT wrote:

jord wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

Actually, i heard police raided and arrested 5 terrorists in Sparkhill yesterday, a 5 minute walk from me, actually.

But, Armed Police don't get attacked by their own countrymen, as many RAF officers were.

I wouldn't join the Police if I was on 500k a year, thanks.

Oh and Police get more shit and get attacked more than armed forces easily. Millions hate the Police, millions respect the Army/Marines.

That RAF incident is in a place well known for such behaviour, people that just need to fuck off to Puerto Rico with the rest of the scroungers and cunts.

Ok fair enough. I plan on joining one of the armed forces too.

But, i've never met anyone who hates the police. Plenty of people in my school/area hate the army though...

How the hell do you hate the Army, if it wasn't for the Army they'd have to get their skinny little asses out into the real world and defend their country. Give your little school mates a big Fuck you from me.

Last edited by jord (2008-10-21 10:21:07)

Icleos wrote:

jord wrote:

Icleos wrote:

What about working for a private military company?

What about it? I'd do it, but they don't hire people with no previous military experiance...

That's my suggested point.
If you think your training is being wasted then perhaps a PMC would be the way to go?

Oh, yeah sure.

But most people that join a combat arm for more than 5 years generally put their shit into good use, as the British Army rotas regiments on operations.

Though if you join Paras/Royal Marines, then you're on the rota more...

Hence why I'm joining the paras.

Difference when we kill the extremists it is also for the purpose defending from the disasters the Muslim extremists cause on us. They want to force their religion upon us and we want to defend from their killings. It is an action and a justifiable reaction.

Warhammer wrote:

Difference when we kill the extremists it is also for the purpose defending from the disasters the Muslim extremists cause on us. They want to force their religion upon us and we want to defend from their killings. It is an action and a justifiable reaction.

You are completely missing the point, like many others in this thread. This thread was not intended as an argument for or against the war on 'terror',  it was an attempt to point out the parallels between some soldiers - those who sign up primarily to "see some action" as many of them put it -and many Islamic militants who share a common desire to carry out indiscriminate attacks against 'the enemy'. I've never had a problem with a soldier who signs up to do his duty with both eyes wide open and with a full understanding of the philosophy of what he is doing, in fact I very much respect the principle of that... it's the zombies who have signed up because they have swallowed all the propaganda that has been fed to them or because they simply want to 'play soldiers' that I have a problem with.

And besides, your actual argument here is pretty weak and incredibly vague. You sound like you're reading from a Government-issued propaganda leaflet. The argument that the invasion of entire nations is somehow justified in the name of preventing attacks from Islamic extremists is pretty redundant when the nations in question never had a strong extremist element to begin with and when in fact it was only after your invasion that these extremist groups actually got a foothold in the region. In fact it could be reasonably argued that 'the war on terror', in its current incarnation, is actually exacerbating Islamic extremism.

And if you go back to the issue of subjectivity an extremist could just take your viewpoint, spin it around and use the exact same argument against you e.g. "when we kill US troops it is also for the purpose of defending from the disasters of Western preemptive aggression on us. The US wants to force their way of life upon us and we want to defend from their killings. It is an action and a justifiable reaction".

Comprende?

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

it was an attempt to point out the parallels between some soldiers - those who sign up primarily to "see some action" as many of them put it -and many Islamic militants who share a common desire to carry out indiscriminate attacks against 'the enemy'.

I don't know of any soldiers who sign up to carry out "indiscriminate attacks against 'the enemy'". There is a big difference between "wanting to see some action" and wanting to carry out indiscriminate attacks.

"Indiscriminate" is a valid choice of words in my opinion in that the actual identity of the enemy combatant is immaterial to the soldier who only wants to "see some action". In the same way an extremist may want to "kill some infidels", the specific identity of these infidels may be quite immaterial to him though. I do not mean "indiscriminate" in the sense of being done randomly without careful judgement - I doubt many soldiers do very much on the battlefield without careful judgement.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Action [verb] = (1) Getting out of a small tobacco town in Connecticut and traveling the world on someone else's dime. All while consuming good booze at cheap prices and waking up with exotic women with various tattoo's to illustrate a permanent adventure on your body that will later aid in pulling ass when your a civilian. Lets not forget the time at sea, the helicopter rides, weapons, sick ass equipment, lifelong friends brothers who wil die for you, bootcamp memories, a uniform that will also aid in pulling ass, the chance to blow shit up, knowing at one point I was one of the baddest mother fuckers to walk the land, being part of an elite fraternity and tradition, 10% off at most participating Best Westerns and a college degree that I did not pay for.

                      (2) Going through boot camp only to put on a skirt afterwards by becoming a POGUE, and then telling people back home you are in Special Forces and fabricating stories of how you kill people when you realy didn't. As a result you succesfully put shame to anyone who wears the uniform and sacrifice hundreds of years of tradition for the opportunity to become a bar star not realizing there is most likely a real hero lurking at a pool table silently listening to your bullshit as you further confirm and solidify the real mans status as a true hero.


                     (3) Not William Walace.

Half of your post rings true and makes sense deeznutz, the other half unfortunately is full of shit.

Signing up to the military for the overseas travel, training, feeling of fraternity, pussy, educational benefits, lifelong memories and the idea of serving your country (which you didn't mention funnily enough) = perfectly good reasons to join the army.

Signing up to the military for "the chance to blow shit up", "to use sick ass equipment" and to kill other human beings = evil and retarded.

Also, the mere fact of killing someone doesn't get you automatic hero status in my book I'm afraid. Whether or not someone is killed in your supposed act of heroism is a secondary detail, there are other more important factors to be considered such as what was your mission actually achieving for the good of your fellow troops/society/family/loved ones? Did you exhibit extraordinary courage and skill in your actions? Was the target in question an actual threat to your fellow troops/society/family/loved ones/way of life or just someone who themself was just trying to protect his society/family/loved ones/nation? Were you part of an aggressive military action or a defensive military action (for example I wouldn't regard many Nazis as heroes)?

And finally, what's the deal with you and William Wallace? You seem to have a major hard-on for him.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Braddock, you are adding things that were not stated, in order to make your point.  It weakens you argument when you try to use something the other person didn't say against them.

The only bit added to Deeznutz's original post in my retort above was the mention of the desire to sign up to the military for the opportunity to kill other people (a concept outlined in the original OP), you'll also notice that this addition was not written in inverted commas and hence I was not implying that deeznutz actually said that. I do, however, believe that his post implied a certain tendency towards this particular point of view but that is just personal opinion on my part (I can't read his mind).

My argument has not been weakened in any way. My original argument that signing up to the armed forces for the opportunity to see what it is like to kill someone in a combat zone is no different in principle to signing up to a terror group for the chance to kill 'the enemy' remains the same.