Backintothesky 0 #26 October 8, 2014 Yep it was illegal for American citizens as well as illegal for Irish citizens. I'm talking purely about whether that law was right. I'm saying that the law in WW2 prohibiting Americans and Irish from joining the British forces was wrong. In the case of WW2 there is no moral problem with leaving your country to join the fight in a recognised state army against a global threat that was clearly the "bad guy". Very different than leaving your country to join a rebel force in a purely civil conflict, especially when that rebel force (even before ISIS arrived) had links to known groups that are enemies of your country of origin. Anyone that does that shouldn't expect to just be able to return to their country no problems. Once again, no sympathy for them. They made their bed and they can lie in it. When you play a big boy's game, you play by big boy rules. kallend***At risk of being controversial, perhaps they shouldn't have joined the rebel force in the first place. If you are a citizen of one country and leave it to join a revolutionary force in another then you made your bed so you can lie in it. It was a very different case when Irish citizens joined the British army during WW2 or some American citizens joined the RAF during the Battle of Britain. They were joining an established state army in a clear cut battle between "good" and "evil". The RAF recognizes seven aircrew personnel who were from the United States as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. American citizens were prohibited from serving under the various US Neutrality Acts; if an American citizen had defied strict neutrality laws, there was a risk of losing their citizenship and imprisonment. It is believed that another four Americans misled the British authorities about their origins, claiming to be Canadian or other nationalities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 October 8, 2014 No analogy is perfect but I find your nitpicks unpersuasive. For example, your standard would condemn french Americans who might join the French resistance in 1940 to engage in sabotage against the repressive Vichy French in southern France. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backintothesky 0 #28 October 8, 2014 I agree no analogy is perfect but it wouldn't condemn French Americans in WW2 who might join the French resistance. France was occupied by a foreign power intent on world domination. The Vichy government became part of that foreign power. The occupation of France by the Nazi's was not a civil conflict between two French powers, but a invasion and taking of one country by another with a view to use that country as a platform for the invasion of the UK. Thanks to the brave efforts of the RAF in the summer and fall of 1940, plus a stupid strategic error by Hitler, they never even got the chance to try. For all of his faults, Assad's government is not or was not planning to attack other countries and occupy Europe. There is no need for foreigners to "join the cause" against him, it wasn't a fight against a great evil that wants to enslave humanity. There is no justification for any foreigner to be involved in a domestic conflict. It smacks of stupid, naive young men jumping at the opportunity to play call of duty for real. Andy9o8No analogy is perfect but I find your nitpicks unpersuasive. For example, your standard would condemn french Americans who might join the French resistance in 1940 to engage in sabotage against the repressive Vichy French in southern France. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #29 October 8, 2014 I see no moral difference between that and opposing Assad's genocidal level mass murder of his own citizens. Nits. Unpersuasive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,426 #30 October 8, 2014 QuoteThere is no justification for any foreigner to be involved in a domestic conflict. Of course there is. Are national borders some kind of opaque barrier to morality? Are you saying that you can percieve good and bad in your own country but not others, or are you saying it's only worth opposing injustice when the victims hold the same passport as you?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #31 October 8, 2014 BackintotheskyI agree no analogy is perfect but it wouldn't condemn French Americans in WW2 who might join the French resistance. France was occupied by a foreign power intent on world domination. The Vichy government became part of that foreign power. The occupation of France by the Nazi's was not a civil conflict between two French powers, but a invasion and taking of one country by another with a view to use that country as a platform for the invasion of the UK. Thanks to the brave efforts of the RAF in the summer and fall of 1940, plus a stupid strategic error by Hitler, they never even got the chance to try. For all of his faults, Assad's government is not or was not planning to attack other countries and occupy Europe. There is no need for foreigners to "join the cause" against him, it wasn't a fight against a great evil that wants to enslave humanity. There is no justification for any foreigner to be involved in a domestic conflict. It smacks of stupid, naive young men jumping at the opportunity to play call of duty for real. ***No analogy is perfect but I find your nitpicks unpersuasive. For example, your standard would condemn french Americans who might join the French resistance in 1940 to engage in sabotage against the repressive Vichy French in southern France. The issue is not justification, it's consequence. If one chooses to travel to a foreign/home country to join the fight against "x" they should do so without expecting amnesty for their actions from their current country.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backintothesky 0 #32 October 9, 2014 By involved I mean picking a side and picking up a weapon. The world needs more humanitarian aid, not people who decide to pick up a weapon for a civil war in another country. And I'm sorry but opposing injustice? If we opposed every injustice in this world with bullets and bombs they'd be no human race left. Assad's a bad man, yes. But how do we know that the rebel groups would be any better? Jesus, we supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan and look where that got us. Let's put it this way, even if these young men's intentions were pure when they joined the rebels, how have they helped the situation? They've been responsible for the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the deaths of many. Assad is still in power, this civil war has claimed the lives of so many people and is STILL raging 2 years later. The resulting chaos has enabled a brutal group to carve a path through the country and neighboring Iraq, resulting in even more death, misery and terror for men women and children. Morality? What's moral about that? There's a time to pick up a weapon and fight and Syria's civil conflict is and was not it. Plus, you have to wonder where these men's loyalties lie eh? If they have family in Syria then I could understand them taking up arms, but if they are British citizens with no link to Syria other than "cos they're muslims innit" then it's disturbing that their allegiance to their religion supercedes their allegiance to their country of birth.... jakeeQuoteThere is no justification for any foreigner to be involved in a domestic conflict. Of course there is. Are national borders some kind of opaque barrier to morality? Are you saying that you can percieve good and bad in your own country but not others, or are you saying it's only worth opposing injustice when the victims hold the same passport as you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 October 9, 2014 The distinction between individual humanitarian help and individual military help is more a legal one than a moral one. Again, compare to individual volunteers in the 1930s & 40s in European and Asian conflict areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #34 October 9, 2014 Andy9o8The distinction between individual humanitarian help and individual military help is more a legal one than a moral one. Again, compare to individual volunteers in the 1930s & 40s in European and Asian conflict areas. Do you think those that joined up (just for lack of better terms) "illegally" did so because they thought they'd receive amnesty for their actions?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #35 October 9, 2014 Bolas***The distinction between individual humanitarian help and individual military help is more a legal one than a moral one. Again, compare to individual volunteers in the 1930s & 40s in European and Asian conflict areas. Do you think those that joined up (just for lack of better terms) "illegally" did so because they thought they'd receive amnesty for their actions? I suspect most of the teens and 20 - somethings that do that sort of thing in any generation probably don't give that a lot of advance thought. Irresponsibility of youth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,426 #36 October 9, 2014 BackintotheskyBy involved I mean picking a side and picking up a weapon. The world needs more humanitarian aid, not people who decide to pick up a weapon for a civil war in another country. And I'm sorry but opposing injustice? If we opposed every injustice in this world with bullets and bombs they'd be no human race left. Yeah, great. Lovely sound bite. What happens if no one opposes any of them? ***Morality? What's moral about that?*** What's moral or justified about joining a conflict that your own country is involved in? Come up with some reasons why that's right that can't be transferred across national borders. (I'm ignoring anything specifically about Syria because you made a blanket statement about all conflicts.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #37 October 9, 2014 Andy9o8******The distinction between individual humanitarian help and individual military help is more a legal one than a moral one. Again, compare to individual volunteers in the 1930s & 40s in European and Asian conflict areas. Do you think those that joined up (just for lack of better terms) "illegally" did so because they thought they'd receive amnesty for their actions? I suspect most of the teens and 20 - somethings that do that sort of thing in any generation probably don't give that a lot of advance thought. Irresponsibility of youth. So bad decisions just should be rewarded or forgiven. No consequence for ones own voluntary actions. If someone chooses to do something just because to them they think it's "right" why must their government agree with them? We're not talking about just joining a protest in their current country, traveling to another country takes some sort of plans and thought.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,397 #38 October 9, 2014 QuoteSo bad decisions just should be rewarded or forgiven. No consequence for ones own voluntary actions. Sure we see it here all the time. Somebody craters and we all are implored to give money cause they never bothered to spend money on life and health insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #39 October 9, 2014 SkyDekker Quote So bad decisions just should be rewarded or forgiven. No consequence for ones own voluntary actions. Sure we see it here all the time. Somebody craters and we all are implored to give money cause they never bothered to spend money on life and health insurance. How does asking for donations compare to a government mandate? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,397 #40 October 9, 2014 Bolas *** Quote So bad decisions just should be rewarded or forgiven. No consequence for ones own voluntary actions. Sure we see it here all the time. Somebody craters and we all are implored to give money cause they never bothered to spend money on life and health insurance. How does asking for donations compare to a government mandate? It doesn't. It goes to the general mindset of the discussion related to consequences for ones own voluntary actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backintothesky 0 #41 October 9, 2014 Surely you can make a moral distinction between putting a round into another human being (regardless of if they deserve it or not) versus providing humanitarian aid to innocent victims of conflict??! Andy9o8The distinction between individual humanitarian help and individual military help is more a legal one than a moral one. Again, compare to individual volunteers in the 1930s & 40s in European and Asian conflict areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backintothesky 0 #42 October 9, 2014 That's what nations are for...that's what professional soldiers are for. That's the point of things like the geneva convention, rules of engagement, rules of war. International sanctions etc. jakee Yeah, great. Lovely sound bite. What happens if no one opposes any of them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #43 October 9, 2014 BackintotheskySurely you can make a moral distinction between putting a round into another human being (regardless of if they deserve it or not) versus providing humanitarian aid to innocent victims of conflict Well sure. I'm speaking in broad terms of course, and am only on my phone today so can't really write at length. That said, putting a bullet into mass murderers like Assad, or Idi Amin would be humanitarian. And of course, there's always Adolph. Look I understand why many nations prohibit their citizens from serving in foreign militaries, rebel forces, etc and I'm ok with that. But the moral facets are a labrynth at best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #44 October 15, 2014 The Netherlands has an interesting point of view: http://news.yahoo.com/netherlands-says-ok-biker-gangs-fight-islamic-state-155136559.html"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #45 October 15, 2014 I saw that yesterday, thats pretty bad ass IMO. That could just be my thinking due to the fact that the new season of Sons Of Anarchy is back on tv Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #46 October 15, 2014 There is something satisfying in imagining a horde of black-clad nutcases fleeing before an onslaught of middle-aged guys on Harleys. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #47 October 15, 2014 ryoderThe Netherlands has an interesting point of view: http://news.yahoo.com/netherlands-says-ok-biker-gangs-fight-islamic-state-155136559.html That's a creative way to make the streets safer for bicycling!Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #48 October 21, 2014 Interview them in situ, turn the ones that can be turned and bring them back to infiltrate and expose others. As for the ones that can't be turned remove their passports and monitor them. Personally I don't have a problem with British Jihadists going to fight in Syria and Iraq for IS because it thins them out of British society and puts them in a situation where we can legally wack them on the battlefield. Given the opportunity the RAF and special forces should target the 'Al Britaini brigade' and mallet them.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 66 #49 October 21, 2014 SkyradInterview them in situ, turn the ones that can be turned and bring them back to infiltrate and expose others. As for the ones that can't be turned remove their passports and monitor them. Personally I don't have a problem with British Jihadists going to fight in Syria and Iraq for IS because it thins them out of British society and puts them in a situation where we can legally sack them on the battlefield. Given the opportunity the RAF and special forces should target the 'Al Britaini brigade' and mallet them. +1Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites