• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by Backintothesky

  1. 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.... 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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. 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.
  4. I don't know enough about the Spanish civil war to give an informed opinion but I'm still sticking to my guns here. They shouldn't have got involved. Civil wars, civil unrest etc., why should citizens of a foreign country get involved? And why should that foreign country accept that from its citizens? If you want to go to war, join your own country's army, a private security firm, or if you really want that mercenary experience, join the French Foreign Legion. Either way, its unacceptable that, in the modern conflicts of today - characterised by militia groups and civil conflict, people should expect to be able to fight in another countries army or rebel force and then come home expecting a warm welcome...Especially when BOTH sides of the conflict are committing horrific war crimes. At the very least expect a thorough investigation into your actions. And given the woeful lack of military training that most of these people have, they'd of done more good by providing aid to the displaced civilian population, than by cracking off a few rounds whilst silhouetting themselves on a hill before getting their heads blown off by a well-placed 7.62 round.
  5. Your "problem with Britain" is based on an incorrect assumption. Britain is not saying they won't take them back, they're saying they will be open to prosecution. So these "jihadists" are avoiding going back even though they want to. If you're gonna have a problem with my country, at least make it a real one....
  6. 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". These days, those lines of good and bad sides are blurred. The FSA and other rebel groups in Syria were not the "good" guys. Syria and the Middle East in general is a whirlpool of sectarian conflict and war crimes. I couldn't give a shit about UK citizens who joined the rebels and now find themselves under ISIL. They shouldn't have gone over there to fight in the first place. If they really wanted to help they should have done what the very brave, now deceased, Alan Henning did and go over there to deliver aid..not death.
  7. You can't mitigate the risk even with profiling. You can't profile people based on religious views unless you follow them all day every day. And indeed, any Islamic terrorist sleeper cell is going to go out of there way to not look like Muslim's as they know that draws attention. This isn't Team America, not every Muslim fits into the box of "brown with a beard". There are plenty of white muslims in the world, you wouldn't know until you ask them.
  8. He triedto entice your 13 year sister into sneaking out of the house but she refused because she is able to make a judgement call (ie she's not a guillable child) And your response was to put him in hospital?
  9. Fantastic free advertising for her gun range..... I don't think even she believes she can know when someone is Muslim or not. She'll just ban those who look "suspicious" or stereotypically Muslim. She's just expressed it in a way that will get her national coverage and encourage more people who share her views to visit her gun range.
  10. When did society ever have control over rape? As it is for 99% of men, including those college students that the state of California is now saying are rapists till proved otherwise. Evidence for that statement? I believe groping and what we would now call sexual assault was the norm in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s (sorry don't know how old you are). Rape has always happened unfortunately. How? If you need a law to tell you not to have sex with a passed out person then you are already far too fucked up. The law is very vague. And it still leads to a "he says she says" situation. Except now instead of being a case of innocent till proven guilty, you will now have young men charged with rape because they had sex with a girl whilst they were both intoxicated. This will do nothing to protect young women from being raped.
  11. How many people actually say "yes I confirm I want to fuck you" before having sex? Jeez. It's going to get to the point where there has to be a signed contract for each activity. "Do you consent to kissing with tongue? If yes please tick and sign here. Do you consent to nipple licking? If yes please tick and sign here" Coupled with video evidence.... Seriously if I were a single guy in California I would seriously consider buying a video camera and recording each sexual activity to protect my own ass. This law does nothing to protect women and once again it will come down to "he said she said". It smacks of certain people's desire to label all men rapists until proven otherwise.
  12. Is it a good thing? A fair thing? The danger here is that there will be a growing resentment of the Scots from the English, not only for all the mud they slung during the independence campaign but also because they are now going to receive even more money than the English. Even the creator of the Barnett Formula that gave the Scots more spending per head is now saying that he wishes it was scrapped and can't believe it is still being used now. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
  13. Hence the uproar now as Westminster have promised Scotland EVEN MORE money - despite the fact they already get more than England anyway. There's going to be a lot of bitterness all round and there are now calls for devolution for England.
  14. And then have the nerve to blame the English for it all. If they vote to stay the UK government will pay them more money on top of what they already get. State spending in Yorkshire (north England) is approx. £8000 per head per year whilst in Scotland it's £10,000 per head per year.
  15. Exactly! Scots ARE Brits. They just have the misfortune of not being English.
  16. It's a classic "bite my own face off to spite the English" situation
  17. Special forces strikes on infrastructure and assasination (spelling?) of high ranking leaders probably using drones. No need for boots on ground.
  18. who knows what they are thinking, its all propaganda and a big game of violent poker. Whether its a big bluff or they want the West to invade heads are going to roll and people will die regardless. Its all probably very fatalistic on their end anyway, these people aren't 'rational actors' in any sense of the word - they want to die in battle. If they got their hands on nukes they would blow themselves and the world up just to send us to 'hell' and them to their 100 virgins. Fuck em, I laugh in the face of their threats. They're pathetic creatures who don't deserve the title 'human being'. I don't think so. They know we won't stand for too much of that behavior.
  19. Exactly, a friend recently died from a completely unexpected brain aneurysm just going about her daily life. She was 29. Live as much as you can cos death's coming for you either way.
  20. Or they are running scared from airstrikes and are hoping that cutting off more heads will dissuade us from continuing to attack them. Could easily be either one.
  21. I think what he's trying to get at is - what makes you so sure your version of God is the right one? You are an "atheist" for every other religion out there except your own. Why don't you believe in Hinduism or Islam or Judiasm or Buddism or Thor or any of the millions of Gods that have been believed in throughout history? Sorry , not even close. Don't know where to begin to respond, but I am doubtful that it is of any use anyway. If you are unaware that you have a spirit, then you will definitely be unaware of its needs. Evidence comes in many different forms. ...
  22. Exactly, if you are going to get killed skydiving it's probably going to be human error that kills you - i.e. you fucked up. This is by far the most useful post in this thread, so I'm quoting it. The raw statistics may or may not be interesting, but thinking of skydiving as merely rolling the dice in this way hides important truths. We are certainly taking some kind of risk on merely by exiting a plane, but we are far from passive participants in the gamble.
  23. This sums up religion - it's a personal 'feel good' thing. And there is nothing wrong with that. I might be wrong Ron, but even if there was convincing evidence that the Christian God didn't exist you wouldn't stop believing because it is not about facts or logic but about how it makes you feel. I think where non-believers have a problem with religion is when this personal feel good belief system tries to put itself in the middle of public policy and dictate how others should live.
  24. You're an interesting character I'll give you that