Backintothesky

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....

jakee

Quote

There 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?

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.

Andy9o8

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.

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.

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.

jakee

What about, say, Americans who fought against Franco in the Spanish civil war?

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....

lawrocket

Is nobody putting themselves in Turkey's shoes? Turkey probably doesn't want them, either. They aren't Turks.

They are British. And I have a bit of a problem with Britain NOT doing something about it. The British should be doing something instead of having their nationals sticking around in Turkey because Britain won't take them back.

There's now a whole new thing that needs treaty treatment. As a planet, we can't just be having some countries operate as dumping grounds. (Like England wouldn't be pissed off if Pakistan wouldn't take its citizens back...)

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.

DanG

There was a story on NPR recently about some UK citizens who went to Syria to fight against Assad and got absorbed into ISIL. One day ISIL basically showed up and said, "You guys are with us now. Got a problem with that?" Now they are afraid of trying to leave ISIL because they like having their heads attacked to their bodies.

What do you do with people who went to fight Assad, but not fight for ISIL? Remember, Assad used to be the enemy.

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.

RonD1120

The real sticky part for me is Islamic terrorist sleeper agents and cells. How can you mitigate the risk without profiling?

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?

Doug_Davis

Because it happened 20+ years ago? I doubt Im on the FBI most wanted list. And just for the record in Florida it wouldnt have been felony assault, since the victim wasnt a minor, I didnt use a deadly weapon, nor did I have a prior conviction for battery or assault.

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.

mirage62

This law attempts to address a problem that society has lost control of.

When did society ever have control over rape?

mirage62

the idea of having sex w an obviously passed out person is just revolting to me.

As it is for 99% of men, including those college students that the state of California is now saying are rapists till proved otherwise.

mirage62

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be as rare as in the past.

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.

mirage62

but MAYBE it will get one young male from making a terrible mistake.

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.

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.

mirage62

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to pass a law that basically says don't be a damn animal.

Basically the law says that, you must have a "yes" verbal to have sex with someone, that the lack of a "no" was not a yes. Preventing drunk females (normally) from basically getting raped while drunk because they didn't say "no" (basically they said nothing)

I know I'm old....but in my day a guy that took advantage of a drunk female wasn't proud of it and was looked down on by people in my frat. Did it happen, I bet it did.....but now a days it sure seems like the stigma is gone.

Hate that we have to pass laws for decent behavior. Won't solve all the problems but HOPEFULLY after a few assholes go to jail the word will get out.

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.

Quagmirian

***Plus they get a lot more spent on them per head than the English even though the majority of the money is payed in by the English.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

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.

kallend

If anything the reverse is the case: Scots and Irish MPs get to vote on all English laws. However, the Scots and N. Irish ALSO have their own parliaments with considerable autonomy over their own laws.

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.

kallend

In summary, Scottish separatists are just a bunch of whiners who've had a lot of advantages and still failed.

Exactly!

kallend

***Assuming all you say is correct, the headlong scramble of the lemmings to the cliff would seem to validate a long-standing historical fact: the Brits excel at really, really pissing off the people they govern.

Scots ARE Brits.

They just have the misfortune of not being English.

It's a classic "bite my own face off to spite the English" situation

Skyrad

So the people of Scotland are to vote on the 18th Sept on leaving the UK. Despite having had several Scottish Prime Ministers if the UK and free healthcare prescriptions paid for by the rest of the UK (Who have to pay for theirs), and free University education paid for by the rest of the UK (Who have to pay around £9,000 a year for theirs) our tartan clad brothers feel oppressed. And so they're taking a vote on leaving the Uk. If they do they will have no currency of their own, no chance of joining the EU (as they have no currency or underwriting central bank). Their ecumenic decisions will be made by the UK and they will have no say on them. They may lose the monarchy, they will have to hand in their UK passports, they will have no freedom of movement across the UK and the EU. Already there has been a massive movement of money out of Scotland just in case of a YES vote. Their top three banks have said they'll move south to England. If they set up their own currency they'll have to build up a reserve which will mean austerity measures and anyone having purchased a house in Sterling (GBP not the place) will be screwed by the exchange rate and most likely lose their property. No one will have to take away their freedom because they will have given it away themselves and voted themselves into subjection. Funny old world isn't it.

Holy shit that was beautiful flying

stayhigh

The best freelying video of all time. None of that tunnel flying shit here. I'll bet these guys somewhat resent the wind tunnels. Because if the tunnel wasn't here, they will still be skygod, one of the best, while most of us will only dream about flying like these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgFs90pH3PA

Special forces strikes on infrastructure and assasination (spelling?) of high ranking leaders probably using drones.

No need for boots on ground.

Stumpy

And do what?
I'm genuinely curious. Short of "peacekeeping", what can we actually do here?
From my limited reading of this, there is no real figurehead to depose/kill, the organisation is unapologetically terrorist and organised as such. By sending in a large ground force you just set yourself up for a decades long conflict not really going anywhere and costing a lot of lives and in the end, probably converting more people to the opposition cause against the big bad foreign invader.

I haven't done much research here but this one seems particularly unwinnable.

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'.

airdvr

Quote

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.

I don't think so. They know we won't stand for too much of that behavior.

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.

rjblake

Love the outlook! There are those that say you only live once; but I'd disagree - you only die once! You get to live every day have no clue if some evil disease is gonna nail you, some fucktard on the highway is gonna wipe me off my bike, the building is gonna collapse or a zombie apocalypse is gonna happen. As many have said, no its not safe, but then again nothing is - so live your life, enjoy and treat others with respect - even if they are a zombie fucktard reaper! When I arrive at my destination one day, I know I'll arrive having lived my life to the max

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.

airdvr

I understand the emotional responses these videos are intended to evoke. What is the strategy?

I think they want to goad us into another ground war.
I think they know we don't have the stones for another long engagement.
I think they know these videos are good for recruiting.

I read an article yesterday. ISIS is extremely well funded They pay their charges well, better than the regular armies. They have hijacked something like 8 oil wells and 2 refineries and are selling the oil on the black market. We need to cut off their funding wherever possible. Perfect job for a predator with a hellfire or a cruise missile. If they're in Syria fuck 'em. We roast them where ever their paychecks are coming from. Pretty soon it stops looking like a wise career choice.

But here's the rub; we have no eyes. We have to get some people in there to tell us what's happening and where things are.

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?

maadmax

***So to clarify.

You choose to believe in something there's no evidence of, believe others that choose to believe in anything different that there's no evidence of are wrong, but also anyone who belongs to a group of people who believe in something there's no evidence of, even if it's the same something you believe in are weak minded.

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.
...

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.

Joellercoaster

***According to the most recent USPA fatality summary, you can lower your risk of death during skydiving dramatically by

1. not participating in high-performance landings
2. installing an RSL/Skyhook
3. having an AAD that is turned on
4. proper gear selection and regular maintenance
5. cutting away malfunctioning canopies promptly instead of going far too low trying to fix them

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.

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.

RonD1120

You are quite correct. But, not one of those theories ever gave me, or gives me now, peace beyond all understanding. Only Christ can do that.

You're an interesting character I'll give you that

aarco

When people die I geat real dude,, when I call it like it is North Com has the slip ,, I work for Command Group, No one in this country out ranks me ,,,no one,,, ask Gen Brown, how many stars are on Aaron McGee Comps actual Class A Uniform,, Ask him how Maxy Died in Hawaii, and why others just like umbrella hidden Chuck Blue are sellin themselves as modern day Hydra, Fuck you you little nazi worshipin peace of shit, burn you and your web page, after you get done kicking my ass off your no reserve pullen bullshit murder attitude maker,, moderate your ass as my first draft pick,, and then get court martialed for aiding and structuring a high treason crime, murder, and wartime warcrimes,,

Move jocky, I got nothin but downloaded movies to watch on my broken ipad,,showme what a badass haker you are, while i call an MP or two and cry to them why you kicked me off dropzone.com for callin a gofer a gofer and a death star a taliban can openner.