Why I disagree with Help for Heroes

You've clearly put some thought into your points, however not enough thought for you to be able to construct an argument from them. The reason is that in order to construct an argument you need to be persuasive, and in order to be persuasive, you need to put more thought into your points. Let me illustrate where all three of your main points stumble.

Foremost, I believe that anyone who joins this war condones it.
Troops do not have a choice where they are posted - there are many other areas in which our forces are deployed - the British Army of the Rhine for instance. No one chooses to join the war directly (other than the Taliban fighters), and there are still troops in action who may have joined the army prior to the Afghan war starting.

Secondly, if one man is to kill another, regardless of circumstance, I see him only as a murderer.
This statement is a triumph of generalisation and stinks of idealism. Firstly, it makes the assumption that all those troops who rely on Help for Heroes aid have killed others. This is not the case (I am sure there are many combat medical, logistical and engineering staff who have been helped by the charity as well).

You also state that any man is a murderer if he kills another man regardless of circumstance. This is a very strong statement indeed and an example of why you should think things through for yourself, rather than thinking 'What would Karl Marx/Martin Luther-King/Aung San Suu Kyi believe?'. I presume you take this view and apply it to life outside of war as well - if this is the case, then it just goes to illustrate the depths to which your views are bound by idealism and lack of understanding of the real world. If Dereck Bird had been shot by armed police rather than shooting himself, would those officers have been murderers? What if a Jewish man fatally wounded an SS officer who was searching his house, in a last-ditch attempt to spare his hiding family from the horrors of Auschwitz? Would it be murder to shoot an armed hostage-taker?

Most people (other than idealists) would argue that there will always be SOME situations in which the taking of another human life is justifiable.

You are entitled to your views, however if you wish to make a show of them, you must ensure that they stand up to scrutiny. Personally I don't think that you stance is 'disgusting' at all, it's just poorly thought out and based on ideological concepts which only work in a perfect world and can never be applied in real life.

Worst use of logic I've seen in this thread.

They are an a-political organisation who neither support nor condone the wars - it's not their place and there are plenty of other groups out there who do enough of that. They support the men and women of the Armed Forces who have been injured. End of. And yes, it can be that simple. Not everything in life has to be some massive political conspiracy.

Just to point out, my original post was an outlay of my argument. It was meant to neither persuade or desuade people, merely present points of discussion.

Firstly, of course a troop has a choice. If he did not, then that would be an infringement of basic human liberties. If I were to join the Armed Forces, I would sooner face a prison sentence than go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. At least I could stand tall, knowing I stood up for what I believed in. No one should discredit another for this fact.

Secondly, you make a fair point about servicemen not on the frontline. All I can say is that they contribute to the war effort, therefore should be tarred with the same brush. Also, I wouldn't shy away from being an Idealist. I feel that Idealism fuels all politics, as there is always a pinnacle of achievement that is never quite reached, therefore remains an ideal. We should always aim towards something idealistic, otherwise what is the point? In all of them cases (just as you predicted), I would consider it murder and therefore wrong. No one man has the right to take a life of another, and that is what it boils down to.

While idealism has purposes, there is a reason why noone with such a vehement stance on those ideals is in power - it's not real life.

It doesn't mean they parade their ideology, I'm saying that their actions imply their stance.

While idealism has purposes, there is a reason why noone with such a vehement stance on those ideals is in power - it's not real life.

Until you are able to distinguish between the two this debate will continue to spin round and round in circles so any further participation is pointless.

But the fundamental still remains that they are supporting people who are illegally invading countries abroad to the general discontent of their country and murdering their civilians.

It isn't that simple just because you say it is.

As I mentioned, it's impossible for them to remain a-political, due to the magnitude of the debate and their direct involvement in it. It doesn't mean they parade their ideology, I'm saying that their actions imply their stance.

And you obviously don't pay much attention to my argument, seeing as you're implying that I feel "everything in life has to be some massive political conspiracy". Your ability to misinterpret and remove context from information astonishes me.

And your posts imply you're a silly little kid who's in way over his head.

Help for Heroes - the charity - has nothing whatsoever to do with politics or promoting a political agenda. But this very basic and frankly obvious statement isn't getting through to you so there's really no point in continuing a debate.

People do have a "vehement stance" on such ideals, they chose not to display them to win public opinion. If you project such views, you marginalise the public, and thus, don't get into power.

And I forsake understanding how the idea that all killing is unjust isn't "real world". In fact, it's more "real world" than you give credit. Take, for example, the abolishment of the death penalty. One man could massacre hundreds, only to be imprisoned.

But you're just assuming your view is correct.

War and politics are directly relative. Fact. Anything to do with war is, therefore, political, be it publicly or not.

~3,000 American civilians + 300 British civilians < ~300,000 civilians killed in Iraqi and Afghani conflicts.

I think the shoe is MOST DEFINITELY on the other foot.

The phrase 'tarred with the same brush' is normally a negative one used to suggest that someone has not considered individual circumstances. British Army doctors treat locals (including insurgents) - do they condone the war? Or are they using the opportunity of working with the army as a way to get trained in skills that will save many lives in the future when they leave the forces as well as making a difference to all involved in the conflict?

You still haven't told me if it would be murder for a Jewish householder to kill an SS officer in self-defence.

Between Jan 04 and Dec 09 there are 66k civlian deaths in Iraq.....
I think you're confusing casualties with deaths.

You should read the 3rd message, not just the first. "We do not seek to criticise or be political". They can rise above it, why are you too petty to do the same?

And I forsake understanding how the idea that all killing is unjust isn't "real world". In fact, it's more "real world" than you give credit. Take, for example, the abolishment of the death penalty. One man could massacre hundreds, only to be imprisoned.

If people want to risk their life going to war then that's their own problem - I'm sorry, that's just my view.

And you're promoting the false idea that helping injured people is the same as having something to do with war - it just isn't.

In most cases, H4H doesn't even come into effect until those injured are no longer part of the Armed Forces - meaning they're dealing with civilians.