Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Not at all. They can always fight back, but have chosen not to. Many have abandoned women and children in their homelands to flee. In a civil war, every man becomes a soldier, whether he volunteered or not. Thus they may be argued as moral deserters. Do host countries owe anything to people who many argue are cowards, traitors etc? And is it wise to invite such people into a country?
    We're talking about poor people with no access to military training, organisation, or weaponry, faced with roving bands of trained men with assault rifles and explosives. Choosing to stay and fight is a pointless suicide. The only valid option is to run.

    (I should also say - your argument was never going to convince me anyway, because I don't even believe in the existence of inherently bad people, but that's another story.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine, hypothetically, if the UK was put under martial law. Or invaded by nazis. Whatever. men with guns.
    Do you seriously think that all the dads and lads would get out the kitchen knives and cricket bats and take to the streets?

    The people you are talking about are just ordinary people, trying to protect their family and trying to stay alive. How dare you call them cowards for wanting safety. This is the most vile case of victim blaming in terms of the refugee situation I have ever seen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tenzzzin)
    Do you seriously think that all the dads and lads would get out the kitchen knives and cricket bats and take to the streets?
    No, they would use their guns.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    No, they would use their guns.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Very few people in the UK have guns on their property.
    Even so, here are three points against this stupid hypothetical situation against an even stupider argument

    1) They are outgunned. Think about it. An Army vs a few dads with hunting rifles
    2) They probably wouldn't risk being killed Many people have family to protect.
    3) What do guns do against bombs from the sky?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tenzzzin)
    Very few people in the UK have guns on their property.
    Even so, here are three points against this stupid hypothetical situation against an even stupider argument

    1) They are outgunned. Think about it. An Army vs a few dads with hunting rifles
    2) They probably wouldn't risk being killed Many people have family to protect.
    3) What do guns do against bombs from the sky?
    Very few? 3.4 million is more than a few.

    Guerilla warfare is a very strong tactic when done right.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Crap culture?
    Yea it's pretty self explanatory


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Yea it's pretty self explanatory


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    White supremacy thing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Very few? 3.4 million is more than a few.

    Guerilla warfare is a very strong tactic when done right.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are clearly deluded. Guerilla warfare can be effective but seriously you just completely ignored the rest of my points
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tenzzzin)
    You are clearly deluded. Guerilla warfare can be effective but seriously you just completely ignored the rest of my points
    That is what I do. Anything not worth acknowledging I ignore. Have a read into the Korengal Valley.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    White supremacy thing?
    Sure if you want to be ridiculous


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Then there's the practical issue to take into account: if people storm your community with AKs and all you've got is water balloons, I don't think fighting back would be high on your list of priorities.

    If England descends into a warzone overnight, my first thought would be how me and my own are going to survive, not how I'm going kill every invader I come across with pointy sticks and stones from the beach.
    This post doesn't really make any sense because civil wars last more than one or two days - i.e. the time it takes for you to travel by road to a friendly side at the start when checkpoints are not in place, and sign up to serve.

    There are usually two or more clear sides in a conflict, that men can travel to. The kind of loose and quick shifting fourth generation warfare insurgencies and counterinsurgencies that are fought today - with territory quickly changing hands and attackers often mixing back into the civilian population - means that anyone who wants to fight can do so. There are several organisations in Libya, Iraq and Syria, for example, that will provide training and weaponry to someone, serving all ideological bents. Indeed, many men from Europe travel thousands of miles to fight for Assad or ISIS. There is nothing stopping the local man from fighting for his country - or even the insurgency if he supports it.

    An alive doctor is better than a dead doctor.
    The best doctor is the one who is treating the wounded soldiers he was trained to treat, rather than serving falafel in some far off country.

    I've played enough COD to realise that I'd be balla at quickscoping, but where I am gonna get a Barrett on short notice?
    I wouldn't know. I actually have weapons training - I don't play computer games. You will get one by walking a few miles to the nearest friendly outpost and signing up, instead of travelling 2000 miles to some other country because you are too afraid to fight.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    White supremacy thing?
    You are almost white. Where is Foo? Many women go mad without regular spankings :spank:

    We're talking about poor people with no access to military training, organisation, or weaponry, faced with roving bands of trained men with assault rifles and explosives. Choosing to stay and fight is a pointless suicide. The only valid option is to run.

    (I should also say - your argument was never going to convince me anyway, because I don't even believe in the existence of inherently bad people, but that's another story.)
    There are no such people in a civil war. All sides will happily train anyone who signs up, and most neighbourhoods and territories are so contested that anyone who can legitimately claim he is fleeing a warzone has ample opportunity to join a group that's fighting there. They will then be trained. The fallaciousness of this argument is all the more obvious because people from Europe and the USA with no training and very little money travel thousands of miles to fight for an involved group. Anyone who wants to fight has the reasonable option to do so, but male refugees seem to be running away because they lack morality, not because they lack opportunities.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    This post doesn't really make any sense because civil wars last more than one or two days - i.e. the time it takes for you to travel by road to a friendly side at the start when checkpoints are not in place, and sign up to serve.
    It makes perfect sense. If I wake up one morning and there are soldiers storming the beach (I can see it from my house, in case you need a sense of how quickly it'd affect me. And no, I'm not up a hill), my first thought isn't going to be "grab the guns babe, it's going to be another one of those days. No, **** that, Imma scarper.

    Call me a coward all you'd like, but I'd sooner be an alive coward than a dead statistic.

    There are usually two or more clear sides in a conflict, that men can travel to. The kind of loose and quick shifting fourth generation warfare insurgencies and counterinsurgencies that are fought today - with territory quickly changing hands and attackers often mixing back into the civilian population - means that anyone who wants to fight can do so. There are several organisations in Libya, Iraq and Syria, for example, that will provide training and weaponry to someone, serving all ideological bents. Indeed, many men from Europe travel thousands of miles to fight for Assad or ISIS. There is nothing stopping the local man from fighting for his country - or even the insurgency if he supports it.
    You've hit the nail on the head there; anyone who wants to fight. What if they're a pacifist? What if they reject the notion of "my country" (a point I made earlier that you still haven't answered)? What if they don't want PTSD?

    The best doctor is the one who is treating the wounded soldiers he was trained to treat, rather than serving falafel in some far off country.
    Why would you assume that someone with medical qualifications and experience would end up serving falafel? :lolwut:

    I don't know if you've noticed, but the NHS hasn't been broadcasting that they don't have any jobs left for doctors.


    I wouldn't know. I actually have weapons training - I don't play computer games. You will get one by walking a few miles to the nearest friendly outpost and signing up, instead of travelling 2000 miles to some other country because you are too afraid to fight.
    Ahh I see... so because you know how to fire a gun, you think that everyone else should know too?

    Someone asked you earlier whether you'd be content killing your fellow man. You responded by saying that you've hunted animals, which was by far one of the most unsatisfactory answers I've ever seen anyone give.

    So I'll ask you again: would you have any qualms about killing another human being?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I guess the Jews were cowards for fleeing from Germany , they should have fought right?

    Your argument doesn't make sense , there are so many factors you aren't acknowledging. Calling someone a coward for fleeing death , when you yourself have never been in such a situation
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    That is what I do. Anything not worth acknowledging I ignore. Have a read into the Korengal Valley.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    "2) They probably wouldn't risk being killed Many people have family to protect.
    3) What do guns do against bombs from the sky?"

    How is that not worth acknowledging? I understand that guerilla warfare can be incredibly effective but not everyone thinks as militantly as you do, nor would they necessarily want to leave their family behind to fight. That doesn't make them bad people.

    But you completely ignoring my point against bombs? How is that not worth acknowledging?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    You are almost white. Where is Foo? Many women go mad without regular spankings :spank:



    There are no such people in a civil war. All sides will happily train anyone who signs up, and most neighbourhoods and territories are so contested that anyone who can legitimately claim he is fleeing a warzone has ample opportunity to join a group that's fighting there. They will then be trained. The fallaciousness of this argument is all the more obvious because people from Europe and the USA with no training and very little money travel thousands of miles to fight for an involved group. Anyone who wants to fight has the reasonable option to do so, but male refugees seem to be running away because they lack morality, not because they lack opportunities.
    Almost white? Oh really? I guess I will require regular spankings from him :mmm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    A refugee is someone who usually flees adverse circumstances. The Geneva convention defines this as "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."

    But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?

    I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.

    If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?


    That does not make them bad for not fighting, they would be called pacifists. Fighting is bad, you have got your wires crossed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Almost white?
    Perhaps they meant pretty much white but with a little something extra

    I guess I will require regular spankings from him :mmm:
    Understatement of the year! :woo:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    All the refugees that are children/babies and old people are all bad people for not fighting for their country
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Crap culture?
    I think he meant crab culture.

    There's lots of crabs there right?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.