The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
adamrules247
Too true. The sad thing about TSR is that is full of bleed your heart out liberals who are the friends of terrorists and murderers but ne'er the brave.




It's also full of delusional chickenhawks who think just because they support the armed forces, they can comment and be condescending to those who don't as if they themselves were serving.
Reply 61
Bobifier
Okay, so, what do our forces do that is so heroic for us?

In my humble opinion, defusing road-side bombs is heroic. That takes ******* balls. The ones that are defused often ensure that little kids don't blow themselves up when playing. I massively respect anyone who dies whilst trying to defuse one of those.
Aeolus
It's also full of delusional chickenhawks who think just because they support the armed forces, they can comment and be condescending to those who don't as if they themselves were serving.



I am serving myself...
Reply 63
hootandroar
I am serving myself...




Well done?..... :lolwut:
Reply 64
Right>Left
scumbag


*Person with views different to my own.
Reply 65
mahaneap
They shouldn't have joined the army if they didn't want to die.


Agreed (again)
donuticus
Mawkish sentimentality of the highest order.


Agreed, what happened to the stiff upper lip? ******* Diana.











BTW I support the British forces just as much as the next man, if not more, and am fiercely nationalistic so if you think I'm a bleeding heart liberal you can **** off.
Reply 67
Diaz89
Agreed (again)

Paying tribute to someone's death is not correspondent to how dangerous the job they performed was.
Reply 68
Diaz89
Agreed (again)


So if you get hit by a car, no one should care?

I mean you take the risk, loads of people get hit by cars.
Reply 69
Rucklo
So if you get hit by a car, no one should care?

I mean you take the risk, loads of people get hit by cars.


Those are two completely different things.
Reply 70
Kreuzuerk
Paying tribute to someone's death is not correspondent to how dangerous the job they performed was.


I don't think that was his point....
Reply 71
Diaz89
Those are two completely different things.


No there not according to you.
Reply 72
Rucklo
No there not according to you.


Driving a car to central London is much safer than engaging in a firefight with the Taliban, hence 2 different things.
Reply 73
Diaz89
I don't think that was his point....

Do you have a beard, out of interest?
Reply 74
Diaz89
Driving a car to central London is much safer than engaging in a firefight with the Taliban, hence 2 different things.


Only about 8 times.

And the point still stands that according to you, if you take a risk then its your own fault if you die.

So it still stands.
Reply 75
Kreuzuerk
Do you have a beard, out of interest?


No I have stubble and I actually shaved it today, but why is that relevant :beard:
Reply 76
Soldiers aren't hero's. Soldiers commit state-sanctioned murder against fellow human beings. Soldiers are merely tools used by the rich to become richer and defend their wealth. I have great respect for the troops that die, but I have no sympathy when the families complain as their children knew the risks when they signed up, and could quite have easily have not signed up.
The true hero's are those that save lives, doctors and nurses, including ones that go in to war zones (whether they're part of the military or not), or even ones that indirectly save lives by inventing new medicines and charging a fair price for them, or other scientists doing research, or those finding new ways to cut crime in the country.
This, however, does not including killing one to save another, except in the case of self defence. However attacking another country is not self defence, and whilst soldiers do not have a choice which wars they wish to fight, they ultimately have the choice whether to be a solider.
I respect soldiers for putting their life on the line, but I would never commend them for killing another human being unless their life was personally targeted.

Wars make money. Wars are good for the economy. Whether it's over oil or merely to boost industries producing planes and ships and ammunition, all wars seem to be used for, since the turn of the last century (if not before) is to make money for the governments in the world. Why, for instance, where British bombers in WW2 given orders not to bomb German ammunition factories, and why were historic buildings in the UK not bombed, and mainly the common-folks housing?
Reply 77
Rucklo
Only about 8 times.

And the point still stands that according to you, if you take a risk then its your own fault if you die.

So it still stands.


If you take the risk then yes, you bear the responsibility and as I stated, going into a firefight is a completely different thing than driving so your example is a useless.
Reply 78
Diaz89
If you take the risk then yes, you bear the responsibility and as I stated, going into a firefight is a completely different thing than driving so your example is a useless.


No it's not, there is a genuine risk you will crash over your life.
Who says they're going to die if they join the army? Or they want to?
There's 100's of jobs in the army they're not all front line they're usually the only deaths you hear about on the news about sadly these young infantry soilders.:frown:
Yes there's a risk, but there's also a risk if you're in the police force/fire service etc of getting killed/injured and other jobs where you can injured.
There's a risk every single day in our lives of dying. Through a car/motorbike accident to getting stabbed. :s: It can happen anywhere.
How is it their fault they are where they are.
Blame the politicians as someone else said, they're the ones who keep sending more and more out there.

Latest

Trending

Trending