It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British soldier refused access to hotel cause hes a soldier.

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


I think ur comment reflects my feeling perfectly.* from me.




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by manicmark
The soldiers dont seem to realise, if they said NO to thier masters, there would be no war.


Actually, if they say no, they get sent to a military prison.



Originally posted by manicmark
I dont like military people much.....


Big deal. I won't lose any sleep.


Originally posted by manicmark
I just dont understand how anyone can be nasty to anyone else.


We only do bad things to bad people.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by manicmark
reply to post by capgrup
 


Man u guys just dont get it. STAY HOME AND STOP FIGHTING.

If the so called INFADELS come to your home state I will be the first to support you and stand by your side in a war. But if two planes are flown into 2 big building in your home town, and your not REALLY SURE who did it. I think you shoud not goto afganastan and start killing.

Here is a question for ya, Do you think more military have been hurt in the current conflict? or innocent young children?





I would love to see you info to back up that question. Do you think more children have been hurt by coalition forces or by fanatics that have taken whole families including children into the street in the middle of the night and executed each of them because they thought they were coalition sympathizers?






[edit on 9/5/2008 by CaptGizmo]

[edit on 9/5/2008 by CaptGizmo]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the "anti-war" argument goes, first - it's not some clerk's job or right to express his personal political opinions by refusing someone service... anyone who does that should be fired, period.


If i were his boss that's very probably what i would do unless i told him to send servicemen elsewhere.


Also, as Budski pointed out, it's probably illegal in the UK (and probably in the US as well) - another reason the guy should lose his job: if he's exposing his employer to lawsuits or criminal prosecution, he's a lousy employee.


Agreed.


Next - IMO blaming soldiers for the wars they are sent to fight is like blaming forest fires on "all those damn trees" - it's that silly.


IMO not holding soldiers responsible for enabling our leaders to stage illegal wars on third world countries will not help us to see our world changed for the better. Wars don't start themselves and last time i checked the vast majority of forest fires are started by lightning.


Soldiers give up their freedom to some extent when they sign up, and they certainly do not have any clearly defined right to refuse to participate in a war they don't believe in - if they do that, they go to jail as deserters.


Soldiers do not give up any of their freedoms or any of their rights and they can at any time refuse to carry out a order ( including fighting a war) when they believe it to be either immoral or an illegal order. Basically these soldiers should have refused their assignment orders the moment they received them as the United States congress never declared war on Iraq.


Soldiers do not get to pick the wars they fight in.


Yes they do and that's why they do not have to fight an illegal war. Soldiers in Nazi Germany may not have had much of a choice ( thousands were executed and many more locked up) but the citizens of the United States of America and Britain have given their soldiers a legal framework in which they may refuse to fight wars they believe to be against international agreements and thus illegal.


If you don't like the war, blame the politicians who started it, not the soldiers. They have no real choice but to go where they are ordered.


Yeah and it really helped the French to write letters to Hitler. Is it really so impossible for you to understand that military aggression is military aggression whether German or American?


Soldiers are not lawyers, they are not qualified to judge the technical legality of the wars they fight. To expect them to be is absurd.


Soldiers are human beings and hopefully normally of the variety who have high school educations and can thus read at something approaching junior high level. Provided that the US armed forces isn't recruiting the mentally handicapped ( and as i understand they are accepting more and more people with questionable 'abilities' ; no not everyone or many) these people can read and should be able to figure out if the few wars that they are sent to fight is in fact LEGAL according to international law. In fact if they don't really know they can at least wait for congress to declare a war? What about morality? Why go to war with a country that never attacked you or threatened to do so?


The right of a soldier to refuse an illegal order is intended to allow soldiers to reject orders which are clearly and unambiguously illegal, IE:
"Corporal, go shoot all those women and children over there."
"No sir, I cannot obey an illegal order" - not very ambiguous.


You mean US soldiers would normally do that if they didn't have the recourse of the UCMJ? Do you really believe that American soldiers would need advice as to what to do when receiving such IMMORAL orders? Where does international law even come into a matter that can clearly be decided by ANY mentally balanced human being?


Does not require years of study in international law to realize it's an illegal order.

See the difference?


Morally challenged people may have a hard time figuring out that it's wrong to invade other countries and i suppose that's pretty much what they select for when they attempt to find new recruits to bribe into becoming a mercenary for big business and imperialism in general.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by lyndonl
I feel its a low down dirty shame to turn away a soldier in his own country.


If the version dave provided is accurate then this is just one helluva big misunderstanding. In fact i am sure most hotels/inns and the like takes in far shadier personalities with far fewer potential redeeming qualities so this was always probably always going to be a 'odd' event as things go.


No matter what the argument may be. A soldier is a soldier simple as that, and lets face it when people join the military as a normal run of the mill grunt / infantrymen they are just ordinary people.


Ordinary happy people with economic options do NOT join the military. It's a bad 'job' with little benefits and few skills that are readily transferable to the civilian economy. People who join the army freely ( not talking about drafts) may be ordinary people but then you don't have to be extraordinary to get involved the commission of war crimes such as defending yourself in combat and causing 'collataral' damage.


They are not a willing part in some global conspiracy to take over the world for the new corporate empire ( if you go for all that stuff )


And the sad thing is that you do not have to be a knowing participant to serve the interest of those who commission and profit from conspiracies. The vast majority of people who actually build 'the empire' are just 'doing their jobs' and going home to raise their kids while paying down the mortgage. Once people can being to understand that you do not have to be in many or any ways 'evil' to create a devastatingly evil outcome we are half way to preventing these few powerful men from being as successful as they are.


Now maybe some guy in the top levels of military intelligence, you might have issues with that, but not a soldier.


You mean like the guys who told us that they were WOMD in IRaq based on all that 'solid' 'intelligence'? How quickly some forget uncomfortable realities...


Even if you don't believe the military puts their butts on the line daily to try to keep you safe at home, never forget that's what a lot of them believe.


I don't require them to 'put their butt's on the line' until i ask them do so by national referendum where i may get my say. Until governments starts to let their citizens vote on these matters men in uniform should protect the borders of their countries and no more. I do not doubt that many soldiers in fact beliefs that but then many fully grown men believe in various gods and are willing to beat each other bloody over which happens to be 'true' one in their opinion. Having a personal belief is very different from objective reality and that's why armies are not allowed to invade countries based on their own decisions.


Im sure you could get into many an argument about soldiers being indoctrinated by the governments they serve etc. etc. but that's a totally different topic.


Soldiers are indoctrinated in the homes,schools and churches of their various countries and the army merely whips them into shape and imbues them with the self control and knowledge that combat demands.

You learn a whole lot in the army but who to hate, how to reason and to obey authority isn't normally part of it.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
If , as we are told, muslims are within their rights to refuse a muslim house to be searched by dogs then why can a hotel not refuse a solider?
If it was MY hotel, MY property then it should be up to ME to decide who stays
you cannot have it both ways.
Why was he in uniform/flashing ID? why not normal clothes, why rile the population by walking about in combats?
And as for this have the right not to fight crap, so in the heat of battle you are shouted an order you have time to think, wait is that illegal, No. IF you did it would be a courtmarshal as happened to a few soilders who refused to go to iraq.
Solider=Trained killer, no questions, you are trained to kill.
If you cant see that before you join up then the army wants YOU NOW!



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Soldiers do not give up any of their freedoms or any of their rights and they can at any time refuse to carry out a order ( including fighting a war) when they believe it to be either immoral or an illegal order. Basically these soldiers should have refused their assignment orders the moment they received them as the United States congress never declared war on Iraq.


Wrong. The "refusing an illegal order" is for things like shooting kids, your own troops, etc. You can't say, "I don't want to fight this war because it's illegal."

And refusing the deployment order is called, "Missed movement". You go to jail.

And before you bring up Conscientious Objector status, there are alot of things that you have to do prior. You can be in the military as a CO, but you have to have that applied to you PRIOR to deploying. You just can't file for it the afternoon you get an order to deploy.

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

www.sss.gov...

And in 1971, the Supreme Court said you can't apply for CO status simply because you were against a specific war.



Originally posted by StellarX
You mean US soldiers would normally do that if they didn't have the recourse of the UCMJ? Do you really believe that American soldiers would need advice as to what to do when receiving such IMMORAL orders? Where does international law even come into a matter that can clearly be decided by ANY mentally balanced human being?


It's not needed for advice, but CYA. That way, the soldier can't be punished for failure to follow the order.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
It is an absolute disgrace that any squaddie should be treat in such a manner.


Why do you think that?



No matter one's opinion on the rights or wrongs of the conflicts we are currently involved in these brave people deserve our utmost respect and gratitude.


Why do they? You are suggesting that they are somehow an unique example of uniform nobility and infallibility?



Imagine the uproar if someone was denied admittance on grounds of race, religion or sex, (unless of course they were white, working class male!)


Imagine the persuasiveness of this argument if the analogy were relevant! Is there a draft in Britain or is it volunteer.


Things like this really boil my piss!


...because you seem to have exchanged critical thougth for polemics and jingoism. Sweeping generalities thinly veiled as 'patriotism' sure do ring hollow these days....



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
God and the soldier we adore
In time of danger - not before
The danger past and all things righted
God is forgot and the soldier slighted.

Originally attributed to Rudyard Kipling, this version has since been adapted and used around the world over the last hundred years. Sadly, the message is all too familiar to many members of the armed forces.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 



I would love to see you info to back up that question. Do you think more children have been hurt by coalition forces or by fanatics that have taken whole families including children into the street in the middle of the night and executed each of them because they thought they were coalition sympathizers?


This is a false dichotomy. Both tallies go on the coalition.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Jerico, No your wrong and it has been stated to you by Stellar only you choose to ignore the truth. Get it through your head the actions in Iraq and Afganistan were and are against international law, laws that are made and agreed to by the countries who sign up to them including the US and the UK.

The US Goverment states that those laws dont apply to it, thats fine they can do that if they wish but then that puts the US outside international law and therefore a rogue state who should be treated as such. Iraq and Afganistan were illegally invaded and what the US/UK and others have done is to commit crimes against humanity, that means everyone from POTUS/PM down to the lowest grunt are guilty of war crimes.

Its obvious that you and others have no understanding of what is morally right or wrong and therefore have the same mindset as the aforementioned.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 


Well in this case he supplied a military id card, yeah? Does your radical Muslim have an ID he is flashing as well?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Despite the argument going on in this thread, I think that this is more than likely the case. I do find it sad that he was denied a room though and as budski pointed out, more than likely illegal. At the very least a public apology should happen.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Again, restating my earler position, we shouldn't be blaming people who are basically doing the job they get paid for - despite my opposition to the war.


Their 'job' ( in theory at least) is to protect the citizens of their nation from attacks upon it. This is not what British or American soldiers are doing in Iraq and if your job involves violence you should make very sure that you are in fact doing what your countrymen wants.


I have respect for soldoers who stand up and speak out against the war, but I also respect those who go and fight.Their perception is that they are helping their country, even if it is a misguided perception


Since this war is illegal according to international law and both US and American law one may sympathize with how soldiers get into these situations as long as one can remember that their actions can never be justified.


There is a case to say that they are pawns like many others, and as such, my belief is that little or no blame can be attached to them, providing they are not committing an illegal act themselves.


Their presence in Iraq is a 'crime' in itself but logically it can lead to the commission or participation in far more direct and worse crimes. It would have been one thing if the casualties were limited to Iraqi's but it's not and this war is not only fiscally destroying the United States but disabling hundreds of thousands of American men and women. It you do not wish to admit that this wrong is morally or legally wrong at least think of the tens of thousands of seriously wounded American soldiers and the million or more Iraqi's who have died as result of this war.

wiredispatch.com...


If they are following lawfull orders, they are not committing an illegal act, and as much as we say the war is illegal, it is a bit of a grey area.


There is no grey area here. The united states congress never even declared war so how can this even begin to be a legal one when neither the UN or any other international agency considers it such?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Have to admit, I'm a little baffled by this rambling political debate. Soldiers have absolutely no say whatsoever in the political agenda of their deployment. It would be a very dangerous situation indeed if this were the case.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Right on brother!



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myrdyn
Have to admit, I'm a little baffled by this rambling political debate. Soldiers have absolutely no say whatsoever in the political agenda of their deployment. It would be a very dangerous situation indeed if this were the case.


There is an absolute universal moral imperative that all humans are a part of whether or not they admit it or take part in it. Your first allegiance is to that morality, it is internally sourced, not externally imposed and the military is its servant, not the master.

Next?

[edit on 5-9-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Stellar, You are wasting your time here, its obvious that some members cannot distinguish between what is righ or wrong and have no understanding that the actions in the ME are as you and I have stated, there ILLEGAL and therefore makes the actions of those involved the same as.

These people are hooked into the lies and deciet that is spewed on a daily basis by the state owned media machine. These same very people will be telling us very soon that it was right to go in and nuke Iran.

Back to the thread, any Hotellier or Inn Keeper has a right to refuse entry to whom ever they like here in the UK and they dont have to give a reason why, people may not like it but thats the way it is.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Jerico, No your wrong and it has been stated to you by Stellar only you choose to ignore the truth. Get it through your head the actions in Iraq and Afganistan were and are against international law, laws that are made and agreed to by the countries who sign up to them including the US and the UK.


Hey, Gus, I got a question for you? What does your post have to do with me schooling good ol' Stellar on refusing an illegal order, and the CO program?

I suggest starting in Maine. Winter will be approaching soon, and you'd want to get those northern tier states wrapped up as soon as possible. Then you can work your way south where it's warmer. It probably will take you awhile to make a citizens arrest for war crimes of every man and woman that's deployed to the AOR.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Delete. Fat fingered the keys again.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by jerico65]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join