British soldier refused access to hotel cause hes a soldier.

reply to post by scorand


No idea how that happened. Just to explain it for all the posters who consider themselves more adult, he was making an argument from authority which in this application is flawed from two directions.

One: the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.

Two: the credibility of the claim of 22 or 23 or even 1000 years of service on an internet forum is zero, so he doesn't even have that.

So in this case I posted in a way that was obviously meant to satirically reflect his argument structure in a vain(apparently) attempt to illustrate the weakness of his footing.

The challenge to both of you is to restructure the argument in a more convincing way, or concede the thread of logic too bare to support it...

[edit on 6-9-2008 by wytworm]

DOUBLE POST

[edit on 6-9-2008 by wytworm]

Originally posted by scorand
u'r assuming that all the soldiers there are criminals.

In the legal sense, yes, but obviously we have all broken the laws of our land ( ever drive too fast or drink a little too much) thus making us criminals too various degrees. Don't let the word 'criminal' worry you too much as there are far worse things one can do than to sit somewhere in a base in Iraq doing not much of anything.

. there are valid reasons to be in afganistan.. the taliban for instance.. whom i believe are helping terrorist.. and are in fact terrorists themselves..so whos really the criminal here..

I agree that there are plenty of terrorist in Afghanistan but the fact is they were willing to help to catch OBL if the US could provide evidence that he was involved in 9-11. Since the US never did that and instead choose to invade and bomb an entire country it's clear who the greatest and best armed terrorist were in this war. Either way the Taliban is mostly a creation of the US national security state who with the help of Pakistani madrassas trained so many tens or hundreds of thousands to defend themselves and their nations against foreign influences and invaders.

and as far as iraq.. well the reasoning behind going there is wrong but thereinlies a delima.. sadam murdered hundreds of thousands. sometimes entire villages.. he, the taliban and the extremist who do these things are the real criminals...

That's true. Saddam Hussein is definately a criminal who deserves punishment that could have been meted out in the 80's when he committed most of those crimes while enjoying US support. The US is responsible for Iraqi's chemical and biological agents ( the leftovers of which was dismantled by inspectors in the early 90's ) and knew the Iraqi capabilities inside out trough having spent nearly the entire 80's keeping careful track of Iraqi and Iranian attacks and counter attacks trough satellite's and inter agency communication.

The Taliban were a real threat to the people of Afghanistan but were having their hands full fighting the Northern Alliance had did not and were not interested in attacking the United States thus providing it with the pretext to overthrow them. As for Saddam Hussein he was very much the kept man and he could have been kept in line with stern warnings instead of being tricked into a invasion of Kuwait which then allowed the US to gain permanent bases in many middle eastern countries.

and there is no reasoning with them.. sometimes you have to stand and fight...

Actually you can reason with any and all world leaders as unreasonable men do not get into positions of real power. Sure they might not listen but or do what your asked but choosing not to 'reason' with the leaders of other nations is clearly a decision not to give them any chance to discuss the reasonable solution for both countries.

Stellar

Originally posted by jerico65
Wrong again. You're having a hard time reading what I type. I'll try to make it simple
If you're a soldier, and you decide on your own that the war is illegal and tell the commanding officer that you're not going to go, you will be thrown into jail. Simple.

And my point ( and i quote) was " So what"? So what if they want to illegally imprison you? Is that not better than taking part in an illegal war against a nation that never attacked you or threatened to do so? What can do they beside take your benefits and pay away and if that's your concern what sort of person are you any ways?

40,000 Americans did what in 1941? Resist the draft? Not sure what you're referring to.

Yes, 40 000 became conscientious objectors with 5000 being imprisoned for various draft offenses. The vast majority just 'bought' injuries and various deferments or refused to register just like people did in the civil war and first world war.

You've obviously haven't been to a military prison before.

So rather go to war and risk dying while possibly engaging in war crimes to have your sensibilities offended by being imprisoned for adhering to international and general standards of human decency? According to your logic we should all just take the path of least resistance and do what we can get away with......

It does pertain to being a CO. We have a volunteer military; if you don't want to fight, but to serve, you need to bring that up prior to any sort of conflict. You just can't play that card whenever you decide to.

You don't have to bring it up as it's presumed by being a citizen of the United States of America. You are subject to laws higher than military one's and you are not legally allowed to sign them away even if you wanted to. You keep trying to make this a issue about presumed cowardice instead of right and wrong and i really wish you could understand the difference. Where would Hitler have been if German men refused to fight a clearly illegal war? Could he have afforded to get many more than those thousands he executed executed?

Take the "Bush stole the election" bullcrap to another thread.

Just the truth and quite reasonable when you wish to argue that the Supreme court can change international agreements at will and without consulting the American public.

Supreme Court made the rules for being classified as a CO. If someone doesn't like it, they can file a complaint, etc.

They enacted the will of the people, yes, and they have also ruled in various cases that secular philosophical and moral objective can be raised and serve to defer being drafted.

Legal protection? The protection is for the soldier in case he come up against something like that. It's called, "planning ahead".

It has nothing to do with planning ahead as these of crimes happened , and continues to happen, in all wars American or otherwise. Don't give me this nonsense about planning ahead when these rules had to be forced on the military by it's citizen soldiers.

And in 26+ years of being in the military, I've never been given an illegal order, never heard one given to another troop, and never gave one myself.

And with the lack of comprehension you have displayed so far i doubt you could have figured out the difference unless someone in fact asked you to line up some kids against a wall. Since i am not surprised that this does not in fact take place very often in the American army the million odd violent Iraqi deaths clearly came from artillery and aerial bombardment which didn't require American soldiers to risk their cowardly human behinds (and rightly and intelligently so i might add as human beings don't like dying and certainly not in pointless wars defending no one but themselves)as they drop bombs from distances where the targets couldn't be seen and collateral damage were guaranteed. What people don't realise is that this is still a crime and that people may still be brought up on charges if they can be shown to have shelled civilian areas.

If a guy doesn't want to go to war, just don't enlist. No one is twisting his arm.

Most men would, and do, take up arms when their countries come under attack and it's just wrong to suggest that men who do not wish to fight illegal pointless wars ( No Iraqi's attacked the US) would not fight as bravely as anyone else if their country were in fact attacked. If you studied history you would know this but it's apparent that you would rather just fight whoever your pointed at without much reflection as to how you are in fact serving the people of your country by doing so.

You are in my opinion a near perfect argument for why we should replace human beings with war robots as soon as we can so that we can videotape everything and check that laws are being obeyed instead of relying on men who will do what their told ( or want) to save their own behinds. So very patriotic the brave souls who want to fight so badly and then shell entire enemy cities from afar so as to best make sure they they don't get hurt. We could just as well put you in control of that war robot so you can get your kicks without being able to commit war crimes or get hurt in the process of 'defending your country' without risking any penalties in terms of getting yourself blown up or shot . We would be so lucky to be able to do away with the type of 'professionalism', that standing armies can result in when the population is not in control of government, that so absolutely reeks of hypocrisy and self serving ignorance.

Stellar

[edit on 8-9-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
And my point ( and i quote) was " So what"? So what if they want to illegally imprison you? Is that not better than taking part in an illegal war against a nation that never attacked you or threatened to do so? What can do they beside take your benefits and pay away and if that's your concern what sort of person are you any ways?

Your quote obviously shows you've never been to prison.

Originally posted by StellarX
Yes, 40 000 became conscientious objectors with 5000 being imprisoned for various draft offenses. The vast majority just 'bought' injuries and various deferments or refused to register just like people did in the civil war and first world war.

Where did you find this out? I know that some didn't register, etc, but some also went to war as a CO. Do you have a source, etc, for this? Sounds like it would be an interesting read!

Originally posted by StellarX
So rather go to war and risk dying while possibly engaging in war crimes to have your sensibilities offended by being imprisoned for adhering to international and general standards of human decency? According to your logic we should all just take the path of least resistance and do what we can get away with......

Sensibilities offended? Gus, you're going to get more than your sensibilities offended in prison!!

Engaging in war crimes? Well, soldiers are taught/briefed on what a legal order is, etc. Do they sometimes go ahead and do something illegal? Yep, and that's why there are punishments for that, too. Our LOAC, etc, are all based on international law. That means other countries have their troops follow the same thing.

Originally posted by StellarX
Just the truth and quite reasonable when you wish to argue that the Supreme court can change international agreements at will and without consulting the American public.

Whatever. As I said, there are plenty of threads about Bush and the election. Feel free to comment on them.

Originally posted by StellarX
It has nothing to do with planning ahead as these of crimes happened , and continues to happen, in all wars American or otherwise. Don't give me this nonsense about planning ahead when these rules had to be forced on the military by it's citizen soldiers.

Laws of warfare cover what an legal and illegal order is. It says what will happen if you fail to follow them, too.

Originally posted by StellarX
And with the lack of comprehension you have displayed so far i doubt you could have figured out the difference unless someone in fact asked you to line up some kids against a wall. Since i am not surprised that this does not in fact take place very often in the American army the million odd violent Iraqi deaths clearly came from artillery and aerial bombardment which didn't require American soldiers to risk their cowardly human behinds (and rightly and intelligently so i might add as human beings don't like dying and certainly not in pointless wars defending no one but themselves)as they drop bombs from distances where the targets couldn't be seen and collateral damage were guaranteed. What people don't realise is that this is still a crime and that people may still be brought up on charges if they can be shown to have shelled civilian areas.

Lack of comprehension? Dude, I'm quoting chapter and verse things from the LOAC and Selective Service guidence on COs. You just don't want to read or understand them.

The "million" casualities argument. Did that get based on some really weak data? And also fails to show how many were killed by the coalition and how many by insurgents.

And as I said before, you're showing your ass with the fact you've never been in the military, let alone in combat. You just might want to wind your neck in when you start talking about combat and bombs. Call to Duty on your Xbox is not a good frame of reference.

Originally posted by StellarX
You are in my opinion a near perfect argument for why we should replace human beings with war robots as soon as we can so that we can videotape everything and check that laws are being obeyed instead of relying on men who will do what their told ( or want) to save their own behinds. So very patriotic the brave souls who want to fight so badly and then shell entire enemy cities from afar so as to best make sure they they don't get hurt. We could just as well put you in control of that war robot so you can get your kicks without being able to commit war crimes or get hurt in the process of 'defending your country' without risking any penalties in terms of getting yourself blown up or shot . We would be so lucky to be able to do away with the type of 'professionalism', that standing armies can result in when the population is not in control of government, that so absolutely reeks of hypocrisy and self serving ignorance.

Well, I've never committed a war crime or saw one committed all the time I've been in the AOR. The only people I killed were guys that liked to play with IEDs. And I haven't lost a minutes sleep over it, either.

"Brave souls that don't risk their lives"? Oh, you mean the insurgents that plant bombs in the market place and kill women and children. Or the ones that round up a group of guys and just execute them by beheading them. You seem to forget about them.

As I said, you've never fought, never risked your life, never killed, never had to sacrifice a thing. I have. Once you've done a few things like that, let me know and we can chat about it.

Have a fine AFSOC day.

Originally posted by StellarX
As for Saddam Hussein he was very much the kept man and he could have been kept in line with stern warnings instead of being tricked into a invasion of Kuwait which then allowed the US to gain permanent bases in many middle eastern countries.

Stern warnings? Like the UN resolutions that he broke time and time again? How many did he break? And you know Kofi and his family were getting plenty of kickbacks from the "oil for food" program. No wonder Kofi was pissed we went to war; the paychecks stopped.

Originally posted by StellarX
Actually you can reason with any and all world leaders as unreasonable men do not get into positions of real power. Sure they might not listen but or do what your asked but choosing not to 'reason' with the leaders of other nations is clearly a decision not to give them any chance to discuss the reasonable solution for both countries.

Really? Stalin was a reasonable kinda guy? Hitler? Kim Jong-Il? Pol Pot? Idi Amin?

Originally posted by deltaboy

It pisses me off that something like this happens. Soldiers who served their country are being disrespectful by the people at home who depend on them to protect them when they do not volunteer to do what they do.

Or is it possible that soldiers have the tendency to destroy property than non-combatants do at hotels?

This is another reason, in a long list of reasons, why a young human being should be smart enough not join an allied coalition to kill people. I feel for the young guy but, he should understand Karma can and will be a bitch!

Don't expect to kill folks in an illegal war and think you're gonna get a good nights sleep. (another reason to keep freshly implanted soldiers away from civilians, PTS)

I don't think any hotel management wants to know there's a trained assassin in room 2234 potentially having a flashback of illegal murder on their watch. As harsh and as sad as this my sound to many... A hotel is in the hotel business and they have to protect the lives of thier clientele.

Moral - His parents should have taught him... "You can't have your war and eat it too... son, send a message to the warring mongers... We advise you pursue a career that benfits humanity instead of destroying it and maybe we all can have a good nights sleep."

Originally posted by manicmark
Good, They should ban all soldiers from everywhere. Then they might stop fighting with each other. The soldiers dont seem to realise, if they said NO to thier masters, there would be no war. I dont like military people much, the just seem hell bent on controlling every situation, much like the police do.
I feel the world is becomming more and more like a primary school play ground, with the bullies taking control.

I just dont understand how anyone can be nasty to anyone else.

No, I think you understand perfectly well, as you are apparently a nasty person.

You guys are making me sick. How do you even know this person killed anyone to begin with? What if they worked in rear echelon in a medical tent saving the lives of American troops, Iraqi civilians, and Insurgent trash alike? You have no grasp on reality and your hate is despicable.

God Bless America. For it is the greatest nation in the world.

I hope you punch your computer screen after that one.

Originally posted by manicmark

Good, They should ban all soldiers from everywhere. Then they might stop fighting with each other. The soldiers dont seem to realise, if they said NO to thier masters, there would be no war. I dont like military people much, the just seem hell bent on controlling every situation, much like the police do.
I feel the world is becomming more and more like a primary school play ground, with the bullies taking control.

I just dont understand how anyone can be nasty to anyone else.

You are a person who is not blinded or misled by the deception of "boogy men" who are coming for you as you stand in your barn in Nebraska.

What stolen sugar cane plantation, canal, rubber tree, oil field / so called interests are these young recruits giving their lives halfway around the world to protect?? Correct me if I'm wrong... but I ain't never seen no Iranian, Iraqi, Somolian or Korean tank even close to rollin through Beverly Hills... But... I have see on a daily basis Americans on every else's soil happily blowin up everyone elses property and flesh.

If one is a SHEEP... then is basic-trained to be a LION... don't cry WOLF when you are labeled a fool for carrying out Satans orders.

No matter how glamorous war may seem as your brainwashed mind mow's down a village behind your assault riffle thousands of miles from home... Remember... you didn't really have to be there in the first darn place?? HUH?? A threat is nothing but words??

Every soldier I have interviewed, first comes out proud and gung ho... then the eye-opening reality being used sets in... even then... the military's systematic brainwashing keeps them sheep.

Ok deep breath.....

Now first off I was not aware of the banning of military because they were a target from the IRA. Interesting that in a whole different manner.
So that makes the clerks screw up more understandable. I have also been given to understand that they had to disconnect their phone service because of the reaction to this has been hot and heavy. As for the .......posters saying that they are fighting an illegal war and they deserve what ever they get as they are war criminals. I am sure then that you are refusing to pay taxes to your governments right? After all then you would be supporting the governments that started the illegal war. Jail for tax evasion? Well that is the price that you expect them to pay how is it any different for you?

Waits for the moral equivations to start

Is it so hard to believe that sometimes, these troops are actually fighting enemies, and not just mowing down civilians? I have never been to war, but I have a hard time believing these guys and gals are out killing innocent people just for fun. I guess all of the troops getting blown up and maimed and killed must be a lie huh?

**Edit**

Oh yeah, I forgot, those were not terrorist that blew up those buildings on our soil was it? I guess it wasn't Nebraska or Beverly Hills so it does not matter?
We did not start this war, we are just finishing it.

[edit on 9/9/2008 by sputniksteve]

reply to post by deltaboy


Maybe if soldiers nowadays fought is some decent wars, acted like human beings while particpating or weren't the demented human garbage that seems to join the volunteer we have now, I could be proud of the troops. Just because you join the armed services does not give you instant respect. Just following orders is not serving your country. My grandfather was in the army and a decorated soldier of WWII He said war is terribly and he wouldn't fight or advocating fighting in any more wars. He biggest comment was how it seemed that the poor and uneducated did all the fighting and dying.

Maybe that guy should quite being a soldier and become a sack of s--- derivatives trader, that way he get the best room, stick the bill to the taxpayer and destroy the economy all at once.

Originally posted by deltaboy

British soldier refused access to hotel cause hes a soldier.

news.bbc.co.uk

A soldier home on leave after being injured in Afghanistan was refused a room by a hotel when he showed his military ID card at reception.

Corporal Tomos Stringer, 23, from Gwynedd, was visiting a wounded colleague in Surrey when he was turned away from the Metro Hotel in Woking.

He spent the night in his car after being told it was management policy not to accept military personnel.

The hotel has apologised, describing the incident as "a mistake".

Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, has since returned to Afghanistan but his mother, Gaynor Stringer, said he remains angry at the incident.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The appropriate response is to call the local sheriff and charge the clerk with inciting to riot!

reply to post by Rook1545


Your signature had me rolling. But I am surprised by the reaction. We went through this, in America, during the Viet Nam war. I foolishly hoped I guess that the English had seen our mistakes and learned from them. Learned how ugly it was to pit people against each other based on support, one way or the other, for a war.

It is perfectly fine to hate your country's involvement in a war. But it is not, in any shape or fashion, to take it out on a solider.

That hotel should be picketed until hell freezes over. Man I am so freaking mad. I think I will call them. I need to vent.

Can't say I'm too surprised either at the incident, or the lack of public outrage over this in the UK.

Disrespect and apathy, great combination.

If this had happened in the US, that hotel chain would now be out of business.

reply to post by deltaboy


LOL, i thought he was denied stay in the US... I thought that "housing military personell" law was never going to be used again...

Originally posted by Backwoods
Ok deep breath.....
Now first off I was not aware of the banning of military because they were a target from the IRA. Interesting that in a whole different manner.

Agreed and it was probably a unofficial policy that the British armed forces didn't contest too much because of all the associated negative publicity.... If anyone wants to check that out it should be interesting reading.

So that makes the clerks screw up more understandable. I have also been given to understand that they had to disconnect their phone service because of the reaction to this has been hot and heavy.

You can imagine as it doesn't take more than a few hundred angry calls to make your day exceedingly unpleasant.

As for the .......posters saying that they are fighting an illegal war and they deserve what ever they get as they are war criminals.

To start with i don't support the idea that people get what they deserve. If that was only the case on this planet we would all be so much better off. Fact is few people deserves the terrible things that happen to them ( disease, hunger, etc) and even fewer of those very few that truly deserves terrible retribution ever do. There is very little that is 'fair' about human existence. As for individuals the British have a lot of experience in actually keeping 'the peace' and while i believe they were not assigned to the most violent areas my reading indicates that British troops kept the peace with far more success.

I am sure then that you are refusing to pay taxes to your governments right? After all then you would be supporting the governments that started the illegal war.

I would suggest that tax money may in fact partly go to building infrastructure and other typical programs while signing up for the army in the United States often leads to aggressive wars. There are plenty of tax resistors and the government isn't pursuing them with any great vigor.

Jail for tax evasion? Well that is the price that you expect them to pay how is it any different for you?

In theory yes and some people have gone to jail for tax evasion. I am not aware that those cases were specifically related to war tax resistance but you can check if wish to discuss it.

Waits for the moral equivations to start

Aggressive war is aggressive war and national self defense should start with each citizen of age being equipped and trained in at least the use of modern assault or sniper rifles. If a government proves willing to take such a step they are clearly more concerned with the national interest( as decided by the people ; they had a national referendum on if they should but F-18's for the air force) than making war on undeserving people's and can be trusted with as much heavy weaponry as they can afford to further enable a defense of their country. Switzerland is a perfect example of a country that you do not want to invade and you do not have to fear to be invaded by.

en.wikipedia.org...

Stellar

Originally posted by jerico65
Stern warnings? Like the UN resolutions that he broke time and time again?

Which one's would that be and if we are going to be invading countries about breaches of UN law why don't we start with the biggest offender of all, ISrael?

How many did he break? And you know Kofi and his family were getting plenty of kickbacks from the "oil for food" program. No wonder Kofi was pissed we went to war; the paychecks stopped.

Those accusations have certainly been made but when it comes to proof no one has actually provided anything substantial. Basically these accusations originated when Kofi Anan started making noises about US air raids and general misrepresentations about how the inspection program was going.

Really? Stalin was a reasonable kinda guy? Hitler? Kim Jong-Il? Pol Pot? Idi Amin?

Stalin was a reasonable kinda guy. In fact i have no reason to believe that any of those people were 'unreasonable' in that they did not have the capacity to reason. If you can provide some reasons as to how unreasonable people get to become presidents of country i am ALL ears.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Stalin was a reasonable kinda guy.

Did someone really just say that. The Stalin that was the instigator of the Ukrainian genocide, the man who personally orchestrated his policy of "troika" in Mongolia where tens of thousands were also murdered as suspected Japanese spies. The same Stalin who in a typical moment of insanity ordered the assasination of John Wayne because of his anti-communist movies (the order was later rescinded by Kruschev).

That Stalin was a reasonable guy ??!!??

In fact i have no reason to believe that any of those people were 'unreasonable' in that they did not have the capacity to reason.

One can first "reason", and then still arrive at an "unreasonable" answer, huge difference.

If you can provide some reasons as to how unreasonable people get to become presidents of country i am ALL ears.

Stellar

You live in Africa and seriously need to ask that question. With the possible exception of Paul Kagame, Africa doesn't have ANY leaders who rose to power through being "reasonable". Your own dear leader, the strangely venerated Mandela was a terrorist, hardly the epitome of a reasonable attitude. Although he does do a nice jig whenever a banjo strikes up, so he could be called a reasonable dancer.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Retseh]

Originally posted by Retseh
Did someone really just say that. The Stalin that was the instigator of the Ukrainian genocide, the man who personally orchestrated his policy of "troika" in Mongolia where tens of thousands were also murdered as suspected Japanese spies.

Yes, someone just said that. All of that is perfectly reasonable in that the actions logically follow from the known fact that terror works. Ukrainian 'farmers' resisted collectivization and basically what they produced were taken away by authorities resulting in many hundreds of thousand starving. That is MANY things, including murderous and immoral in my eyes, but certainly not unreasonable in that it did not have the desired effect.

The same Stalin who in a typical moment of insanity ordered the assasination of John Wayne because of his anti-communist movies (the order was later rescinded by Kruschev).

That Stalin was a reasonable guy ??!!??

Sure. I mean Stalin would have trouble having all the major Hollywood studio heads and their production teams assassinated for making obvious propaganda films at the behest of the American government but killing a few major stars might have discouraged the rest from selling out to the highest bidder. It certainly makes more sense than trying to assassinate Fidel Castro when he was but the figurehead of a well entrenched political ideology that did not depend on propaganda to create empire.

You live in Africa and seriously need to ask that question. With the possible exception of Paul Kagame, Africa doesn't have ANY leaders who rose to power through being "reasonable".

If that's your view your about as ignorant as you are unreasonable......

Your own dear leader, the strangely venerated Mandela was a terrorist, hardly the epitome of a reasonable attitude.

So was Washington and most men belonging to the first congress. How many leaders of the national liberation movements that fights empire can not be called 'terrorist' by the imperialist? As for the dear leader part his supposedly a 'great' guy even if he didn't do much anything for those five years as president beside carry forward much the same old imperialist economic system hence the fact that South-Africa now have a larger income divide than in 1994 and more desperately poor than it had 15 year ago.

Although he does do a nice jig whenever a banjo strikes up, so he could be called a reasonable dancer.

At least he can dance unlike that particular western leader that can not chew his food or ride a bicycle.

Stellar

[edit on 5-10-2008 by StellarX]