Is this much different from going on jihad?

Uh! The guy in question may be in some need of medical help but I doubt the government of most any nation is going to be interested in someone who says he wants to go to a another nation and join the military unless they happen to be at war.

Lots of people say stupid things and even do stupid things without it harming the national interest.

I am having trouble understanding why this is viewed as a Traitorous act. It isn't illegal to immigrate is it and if he doesn't like his country of birth, good riddance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Uh! The guy in question may be in some need of medical help but I doubt the government of most any nation is going to be interested in someone who says he wants to go to a another nation and join the military unless they happen to be at war.

Lots of people say stupid things and even do stupid things without it harming the national interest.

I am having trouble understanding why this is viewed as a Traitorous act. It isn't illegal to immigrate is it and if he doesn't like his country of birth, good riddance.

---

A closer equivalent might be a Briton who goes off to join one of the militias in Bosnia or Kosovo. He might well have familial and cultural ties to the people in that region. But British troops will be in the middle, trying to keep the peace between the various warring sides. And on one of those sides, there's going to be a Briiton, who may shoot at the other side over the British soldiers' heads, or who may even shoot at the British soldiers themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Poor wabbit .
Lets recap eh
I'm wondering, what are the ethics of someone, presumably currently a British citizen, proclaiming his loyalty to another country, with the stated aim of joining that other country's military in the future? How should the British government view this? How should the average British citizen view this?

Maybe someone should read up on the Eagle Squadron

So wabbit in that case it would be a neutral Amercan citizen proclaiming loyalty to a belligerant nation ....British ....so how would the American government view this ? .....how would the British government view this ?...in the event of capture how would the german government view this ?
Yes history has changed the view over that particular event , but at the time the official view would be comletely different , just as the AVF pilots would have been in a real sticky mess legally .
Since the question also asks about the average citizens views , then well thats even more of a foxache situation , since in that example there were strongly differing views from the average citizen and their elected representatives , which led to differing levels of support for the legislation that were put through dealing with exactly this issue .

So yes look at the Eagle squadrons for example (or the AVF) , but it raises far more questions regarding the initial post than it could possibly answer .

---

In WWII, Britain was fighting a desperate war against a force that was bombing its civilian population. American citizens decided that regardless of their home country's position of neutrality, they wanted to fight to defend Britain and its people.

In this case, Israel is fighting a desperate war against a force that is bombing its civilian population. A British subject has decided that regardless of his home country's position of neutrality, he wants to fight to defend Israel and its people.

So, as to the initial question: Since Britain has been the beneficiary of the goodwill of foreign citizens fighting to defend it in the past, it should be sympathetic when one of its own subjects wants to do the same for another nation.

Well said!:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

In WWII, Britain was fighting a desperate war against a force that was bombing its civilian population. American citizens decided that regardless of their home country's position of neutrality, they wanted to fight to defend Britain and its people.

In this case, Israel is fighting a desperate war against a force that is bombing its civilian population. A British subject has decided that regardless of his home country's position of neutrality, he wants to fight to defend Israel and its people.

So, as to the initial question: Since Britain has been the beneficiary of the goodwill of foreign citizens fighting to defend it in the past, it should be sympathetic when one of its own subjects wants to do the same for another nation.

---

It might be closer to the mark if the Eagle Squadron had specifically stated that they would not join America's armed forces, but they will join the RAF when they return to the motherland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thequeenisgay, aka Bar Kochba

I wont join the british army but i will join the IDF (Israeli defence force) when i make Aliya (Going up - immergrating) to Israel

---

In response to the question "Would you join your countrys army?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It might be closer to the mark if the Eagle Squadron had specifically stated that they would not join America's armed forces, but they will join the RAF when they return to the motherland.

---

Perhaps. But the comparison is still close enough to be valid for the purposes of this discussion. People choosing to fight in the defence of a nation other than their own for ideological reasons.

Quote:

---

In this case, Israel is fighting a desperate war against a force that is bombing its civilian population. A British subject has decided that regardless of his home country's position of neutrality, he wants to fight to defend Israel and its people.

So, as to the initial question: Since Britain has been the beneficiary of the goodwill of foreign citizens fighting to defend it in the past, it should be sympathetic when one of its own subjects wants to do the same for another nation.

---

Yes but in this case the person sings the praises of those who consider 9/11 and the London tube bombings as good things, which certainly colours how sympathetic Britain should be to the wishes of that individual .

Quote:

---

In WWII, Britain was fighting a desperate war against a force that was bombing its civilian population. American citizens decided that regardless of their home country's position of neutrality, they wanted to fight to defend Britain and its people.

---

That avoids entirely the legal and moral aspects of the case doesn't it . which is what the initial quetion asked about . Which is why the eagle squadrons are a bad example , though the AVF would be a different kettle of fish since in that case it was the government itself breaking its own laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes but in this case the person sings the praises of those who consider 9/11 and the London tube bombings as good things, which certainly colours how sympathetic Britain should be to the wishes of that individual .

---

You'll have to explain/back that up. I sense a very long stretch to try to villify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That avoids entirely the legal and moral aspects of the case doesn't it . which is what the initial quetion asked about . Which is why the eagle squadrons are a bad example , though the AVF would be a different kettle of fish since in that case it was the government itself breaking its own laws

---

No, it doesn't ignore the legal/moral aspects. This man has not said he wants to take up arms against Britain. He has said he wants to fight in the defence of another country. Why should Britain have a problem with that?

Forget we're talking about Israel for a second Tribesman, that might help you put this question into perspective.

Quote:

---

Forget we're talking about Israel for a second Tribesman, that might help you put this question into perspective.

---

Pick a country , Syria , Mexico , India , N.Korea , makes no difference .
Would you like a comparison for your own country to think about to put things in a different perspective ?

Quote:

---

You'll have to explain/back that up. I sense a very long stretch to try to villify.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Your senses can sometimes lead you astray Goof .
Since others have mentioned that particular topic in this thread why do you have doubts because I say it as well ?
Perhaps you can ask the mods who firstly moved it from the frontroom and then closed the topic to direct you to it .
For a brief reminder it was a condolance thread for a "great man" who welcomed and praised the attacks as a sign that the day was coming to purge all non-Jews and false Jews from the holy land in accordance with g*ds word .

Now since that poster seems to like those teachings and intends going to the Holy land to do his duty perhaps the opening poster in this topic isn't to far off with his Jihad comparison .
Since his signature that he used was the slogan of a group that is not only banned as terrorist organisation in Israel it is also banned in Britain , America , France , Germany, Canada..........it does add weight to the comparison doesn't it .

Quote:

---

No, it doesn't ignore the legal/moral aspects. This man has not said he wants to take up arms against Britain. He has said he wants to fight in the defence of another country. Why should Britain have a problem with that?

---

Why did America have a problem with the Eagle squadrons ? Britain wasn't at war with the US was it .
Why did America earlier change the legislation to cover Spain as well ?
Why did it go to great lengths to be able to deny that it was breaking its own laws regarding the Sino-japanese war ?

The IDF, the organization he wants to join, is not a terrorist organization, tribesy.

Considering that you say that the group is banned as a terrorist group in Israel, would that not mean the IDF, if anything, would work against them?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The IDF, the organization he wants to join, is not a terrorist organization, tribesy.

Considering that you say that the group is banned as a terrorist group in Israel, would that not mean the IDF, if anything, would work against them?

Crazed Rabbit

---

Tribesman was talking about the Kahanist organisations, one of whose slogans "Kahane chai" was this chap's sig until someone complained. From wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

Following Kahane's death, no charismatic leader emerged to replace him, and Kahane's ideology declined in popularity among Israelis. However, two small Kahanist factions later emerged; one under the name of Kach and the other Kahane chai (Hebrew: כהנא חי, literally "Kahane lives [on]").

In 1994, following the killings in the Ibrahim Mosque by Kach supporter Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli government declared both parties to be terrorist organizations. The U.S. State Department also added Kach and Kahane Chai to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Providing funds or material support to these organizations is a crime in both Israel and the United States.

---

I suppose he's not as extreme as some I've seen, his dream being but to expel the Palestinians from the occupied territories. There were one or two (who were promptly banned) who argued that, since the original British mandate was Palestine-Transjordan, Greater Israel should include Jordan as well.

I know, my point is that this fellow wants to join the IDF, not the terrorist group.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Pick a country , Syria , Mexico , India , N.Korea , makes no difference .
Would you like a comparison for your own country to think about to put things in a different perspective ?

---

I already have many. Canadians have been fighting for other countries' armies in defence of ideals since Canada was born. I have no problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Your senses can sometimes lead you astray Goof .
Since others have mentioned that particular topic in this thread why do you have doubts because I say it as well ?
Perhaps you can ask the mods who firstly moved it from the frontroom and then closed the topic to direct you to it .
For a brief reminder it was a condolance thread for a "great man" who welcomed and praised the attacks as a sign that the day was coming to purge all non-Jews and false Jews from the holy land in accordance with g*ds word .

Now since that poster seems to like those teachings and intends going to the Holy land to do his duty perhaps the opening poster in this topic isn't to far off with his Jihad comparison .
Since his signature that he used was the slogan of a group that is not only banned as terrorist organisation in Israel it is also banned in Britain , America , France , Germany, Canada..........it does add weight to the comparison doesn't it .

---

Sorry, I just figured out what you were talking about with respect to the original poster. I wasn't aware of the previous thread so it took a bit of research on my part (and was not helped by your speaking in cryptic riddles and references).

So yes, in terms of the specific individual this thread is referring to, there may be validity to the Jihad comparison if his intent is to try to "purge non-Jews from the Holy Land." If his intent is simply to do what he sees as his duty to defend Israel, then the Jihad comparison is not valid.

I have been basing my comments in this thread on this statement of the thread's subject (from the OP):

"I wont join the british army but i will join the IDF (Israeli defence force) when i make Aliya (Going up - immergrating) to Israel".

There is nothing in that statement that leads me to believe that the Jihad comparison is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Why did America have a problem with the Eagle squadrons ? Britain wasn't at war with the US was it .
Why did America earlier change the legislation to cover Spain as well ?
Why did it go to great lengths to be able to deny that it was breaking its own laws regarding the Sino-japanese war ?

---

I don't care if the U.S. had a problem with the Eagle Squadrons (though I don't believe they had any grounds to object to them). As you are fond if reminding me, the question in the original post was:

"I'm wondering, what are the ethics of someone, presumably currently a British citizen, proclaiming his loyalty to another country, with the stated aim of joining that other country's military in the future? How should the British government view this? How should the average British citizen view this?"

My opinion is that the British government should not have a problem with it, because they have in the past been on the other end of the handshake, and because this guy joining the IDF poses no threat to Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I don't care if the U.S. had a problem with the Eagle Squadrons (though I don't believe they had any grounds to object to them). As you are fond if reminding me, the question in the original post was:

"I'm wondering, what are the ethics of someone, presumably currently a British citizen, proclaiming his loyalty to another country, with the stated aim of joining that other country's military in the future? How should the British government view this? How should the average British citizen view this?"

My opinion is that the British government should not have a problem with it, because they have in the past been on the other end of the handshake, and because this guy joining the IDF poses no threat to Britain.

---

What if British soldiers are sent to join the peacekeeping force separating Israel and Lebanon, as seems likely? The main barrier at the moment is we have no troops to spare - we have the will, but not the resources. That will change as they are freed up from Iraq. Once again, see my comparison with Britons joining the militias in Bosnia and Kosovo.

What if America had joined World War II on the side of the Germans and fought Britain? If Britain gets involved with troops trading fire with the IDF, the situation will be more complicated, and as several posters have stated, the soldier in question would have to make some serious decisions. Challenging his ethics now on a possible future 'what if?' is simply a waste of time. Let's burn that bridge when we come to it.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What if British soldiers are sent to join the peacekeeping force separating Israel and Lebanon, as seems likely? The main barrier at the moment is we have no troops to spare - we have the will, but not the resources. That will change as they are freed up from Iraq. Once again, see my comparison with Britons joining the militias in Bosnia and Kosovo.

---

You are dealing with "what if" and I am dealing with "what is."

But it's still a moot point.

Unless Britain decides to impose Eastern bloc cold-war style emigration prohibitions, there is no way that they can reasonably expect to stop their subjects from leaving the country to join foreign armies.

Getting back on topic, it's not Jihad because he isn't Muslim.

Of course to most westerners that'd be irrelevant, hence Bush's faux pas with the 'crusade against evil', but I'm sure a lot of people would find that quite important.

Yeah last I heard Judaism didn't reward the sacrifice of self in the name of God with much of anything really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Yeah last I heard Judaism didn't reward the sacrifice of self in the name of God with much of anything really...

---

There is some study see here examining the role of martyrdom in Judaism, the reward for which:

Quote:

---

It is the testimony of the second son which first connects the death of martyrs to the promise of their resurrection, a claim repeated in the third and fourth son: “the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws” (2 Macc 7.9). Thus, the martyrs’ deaths are understood as not only vicariously redemptive for the entire people Israel, but they offer personal redemption as well. This is later characterized by Rabbinic literature as the s’charan shel tzaddikim, the rewards of the righteous (Bereishit Rabbah 62.2) and for martyrs, as we shall see, entails their immediate ascent to the highest heavenly tier.

---

It's not virgins serving as handmaidens, but still a reward, and apparently share-able with all Judaism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

There is some study see here examining the role of martyrdom in Judaism, the reward for which:

It's not virgins serving as handmaidens, but still a reward, and apparently share-able with all Judaism.

---

Interesting. I stand corrected. Going to read the entire work later tonight. I wonder how much its observed as a pillar of faith for the general religious Jew.

Flying Tigers

It's all very well to refer to flying eagles and tigers and whatnot, but am I the only one to gave a second thought to the word aliyah?

It originally means 'ascent' and has acquired the meaning of (r)emigration to Israel with the intent to live there permanently and definitively. This is how I understand the guy's argument: I will settle in Israel, become an Israeli and absolve my three years of compulsory military service there.

It doesn't seem to me that he will retain his British nationality. He will become an Israeli and the question about his loyalty is a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Flying Tigers

---

Did the Flying Tigers rule out joining the US armed forces because they'd rather fight for another country? Note what the chap in my OP said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did the Flying Tigers rule out joining the US armed forces because they'd rather fight for another country? Note what the chap in my OP said.

---

Actually, most of them left active duty in the US armed forces to go and fight for another country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It's all very well to refer to flying eagles and tigers and whatnot, but am I the only one to gave a second thought to the word aliyah?

It originally means 'ascent' and has acquired the meaning of (r)emigration to Israel with the intent to live there permanently and definitively. This is how I understand the guy's argument: I will settle in Israel, become an Israeli and absolve my three years of compulsory military service there.

It doesn't seem to me that he will retain his British nationality. He will become an Israeli and the question about his loyalty is a non-issue.

---

In which case I hope he will pursue his further education, if he plans on it, when he goes to Israel, and not waste any more British taxpayers' money on him. If he is so much more in touch with his Jewish heritage than his British upbringing, get him there ASAP so we can wash our hands of him. We're not too fond of British Muslims who proclaim a greater loyalty to the Islamic nation than to Britain, so I don't see why it should be different for others.

Quote:

---

The IDF, the organization he wants to join, is not a terrorist organization, tribesy.

Considering that you say that the group is banned as a terrorist group in Israel, would that not mean the IDF, if anything, would work against them?

---

Hmmmm... lets see , can you think of an example where an IDF soldier in uniform who was linked as a sympahiser/supporter of the terrorist group decides that it is vitally important that they attempt to stop their traitorous anti-Jewish Israeli government from engaging in the peace process by ....go on pick an example ....attacking a mosque , going postal in a market , slaughtering civilians on a bus .....

Quote:

---

I already have many. Canadians have been fighting for other countries' armies in defence of ideals since Canada was born. I have no problem with it.

---

Ah , you missed it , I was going to suggest a French national with Quebecish separatist sympathies joining a Canadian regiment .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

I don't care if the U.S. had a problem with the Eagle Squadrons (though I don't believe they had any grounds to object to them).

---

But that was the point , the question was about a national joining the forces of another country and the original nations citizens and governments views of it , that is why I was amazed at two people suggesting the eagle squadrons as examples without considering the citizens and govenments views (and legislation) at the time of those events .
And since Hosa has provided a tigers link then we could also explore the other group that I mentioned , the AVF(though that is , as I said earlier , slightly different since it was a government sponsored deniable operation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hmmmm... lets see , can you think of an example where an IDF soldier in uniform who was linked as a sympahiser/supporter of the terrorist group decides that it is vitally important that they attempt to stop their traitorous anti-Jewish Israeli government from engaging in the peace process by ....go on pick an example ....attacking a mosque , going postal in a market , slaughtering civilians on a bus ....

---

Oh please. Reduced to this, I suppose.

Data is not the plural of anecdote.

The hypothetical actions of one member of the IDF doesn't make them all terrorists, nor does it make the IDF a terrorist group. Nor does it mean this guy is going to commit any terrorist acts. One goal of the IDF is to fight terrorism such as this, and he is joining the IDF, not some terrorist organization.

So the comparison to flying animals of various sorts is justified.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did the Flying Tigers rule out joining the US armed forces because they'd rather fight for another country? Note what the chap in my OP said.

---

Quote:

---

The AVG was largely the creation of Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army Air Corps captain who had become military aviation advisor to Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in the Sino-Japanese War. (On occasion Chennault may have piloted a plane himself, though stories that he was a combat ace are probably apocryphal.) Due to poor fighter aircraft supplied by Russia, results were not impressive, and when Russian air units were withdrawn from China in 1940, Chiang asked for American squadrons to replace them as well as permission to recruit US pilots to fly them. Since the US was not at war, this could not happen openly, but it received favorable assistance and approval from President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself.

The resultant clandestine operation was organized in large part by Lauchlin Currie, a young economist in the White House, and by Roosevelt intimate Thomas G. Corcoran. (Currie's assistant was John King Fairbank, who later became America's preeminent Asian scholar.) The AVG financing was handled by China Defense Supplies, which was primarily Tommy Corcoran's creation, with funding provided by the U.S. government; purchases were then made by the Chinese under the "Cash and Carry" provision of the Neutrality Act of 1939.


A “blood chit” issued to the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) pilots. The Chinese characters read: “This foreign person has come to China to help in the war effort. Soldiers and civilians, one and all, should rescue, protect, and provide him medical care.” (R.E. Baldwin Collection)
[edit] AVG Recruiting

Chennault spent the winter of 1940-1941 in Washington, helping to negotiate the purchase of 100 Curtiss P-40 fighters. He also supervised the recruiting of 100 pilots — 40 from the Army Air Corps and 60 from the Navy and Marine Corps — and about 200 ground crewmen. (Ten more army flight instructors were hired as check pilots for Chinese cadets, and a few of these would ultimately join the AVG’s combat squadrons.)

Although sometimes referred to as a mercenary unit, the AVG is unique in that it had government funding and approval to recruit from active duty units in the United States. The pilots were either currently serving in American armed services or reserve officers; contrary to legend, none were recruited from the ranks of civilian transport pilots or barnstormers. Most histories of the Flying Tigers say that on April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising Army Reservists on active duty to resign from the Army Air Corps in order to sign up for the AVG,[1] however Flying Tigers historian Daniel Ford could not find evidence that such an order was ever published.[2] Ford states that the State Department in fact blocked the issuing of a passport to a pilot who had a history of volunteering for such service,[3] something that would go against the spirit of such an order.

The pilots who volunteered were discharged from the American armed services, to fly and fight as mercenaries for the Republic of China Air Force.[4] They were officially employees of a private military contractor, the Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company, which employed them for "training and instruction," and which paid them $600 a month for pilot officer (USAAF monthly pay in 1942, including flight and overseas pay, was $247), $675 a month for flight leader (such as Gregory “Pappy” Boyington) (USAAF $347), and $750 for Squadron leader (USAAF $445), though no pilot was recruited at this level.[5] They were orally promised an additional $500 for each enemy aircraft shot down, a promise that was later confirmed by Madame Chiang Kai-shek, who also extended it to aircraft destroyed on the ground, but which obviously the U.S. services did not extend to their pilots.

---

Looks like a nice financial incentive and a chance to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If he is so much more in touch with his Jewish heritage than his British upbringing, get him there ASAP so we can wash our hands of him.

---

I don't get it. Are you advocating the punitive deportation of a British citizen because of his personal views (which is illegal)? I probably dislike him just as much as you, but there is no legal basis whatsoever to contest a British citizen's stated wish to emigrate.

What I've heard is, "I'm more British than you, so diaf, or the UK shouldn't put peacekeeping troops anywhere near Israel."