Is this much different from going on jihad?

In the RTR forums, there is a thread asking, "Would you join your countrys army?". One of the posters, someone living in London, replied "I wont join the british army but i will join the IDF (Israeli defence force) when i make Aliya (Going up - immergrating) to Israel".

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?

As a British subject I've no problems with that. He is leaving to take part in the armed forces of another soverign nation. He is not leaving to join a guerilla / terrorist organisation.

Assuming that he is not disloyal to the UK it doesn't worry me. There are many times I've said "if you don't like it here, leave". At least he's doing that.

~:smoking:

I would think it's his choice. Unless Israel is threatening London in some way, shape, or form, it okay.

In terms of the opinion of the British citizen, I would think reaction could depend
significantly on the individual's view of the IDF. Perhaps some view this kind of
action as taking up a worthy 'cause' in the same manner as a Muslim might view
joining forces which seek to fight a Jihad. Or a worthy cause to take up precisely
because they perceive the enemy of the IDF to be those same Jihad fighters.

In that sense, I feel I can empathise in some way, but I cannot say I view them
in much a different light to the Jihad fighter who might go to the Middle East to
kill Israelis.

Couldn't see the British government attempting to stop this in any way, as to
whether they should [assuming they were ever in a position to do so], I think
so, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As a British subject I've no problems with that. He is leaving to take part in the armed forces of another soverign nation. He is not leaving to join a guerilla / terrorist organisation.

Assuming that he is not disloyal to the UK it doesn't worry me. There are many times I've said "if you don't like it here, leave". At least he's doing that.

~:smoking:

---

Let's hope our armed forces never get involved in a peacekeeping mission in that region that will result in him firing on them.

There is a difference, Israel is at least as civil as possible in war and doesnt target or take cover by civilians. To me it seems the same as some one immigrating to another country and then joining there military for the faster citizenship track.

To compare joining the IDF to joining a Jihad would only be applicable if there were no Muslim states with armies. I'd feel the same if a Muslim joined the Egyptian army, or the Syrian army, or the Iranian Army.

Of course, if peacekeepers were required or war was declared his nationality would have no bearing whatsoever. He chose to wear the (then) enemy's fatigues and he can therefore die in them.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

There is a difference, Israel is at least as civil as possible in war and doesnt target or take cover by civilians. To me it seems the same as some one immigrating to another country and then joining there military for the faster citizenship track.

---

Shouldn't one be loyal to the country one is a citizen of, at least until one moves to that other country? Eg. what would your view be of an American kid who looks forward to the day when he's old enough to move to Iran to join the Iranian military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Shouldn't one be loyal to the country one is a citizen of, at least until one moves to that other country? Eg. what would your view be of an American kid who looks forward to the day when he's old enough to move to Iran to join the Iranian military?

---

I agree with Rory here. As long as we're not at war with Iran the U.S. shouldn't stop him from a humen rights standpoint. If he wants to move to a different country and give up his american citizenship the government shouldn't stop him (unless if its war time). However at this point, if your fighting for another country you should at least give up your citizenship.
Besides nobody has a choice about which country they are born into. Immegrating and becoming a citizen of said country even joining that said countries army should be legal.

Counter question just because you are born into a certain country, does that require a blind loyalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

I agree with Rory here. As long as we're not at war with Iran the U.S. shouldn't stop him from a humen rights standpoint. If he wants to move to a different country and give up his american citizenship the government shouldn't stop him (unless if its war time). However at this point, if your fighting for another country you should at least give up your citizenship.
Besides nobody has a choice about which country they are born into. Immegrating and becoming a citizen of said country even joining that said countries army should be legal.

Counter question just because you are born into a certain country, does that require a blind loyalty?

---

While you still live there, yes. Not to the extent that you have to accept the culture, religion, government policies, etc. of that country. But certainly to the extent that the country's military has first dibs on you if you are of that bent. There's nothing to stop him from moving abroad and joining another country's military while he's there, but if he should ever fire on a British soldier or citizen, we should demand he be handed over to be tried for treason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Of course, if peacekeepers were required or war was declared his nationality would have no bearing whatsoever. He chose to wear the (then) enemy's fatigues and he can therefore die in them.

~:smoking:

---

Or get wounded and then patched up by us.

=][=

Saying a Jihad (I assume the modern terrorist version) is equivalent of joining the army of a democratic nation... is the same as saying terrorists are equal to soldiers. That IMDHO is rather disgusting.

In general if someone wants to go to another country that is a nominal ally and join its army it is not an issue. Plenty of commonwealth armies have soldiers who are from other commonwealth nations. I know of several people who have served in the IDF and then came back to Australia to do university and work. I even know one who served in the IDF and then the Australian Army.

From what I have seen, Israel gets treated like a defacto Commonwealth nation so it isn't an issue in Australia.

I also have worked with people who were raised in Australia and went back to Turkey to do as they perceived their duty. I also know Taiwanese who are in the same situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There's nothing to stop him from moving abroad and joining another country's military while he's there, but if he should ever fire on a British soldier or citizen, we should demand he be handed over to be tried for treason.

---

Such a demand would be rather pointless, would it not? If he has joined a
foreign military force and is firing on British forces, it would be unlikely that he
would be handed over by his new home country.


As for the comments on comparing joining the IDF to those who would join
a Jihad, if you referring to my initial post, I would stress that I said so with
a view specifically to those fighting the Israelis. Also focusing on the opinion
of the IDF. I have seen nothing which leads me to believe that the IDF does
not, or would not target civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Or get wounded and then patched up by us.

=][=

Saying a Jihad (I assume the modern terrorist version) is equivalent of joining the army of a democratic nation... is the same as saying terrorists are equal to soldiers. That IMDHO is rather disgusting.

In general if someone wants to go to another country that is a nominal ally and join its army it is not an issue. Plenty of commonwealth armies have soldiers who are from other commonwealth nations. I know of several people who have served in the IDF and then came back to Australia to do university and work. I even know one who served in the IDF and then the Australian Army.

From what I have seen, Israel gets treated like a defacto Commonwealth nation so it isn't an issue in Australia.

I also have worked with people who were raised in Australia and went back to Turkey to do as they perceived their duty. I also know Taiwanese who are in the same situation.

---

Have those armed forces ever shot Australian citizens, not by accident, then tried to cover up the incident? The IDF has done so to British citizens, most recently a chap who was filming a documentary about the troubles there.

And the British military has never, ever once even thought about let alone shot one of its one citizens, particularly troublesome journos in a place of troubles...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And the British military has never, ever once even thought about let alone shot one of its one citizens, particularly troublesome journos in a place of troubles...

---

That's a matter for the British government, British legal system, etc. to settle. Last year, a British family, after years of pushing, finally got the IDF to admit that the soldier who killed their daughter knew she was unarmed at the time he fired the shot. They complained that the British government had betrayed its responsibilities when they refused to pressure the Israeli government to explain or properly investigate the incident, forcing them to take up the matter themselves.

If something happens within Britain, there is a whole legal infrastructure in place to deal with the incident. If something happens in a foreign country, such due process may not exist, and it should be the British government's responsibility to represent their citizens. After all, isn't this what they pay their taxes for?

A person is generally tried for treason for attacking their state.
For killing the citizens of a state, one is charged with murder if that is appropriate.

So a UK citizen who works for a foreign army (and stays a UK citizen), and then murders a UK citizen could possibly be tried for murder as long as it doesn't effect the State. In all likely hood the state will put its best interests first before that of individuals, so it may ignore the murder in favour of better trade rights for instance. Now if it benefits the state it will try the person for treason, it generally will try and have good evidence, but don't rely on that in an election year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

A person is generally tried for treason for attacking their state.
For killing the citizens of a state, one is charged with murder if that is appropriate.

So a UK citizen who works for a foreign army (and stays a UK citizen), and then murders a UK citizen could possibly be tried for murder as long as it doesn't effect the State. In all likely hood the state will put its best interests first before that of individuals, so it may ignore the murder in favour of better trade rights for instance. Now if it benefits the state it will try the person for treason, it generally will try and have good evidence, but don't rely on that in an election year.

---

That's a good enough explanation for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdeče.jabolko

Such a demand would be rather pointless, would it not? If he has joined a
foreign military force and is firing on British forces, it would be unlikely that he
would be handed over by his new home country.


As for the comments on comparing joining the IDF to those who would join
a Jihad, if you referring to my initial post, I would stress that I said so with
a view specifically to those fighting the Israelis. Also focusing on the opinion
of the IDF. I have seen nothing which leads me to believe that the IDF does
not, or would not target civilians.

---

Armies follow laws. Terrorists don't Joining the IDF does not mean you are signing up to go and slaughter Palestinians - it may be your reason, but equally might not be. Joining a terrorist organisation has a stated aim. Generally to kill a group or religion, and usually any people will do.

In WW2 many acts by the allies were questionable. The bombing of Dresden was done not by pilots who wanted to incinerate women and children, but people who joined the RAF / USAAF. They then followed their orders and did their duty. They could equally be sent to dogfight the enemy, drop supplies for the Allied Terrorists (whoops - resistance) or whatever. Big difference.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

In WW2 many acts by the allies were questionable. The bombing of Dresden was done not by pilots who wanted to incinerate women and children, but people who joined the RAF / USAAF. They then followed their orders and did their duty. They could equally be sent to dogfight the enemy, drop supplies for the Allied Terrorists (whoops - resistance) or whatever. Big difference.

---

After WW2, many German officers didn't escape unscathed, despite them merely following the orders of their superiors -- the Nazi regime. Nuremberg sort of disagrees with your view in this.

Of course, it still is different from joining a terrorist organization whose only existence is for the destruction of something. So I might just misread your post.

As for the case at hand. Well, I don't really mind, personally; but obviously that's some interesting question about national sovereignty and the responsibilities of citizenship. Not something I have a slew of answers for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

There is a difference, Israel is at least as civil as possible in war and doesnt target or take cover by civilians.

---

Oh, really?

Oh that's right, as an army under the control of a recognized state, which means that the civilians it kills can be claimed as collateral.

Just like that old woman, who received a bullet through her head, compliments of Isreals occupation and state terrorism.

Perhaps, you may want to read more on the subject, before you use it so freely.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

After WW2, many German officers didn't escape unscathed, despite them merely following the orders of their superiors -- the Nazi regime. Nuremberg sort of disagrees with your view in this.

---

Ah yes. They lost the war didn't they? The allies did no wrong anywhere in the entire war. Us, blame the loosers for everything? Never! :laugh4:

Should allies have bombed Japanese cities with incendries, killing masses of Civilians merely as Japan had no industrial areas? Or as I said Dresden? It was legal as we said so - and on both sides soldiers did what they were told to do. On the German side we apportioned blame, on ours medals. Such is war.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

While you still live there, yes. Not to the extent that you have to accept the culture, religion, government policies, etc. of that country. But certainly to the extent that the country's military has first dibs on you if you are of that bent. There's nothing to stop him from moving abroad and joining another country's military while he's there, but if he should ever fire on a British soldier or citizen, we should demand he be handed over to be tried for treason.

---

OK, I am now officially intrigued - and should I be worried?

I'm a citizen of the Irish Republic. As was my right, I joined HM Army and as a British officer, orchestrated elements of the fight against Irish republican terrorists (as I saw them) or patriots (as they saw themselves). I shot two Irish citizens personally. I also had cause to act against British terrorists/patriots.

On leaving HM Forces, I accepted an offer from the IDF to join in a capacity that also took actions against terrorists/patriots from both sides of the border. I am still a reservist in the IDF.

Am I a traitor, and if so to which nation? Can you illuminate the exact nature of my treasonous motives? :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the very confused, the Irish Defence Force is also an IDF. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Maybe someone should read up on the Eagle Squadron...

---

:yes:

I awaiting the trial of Beau Geste and his brother too.

So it is ok for others to join your military but not someone else's?

Gurkhas seem to come to mind. Yes also Eagle Squadron and a few others over the years.

Not that it matters much but the guy can't get into the IDF without speaking Hebrew.

Well, as you say, one man's Traitor is another's hero.

Extremists are likely to view any act against what they perceive as their cause as traitorous behaviour. Often those opposed will view the same acts as heroism.

That goes for religious extremists, different branches of religions, hostile countries - you name it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

'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?

---

I don't see this as especially complicated. So long as he doesn't get himself into a position that requires loyalty to the UK (by which I mean him trying to work at MI5, not the basic "loyalty" of obeying our laws, paying his taxes and so on which I do expect and which I do not think is in issue) then what is the issue? Is this really any different to me saying I want to emmigrate to Oz? (Not that I do, awful beer)

This is quite different from saying that he wants to live in the UK but live under Israeli law. Then I would tell him to bog off to Isreal. Which, err, is exactly what he proposes to do. So fair play to him.

What about all of the migrant workwers who work here and send their wages "home"? Should we get upset that they are not spending their money in our economic and thereby supplying good old British jobs? of course not.

This sort of thing is inevitable in a globalised world, and it may well be that the sooner we primarily identify with things other than a nation state the better. Not that England* isn't top, of course.

*ironically a nation but not a state, before some pedant points this out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

OK, I am now officially intrigued - and should I be worried?

I'm a citizen of the Irish Republic. As was my right, I joined HM Army and as a British officer, orchestrated elements of the fight against Irish republican terrorists (as I saw them) or patriots (as they saw themselves). I shot two Irish citizens personally. I also had cause to act against British terrorists/patriots.

On leaving HM Forces, I accepted an offer from the IDF to join in a capacity that also took actions against terrorists/patriots from both sides of the border. I am still a reservist in the IDF.

Am I a traitor, and if so to which nation? Can you illuminate the exact nature of my treasonous motives? :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the very confused, the Irish Defence Force is also an IDF. :beam:

---

What would have been your view had you been ordered to deploy in a situation where you might be facing off against Irish troops? That's not such an outlandish scenario - remember Israel was pushing for European troops to provide a peacekeeping force between Israel and Lebanon, and one of the issues raised was whether German troops might not fancy shooting back against Israelis. If this chaps joins the Israeli Defence Force, which invades Lebanon or Palestine or Syria, and British troops are sent in as peacekeepers to oversee the following ceasefire, would he ask for a transfer to a less sensitive area of Israel, or would he happily fire on British troops?

BTW, he hasn't yet replied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What would have been your view had you been ordered to deploy in a situation where you might be facing off against Irish troops? That's not such an outlandish scenario - remember Israel was pushing for European troops to provide a peacekeeping force between Israel and Lebanon, and one of the issues raised was whether German troops might not fancy shooting back against Israelis. If this chaps joins the Israeli Defence Force, which invades Lebanon or Palestine or Syria, and British troops are sent in as peacekeepers to oversee the following ceasefire, would he ask for a transfer to a less sensitive area of Israel, or would he happily fire on British troops?

---

That's easy, because I considered it carefully before deciding to join. My commission was from Her Majesty and I served the British government. In the event that Irish troops attacked British interests, I would have defended my men and carried out my orders.

In fact, we had several "confrontations" with Gardai - not quite troops, but official representatives of the Republic.

My decisions were based on what I felt was right at the time. I would not have joined the British Army of the 1920s for instance, I would have opposed it. In a different context, were I a German in the last war, I hope I would have had the courage to refuse service in the German army and seek to oppose the evil regime as a member of the allied effort. I would not have seen this as a treasonous act in any way.

The world is not made up of simple black and white scenarios as you would have it. This fellow has considered his options and feels that his personal ethics would be fulfilled by serving in the Israeli Defence Force. I imagine that he would have considered the various implications, as I did.

I very much doubt that he would "happily" fire on British peacekeepers (few soldiers are "happy" about firing on anyone, let alone in that situation) but I imagine he would do so if ordered. After all, his reasonable expectation would be that the "peacekeepers" would not be trying to engage in a war with Israel. Should such an Israeli incursion happen despite the peacekeeping force, you can be pretty sure British troops would be pulled out PDQ.

This does not make him a traitor to the United Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That's easy, because I considered it carefully before deciding to join. My commission was from Her Majesty and I served the British government. In the event that Irish troops attacked British interests, I would have defended my men and carried out my orders.

In fact, we had several "confrontations" with Gardai - not quite troops, but official representatives of the Republic.

My decisions were based on what I felt was right at the time. I would not have joined the British Army of the 1920s for instance, I would have opposed it. In a different context, were I a German in the last war, I hope I would have had the courage to refuse service in the German army and seek to oppose the evil regime as a member of the allied effort. I would not have seen this as a treasonous act in any way.

The world is not made up of simple black and white scenarios as you would have it. This fellow has considered his options and feels that his personal ethics would be fulfilled by serving in the Israeli Defence Force. I imagine that he would have considered the various implications, as I did.

I very much doubt that he would "happily" fire on British peacekeepers (few soldiers are "happy" about firing on anyone, let alone in that situation) but I imagine he would do so if ordered. After all, his reasonable expectation would be that the "peacekeepers" would not be trying to engage in a war with Israel. Should such an Israeli incursion happen despite the peacekeeping force, you can be pretty sure British troops would be pulled out PDQ.

This does not make him a traitor to the United Kingdom.

---

Let's see his reply then.

What happened to the British and American citizens who were found in Afghanistan when we invaded that country? Wasn't at least one of them a bona fide fighter? Since he/they were fighting in support of the established government of Afghanistan of the time, and we were the invaders, the terrorist card can hardly be used. The only difference might be if we were formally at war with Afghanistan. So what should the status of these people be?

FWIW, this doesn't mean I support efforts made against us in Afghanistan, or that I denigrate our efforts there. On the contrary, imo any British citizen found fighting against our troops should be summarily shot. If they survive to face due process, they should count themselves lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I very much doubt that he would "happily" fire on British peacekeepers (few soldiers are "happy" about firing on anyone, let alone in that situation)

---

You don't know him then. His sig used to be the slogan of a group that has been proscribed by the Israeli government as terrorists. He posted a eulogy last year to the spiritual inspiration for said group, that made Adrian II go off his rocker.

Am I the only one who finds this discussion pretty ironic considering the predicament of Australian David Hicks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What happened to the British and American citizens who were found in Afghanistan when we invaded that country? Wasn't at least one of them a bona fide fighter? Since he/they were fighting in support of the established government of Afghanistan of the time, and we were the invaders, the terrorist card can hardly be used. The only difference might be if we were formally at war with Afghanistan. So what should the status of these people be?

FWIW, this doesn't mean I support efforts made against us in Afghanistan, or that I denigrate our efforts there. On the contrary, imo any British citizen found fighting against our troops should be summarily shot. If they survive to face due process, they should count themselves lucky.

---

Well, I'm sure you know my views on the "enemy combatant" nastiness. If these people chose to oppose their native government, they are still prisoners of war. Mercenaries perhaps, but then the Gurkhas are mercenaries, or the Foreign Legion. As I understand it, these people were fighting for their perception of religious duty so they felt ethically justified in opposing a "heathen" invasion. Once the war is over (and they accept the war is over - which is where I have some sympathy for the Coalition's dilemma, if not their method) they should be released.

Regardless, this is not the same as the initial premise was a British citizen deciding to go and join the recognised forces of another democratic state, the citizenship of which he was also intending to take.

Treason is a word too easily bandied about - and summary executions are the most misguided of "patriotic" absurdities. I'm more interested in the motivation behind people's actions rather than which piece of coloured cloth they blindly kill and die for. Motives can only be examined through due process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You don't know him then. His sig used to be the slogan of a group that has been proscribed by the Israeli government as terrorists. He posted a eulogy last year to the spiritual inspiration for said group, that made Adrian II go off his rocker.

---

Well, I'm not writing in defence of a particular member, who as you say, I don't know. I'm addressing your views as expressed in your original post.

If he goes off to join the IDF for purely religious purposes then, yes, I would say he is very similar to the lads who go off to join the "jihad". If he indentifies more strongly with his religion (and, I suppose, ethnicity) than with his nationality then good luck to him.

Of course the main difference is that the IDF, unlike the most infamous "jihadist" groups, tends not to have Britain, or Britons, near the top of their hit list.

In some respects this willingness to fight for some kind of ideological reasons is admirable, irrespective of what convictions they fight for. To have the courage of your convictions, to join the IDF, to fight the "Great Satan", the oppose Comintern, the Facists or whatever. If I may take such historical examples.

The trouble is that ideologies can be blind to reality and, often, to humanity.

I would doubt when he goes there he would have the humanity in Gaza or the
West Bank in mind, but I cannot know, obviously. I would also question whether
the IDF in its recent history has adhered strictly to laws or resolutions as any
other army should. All too often laws are thrown out of the window in
conflict, are they not? In any case, I see why many would not oppose allowing
someone to join the IDF, but I would put it to you that given the actions in
which the IDF is relatively frequently engaged, we should be looking to do what
we can to prevent excerbation of the problems in the Middle East. Allowing our
citizens to take up a cause there, for whichever side, would not do this.

If his motivations are religious then it's pretty much the same to me.

Man, this is a problem of honour. Saying to an officer you're dumping your country to join another army it's like a spit in the face for any officer. He's nothing more than a mercenary.Gentelmen must join the armies of their countries.

I think it would be different if he decided to join the IRA.

He doesn't have to live there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If his motivations are religious then it's pretty much the same to me.

---

What if his reasons are ethnic and not religious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

What if his reasons are ethnic and not religious?

---

That means pretty much the same in the middle east, I think I know what this gem of mankind really wants to do. The jews hate the arabs and the arabs hate the jews(yeah I know not all of them), joining either side means that you are willing to use violence against the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?

---

British army conscription ended in 1960, no? Hence this guy is not obliged to serve in Britain. If he emigrates to Israel (i.e. becomes an Israeli citizen) he will have to do his military service there under present Israeli law. So bloody what?

I have to wonder about the ethics of someone who equates military service in a democracy to jihad. If this guy emigrated to the U.S. and joined the army there, no one would batter an eyelid, raise 'ethical' issues or mention the word 'crusade'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That means pretty much the same in the middle east.

---

I would respectfully differ on this point.


My question is to the question of the OP, if the target country had been Guatemala or Honduras would he still ask the question? I only ask this as Pann has been noted for his disdain for Israel, to put it mildly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

British army conscription ended in 1960, no? Hence this guy is not obliged to serve in Britain. If he emigrates to Israel (i.e. becomes an Israeli citizen) he will have to do his military service there under present Israeli law. So bloody what?

I have to wonder about the ethics of someone who equates military service in a democracy to jihad. If this guy emigrated to the U.S. and joined the army there, no one would batter an eyelid, raise 'ethical' issues or mention the word 'crusade'.

---

Note what he calls the emigration - "Aliya", with its cultural and religious implications. In other RTR posts he's also said that he's looking forward to joining the IDF so he can fight the Arabs. If you cast your mind back, or read the Org post I linked to, you'll also see that he has sympathies that even the Israeli government would consider extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I would respectfully differ on this point.


My question is to the question of the OP, if the target country had been Guatemala or Honduras would he still ask the question? I only ask this as Pann has been noted for his disdain for Israel, to put it mildly.

---

Just because Israel is a democracy doesn't mean zionists are very nice people. It's a war of some sorts, and this guy wants to be part of it, holy struggle of a greater Israel against the holy struggle for world domination (sorry, I have to put anti-islamic views in this post to please Macsen Rufus, someone has to do it), this doesn't happen in Honduras.

People left the US and the UK to aid rebel movements throughout Central America in the 80's. Is it because the struggle in the Middle East is seen incorrectly as religious that we draw the line?

Most scholars of any eruditon about the region will tell you that the Jewish/Arab conficts are largely secular. Even religious leaders in the region, who aren't radicals, will tell you the many secular basis for the conflicts. The rhetoric on the nightly news and newspapers preach the religious aspects and not the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I would respectfully differ on this point.


My question is to the question of the OP, if the target country had been Guatemala or Honduras would he still ask the question? I only ask this as Pann has been noted for his disdain for Israel, to put it mildly.

---

Did you read what I said about Afghanistan? If any British citizen is found in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting against British troops, imo they should be shot on the spot. If the British government commits British troops on an open mission (as opposed to a secret mission which the target can't be expected to know about), they represent the British state, and any British citizen fighting for a foreign country against the British state is imo guilty of treason. If they don't want to compromise themselves, they should move to the other end of the country where they won't be put in this situation, or else surrender themselves to British troops asap.

If you've read my other posts you'll know I'm an isolationist, with the view that we should not intervene outside the EU except where we are invited, or where treaty obligations oblige us to. And if we do intervene, I certainly do not want British citizens fighting against British troops. I asked this question because, were this a British Muslim wanting to fight for Palestine against Israel, there wouldn't be any differences in opinion. So, with the situation switched round, how many people would seek to excuse it?

And before you note that there are currently next to no British soldiers commited to the peacekeeping force, note also that Israel has asked for them, and we'll be pulling out of Iraq so there will be spare troops soon. The chap in question is currently 18 according to his Org profile, and might well be joining the IDF in the next few years. Which is also the timeframe for our departure from Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

People left the US and the UK to aid rebel movements throughout Central America in the 80's. Is it because the struggle in the Middle East is seen incorrectly as religious that we draw the line?

Most scholars of any eruditon about the region will tell you that the Jewish/Arab conficts are largely secular. Even religious leaders in the region, who aren't radicals, will tell you the many secular basis for the conflicts. The rhetoric on the nightly news and newspapers preach the religious aspects and not the reality.

---

Zionist jews want a bigger Israel, and their motives are mostly religious. Arabs don't like that and religion comes in handy there, no scholar would ever throw it on just demographics as either side has a very big crowd to please. Pan's question was if this is much different from Jihad, and I think that the assumption that this conflict is incorrectly seen as religious is a very big mistake. Zionists/jihadists, both holy struggles, can't we just kill them all get along.

If he remains a British citizen, then if found as an enemy combatant, I would say yes, treason. If he gives up his citizenship, moves, and is found as an enemy combatant, then I would say no, but that is in the most strict sense as there mitigating factors.

I don't recall the number of British or American who were generational citizens, who went to fight for Germany in WW2, that were tried for treason...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Zionist jews want a bigger Israel, and their motives are mostly religious. Arabs don't like that and religion comes in handy there, no scholar would ever throw it on just demographics as either side has a very big crowd to please. Pan's question was if this is much different from Jihad, and I think that the assumption that this conflict is incorrectly seen as religious is a very big mistake. Zionists/jihadists, both holy struggles, can't we just kill them all get along.

---

Of course, I wouldn't care what this chap does if we can just cordon the whole area off as I've suggested before. Want to travel there to join in the scrap? Feel free. Just don't expect to be ever let back into the EU again. To avoid Brit-on-Brit fratricide, don't put any peacekeeping forces in their way, but just let them fight to their hearts' content. Arabs want to push the Jews into the sea? Feel free if they are capable of it. Jews want to push the Arabs into the desert? Feel free if they are capable of it. If any Europeans want to join the fight, let them, but bar them from ever returning. Someone in the RTR thread suggested deporting their immediate family as well, which would suit me fine. Let them do whatever they want, but keep us out of it. It's nothing to do with us.

Oh well Banquo has pretty much put this to bed .
However on a wider note views raised in 2 posts stand out .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou
Maybe someone should read up on the Eagle Squadron...

---

Hmmmmm......a real arthur foxache there , silly Xiahou:yes:

Quote:

---

There is a difference, Israel is at least as civil as possible in war and doesnt target or take cover by civilians.

---

A big :oops: there from destroyer , while it may be said that the self proclaimed "most moral army in the middle-east" does have standing orders finally enshrined at the highest levels of the military and the highrest civilian courts in the land that the use of civilian human shields /bomb detectors shall without doubt unequovically be absolutely not a very nice thing to do and not be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever.......its a bit of a bugger when Israeli television (so that is not pallywood or anti semitic liberal western media) showed footage from Nablus last week of the IDF forcing civilians to be human shields/bomb detectors .


Also

Quote:

---

Note what he calls the emigration - "Aliya", with its cultural and religious implications.

---

Well Pann if he was going over with religeous and cultural implications , he could avoid service with the IDF ....or if he was really radical he would be totally exempt .

Quote:

---

You don't know him then. His sig used to be the slogan of a group that has been proscribed by the Israeli government as terrorists. He posted a eulogy last year to the spiritual inspiration for said group, that made Adrian II go off his rocker.
Today 11:12

---

Hey come on , be fair . Attribute going off the rocker where it lies ...It was myself who campared that particular deceased scumbag to Osama B .

Now this was the ArsenVenger who was heaping praise to the London tube bombings in addition to 9/11 wasn't it . A fundamentalist friutcake .
Though what is funny is that if the poster was so damn serious about his religeon then the approved rabbitanical filter that is neccesary for godly pure access to the internet would prevent him from accessing this site .
A real arthur .

For any country to avoid what you describe as the Brit on Brit fatricide, they would have to deny peacekeeping forces as only a very few countries can boast having no Jewish or Arab emmigration to the area.

I don't see the world in such all or nothing terms. The story of brother vs brother can be read and retold in almost every conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In other RTR posts he's also said that he's looking forward to joining the IDF so he can fight the Arabs.

---

As long as he fights Arab soldiers who wage war on Israel, there is nothing wrong with that. I haven't seen his other posts and I won't bother. But if he wants to kill Arabs for the heck of it, he is an idiot and I hope the IDF put him on latrine duty for three years. BTW: If he were Haredi and refused to fight for his country, I think they should dump him in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If any British citizen is found in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting against British troops, imo they should be shot on the spot.

---

How very racially discriminatory of you! If these were Afghanis or Iraqis fighting British troops they'd be granted political asylum in the UK immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Maybe someone should read up on the Eagle Squadron...

---

Took the words right out of my mouth...

Quote:

---

If any British citizen is found in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting against British troops, imo they should be shot on the spot.

---

Doesnt the idea of social contract and rule over a people (or person in this case) by their consent at least give them the right leave the country they disagree with? It is a natural right for a person to be able to chose their own government. This is no exception.

However I'm not arguing that countries should be forced to let their citizens fight against them with a foreign power. This dose not mean however that a Brit, or former brit found fighting in Iraq should be charged for treason unless he is a register member of the army. At that point he should be treated like any P.o.W., locked up until the end of the war.

Quote:

---

Took the words right out of my mouth...

---

hmmmmmmm.....oh yes , what was it again ...a real arthur foxache there ......but goofball this time .
So a neutral citizen acting for a beligerant....hmmmm now then that would be covered under Hauge wouldn't it , and in this case the country of the citzens also had its laws over that as well didn't it .
Sooooooo.....

Quote:

---

Maybe someone should read up on the Eagle Squadron

---

:yes:

Late to the party, but what a party it is. :balloon2:

My thoughts are mainly in line with Banquo's. This isn't black and white issue, and it's ultimately up to the intent of the individual.

First, there are some certain legal constraints based on your citizenship as to what you can and can't do. For example in the US you can have other citizenship and serve in other military forces, so long as it does not conflict with US law and your US citizenship. Clearly the American dude found over in Afghanistan who was shooting at US troops, AND admitted he was doing it voluntarily falls into this category. The intent is there, he didn't renounce his citizenship, so therefore he's not only a terrorist but a traitor.

Second, when people make conscious decisions such as this, they need to be fully prepared for the consequences if and when they occur. Say for example the OP's individual in question runs off and joins the IDF, and later say Israel and Britain's relations degrade to the point where war becomes possible. Hypothetically. If this is the case, the subject would need to be prepared for this eventuality and the choice that must come with it. Britain or Israel? He can't have both, esp. serving in the IDF. As such he either must 1. renounce his British citizenship and stay with Israel and the IDF, or 2. not renounce it, and then later risk being caught, jailed as both a wartime combatant AND a traitor, as he still has British citizenship technically. Of course another option is to leave Israel and the IDF and go back to Britain...

It all boils down to intent, choices, and fully understanding and preparing for the consequences.

:bow:

An interesting case to follow Whackers citizenship/intention thing would be William Joyce .
What was he , American , British , Irish or German ?
He was tried as a traitor to Britain , since there was a period when he still had British citizenship while waiting for his German citizenship to be processed . yet since he had falsified his paperwork to get the British citizenship his British status was invalid . That means he must have still been American so it should have been them that tried him as a traitor .
Then again since he was a British agent in Ireland the Irish could have tried him as a traitor , though he didn't have Irish citizenship ....but then he became a British agent in Britain ...so the Germans could have tried him as a traitor when he became German ..........ahhhhhh its all too complicated .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

hmmmmmmm.....oh yes , what was it again ...a real arthur foxache there ......but goofball this time .
So a neutral citizen acting for a beligerant....hmmmm now then that would be covered under Hauge wouldn't it , and in this case the country of the citzens also had its laws over that as well didn't it .
Sooooooo.....:yes:

---

Memo
To: Tribesy
From: Reality
>> The fact that you say something is 'arthur foxache' does not mean it is so.
>> The words you type do not determine reality, surprising as that may be to you.
That is all.

As to the post - this is nothing like going off to fight a Jihad - which basically involves terrorists attacking civilians and trying to damage western countries such as Britain.

Crazed Rabbit

@ Tribesman - Sadly mate I'm inclined to agree with CR. Something like that is so far beyond convoluted it'd never happen. :grin: Makes for an interesting story though, no?

@ Cwazed Wabbit - I was flying in my rofflecopter, eating a roffleburger, dropping lmaonades on a lolls royce whilst reading your post sir.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Memo
To: Tribesy
From: Reality
>> The fact that you say something is 'arthur foxache' does not mean it is so.
>> The words you type do not determine reality, surprising as that may be to you.
That is all.

---

: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 .

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.