You could come over to my place and we'll watch on Pay-per-view.Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I am a fanatic , I am willing to kill people so the flag does not touch the ground.
I love my country, I have/will join the army, I respect nat. symbols, I know the anthem by heart
same as above only no army
I like my country some times I say the pledge
I dont care I only show some pride for my country when I have too.
Countries are lines on a map, who gives a !@#$
GAH
You could come over to my place and we'll watch on Pay-per-view.Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Panzer did they say anything about eyesight... I must knowOriginally Posted by PanzerJager
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Awesome!You could come over to my place and we'll watch on Pay-per-view.
My vision is good so it didnt come up, but I believe as long as your vision can be corrected by glasses - you can get in. However, you have to where those ugly standard issue glasses that look sort of like these...Panzer did they say anything about eyesight... I must know
Well yeah of course, this forum draws a lot of younger people, younger people who like wargames. So hyperbole is normal. I think most people go through a sort of "strong feeling" phase. Then later maybe you come to feel that the world is-- "meh". You find out that women aren't quite as fun as you'd imagined, and life isn't quite the blast you thought it was going to be. But you also find that things don't suck so bad as the naysayers said.Originally Posted by Slyspy
Of course, maybe "meh" is also a phase.
DA
Oh so you're a bible basher?, your use of the word 'immature' is rather hypocritical in light of this don't you think?Originally Posted by Slyspy
And there is no 'mishmash' on the matter, those who take the commandment as one against 'killing' are just simply wrong, it has always been against murder. You don't see modern states prosecuting their soldiers when they return home for murder for killing the enemy so the distinction between the two is hardly unknown. The same applies to state sanctioned executions and people acting in self defence or with what is later deemed 'just' cause for killing someone (i.e. they present a threat to others)
LOL!Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Originally Posted by Es Arkajae
Well...ok sorry to destroy it for you. But this american evangelical idea of 'thou shall not murder' is probably nonsence. If we take into account the Ancient Greek version of the testaments which is probably what was used for later translations and is closer to the original, and take into account the usage of the word back then and not now, then it translate better as ' you should not commit a lethal act'. If it means something different from what christians use it today then its more into 'you shall not kill anything for no reason, not even animals' than ' you shall not murder'
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
You're not 'destroying' anything and I'm not American.Originally Posted by rasoforos
The Bible makes it fairly clear that the commandment is not against all killing.
Even if one discounts the direct orders from God to the Israelites to engage in war and killing as divine mandate and thus exceptions to the rule there remains the injunctions given in the Bible to the people of Israel regarding the execution of criminals and the revenge to be taken against them (including killing).
To argue that the Ten Comamndments argues against all killing is quite frankly stupid, and for the person arguing such bespeaks more naievete or a deliberate effort just to be obtuse or a smart arse than any real sense.
The commandment refers to wrongful killing, which can be defined as murder.
Now its a matter of word use - protect implies more then just fighting now does it not?
Word use , yes the keyword was MUST .
There were people who thought that they MUST protect the founding principles of the nation , it led to a little thing called civil war , there are still people who MUST protect the founding principles , they are called terrorists .
Ditto for me. Although my aspirations are slightly higher.Originally Posted by King Malcolm
P.S Welcome back King Malcom!
www.thechap.net
"We were not born into this world to be happy, but to do our duty." Bismarck
"You can't be a successful Dictator and design women's underclothing. One or the other. Not both." The Right Hon. Bertram Wilberforce Wooster
"Man, being reasonable, must get drunk; the best of life is but intoxication" - Lord Byron
"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." - C. S. Lewis
Not very, family always comes first.
Let us see.
I am a civilian, so i will not survive the first five minutes next time my country will be at war.
I am not a coward and will not join the army whose members will be able to wait for the radioactive ashes to be inoffensive.
So i suppose i will die for my country when next war will go on.
Being european i do not feel many differences between my neighbors countries, the laws are very close at least concerning the fundamental rights.
Which makes me think borders are mainly a line on the map.
And concerning flags, i do not have any form of interest in sheets of cloths watever their use so i do not care what people do with those supposed symbols.
Last edited by Petrus; 08-08-2005 at 12:16.
Terrorists are not protecting founding principles of a nation- some use terrorism to cause a nation to be founded. A big difference from protecting the founding principles of a nation. Insurgents could be seen as protecting the principle ideas of their nation. The founding principles of most nations are in the civil charter of that nation - be it the Constitution like the United States or other documents used in other nations.Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yes the civil war was about more then slavery - and in that war the constitution was defended by both sides - and the winning side strengthing the aspect of the constitution that they were protecting and the nation is better because of it.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
May i ask what you define as wrongful killing?Originally Posted by Es Arkajae
If it is what is defined in the various holy books, then you can notice that mass slaughter of men, women and children is not considered as being wrong.
In other words, massacres perpetrated during crusades as well as jihads, for example, are perfectly right concerning holy writings.
Are those the elements upon which you fund your judgement?
Slightly higher...? Surely you don't mean taking over the world in the name of Her Brittanic Majesty...? Or becoming King yourself...? Or both? hmm... taking over the world and making the Pax Brittania wouldn't be too bad...Originally Posted by King Henry V
It was not theirs to reason why,
It was not theirs to make reply,
It was theirs but to do or die.
-The Charge of the Light Brigade - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"Wherever this stone shall lie, the King of the Scots shall rule"
-Prophecy of the Stone of Destiny
"For God, For King and country, For loved ones home and Empire, For the sacred cause of justice, and The freedom of the world, They buried him among the kings because he, Had done good toward God and toward his house."
-Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior
What is right and what is wrong ultimately remains in Gods hands to judge, only he can see into the hearts of men. As such the best we can do is to do what we believe is right for God knows when we have done so.Originally Posted by Petrus
I'm sure this thread was about loyalty to your country, not religion
Joining the army will increase your chance of survival. Nowadays, civilian ARE the target by the opponent army.......Originally Posted by Petrus
Once again you fail to understand Redleg , you are applying your nations founding principles and history , Yes the civil war was about more then slavery I was talking about this nations civil war and this nations founding principles , slavery was not an issue , the founding principles were the issue , for some people they still are .
Terrorists are not protecting founding principles of a nation- some use terrorism to cause a nation to be founded. A big difference from protecting the founding principles of a nation.
It depends on what the founding principles are and whether they were achieved , two of the founding principles were recently removed from the constitution as part of the peace process , yet as those that object to the government for abandoning the earlier founding principles do not reconise the right of the government which never achieved its founding principles to further change the founding principles .
So , loyalty to what ?
So observant Ja'chyra, you'll ruin my opinion of you.Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
The failure to understand is actually yours more then mine - but don't let that stop you from trying to pass the failure off to me. Again look at the statement.Originally Posted by Tribesman
I believe that one must follow the founding principles of one's nation.
Notice the first word of that sentence - the word I it means my personal belief. I did not apply my belief to you nor did I even image that it applied to anyone else but myself.
It was futher followed with another personal belief
That one must protect the founding principles of the nation from enemies, and that its just and right to protest against the government if you believe that the government is doing something wrong
You made the attempt to make my personal belief the issue for Ireland - which is your nation - and did so in a sarcastic matter - and you blame me for not understanding. Yeah right, get real.
Then it would help when you stated which civil war you were speaking of. This statement does no such thing.Originally Posted by Tribesman
There were people who thought that they MUST protect the founding principles of the nation , it led to a little thing called civil war , there are still people who MUST protect the founding principles , they are called terrorists
How many nations have had a civil war? The United States, England, Ireland, Lebanon, and many others. The civil war in the United States was over several issues - one being one of the founding principles of this nation - ie states rights. The civil war changed the concept ever so slightly and made the nation stronger for it.
You want to argue about my beliefs as it applies to another country - then have the intellectual honesty to state so - verus being sarcastic and unclear in what you are talking about. And yes indeed the arguement can apply to Ireland just as well as the United States.
The actions of the govenment should always be questioned - hence if you noticed part of my orginial statement addressed just this issue.Terrorists are not protecting founding principles of a nation- some use terrorism to cause a nation to be founded. A big difference from protecting the founding principles of a nation.
It depends on what the founding principles are and whether they were achieved , two of the founding principles were recently removed from the constitution as part of the peace process , yet as those that object to the government for abandoning the earlier founding principles do not reconise the right of the government which never achieved its founding principles to further change the founding principles .
So , loyalty to what ?
That one must protect the founding principles of the nation from enemies, and that its just and right to protest against the government if you believe that the government is doing something wrong.
That they chose to use violence - in the form of terrorism is their failure not a failure of the concept of protecting the founding principles of a nation which I subscribe to.
Like I said earlier you sometimes try to hard to be sarcastic - and that was your failure not mine.
Last edited by Redleg; 08-08-2005 at 14:43.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Thank you for your answer.Originally Posted by Es Arkajae
I will not continue as it would distract this thread from it's original topic, but it might be interesting to develop this subject.
I know, that's why i tryed to insist on the fact that it is not soldiers that die for the country except by accident, but civilians.Originally Posted by bmolsson
Soldiers are paid to kill for what is supposed to be the country so i do not think it is correct to present military duty and sacrifice to the nation on the same level : we civilians will die massively in the next war while professional soldiers have the greatest chance of survival of all population categories.
Originally Posted by Es Arkajae
I just love self righteous religious fanatics. Keep up the good work. Yoohooo
I wont continue this since it is waaayyy of topic. Another time, another place perhaps...Adieu!
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
Then it would help when you stated which civil war you were speaking of.
Since it is about the founding principles of ones country , then it should be obvious that it is ones countries' civil war and founding principles .
Yes you stated your personal beliefs , I merely pointed out from the outset that your personal beliefs are not neccasarily applicable . Which you took to be sarcasm .
verus being sarcastic and unclear in what you are talking about.
I believe that one must follow the founding principles of one's nation.
So do you believe that the Irish must follow the founding principles of the Irish nation ? Or do you believe that only you should follow the founding principles of your nation ?
This has turned into a bicker-fest, and the intent of the thread-starter (to try to quantify loyalty) has been lost in the din of borderline personal commentary. I am sure the issues raised will come up again in other threads, so we'll close this one before anyone crosses the line and gets into official trouble.
Thanks to all contributors.
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
Bookmarks