Is this much different from going on jihad?

[sapi]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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.

[Slyspy]

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.

[scotchedpommes]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Cronos Impera]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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

He doesn't have to live there.

[ShadeHonestus]

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

What if his reasons are ethnic and not religious?

[Fragony]

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.

[Adrian II]

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'.

[ShadeHonestus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[ShadeHonestus]

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...

[Pannonian]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

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

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

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

A big 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

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 .

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 .

[ShadeHonestus]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Goofball]

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

Took the words right out of my mouth...

[Lord Winter]

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.

[Tribesman]

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.....

Maybe someone should read up on the Eagle Squadron

[Whacker]

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

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.....

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

[Whacker]

@ Tribesman - Sadly mate I'm inclined to agree with CR. Something like that is so far beyond convoluted it'd never happen. 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.

[Tribesman]

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.

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 .