Anti-Afghan War Awol soldier Joe Glenton jailed

[six2]

this is the kind of post that will start arguing but sod it heres my bit.

in my eyes he should have been banged up for longer, he joined up thinking he was getting a easy ride but then it opened his eyes an now claims its all wrong, welcome to the army lol,this dick who is claiming this, will do his time in the glass house an then go back to his unit an get fooked big style roud:
i have m8s who are over there an m8s who have been there,they will say the same, this dick has started his own war, just remmber our lads are out there because they signed up an was sent out there, they are there to do a job. end of story

 

[Rodbouy]

im out fucktards win the day again, go try reading the posts inc quotes.

a **** tard nice one

What I was saying is this.


You said you wouldnt do a job if it put your life in danger. So what i was getting at is, his job is all about being in danger so he cant use that.

but if your coming out with all that shite and just not able to debate it then fair enough mate. Dont want you feeling like a fucktard too mate.

 

[Rodbouy]

@ Senior


No matter what killing is morally wrong. So does mean you dont kill any one in the army?


Its a law that you cant discriminate against another colour or race. FACT so i would be breaking the law.


The army pay them to go to war and killing is part of their job or have I missed something ???

 

[señor ding dong]

in my eyes he should have been banged up for longer, he joined up thinking he was getting a easy ride but then it opened his eyes an now claims its all wrong...

In all fairness, though, a military career had long been sold to young people as a way to see the world, make friends, learn new skills, etc, etc. Like boyscouts for grown-ups. Prior to 9-11, the idea of finding yourself engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against a bunch of religious extremists, who are prepared to blow themselves up, seemed somewhat far fetched. It's certainly not something they mentioned in any of the TV ads I saw.

No matter what killing is morally wrong. So does mean you dont kill any one in the army?

I don't agree with the premise that all killing is morally wrong.

The army pay them to go to war and killing is part of their job or have I missed something ???

That's irrelevant. Hitler also paid his army to go to war and kill, but that didn't make it any more legal.

 

[thebigman]

British army has been deployed in a lot of dangerous situations in the last 20 years. The Gulf, the Balkens, Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland to name a few. It was certinally already engaged in Afghanistan when he joined in 2004. I'm quite sure he would have expected to be deployed at some point in his career.

thebigman

 

[madnlooney]

i think he got what he got. When you sign up you know what your fully signing up to. You take your oath you do your job. Be it defend the country or be sent out to a war in another country. Unfortunately there is not chose where you want to go or what war you agree with.

There are too many people who i think sign up for a free ride and when they have to do what they are paid for they think sod this or make excuses. I signed up did 6 years and left 3 years ago.

 

[Seedy_r0m]

If you sign up to join the forces, you sign up to fight for this country, no matter how futile you think the war is.

If you take the Queens shilling, you should do the job expected of you.

This isn't a Medal of Honour respawn job, If you get shot, you get injured or killed. There are no extra lives for completing a mission.

As thebigman said, The British Army have been involved (rightly or wrongly) in theatres of war all over the globe (for a damn sight more than 20 years I may add).

If the guy signed up because he likes wearing a uniform, then perhaps a career as a nurse or a traffic warden would be more fitting.

 

[ellie1998]

I am against the war in Afghanistan but if he joined in 2004 then we were already in Afghanistan (we invaded in October 2001) so he knew what he was getting into so I don't have any symphathy for him.

If he had joined before the illegal invasion then I could see where he is coming from but he didn't so imho it's his own fault.

 

[Raven24]

It's nice to see hypocrisy is alive and well in this thread.....

 

[Rodbouy]

I don't agree with the premise that all killing is morally wrong.

thats the point tho, you personally dont agree. But you dont make the laws, so there for its irrelevant. just like him. He does not get to decided if he does not agree as thats not part of his job.

That's irrelevant. Hitler also paid his army to go to war and kill, but that didn't make it any more legal.

yes to us and the world around us. But to them it was legal. If they didnt do it they would be tried and found guilty just the same.

There is many laws around the country that are legal in one country and illegal in others.

In his case he signed up to do as the army say's. unfortunately for him a consequence for him is jail for disobeying army orders.

Normal life and workings goes right out the window when it comes to war. Sad and horrible as it may be.

But I bet you since these two wars, that anyone signing up will give it a bit more thought before putting pen to paper.

 

[señor ding dong]

thats the point tho, you personally dont agree. But you dont make the laws, so there for its irrelevant.

No, my view is essentially in line with the law, but that's besides the point anyway, as you were specifically talking about the morality of killing.

just like him. He does not get to decided if he does not agree as thats not part of his job.

But that's the whole point. If you're asked to do something you find to be morally wrong, you need to decide what kind of a person you are. Are you the kind of spineless weasel who does it, because you get paid, or because you're afraid of the consequences, or do you make a stand for what you believe in?

I don't think there's ever been a question about the obvious illegality of what he did, but his detractors around here obviously don't give the issue of morality any consideration, and dismiss his argument with nothing more substantial than "you signed up to serve queen and country. Tough titties, mate!"

yes to us and the world around us. But to them it was legal. If they didnt do it they would be tried and found guilty just the same.

See, this is the fatal flaw in your argument, as you're now essentially saying that the Nazis in Hitler's army were right to do what they did, morally and legally.

 

[Rodbouy]

But that's the whole point. If you're asked to do something you find to be morally wrong, you need to decide what kind of a person you are. Are you the kind of spineless weasel who does it, because you get paid, or because you're afraid of the consequences, or do you make a stand for what you believe in?

He will be asked to kill, thats part of his job. Now as part of his job he will kill people who have not done him personally any wrong.

So at what point and what factors would you have to consider to kill a other individual of the other army?

I don't think there's ever been a question about the obvious illegality of what he did, but his detractors around here obviously don't give the issue of morality any consideration, and dismiss his argument with nothing more substantial than "you signed up to serve queen and country. Tough titties, mate!"

it its "TOUGH TITTIES" tho, he was not forced to sign up? what did he expect?

See, this is the fatal flaw in your argument, as you're now essentially saying that the Nazis in Hitler's army were right to do what they did, morally and legally.

Explain how I said that? I merely stated that at that time it was deemed LEGAL by them, just as our country deems this war legal.


Thats probably the worst response you have made to date tho.

 

[señor ding dong]

He will be asked to kill, thats part of his job. Now as part of his job he will kill people who have not done him personally any wrong.

You're still confusing the issues. It's not a question of a personal view on killing as a matter of policy, but rather of whether the particular circumstances he objected to made it an issue of morality.

it its "TOUGH TITTIES" tho, he was not forced to sign up? what did he expect?

Judging by the information in the first post, it sounds like he expected one tour of duty, which he carried out, and another 18 months before he could be deployed again.

Explain how I said that? I merely stated that at that time it was deemed LEGAL by them, just as our country deems this war legal.

If you would condemn a British soldier for refusing to carry out orders he personally believed to be immoral or illegal, then it stands to reason that you would do the same with a German Nazi. If this guy refuses to do something on the basis of morality, your answer appears to be "you signed up to the military, you follow your orders". If a Nazi decides that "Mein Fuhrer, I zink it iz not right to gaz ze Jews", would you then tell him to follow orders as well, or take a stand for what he believe is right?

 

[Rodbouy]

You're still confusing the issues. It's not a question of a personal view on killing as a matter of policy, but rather of whether the particular circumstances he objected to made it an issue of morality.

yes correct. POLICY he is in the army not the govt. its not a particular instance. He said its an illegal war. yet he joined after !!!!! So your view point on that is not valid.

If you would condemn a British soldier for refusing to carry out orders he personally believed to be immoral or illegal, then it stands to reason that you would do the same with a German Nazi. If this guy refuses to do something on the basis of morality, your answer appears to be "you signed up to the military, you follow your orders". If a Nazi decides that "Mein Fuhrer, I zink it iz not right to gaz ze Jews", would you then tell him to follow orders as well, or take a stand for what he believe is right?

OK, your trying hard on this one. But here goes. During that reign of nazis, they were forced to do it no matter what. So no freedom of choice.

The Germans of that time, seen this in THEIR eyes to be a legal act of killing. I DONT THINK THIS nor HAVE I SAID THIS.

Your basing your arguments around how normal day to day life works and it just does not work like.

Take WW1 or WW2 for example. Both sets of armies were given orders to kill the enemy. So one guy kills another guy, just because they are on the other side. Is that morally wrong? yes, but its the job they had to do. Just like him mate.

you dont go to the army and cry about being sent on another tour, cos the vast majority do it because its THEIR JOB.

 

[señor ding dong]

yes correct. POLICY he is in the army not the govt. its not a particular instance. He said its an illegal war. yet he joined after !!!!! So your view point on that is not valid.

My view point on what?

As for the person in question, like I've already said, I have no idea about whether this supposedly principled stand is genuine or not, nor do you, and nor does it have any bearing on the core principles discussed, which is whether something being your "job", "duty", etc, in any way legitimizes or forces you to carry out actions you believe to be wrong. My view is that it does not, and as far as I can work out, yours appears to be that it does for British soldiers, but apparently not for Germans.

OK, your trying hard on this one. But here goes. During that reign of nazis, they were forced to do it no matter what. So no freedom of choice.

As opposed to "queen and country, tough titties"? You've still failed to demonstrate any relevant differences between current British and Nazi war time conditions.

The Germans of that time, seen this in THEIR eyes to be a legal act of killing. I DONT THINK THIS nor HAVE I SAID THIS.

Of course you haven't, but that's only because of the logical flaw and inconsistency of your original argument, the logical extent of which you still haven't fully grasped. Now that we've established that you don't hold Nazi soldiers to those standards, we can work our way back and hope that you wouldn't hold British soldiers to those standards either.

Again, just to avoid confusion, I'm arguing the principles not the specifics of this case, since neither of us have any real insight into this man's true motivations.

 

[thebigman]

You're still confusing the issues. It's not a question of a personal view on killing as a matter of policy, but rather of whether the particular circumstances he objected to made it an issue of morality.

If he is such a man of principle why did he not make a stand in 2007 instead of heading off to travel. He only seems to have decided to make a stand after he was charged with desertion.

Judging by the information in the first post, it sounds like he expected one tour of duty, which he carried out, and another 18 months before he could be deployed again.

The 18 months is a recommendation not a rule. I am sure there others in his unit asked to return to Afghanistan at that time won't be impressed that while they were dodging bullets and explosive devices he was in Australia getting married.

thebigman

 

[señor ding dong]

If he is such a man of principle why did he not make a stand in 2007 instead of heading off to travel. He only seems to have decided to make a stand after he was charged with desertion.

Again, as I've already said, I'm discussing the principle of the matter, not the specifics. It could be argued that he's in a far better position to judge any aspect of the war, having actually taken part in it, but it's equally plausible that he just got scared and used a principled stand as an excuse. I don't know, you don't know. I'm just testing the logical buoyancy of the "it's your job, so tough" argument, and it should be quite clear by now that it sinks like a rock, if you accept that some people may have genuine moral considerations with regards to this issue.

 

[Rodbouy]

My view point on what?

As for the person in question, like I've already said, I have no idea about whether this supposedly principled stand is genuine or not, nor do you, and nor does it have any bearing on the core principles discussed, which is whether something being your "job", "duty", etc, in any way legitimizes or forces you to carry out actions you believe to be wrong. My view is that it does not, and as far as I can work out, yours appears to be that it does for British soldiers, but apparently not for Germans.

Legitimize what ? Killing? Again how do I think that. I’am only going by the rules that govern our troops and its deemed legal. Just like the Germans. Every armed force is in the same position.

As opposed to "queen and country, tough titties"? You've still failed to demonstrate any relevant differences between current British and Nazi war time conditions.

There is no difference. There is people in the army being told what to do, irrespective of what their opinions are.

Of course you haven't, but that's only because of the logical flaw and inconsistency of your original argument, the logical extent of which you still haven't fully grasped. Now that we've established that you don't hold Nazi soldiers to those standards, we can work our way back and hope that you wouldn't hold British soldiers to those standards either.

You like the work logic eh 

Do you think all German soldiers wanted the war? Or could it be they were doing as they were told by there controlling figure. So for that matter I class them the same as the British and any other army for that matter

Again, just to avoid confusion, I'm arguing the principles not the specifics of this case, since neither of us have any real insight into this man's true motivations.

To finish. The guy in question has said the WAR was illegal and therefore did not want to return.

So here is where our reasons are conflicting.

Your reasons are mainly based around incident based decisions. Like for instance, if they told him to just go out and kill for the sake of it. This would make it morally wrong and he would be justified in his case.

Im basing my reasons around the fact that he is stating the war is illegal, the war that was there prior to signing up to the armed forces.

So how can he complain about a war that was already started before he signed up?

 

[señor ding dong]

Legitimize what ? Killing? Again how do I think that. I’am only going by the rules that govern our troops and its deemed legal. Just like the Germans. Every armed force is in the same position.

So, if a German had deserted from Hilter's army, you would have criticized him for doing the same as this British guy? You would have condemned him for not going along with the gassing of millions of jews, because "he signed up to the army and their rules"?

You like the work logic eh 

I do. It's an important word.

... So how can he complain about a war that was already started before he signed up?

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General at the time, changed his mind on the legality of the Iraq war for no apparent reason. In fact, many politicians who supported the war(s), are now questioning the legality of how and why we got there in the first place. There are many reasons why someone could change their minds. You don't think actually taking part in said war might give you a different insight or perspective, never mind all the additional information we now have?

Regardless, I'm actually giving your side of the argument the benefit of the doubt in saying that this may indeed just have been an excuse, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of the principles we've been discussing.

 

[thebigman]

Again, as I've already said, I'm discussing the principle of the matter, not the specifics. It could be argued that he's in a far better position to judge any aspect of the war, having actually taken part in it, but it's equally plausible that he just got scared and used a principled stand as an excuse. I don't know, you don't know. I'm just testing the logical buoyancy of the "it's your job, so tough" argument, and it should be quite clear by now that it sinks like a rock, if you accept that some people may have genuine moral considerations with regards to this issue.

But you are being specific in using this case to illustrate your point. Correct me if i'm wrong but you are saying that this one soldier refusing to be sent back to Afganistan with his unit can be held up as an example of a soldier taking a moral stand and disobeying an order he believed to be immoral. Then making a direct comparison to German soldiers being ordered to carry out attrocities and if you condem his actions for disobeying you cannot then condem the nazi's for following their orders? sorry but that argument is clearly flawed. There is no evidence that he was odered to or took part in any war crimes. He can't argue that he didn't want to take part in an illegal war as troops were already engaged in Afghanistan long before he signed up.

As far as "it's your job so tough goes" that's a bit simplistic, it wasn't just his job it was his duty. Not just to queen and country he also had a duty to the other members of his unit. Yes I do think his defence falls flat because he chose to run away rather than stand up and defend his decision.

thebigman