Been there, done that. Why?

why did you sign up?

its always been something i've contemplated

That's great.

Join the army, get your head blown off.

Haha, "give something back".

I give my taxxx money to help buy those massive fucking fighter planes while people sleep on the street.

manhattan, you don't necessarily join the army to be sent off of afganistan.

reservists and full time soldiers are totally different things.

reservists and full time soldiers are totally different things

Hmmmm.

My ex was in the reserves

During the initial training,

• one guy got permanent brain damage from jumping out of bed too quickly and passing out
• one guy fell off something during a training exercise and broke his back, leaving him in a wheelchair for life
• another dude had a complete mental breakdown and was removed in a vegetised state

Apparently there is some 'no liability' clause too

It's important to have intelligent, well trained armed forces.

A lot of people do it simply because it's a job.

Apparently the gay secks is worth the bullets in your face

one guy got permanent brain damage from jumping out of bed too quickly and passing out

that's ... weird.

how fast did he jump out of bed?

fast!

Did that almost make sense? I'm gonna step-off the nets for a bit until my hyper goes away.

*reservists and full time soldiers are totally different things

Hmmmm.*

ok that might be a bit of an overstatement

Apparently the gay secks is worth the bullets in your face

HAHAHAHAAA!!

Apparently the gay secks is worth the bullets in your face

I have a mate who was in the army. Lets just say from all accounts "everyone's a little bit queer"

why did you sign up?

Mainly because I liked bushwalking and camping and this was a chance to get paid for it :) Also I was curious and I don't knock something I have never tried. I always think that it's better to try something and hate it than to never try it.
I'd been in the school cadets and had fun so thought I'd give the adult version a go. It was fun, it's hard to explain the enjoyment that some of us get from going through a hard slog together with some mates, probably the same as winning a grand final in a team sport.
Ended up landing 2 excellent jobs as a result of people thinking that my service time would have made me disciplined etc.
Certainly made me appreciate history a lot more, and start to understand those poor bastards in Gallipolli and other battlefields really suffered.

My experience was very similar, Sheik, but not as full on.

Apparently there is some 'no liability' clause too

Nup, soldiers are employees covered by workers' comp like everyone else.

so you would recommend?

so you're israeli first and aussie second?

for shame!

incompatible with our Australian way of life i reckon! lol

pal, if i had told you my family were afghani and i went and fought with the Taliban, you would be giving me the same shit i am giving you

fact is when you are talking about a rogue nation and a rogue army that kills civilians by the boatload who DOES participate in state sponsored terror

i asked you to explain to me why its different, why its NOT the same as a London student going off to Afghanistan to train with the Taliban... and i asked you to address my specific points instead of distorting the issue

and what do you do - you bring up Che Guevara

WTF

so you're israeli first and aussie second?
for shame!
incompatible with our Australian way of life i reckon! lol

i should have listened to noneabove. you are trolling. talk about distorting the issue.

are you Israeli first and Australian second?

how is that compatible with Australian values and our way of life??

lol

can't you see that i am drawing a (supposed to be) humorous parallel between yourself and say muslim immigrants who come here and the same critisisms levelled at them

i joke because, well, you STILL haven't explained how you joining the Israeli army is any different to say a guy from lakemba joining Al Qeda or the Taliban

i don't get it

explain it

please

i should have listened to noneabove. you are trolling.

You may recall I said this was a troll thread and that you were a troll. Anything else you'd like to falsely attribute to me?

Noneabove's law:

1) The more serious, detailed and heartfelt any discussion, the less likely it is to be resolved on the internet.

2) The more tangential the relationship between host site and guest subject, the less likely common ground is to be met in the discussion.

(So what I'm saying is that you're discussing issues of national identity in context of militarism on a music website. Nothing constructive is likely to ever be achieved here.)

all israeli men have to do some kind of national service.

i assumed this was the case.

i joke because, well, you STILL haven't explained how you joining the Israeli army is any different to say a guy from lakemba joining Al Qeda or the Taliban i don't get it explain it please

would you really ''understand'' it even if i explained it in the most simple terms possible? your comparison is just ridiculous as is my comparison to che guevara. for me to give an explanation based on your comparison is for me to acknowledge that its a valid statement. do you get that? anyway, this is a thread about joining the army. not about israel. take it the the other palestine/israel thread if you want to continue. and while your doing that, explain to me how joining the australian army which is part of a coalition that is killing innocent people every day is unlike somebody joining the israeli army? however despite this entire thread being about joining australian army, not until the israeli issue rose up again, did you have anything to say. sounds like double standards to me.

(So what I'm saying is that you're discussing issues of national identity in context of militarism on a music website. Nothing constructive is likely to ever be achieved here.)

what as if its the only thread not on a music topic. but whatever you're right anyway nothing is likely to be achieved here.

why is the comparison ridiculous - explain it to me

that's all i ask

you can't

see i am not using the comparison to distract from the issue, the comparison is the issue, unlike your che statement,

what makes it different?

Would it be fair then to say that serving in the Indonesian Army, and joining Jemaah Islamiyah, are the same? After all, both have killed civilians in Indonesian Territories. It's not like there's any difference between a known terrorist group and the official standing army of a sovereign state, is there? Of course, anyone could conveniently change their definitions so that anything related to that state is considered terrorist in that person's opinion, but that circular thinking hardly enables fair and reasonable discussion.

it all depends on who's writing the history sheik

what this highlights is just how ridiculous the definition of terrorism as it currently stands is

because most definitely the Israeli Defense Forces participates in as much terrorism as Hamas does

In your opinion, yes.
Since there is no universally-accepted definition of terrorism, this discussion is futile.
If you define terrorism as any action which impacts noncombatants, then yes they are.
If you define terrorism as any action which impacts noncombatants for the purpose of promoting a cause or ideology, then no they aren't.
If you definte terrorism in any one of 10 other ways, then maybe they are and maybe they aren't; and these threads have shown that most people on here can't agree on what terrorism is (like most people/govenernments/organisations can't).
So you can throw an unarguable statement out there, but there's not a lot of point, really, and it detracts from the discussion that was taking place.

mate if i said ''i joined an army'' and then you found out it was Hamas... what would you say in regards to me? would you question my motives?

I do not see how this is different, at all

another thing i don't understand is how you and goldenshower continually use the word terrorism when it suits you, when it doesn't, then suddenly there is ''no universally accepted definition of terrorism'' - is it a state thing? that state's cannot be responsible for terrorism? what exactly is it? I am trying to ascertain the difference here..

now you say its an unarguable statement, golden shower says its silly, i say its not

i fail to see how joining the IDF is any different to some pommy kid joining the taliban

all i ask is Goldenshower explains to me why its a silly comparison for me to make, if he thinks its silly, surely he should be able to say why

that's no unreasonable, surely?

with regard to this:

''If you define terrorism as any action which impacts noncombatants for the purpose of promoting a cause or ideology, then no they aren't. ''

which seems to be the definition you're leaning towards (please correct me if i am wrong) -

wouldn't intimidation and violence in the name of colonised land for Jews and Jews only count as promoting a cause or ideology? ya know, like Apartheid was an ideology?

by the way, i think noncombatants is a less human way of saying civilians

''i joined an army'' and then you found out it was Hamas... I do not see how this is different, at all

Hamas is not an Army. It's fairly clear to me that when we say ''army'' in this thread we mean the official forces of a sovereign government.

i fail to see how joining the IDF is any different to some pommy kid joining the taliban

OK, I'll try to put it down: as a dual citizen you have certain obligations to both countries in which you have citizenship, and certain rights. eg I have dual citizenship with another country which means I must/can vote in their elections, as I do in Australia as I'm an australian citizen.
Joining the army of a country in which you are a citizen, is not the same as joining a foreign militia which is not a standing army of a government, with no ties to any country of which you're a citizen.

which seems to be the definition you're leaning towards (please correct me if i am wrong)

No, I'm not - I'm just giving an example of similar definitions which have very different meanings.

by the way, i think noncombatants is a less human way of saying civilians

Sure, but it means a LOT more than civilians- injured soldiers in hospitals, PoWs, Police, etc, are all noncombatants but are not civilians. That's why the word is used rather than using ''civilians.''

If you define terrorism as any action which impacts noncombatants for the purpose of promoting a cause or ideology, then no they aren't.

Wow.... just.. wow...shakes head

Wow.... just.. wow...shakes head

I'm just repeating one of the definitions used by the UN, don't blame me.

i think the ''wow...just...wow...shakes head'' is more to do with you saying ''then no, they aren't''

i think the ''wow...just...wow...shakes head'' is more to do with you saying ''then no, they aren't''

Fair enough. It highlights the problem with any discussion on this topic, when opinions are portrayed as facts.
There's a big popular forum called Whirlpool, where Israel v Palestine discussions are prohibited, and users who start them are suspended, due to the fact that debates on the topic are generally futile, go for hundreds of posts without resultion, and like they teach in year 7 debating, if you can't agree on definitions, no reasonable argument can follow.

the irony of that forum being called whirlpool... l.o.l

too many words, not enough points

Is the ADF the new KKK? All signs pointing to yes. Racism, sexism, homophobia, check, check, check.