RE: Crusaders and Jihadists: 2 faces of the same coin
July 26, 2019 at 8:33 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2019 at 8:37 am by Deesse23.)
Quote:But in the Middle East right now; soldiers with low ranks are like slaves to their superiors; and I know that worldwide; this is mostly the case with varying degrees.
How do you *know* in the face of the fact that i provided evidence your claim is wrong? The
whole world does not necessarily works like
your part of the world.
In any modern army soldiers are sworn to defend their country, their constitution, the flag, but certianly not certian people (like their leaders). Of course they are highly efficient because of discipline. Having high discipline does not equal "being slave to your superior". Thats why they are *modern* armies.
Ill give you another example, but i guess you will ignore this as well. The German parliament elects a "military comissioner". His job is to watch the rights of the soliders. That those soldiers´civil rights are not violated by any of their superiors. He is also a petitioner to the soldiers. Any soldier can petition directly to him about
any of his superiors. He is a kind of "laywer" representing the soldiers. Any soldier who feels like being treatd like a *slave* can petition to him and the case will be decided
outside of the military branch. Lots of cases have been brought to him and lots of bad practices were uncovered, stopped and superiors removed. This is particularly valid for humiliating initiation rituals. Any other "western/modern" state has such a position as well. Thats why they are called "modern".
So, tell us again how modern soldiers outside of your middle eastern bubble are all "slaves to their superiors". I am not saying that atrocities dont happen, i am not saying that soldiers dont participate, but this is not part of the system of a modern army its part of the problems that are continuously being adressed. Its a bug, not a feature.
Quote:The only similar force in the ancient world to our current armies is the Roman force. Romans were highly organized that's why they won for many years.
Your understanding is very superficial again.
Yes, the roman army was efficient because highly disciplined. But thats about it regarding similarity to modern armies. It also was fundamentally different, and directly contradicting your claim of similarity to modern armies:
Roman generals usually recruited legions themselves, it was expected of them to pay their legions
with their own money. For this reason roman armies were mostly loyal to their general, and not Rome. For this reason it was possible that armies fought each other during the lenghty civil war and before. For this reason these armies were controlled by the general who paid them and not Rome (like Casears campaign in Gaul). The generals of the Roman army also usually were high ranking political officials. Thats why the roman army was (ab)used to furhter the political advance of people like Caesar. Its only due to this flaw that Caesar could become a de facto dictator. In modern armies there is a separation between military leaders and politcians. The military leaders are
subordinate to political leaders, because we want to avoid exactly what happened in Rome. Nothing can be further from modern armies like the roman legions.
Only discipline is what connects them.
Quote:In the fashion that is practiced today; it is. Armies became bigger, and soldiers became more of pawns than individuals with a decision
Wrong again. There are countless examples where ancient and medieval armies werent completely under control of their leading generals. Countless examples where looting of a conquered place had to be allowed, because otherwise ...mutiny. Ancient armies often were mobs, who only could be controlled by their generals by feedign them with a constand flow of terror, plunder, rape, etc. to compensate for the terror they experienced during the campaigns.
You are fundamentally wrong, because you are just scratcing the surface of tings instead of getting a deep understanding. You are like someone reading the headlines instead of the whole articele. Thats not the way to get yourself informed about things. You are constantly grossly oversimplifying things. You are like a 6y old who has bene told by his dad how the world works......in words a 6y old would understand. The reality is much more complex and less stereotypical.
Quote:"Zionism" does not mean "Jews".
Yes, i am well aware that this is the excuse modern antisemites are using to justify their disdain for jews, withough having to say so. While i am not particularly a fan of the state of Israel (in terms of how it interacts with its direct neighbours and particuclary the occupied areas) i am not going to invoke global conspiracies until proven so. Imho too many jews/christians think the world is turning around this tiny irrelevant part of the globe, as well as some of their adversaries do. To me its a very frightening obsession you people have, all of you.
And now please provide evidence that Zionists are in control of the US army. Good luck.