The Warrior’s Code

[kingoftheforest]

This goes out to all the chairborne warriors.

"Put every great teacher together in a room, and they'd agree about everything; put their disciples in there and they'd argue about everything." - Bruce Lee

The key point there Tant is that the disciples all would have had training in the arts they are bashing. Some people have limited training in one art but feel they are an expert in all arts.

Plus just being a bully isn't any kind of martial art.

Another member pointed ouit to me that the reason no one else responds when certain people start in on other members is because it's obvious that certain members are just shit spouters and nothing more. I think I can live with that idea.

I'm done wasting my time with time wasters.

[Tant01]

For a long time, the standard of moderation was me. I was the only moderator, and had total autonomy.

.....
Most moderation is not done publicly. Additionally the moderators have been working on communication between each other and about how to handle certain situations. Before this wasn't necessary because it was just me, and now with 3 moderators it has required that things be handled differently because not everyone sees things in the same way.

If you have a problem with a moderator, my suggestion has always been to take it up with that moderator, or another moderator, rather than arguing openly in the forums.

Again, feel free to report posts as you see fit. Even if you don't see anything happen, doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't or that it won't.

I dislike everyone equally, so I have no problem banning anyone.

LOL

awesome....

[Tant01]

Who really knows?

The key point there Tant is that the disciples all would have had training in the arts they are bashing. Some people have limited training in one art but feel they are an expert in all arts.

Plus just being a bully isn't any kind of martial art.

......

Actually KOTF my point was easily missed but in the ESSENCE of the message there is something to ponder.

Any "Code" of conduct is relative to a given society and it's own specific goals and dieities...

We look back at some warlike cultures in history as barbaric regardless of the greatness or success of a given conquerer or the technology and tactics they used.

We judge and criticize others only to appear superior in our own minds.

the idea that any one or thing is better than another is relative at best regardless of how we may attempt to justify it...Imperfect reasoning is a failure we all share and it's magnified in the limited methods of language...

Killing and maiming is a grizzily business; that it may seem a necessary evil in the world is really a reflection of the condition of mankind.

We are all sadly imperfect and mortal regardless of relative "goodness"...

Don't sweat the small shit...

a few hundred or a thousand years from now the civilizations that evolve may look back on the age of this so called super power as the most ruinous era of humankind...

Who knows?

[jubaji]

And we'll have sports teams named after us.

[TTEscrima]

I see some of you are hung up on the idea that honorable actions and honor in war are an American concept. Sure different times and cultures have different interpretations however, those tasked with forging America's warriors have higher expectations. We have fought wars against some of the most disgusting and heinous military powers in modern times, we have also been in the background of a few others. It became apparent that if we were going to avoid becoming the scum we stand against that Honor and morals needed to be more than words thrown about by sick tyrants.

If you talk to men who have fought wars you'll notice NONE of the false bravado and BS talk of how doing whatever it takes to win being the way of the warrior, THAT load of shit is reserved for the wannabes and greenhorns who've never been to war themselves. It's natural for young men who have never been to war to talk shit about how they would do things and that they're willing to do whatever it takes to win, it's natural because they're scared and trying to pump themselves up to look cool to anyone looking. If this isn't tempered with proper leadership then people can be led to heinous things as a group while trying to keep from looking like a pussy in front of their friends. Anyone who has been to war knows it's the bad guys who will do anything it takes to win, NOT the good guys. Since many of you have never served in the military much less seen combat allow me to use history to clear some things up.

First a little story about Christmas 1914 on the front during the first world war:

"British and German soldiers who faced each other across the muddy fields of Flanders on Christmas Eve in 1914, even those who no longer believed the optimistic predictions of a short war would have been shocked to learn that it would drag on for another four years — and that it would ultimately see the staggering totals of 8½ million dead and 21 million wounded. Nonetheless, by December 1914 the European War — being fought by men who were weary, frustrated, and dispirited, bogged down in the glue-like muck, waterlogged trenches, and barbed-wire entanglements of Belgium, with little sense of national purpose other than to defeat the enemy — had already claimed hundreds of thousands of casualties since the beginning of hostilities in early August.

Despite the constant machine gun fire and artillery bombardments of the western front, and even though in some places front-line troops were a mere 60 yards away from the enemy's lines, soldiers on both sides received gift boxes containing food and tobacco prepared by their governments that Christmas. The Germans, who had a direct land link to their home country (British soldiers in Belgium were separated from London by sixty miles and the English Channel), also managed to send small Christmas trees and candles to troops at the front. And, notwithstanding the fact that a Christmas cease-fire proposed by Pope Benedict XV had already been rejected by both sides as "impossible," on Christmas Eve the "law of unanticipated consequences went to work," as Stanley Weintraub, author of Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce, described it:
[T]he Germans set trees on trench parapets and lit the candles. Then, they began singing carols, and though their language was unfamiliar to their enemies, the tunes were not. After a few trees were shot at, the British became more curious than belligerent and crawled forward to watch and listen. And after a while, they began to sing.

By Christmas morning, the "no man's land" between the trenches was filled with fraternizing soldiers, sharing rations and gifts, singing and (more solemnly) burying their dead between the lines. Soon they were even playing soccer, mostly with improvised balls.

According to the official war diary of the 133rd Saxon Regiment, "Tommy and Fritz" kicked about a real football supplied by a Scot. "This developed into a regulation football match with caps casually laid out as goals. The frozen ground was no great matter ... The game ended 3-2 for Fritz."
The spontaneous truce (which included French and Belgian troops in some sectors) was largely over by New Year's Day, however. Commanders on both sides ordered their troops to restart hostilities under penalty of court martial, and German and British soldiers reluctantly parted, in the words of Pvt. Percy Jones of the Westminster Brigade, "with much hand-shaking and mutual goodwill." The Great War stretched on through another three Christmases and beyond, but all subsequent attempts to organize similar truces failed, and millions more died before the armistice of 11 November 1918 finally ended the shooting for good."

snopes.com: World War I Christmas Truce

Clearly these men engaged in a war with horrific conditions were able to retain their humanity and a sense of honor in spite of ferocious fighting that had already occurred and would continue afterwards. No one used the cease fire for a opportunity to win at any cost, no snipers picking off the brass or artillery barrages, no surprise attacks, proving that honor and respect do in fact survive war in spite of what those who have never been to war will tell you while trying to convince you what a steely eyed baddass they are.

Now lets take a look at some of the wars and those who were willing to do whatever it took to win. During the war between Iraq and Iran which was fought from September 1980 to July 1988 and its estimated that 750,000 Iranian soldiers and perhaps a third that number of Iraqi troops died on the battlefield. The fighting also provided staggering evidence illustrating systematic disregard for what passes for the rules of warfare. Iran was willing to do whatever it took to win and thus countless waves of untrained Iranian boy-soldiers armed only with plastic keys purportedly guaranteeing entry to heaven were sent ahead of the troops, they died by the tens of thousands clearing mine fields or died charging into artillery barrages worthy of Verdun or Stalingrad. Saddam of course was also one of those who lived by the whatever it takes to win philosophy and thus he used chemical weapons against the Iranians and later the Kurds. Saddam's philosophy paid off in the end and he was awarded the war criminals highest honor, a noose around his neck.

We can jump back in time a take a look at WWII and the men who did whatever it took to win that war. Of course everyone always thinks of Hitler so we can start there. We all know Hitler felt Jews were inferior and decided that what ever it took he was going to rid his country and perhaps the world of them. 6 million Jews were then gassed, shot, burned and experimented upon in Hitlers final solution.

As horrible as the actions Hitler and the men who followed him were, while they did whatever it took to win, the Japanese were guilty of crimes against humanity that make Hitlers actions pale by comparison. The Japanese are often portrayed as honorable men and warriors and yet their actions in war show a willingness to do whatever it takes to win that is horrifying and shocking.

In 1895 when the Japanese decided that the Korean Queen needed to be removed because she stood in their way she was raped and burned alive to make a point to her subjects that the Japanese were willing to do whatever it took to win, this was certainly not an honorable action and certainly not carried out by honorable people.

This Japanese lack of character and honor is further illustrated by their actions during the Second world war. Everyone knows morale must be kept high to keep your troops fighting efficiency up. The Japanese solution? Comfort women, this is a nice of saying they forced captured women into sexual slavery and provided them to their soldiers to rape, you've gotta do whatever it takes to win right? If you balk at this some people will tell you “you don't have what it takes” I guess they have me there because raping women and hiding behind children is something I would never do, but then I don't subscribe to the “doing whatever it takes to win makes me a superior warrior” club. The Japanese also wanted to know what weapons were most effective so in the doing whatever it takes to win frenzy they tied captured women, and children to posts and tested various weapons on them, mind you killing them wasn't the goal, they then took the wounded women and children and strapped them to tables and cut them open to observe the internal damage, of course no pain killers or medical care was provided other than keeping their victims alive as long as possible to further their experiments. This desire to win and do whatever it took was also the reason they used the same techniques to test their chemical and biological weapons. It's noteworthy that it's estimated that while the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews the Japanese killed 30 million during the same conflict. It's said the bodies were stacked up like wood outside the Japanese labs where they conducted their experiments. The Germans have recognized and apologized for their crimes, to this day the Japanese deny them and cover them up.

I could go on but I think you get the point, YES it seems Honor may in fact be a foreign concept to our enemies but those tasked with training American Officers and SF warriors are doing their best to see that we don't become what we despise about our enemies. Any nation that turns it's people into animals that will rape and torture women and children in the process of doing whatever it takes to win has already lost the most important thing, their humanity and dignity because I'd rather die than rape or hide behind children and I'm certain my parents would rather their sons not come home at all than come home as rapists and murders.

[jubaji]

And of course to hold yourself up as an authority that cannot be questioned

you'll notice NONE of the false bravado and BS talk of how doing whatever it takes to win being the way of the warrior, THAT load of shit is reserved for the wannabes and greenhorns .

I see. The Way of the Warrior is to continue arguments from another thread onto this one and then to copy and paste some more. Very honorable.

[jubaji]

On a related note:

I wonder if it's only those who have never served in the military who are not allowed to comment on this topic or if those who have served but were never actually in combat (like KOTF:

Honestly I have 0 combat experience

KOTF

)

also have to STFU and accept everything about a historical/philosophical topic demaded by certain people with no particular specialization in history or philosophy but who have declared themselves unimpeachable authorities?

Just curious.

[Tant01]

Since when?

On a related note:

I wonder if it's only those who have never served in the military who are not allowed to comment on this topic or if those who have served but were never actually in combat also have to STFU and accept everything about a historical/philosophical topic demaded by certain people with no particular specialization in history or philosophy but who have declared themselves unimpeachable authorities?
Just curious.

.....................


You kill me Ju...

[TTEscrima]

.....................


You kill me Ju...

Well at least he isn't stalking you.

[Tant01]

Well at least he isn't stalking you.

Yeah, gets old fast huh...

Maybe it's time to "moderate".

[TTEscrima]

Yeah, gets old fast huh...

Maybe it's time to "moderate".

"a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" That's a copy and paste from the US internet stalking laws, you tell me if it isn't time to moderate.

[Tant01]

You know... I'd ban him but the place just wouldn't be the same without Ju.

It's safe to say he's on the radar...

Ju?

Your humble moderator suggests using the "ignore" function.

Thanks kindly gentlemen.

[TTEscrima]

are you seriously suggesting that a anonymous person on the internet has the ability to seriously alarm you, seriously annoys you, and torments you, even terrorizes you, a warrior?

Am I understanding this correctly, that his comments are causing you great emotional distress?

If you are telling me, this I will make sure the Jubaji ceases to bother you.


So are you willing to say that you cannot deal with his comments?

I'm saying that his personal attacks and constant homosexual accusations annoy me, yes. I'm going to also say your rules forbid the behavior and you've banned many people for less, and according to your rules he should be banned for it and according to the law it's illegal and your site not only allows it you defend it. Any other questions on the subject of Jubaji's stalking me? I suppose now you'll ban me so jubaji won't bother me, that ought to make things interesting since your rules and the law state I don't have to "deal" with his constant harassment.

[Tant01]

Wow and thanks EF... I have much to learn about the duty of moderation.

[jubaji]

Okay, as long as we are clear that you can't handle someone making comments to you.

Jubaji, knock it off.

............................................................


Ok.