Perhaps you don't realize that I have everything clear, but you have some problems in understanding I will not willingly take part in any war nor think that I have enemies to kill in war.
You don't have to do anything willingly; assume you've been conscripted (highly possible) and you'll be shot if you refuse.
I do not care of my "fellow countrymen" more than I care about those manning machine guns firing at us, they are both not part of my life so I don't see why I should consider one friend and the other enemy.
Because one is shooting to protect you and the other is shooting to kill you?
The fact that the enemy wants to kill me is the reason why I don't want to take part in the conflict, not the other way around. It's exactly because they are firing at me that I will try to retreat or take cover.
Well, actually if you can you dash forwards a few metres, take cover, crawl forwards, and return fire. Trying to retreat without the support of the rest of your section suppressing the enemy just means you get shot to peices.
I'm just saying that I won't consider those kids or the adults around them "British pigs" and will do everything to avoid being involved in that situation. On the other hand, you two are trying to convince me that it is not possible for me to even think to do it, I'm sure you (maybe not MobBoss) will realize you're wasting bytes.
Considering your enemy as human is a requirement for being a civilised human being; the problem is that the enemy often isn't a civilised human being. With regards to the scenario, it precludes 'I wouldn't be in that situation' - you're supposed to read the linked-in post explaining the 'rules' for hypothetical situations
(note to both of you about what I suppose to be your native language: as you can see this pronoun is also plural, not just singular, hence the interpretation that you give that the kids are firing specifically at me is all but unquestionable, especially since they are firing a machine gun)
I am a native British English speaker: do you mean 'you' being both singular and plural? I'm not sure what you mean by the rest, but it's far from unquestionable (they could be firing suppressively on your unit, meaning that they're probably raking the line of men rather than aiming at you personally). But as I said I don't really understand all after 'hence'.
I would try to save my comrades by telling them the same things I'm telling you now. If we were there I would tell you it's time to run.
OK: you'd have to have about half your men suppress the enemy while the other half dropped back, and then repeat that until out of firing range. Otherwise, you just all get shot to peices in a very bloody manner indeed. And as Mobby said, if they know you run away from child soldiers - what are they going to send against you next time?
I'd let them march, where's the problem?
I think we have a fundamental difference here, which can't be resolved. If you have no problem with your country being invaded, then there's nothing really more to be said.
Hate isn't a reflexive feeling. I don't care if Hitler hates me. Given the very low opinion I have about his thoughts and the sanity of them, I more specifically wouldn't give a damn. Besides, as a side note, I don't see Hitler in the OP, I see 10 years old kids.
Anyone who would allow 10 year old children to fight under his flag has earned his place in the Adolf Hitler Hall of Infamy.
And that's a good sentiment; it guards against the sort of thing that people later regret. The only problem is that if the enemy hate you they're more inclined to attack you without regard for their own safety, or torture you if you surrender, than if they treat you as human beings.
I disagree, our instincts are to save our arse, not the one of our neighbor. "Mors tua, vita mea". As I've said in the beginning, I'd open fire if I was cornered, but the OP leaves hopes for other options, which I would certainly try before the one above.
No, actually, you see a lot of people do things which look incredibly stupid in hindsight because they were looking out for their mates and when you give them the interview without coffee back at base and ask what the hell they thought they were doing they say 'oh, yeah, that was dangerous: wasn't really thinking about that to be honest sir'. Most people will try to keep themselves safe before helping others - those that don't end up either dead or decorated- but very few allow that consideration to stop them taking part in the battle.
You were probably home sick during the Christianity religion lecture. I doubt you would ever stand before Him if you'd feel proud for your course of action.
Well first of all I don't subscribe to a lot of mainstream ideas about God; I don't get it from Church or from Scripture (although that helps); I just
know that God's there and try to act so that if he is watching he won't be displeased. Secondly, I think we all have to justify ourselves in the end, regardless of how good we've been - but that's just my own ideas.
Not to be a prick but that's exactly my point not MobBoss'. They are firing at us because we are enemies not because I am Tommy Atkins. This at all effects means I am entitled to say they aren't firing at me. MobBoss instead is of the opposite idea, he claims they are firing precisely at me.
Does it really matter whether the bullets are inscribed with 'Tommy Atkins' or 'to whom it may concern'?
Exactly. They don't care who or what you are. All they care about is making sure that you, their enemy, fall to the ground as a lifeless, limp body.
Precisely.