4 ms·

There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of

There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of what you claim, show it. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're either delusional or deliberately defaming a humanitarian group.

nl 9y ago
At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers-face-isis-fighters-in-mosul-iraq-966101571612 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers... As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg In Burma they fought for sure: http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are-like-doctors-without-borderswith-guns http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are... https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fringed-love-swirled-rangers https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...
- notacoward 9y ago
  Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armchair see as problems with how they go about saving lives. Yes, FBR allows members to arm themselves. They provide training that might be militarily useful to anti-government groups in Burma. They're clearly not pacifists. They're clearly not as genocidal-government-friendly as ICRC. Maybe you disagree with their methods philosophically, but that's no excuse for basically making stuff up.
  - nl 9y ago
    I disagree completely with civilian groups arming themselves and entertaining war zones when their posture is no longer defensive only. They put themselves on the front line and fire on the enemy. I agree with their goals, but that's precisely the definition of an armed combatant. This isn't a media conspiracy, it's the groups own video footage. I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used to pay for weapons. What's with the aggressive accusations of (not sure what exactly)? I'd note that what I said is precisely true. You seem to be reading a lot of things I didn't say into your reaction. Again, I'm not making things up here.
    - notacoward 9y ago
      > their posture is no longer defensive only Covering fire is defensive, and that's all the video shows. They're not initiating any action, they're not even aiming directly at an enemy, and there's no evidence anyone was even harmed. That fits a pedant's definition of "armed combatant" perhaps, but using that to put them in the same category as ISIS just isn't useful. Note also that they were victims of a war crime, specifically firing upon those providing succor to the wounded. Is it your position that they don't even have a right to defend themselves against war crimes? > I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used to pay for weapons. You mean despite the repeated statements, in things you've cited yourself, that they don't arm recruits? They're very clear that they only let recruits arm themselves. You're making a pretty strong accusation there, contrary to rational expectation, with not even an attempt at proof. That's not "precisely true" at all. So you think aid groups should be so "neutral" and "apolitical" that they effectively let governments - even the worst ones - decide when and how and to whom they provide aid? Wonderful. That's the ICRC's position. It's defensible, but they've also drawn criticism for it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hell of a position to put people in while they're trying to save lives. If you had just said that you believe FBR is wrong for adopting the methods that they have, that would be fine, but making up new wrongs still isn't going to fly.
      - nl 9y ago
        It's your words that pit them in the same category as ISIS, not me (or rather you keep claiming that is what I'm doing, but it isn't what I've said anywhere). Your claims have gone from they don't fight to you can't prove that they killed anyone when they fight. Mine has been they fight, and I'd note you seem to have conceded that, and yet still are accusing me of making stuff up. I think that there is a difference between the work a hypothetical charity which pays for bodyguards for protection, and this, where charity workers are laying down covering fire. There another version of that footage around where they are clearly aiming at ISIS snipers when providing covering fire. To me that doesn't make any difference, but perhaps it does to you? I'd be interested in your views on the various Hamas and Hezbollah affiliated charity groups? To me they are clearly terrorist groups, but if I'm reading you correctly they are legitimate because they provide medical aid?

nl 9y ago

At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers-face-isis-fighters-in-mosul-iraq-966101571612 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers... As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg In Burma they fought for sure: http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are-like-doctors-without-borderswith-guns http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are... https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fringed-love-swirled-rangers https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...

notacoward 9y ago
Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armchair see as problems with how they go about saving lives. Yes, FBR allows members to arm themselves. They provide training that might be militarily useful to anti-government groups in Burma. They're clearly not pacifists. They're clearly not as genocidal-government-friendly as ICRC. Maybe you disagree with their methods philosophically, but that's no excuse for basically making stuff up.
- nl 9y ago
  I disagree completely with civilian groups arming themselves and entertaining war zones when their posture is no longer defensive only. They put themselves on the front line and fire on the enemy. I agree with their goals, but that's precisely the definition of an armed combatant. This isn't a media conspiracy, it's the groups own video footage. I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used to pay for weapons. What's with the aggressive accusations of (not sure what exactly)? I'd note that what I said is precisely true. You seem to be reading a lot of things I didn't say into your reaction. Again, I'm not making things up here.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    > their posture is no longer defensive only Covering fire is defensive, and that's all the video shows. They're not initiating any action, they're not even aiming directly at an enemy, and there's no evidence anyone was even harmed. That fits a pedant's definition of "armed combatant" perhaps, but using that to put them in the same category as ISIS just isn't useful. Note also that they were victims of a war crime, specifically firing upon those providing succor to the wounded. Is it your position that they don't even have a right to defend themselves against war crimes? > I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used to pay for weapons. You mean despite the repeated statements, in things you've cited yourself, that they don't arm recruits? They're very clear that they only let recruits arm themselves. You're making a pretty strong accusation there, contrary to rational expectation, with not even an attempt at proof. That's not "precisely true" at all. So you think aid groups should be so "neutral" and "apolitical" that they effectively let governments - even the worst ones - decide when and how and to whom they provide aid? Wonderful. That's the ICRC's position. It's defensible, but they've also drawn criticism for it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hell of a position to put people in while they're trying to save lives. If you had just said that you believe FBR is wrong for adopting the methods that they have, that would be fine, but making up new wrongs still isn't going to fly.
    - nl 9y ago
      It's your words that pit them in the same category as ISIS, not me (or rather you keep claiming that is what I'm doing, but it isn't what I've said anywhere). Your claims have gone from they don't fight to you can't prove that they killed anyone when they fight. Mine has been they fight, and I'd note you seem to have conceded that, and yet still are accusing me of making stuff up. I think that there is a difference between the work a hypothetical charity which pays for bodyguards for protection, and this, where charity workers are laying down covering fire. There another version of that footage around where they are clearly aiming at ISIS snipers when providing covering fire. To me that doesn't make any difference, but perhaps it does to you? I'd be interested in your views on the various Hamas and Hezbollah affiliated charity groups? To me they are clearly terrorist groups, but if I'm reading you correctly they are legitimate because they provide medical aid?