''They are running away and not fighting'' : what counter-example do you have ?

[kamuimac]

In the obligatory daily threads about refugees, a comment that come like clockwork is that the refugees are ''cowards'' since they are not firing with (inexistant) handguns at the tanks and aircraft firing at them.

Sarcasm aside, do you have an actual example of a country that fought to the death, understood the death of it's citizens ? (As opposed as surrendering, accepting occupation or running away)

(There is in fact one, Paraguay. )

the argument of "cowards" could work well 100 years ago when most of societies were uneducated farmers/workers - nowadays stuff like national pride etc is outdated conept spread mainly by people who never had to risk their lifes - but this happen when western societies didnt experience war on their terrain since at least 4 generations.

everythime i hear bs like that i wanna call out - how many of those who make 1000-2000$ per month would risk their lives for such stupid concepts ? 1 % 3 % ?

[Cheze]

it's such a ridiculous criticism; I don't know why people assume all these refugees had 1) ready access to weapons 2) training to use them and 3) the ability to join groups actually fighting. I mean okay, you pick up a rifle; great, now you can get gassed and barrel-bombed in your neighborhood while holding a rifle.

And anyway, which side do you fight for? Many of the worst atrocities are being committed by the Assad government.

ed: and I mean, that's if you're an individual physically able to fight who doesn't have children or other family to consider as well.

[Deleted]

Well obviously not entire countries are willing to stand and fight, but there are some neat examples of groups of people standing against impossible odds in war.

[Easo]

You can blather all you like Jeb, everyone in the world saw that war for what it was: an illegal invasion of an oil-rich country by an oil baron.

The oil "argument" got old more than a decade ago. Just look at their oil production...

[Khaza-R]

it's such a ridiculous criticism; I don't know why people assume all these refugees had 1) ready access to weapons 2) training to use them and 3) the ability to join groups actually fighting. I mean okay, you pick up a rifle; great, now you can get gassed and barrel-bombed in your neighborhood while holding a rifle.

And anyway, which side do you fight for? Many of the worst atrocities are being committed by the Assad government.

ed: and I mean, that's if you're an individual physically able to fight who doesn't have children or other family to consider as well.

Virtually all the groups fighting in Syria are monsters trying to push their sectarian agenda at any cost to Syrian people. It's a terrible situation to be forced into

[Mihalik]

Wait they cudnt use boats also?

No they couldn't. Poland only has access to the Baltic Sea wedged between Scandinavia, Germany and the then USSR. While some Polish naval vessels did escape for British/French ports during the invasion of Poland, afterwards the Baltic was essentially un-navigable due to factors such as

1, No friendly ports nearby (Scandinavia being occupied territory).
2, The Baltic sea and the North Atlantic are not the Mediterranean, they are only seasonally navigable and only by suitable ships (you aren't going to get far in an inflatable raft).
3, The Baltic sea was first controlled by the German navy and later in the war by the USSR. It was also heavily mined.