Brit Liberal MP in PLENTY hot water

[TheStinger]

Ned are you saying that before condeming anything you have to apologise for anything bad your country may have done in the past.

If you were condeming slavery in for example Sudan would you put a standard disclaimer condeming slavery in the US past I doubt it.

[Ned]

Drogue and TheStinger, if one starts making distinctions depending on who started the war, I would just like to point out that it was England that declared war on Germany.

Now if you say US atrocities in Vietnam are not excusable because we invaded that country without cause, I like to point out that we had a defensive treaty with Vietnam that obligated us to help in its defense against aggression from North Vietnam.

But then your response would be that England had a defensive treaty with Poland that obligated it to intervene on behalf of that country when it was invaded. But the Germans would retort that it had no choice but to resort to force because at the behest of England Poland had broken off negotiations on return of German territory stolen from it under the treaty of Versailles.

In truth, Germany did not attack England but it was the other way around. Whether England's cause was just or not depends on your view of the justice of the treaty of Versailles.

As to slavery, the United States has nothing to apologize for since today's United States is descended from the Union that fought a war liberation of the Southern slaves.

The problem we have here, I believe, is justifying intentional targeting of civilians depending on the justice of the war. From this view, what the Palestinians are doing to the Israelis may be justifiable.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Cruddy, I have no idea why you say I don't focus on US attrocities. I do. I have just noted that the Brits still glorify their butchery. A Lancaster flew over the Queen's 50th Anniversary parade, for example. How would you feel if the Germans flew the bombers that blasted Guernica or Coventry in celebration of some German event?

I wouldn't bother me in the slightest. It would pi55 off a lot of bomb damage survivors, but personally I wouldn't care... I am looking forward to the unavailaing of a reconditioned operational Tiger tank, for example.

I love technology. I don't care about whose markings they carry.

HOWEVER, you seem to be concerned about the ongoing portrayal of WW2 as some sort of Holy crusade against evil. I can agree with you there, it's just about a guarantee to see Hitler's face on Brit TV on a daily basis.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned

In truth, Germany did not attack England but it was the other way around. Whether England's cause was just or not depends on your view of the justice of the treaty of Versailles.

That's true. For many months the RAF viciously dropped leaflets condemning German actions and apologising for the forthcoming butchery. How inconsiderate of them.

Around the time when the term Coventrireisen (?) was coined in German, this attitude hardened somewhat, and about 60% of wartime production was geared towards aviation.

We were outnumbered, hopelessly undergeared to produce large bombers and Luftwaffe pilots were much more experienced than their RAF counterparts.

You think an apology is forthcoming about the result?

Originally posted by Ned
The problem we have here, I believe, is justifying intentional targeting of civilians depending on the justice of the war. From this view, what the Palestinians are doing to the Israelis may be justifiable.

Maybe the problem here is that you are confusing "targetting" of civilians (deliberate intentional aiming for their destruction) with collaterol (?) damage? Could be wrong here, but you seem to think that war is wrong if civilians get hurt.

I'd say war is wrong because it's a CERTAINTY that civilians get hurt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy


That's true. For many months the RAF viciously dropped leaflets condemning German actions and apologising for the forthcoming butchery. How inconsiderate of them.

Around the time when the term Coventrireisen (?) was coined in German, this attitude hardened somewhat, and about 60% of wartime production was geared towards aviation.

We were outnumbered, hopelessly undergeared to produce large bombers and Luftwaffe pilots were much more experienced than their RAF counterparts.

You think an apology is forthcoming about the result?



Maybe the problem here is that you are confusing "targetting" of civilians (deliberate intentional aiming for their destruction) with collaterol (?) damage? Could be wrong here, but you seem to think that war is wrong if civilians get hurt.

I'd say war is wrong because it's a CERTAINTY that civilians get hurt.

You know, England and France could have called the war off after Poland surrendered. You tell me why they didn't. Was it because they thought they could win?

Cruddy, the very purpose of Bomber Harris' air war was to attack civilian areas. I hardly think that under these circumstances that civilian casualties are "collateral."

[Ned]

And, BTW, Cruddy, you are beginning to sound more and more like those bleeding-heart Palestinians. First they attack Israel. Lose. And then say, "poor Palestinians."

[Rogan Josh]

What constitutes a 'non-combatant' in Cruddy's original post?

Do generals who don't actually kill people themselves (but just order others to) count? Do military support staff who make it possible count (e.g. engineers)? What about the people who design the bombs? Or the people who make them in the factories? How about the cleaner who cleans the factory or the baker who supplies the workers with bread?

If you do anything to support a society which is fighting a war, doesn't that make you fair game to the enemy?

[Ned]

Rogan Josh, You got it! All Israeli's are valid targets, after all.

Moreover, all Jews are valid targets for the same reason!

[Ned]

I can only hope that some of this discussion gets people to think. For example, the Israelis have to be applauded for the way they conduct their war against the anti-Jew terrorists. They go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. It is a wonder that the Europeans call these folks Nazis and the "poor" Palestinians "freedom fighters."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What constitutes a 'non-combatant' in Cruddy's original post?

Do generals who don't actually kill people themselves (but just order others to) count? Do military support staff who make it possible count (e.g. engineers)? What about the people who design the bombs? Or the people who make them in the factories? How about the cleaner who cleans the factory or the baker who supplies the workers with bread?

If you do anything to support a society which is fighting a war, doesn't that make you fair game to the enemy?

Moreover this rationale was the basis of UBL no?

[Sirotnikov]

Ogie - incorrect.

There's a difference between people directly involved (suppose, military support staff, military factory workers) and simple civilians.

UBL has clearly stated time after time that he wishes to slaughter every jew and christian on the face of the earth. He is pursuing people not for their actions but for their beliefs.

[Rogan Josh]

Hang on Siro! You seriously believe that factory workers are fair game???? I was trying to point out why killing anyone is immoral, not that everyone should be targeted

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned


You know, England and France could have called the war off after Poland surrendered. You tell me why they didn't.

To maintain their reputation and because at least on paper the French Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht and the British Navy outnumbered the Kriegsmarine.

Only place Germany was on top was air power - are you seeing a pattern here?

Originally posted by Ned
Was it because they thought they could win?

Probably more true to say that they thought that Nazi Germany was not somebody to do business with - remember Munich?

Originally posted by Ned Cruddy, the very purpose of Bomber Harris' air war was to attack civilian areas. I hardly think that under these circumstances that civilian casualties are "collateral."

But you don't seem to admit the very real military advantages this gave - namely, diverting German air resources to the defense of the Reich.

Also, there was NO WAY that the V-Weapon campaign was going to go unanswered. The V1 was bad enough - their was no defence or even warning against the V2, and the corresponding plunge in morale was most significant.

You think we should have just gritted our teeth and bore it? Or tried to kill the people manufacturing those weapons?

I'm not saying it was RIGHT, as such. But I'm buggered if I can think of an alternative.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
And, BTW, Cruddy, you are beginning to sound more and more like those bleeding-heart Palestinians. First they attack Israel. Lose. And then say, "poor Palestinians."

Erm... Ned, did you ever CONSIDER... just CONSIDER... that the Palestinians might be the injured party in this?

No one asked the Israelis to come, and the Brit govt had LONG been supportive to the idea of a Jewish state on ONE condition.

That the interests of the Arabs were not discriminated against or harmed.

Can you honestly say this is how things are turning out.

So who attacked who, to begin with?

It is very revealing that Palestinians refer to the creation of Israel as "the catastrophe".

I am not calling for the abolition of Israel, the denial of the right to settle within the UN agreed boundaries of 1947 (or further afield with prior negotiation).

But without negotiations and SETTLEMENT OF THE MATTER, the bloodshed will continue.


Maybe the Knesset is right and there is no deal to be done with Arafat...

But sooner or later, Israel WILL have to deal... because their current positions are insupportable.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Siro,

I could have sworn in one of UBL's rantings that he basically condemned every American for having supported illicitly or otherwise American government and its involvement in anti-ISlamic practices.

Implicit in this was his statement that Islamics need to stay out of harms way but tough luck if US-Islamics get caught in the crossfire, as presumably they had it coming as well.

I agree he has targeted the judeo-christian crusaders time again but beleive in his defense of actions blatherings, he has laid his case out to be much the same as noted. Particulary the doing anything to support the enemy passage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Erm... Ned, did you ever CONSIDER... just CONSIDER... that the Palestinians might be the injured party in this?

No one asked the Israelis to come, and the Brit govt had LONG been supportive to the idea of a Jewish state on ONE condition.

That the interests of the Arabs were not discriminated against or harmed.

Can you honestly say this is how things are turning out.

So who attacked who, to begin with?

It is very revealing that Palestinians refer to the creation of Israel as "the catastrophe".

I am not calling for the abolition of Israel, the denial of the right to settle within the UN agreed boundaries of 1947 (or further afield with prior negotiation).

But without negotiations and SETTLEMENT OF THE MATTER, the bloodshed will continue.


Maybe the Knesset is right and there is no deal to be done with Arafat...

But sooner or later, Israel WILL have to deal... because their current positions are insupportable.

We all know the bad times for the Jews of Palestine began with the British betrayal of Faisal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy
But you don't seem to admit the very real military advantages this gave - namely, diverting German air resources to the defense of the Reich.

Also, there was NO WAY that the V-Weapon campaign was going to go unanswered. The V1 was bad enough - their was no defence or even warning against the V2, and the corresponding plunge in morale was most significant.

You think we should have just gritted our teeth and bore it? Or tried to kill the people manufacturing those weapons?

I'm not saying it was RIGHT, as such. But I'm buggered if I can think of an alternative.

There must have come a time when both sides were hammering each other pretty severely. Perhaps then Sweden or Switzerland or the like could have brokered a cease fire on boming campaign. The rules would have permitted attacks on miltary targets and a prohibition of putting addition war production into cities.

I actually think that the bombing campaign would be justified if its goal was just such a cease fire agreement.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned

We all know the bad times for the Jews of Palestine began with the British betrayal of Faisal.

Any Faisal in particular?

It's news to me, but I'll do the decent thing and look into the whole subject more before commenting.

Originally posted by Ned
There must have come a time when both sides were hammering each other pretty severely. Perhaps then Sweden or Switzerland or the like could have brokered a cease fire on boming campaign. The rules would have permitted attacks on miltary targets and a prohibition of putting addition war production into cities.

I actually think that the bombing campaign would be justified if its goal was just such a cease fire agreement.

And what happens to pilots who broke the rules? Send them home with a note? Slap their wrists? It's a fantastic idea, that is, a FANTASY...

Also, bear in mind that a few of the Holocaust survivors are actually delighted to have witnessed Dresden going up like a touch. Seemed like justice to them.

Ned, by prolonging the war their is a goodly chance US citizens would have come under attack from the A10 project (V2 officially A4). A10 was designed to strike eastern seaboard of US.

Why don't you take Tecumseh Sherman's advice about getting war over and done with quickly?

[Ned]

Cruddy, Faisal, son of Hussein. The Brits promised Hussein to restore Arab power to "Arabia." This was to include all areas East of Egypt to Iran and South of Turkey save Lebanon. As we know, the Brits carved out of this a "Mandate" that extended from the Med. to include Transjordan. The Arabs felt betrayed and began to riot. When Faisal was deposed as King of Syria by the French, a good portion of his army went to the Mandate to begin resistance to Brit rule.

Faisal had previously confirmed with the Jews their right to emigrate to "Palestine" and establish a Jewish homeland. As was mentioned here many times, the Jews and the Arabs had a long history of mutual tolerance since the Arabs took Jerusalem and then later Espania with Jewish assistance. There was no trouble with the Jews or with the concept of a homeland until the Brit betrayal.

[Ned]

Cruddy, Sherman was clearly effective and did inaugurate a whole new kind of war. I can see the parallels between Sherman and Harris.

But even to this day, Sherman is hated and reviled in the South.

I actually prefer MacArthur's approach. (My Dad served under MacArthur and spoke highly of him.) One wins with an economy of force, as quickly as possible and with as few casualties, friendly or enemy, as possible.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Cruddy, Faisal, son of Hussein...

Ah, that gives me a starting point. I wasn't sure if you meant Faisal ibn Saud.

Originally posted by Ned

...MacArthur...

Far be it from me to criticise any general. It takes a certain amount of experience to rise to the rank in any army (if not... that army is in deep trouble).

Just a couple more points on Commonwealth Vs German strategic air bombardment.

1) The Brits did not use unmanned weapons.

2) The Brits did not use slave labour to build their weapons.

And Harris was not "right" in the sense of behaving with decency or humanity.

He was right in sensing the need to plunge German morale and productive capacity as hard as possible - bear in mind a lot of Harris command was diverted prior to Overlord for 6 months. The civilian devastation could have been much greater.

War is not a sport, Ned. Most brutal, daring and uncompassionate bastards generally come out on top.

[Ned]

Well, it is clear Cruddy, that the Brits and the Americans were the most brutal during WWII.

I have read personal orders of Hitler that show that he abided by the "laws of war" with the Brits and the Americans until those laws were breached. It may have been possible to broker a deal with Hitler concerning bombing of cities; but as you say, the Brits and perhaps the Americans would probably not have agreed to it once the tide turned heavily in their favor.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, it is clear Cruddy, that the Brits and the Americans were the most brutal during WWII.

Don't know about that... but we certainly weren't angels. More than a few of Bomber Command went nuts after the war and were committed when they realised what they'd been doing (as did many others in other services).

Originally posted by Ned
I have read personal orders of Hitler that show that he abided by the "laws of war" with the Brits and the Americans until those laws were breached.

Again, not sure in all cases... probably Goebbels had something to do with that idea. I mean, Guernica happened years before WW2 even started.

Originally posted by Ned
It may have been possible to broker a deal with Hitler concerning bombing of cities; but as you say, the Brits and perhaps the Americans would probably not have agreed to it once the tide turned heavily in their favor.

Hitler would have loved a deal to pursue Russia.

You can appreciate why it was unacceptable - it would have left him, if anything, even stronger to pursue Barbarossa and the "Final Solution".

[Ned]

Cruddy, to suggest the Brits or event the Americans were fighting Hitler to save the lives of the Jews is more than a bit revisionist.

[Whaleboy]

Drogue:

Ned: I broadly agree, but I don't accept that generations post-event in question bear any responsibility. The people responsible for it were the men with fingers on the triggers, so to speak. They are dead or dying now. Because I was born in Britain, I do not feel responsible for the atrocities that nation committed. As long as I am not a part of it, I should not feel guilty for those in the future.

And yes, the war was not about saving Jews.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Drogue:

Ned: I broadly agree, but I don't accept that generations post-event in question bear any responsibility. The people responsible for it were the men with fingers on the triggers, so to speak. They are dead or dying now. Because I was born in Britain, I do not feel responsible for the atrocities that nation committed. As long as I am not a part of it, I should not feel guilty for those in the future.

And yes, the war was not about saving Jews.

Well, Whaleboy, your horror of war and my horror of killing civilians is very close. I think your position is influenced if not decided by the inevitablity of civilian casualties. Right?

[Whaleboy]

Well, Whaleboy, your horror of war and my horror of killing civilians is very close. I think your position is influenced if not decided by the inevitablity of civilian casualties. Right?

Many things, a hatred of violence mostly, but yes that's part of it. But I don't kill civilians...

[Whaleboy]

Dud post

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Hang on Siro! You seriously believe that factory workers are fair game???? I was trying to point out why killing anyone is immoral, not that everyone should be targeted

First, I clearly said military factories.

Second, I didn't said that hunting them down and killing them in their homes is a fair game. But bombing a military producing factory is fair play. I don't have to wait for the tank to be built.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Siro,

I could have sworn in one of UBL's rantings that he basically condemned every American for having supported illicitly or otherwise American government and its involvement in anti-ISlamic practices.

Implicit in this was his statement that Islamics need to stay out of harms way but tough luck if US-Islamics get caught in the crossfire, as presumably they had it coming as well.

I agree he has targeted the judeo-christian crusaders time again but beleive in his defense of actions blatherings, he has laid his case out to be much the same as noted. Particulary the doing anything to support the enemy passage.

Look, he sees christianity and judaism as inherently anti-Islamic. And since the US rules the world (and the US is oh so obviously ruled by them evil fins... erm... jews ) it means that they are fair play.

And sadly, eastern cultures aren't used to respecting judeo-christian rules of war such as 'civilians are NOT fair play'.


But you should notice that since CNN began broadcasting Al-Qaeda messages, they have changed their content and are now practicing psychological warfare - just like Saddam did, or Hezballah or Hamas still do.

To their people they say that the jews and christians should all be slaughtered over internet forums. To western ears they send tape recordings explaining that "it's just the fault of your policies".

Why are they doing that? Because they are interested in stopping the war against terror. They are interested in winning it.