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.