I'm ashamed of my country

wrote:
See also

http://tinyurl.com/jfqrh

(and note that the Telegraph is a right-wing paper, and the SAS is far
from being a hotbed of pansy liberalism)

Two things come to mind: he apparently had no problem being involved in or with
the British military's actions in Northern Ireland

There is no comparison. Very few civilians were killed by the British
Army in Northern Ireland in comparison with Iraq, although the British
army have been in Northern Ireland for over thirty years. And the worst
example, Bloody Sunday, immediately caused a horrified reaction
throughout England, and a series of judicial enquiries which are still
continuing over thirty years later. It's a good example, though, of how
this sort of thing can, in spite of what you say, damage a country. At
the time of Bloody Sunday, hardly anyone had been killed in the Ulster
Troubles, and the Provisional IRA to all intents and purposes did not
exist. Bloody Sunday convinced thousands of Irish Catholics that there
was no point in pursuing their cause through democratic means, and lead
directly to the foundation of a brilliantly effective guerilla campaign
which did indeed damage Britain considerably, and lead to Britain
having to negotiate a compromise with the guerillas since they realized
that they could never defeat them militarily.

, and secondly, the British
are, at the root of it all, responsible for quite a bit of "the mess" in the
Middle East,

Absolutely. I totally agree. But you must be very, very stupid to think
that the next bit in any way follows logically.

and for a British serviceman to get all whiny and weepy about how
some in an occupying group look upon locals is, bluntly, horse****...


Germany was, at the root of it, responsible for much of WWI. Does that
mean that for a German soldier to 'get all whiny and weepy' about
slaughtering Polish jews in WWII would have been, bluntly, horse****?

The British Library adress, by the way, is just a free internet service
it provides for the general public. But you might as well use it to add
'ad hominem' to your other examples of fallacious argument.

Lazarus

On 22 Mar 2006 09:17:27 -0800, "lazarus cooke"
wrote:


wrote:
See also

http://tinyurl.com/jfqrh

(and note that the Telegraph is a right-wing paper, and the SAS is far
from being a hotbed of pansy liberalism)

Two things come to mind: he apparently had no problem being involved in or with
the British military's actions in Northern Ireland

There is no comparison. Very few civilians were killed by the British
Army in Northern Ireland in comparison with Iraq,

Oooooh...so it's not the fact that civilians are killed (or murdered), it's the
NUMBER that are killed (or murdered)...do any and all circumstances count, or is
it just absolutely unwarranted, illegal acts that count? What I mean is that if
the "breakpoint" number was one more civilian death and a civilian were
accidentally caught in a crossfire and killed (and let's assume the impossible
and pretend it was a Brit at the trigger), would that move it over into
"illegal" right at that exact instant or would someone from the Regiment need to
serve notice on all parties, or ???

although the British
army have been in Northern Ireland for over thirty years. And the worst
example, Bloody Sunday, immediately caused a horrified reaction
throughout England, and a series of judicial enquiries which are still
continuing over thirty years later. It's a good example, though, of how
this sort of thing can, in spite of what you say, damage a country. At
the time of Bloody Sunday, hardly anyone had been killed in the Ulster
Troubles, and the Provisional IRA to all intents and purposes did not
exist. Bloody Sunday convinced thousands of Irish Catholics that there
was no point in pursuing their cause through democratic means, and lead
directly to the foundation of a brilliantly effective guerilla campaign
which did indeed damage Britain considerably, and lead to Britain
having to negotiate a compromise with the guerillas since they realized
that they could never defeat them militarily.

Well, yeah, sure, but the British are perfect...well, not as perfect as the
Canadians, of course...and one would find that Britain was and is not damaged
anywhere near as much as you seem to think by anything done in Northern Ireland

, and secondly, the British
are, at the root of it all, responsible for quite a bit of "the mess" in the
Middle East,

Absolutely. I totally agree. But you must be very, very stupid to think
that the next bit in any way follows logically.

and for a British serviceman to get all whiny and weepy about how
some in an occupying group look upon locals is, bluntly, horse****..

Yeah, who would think that it might be at least a bit hypocritical for a member
of the SAS (who, as all members of the armed forces do, speaks for the entirety
of the UK forces as well as the population) to get all whiny about a situation
for which his country is in large part responsible by virtue of having treating
the locals like animals put on this earth for the benefit of a few Brits and
their lands and property like the Queen's and King's own...


Germany was, at the root of it, responsible for much of WWI. Does that
mean that for a German soldier to 'get all whiny and weepy' about
slaughtering Polish jews in WWII would have been, bluntly, horse****?

WWI didn't involve anything such as what the Brits did in the Middle East, or
how anyone treated the "locals" before, during, or after. But if this SAS guy
had refused to go to Iraq from the get-go on the basis of the sum of the
situation, including the mess the Brits created, that'd be a different story.
What I suspect, based on what I've read, is that this guy simply wanted to avoid
personal risk and chose an excuse known to afford some protection to the user of
such excuses (he would be, if his claims are accurate, thus far the only moral
member of the SAS). US troops have quit or tried to quit using the same line.
Soldiers don't get to question the "legality" of wars or even the advisability
of them - the only "legal" decision a soldier gets is whether they believe their
direct orders are lawful, and if they refuse an order on the basis of its
legality, they better be damned sure of their position and/or ready to face the
consequences.

And more importantly, even if what he claims regarding the US forces were 100%
true and they applied to every member of those forces, he would have no need
(moral or otherwise, and as to opposed to "want") or justification to quit
_British_ military service over the actions of US and Iraqi forces. And I find
it particularly against logic that some folks want to hold up a single member of
any armed service who echoes their beliefs as a beacon to follow, yet casually
dismisses any member of those same services who takes a position at odds with
their beliefs.

wrote:
Oooooh...so it's not the fact that civilians are killed (or murdered), it's the
NUMBER that are killed (or murdered)...

I consider killing six million jews worse than killing one jew. But
maybe you don't.



Well, yeah, sure, but the British are perfect..

Here I have to disagree with you strongly. Particularly as regards
their track record in Northern Ireland (which I covered as a journalist
from 1975 to 1982),. The fact that it was so disgracefully badly
covered by the British media led to a great extent to a small problem
turning into a big one.


one would find that Britain was and is not damaged
anywhere near as much as you seem to think by anything done in Northern Ireland

Well, it was only bad luck that the IRA failed to kill Mrs Thatcher in
the Brighton bomb: they did kill a number of other members of
Parliament at the time. And they did blow up her best ally in
Parliament, the man who masterminded her leadership campaign, Airey
Neave. And Prince Charles's grandpa (I think? Louis Mountbatten) And
the Brits had to sue for peace when they realized that the IRA could
break the City of London (in other words, the financial district. )

The rest of your post is just a rant. Do you think German soldiers in
the second world war should or should not have obeyed orders? (see the
book 'Ordinary Men')

Lazarus

lazarus cooke wrote:
wrote:

Oooooh...so it's not the fact that civilians are killed (or murdered), it's the
NUMBER that are killed (or murdered)...


I consider killing six million jews worse than killing one jew. But
maybe you don't.


rdean probably thinks it's BETTER.


Well, yeah, sure, but the British are perfect..


Here I have to disagree with you strongly. Particularly as regards
their track record in Northern Ireland (which I covered as a journalist
from 1975 to 1982),. The fact that it was so disgracefully badly
covered by the British media led to a great extent to a small problem
turning into a big one.

The problem with the British media was that they didn't cover all the
GOOD NEWS in Northern Ireland. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I would venture to say that at times torture of prisoners is the only option
left available. Its not pretty, but wounds heal. If the torture of a few
people leads to saving of a couple hundred lives, I believe the end
justifies the mean.

I also believe it depends on who you talk to about how well things are
going. If you are only getting your info from the daily news, you are
getting a description of the whole picture, just the details of a part of it
that they find interesting.

The biggest problem I have with our involvement in Iraq, is how we are
rebuilding it. We are building high tech schools and hospitals that could
be used by the people that are paying for them over here.

"Benjamin Turek" wrote in message
news:ctkUf.14649$gD4.5326@trnddc05...
I would venture to say that at times torture of prisoners is the only
option left available. Its not pretty, but wounds heal. If the torture of
a few people leads to saving of a couple hundred lives, I believe the end
justifies the mean.

sweet baby jesus. i would rather apologize on roff than to be forever
known as the author of those words.

the horror of that attitude is to obvious to be examined, or explained.

awh

"Benjamin Turek" wrote in message
news:ctkUf.14649$gD4.5326@trnddc05...

I would venture to say that at times torture of prisoners is the only
option left available. Its not pretty, but wounds heal. If the torture of
a few people leads to saving of a couple hundred lives, I believe the end
justifies the mean.

Undoubtedly it can save many lives.....maybe.....sometimes. At any rate
then, you blelieve that a group of Iraqi "insurgents" are perfectly
justifyed in torturing a downed American pilot.....say, a colonel,
perhaps.....who could reasonably be expected to know something about
upcoming operations in which hundreds of their compatriots might die.
Again, it might be highly effective.......but you're going to have some
trouble selling the program in Peoria.

I also believe it depends on who you talk to about how well things are
going.

Say, the mother of a murdered Iraqi child, for instance.

If you are only getting your info from the daily news, you are getting a
description of the whole picture, just the details of a part of it that
they find interesting.

Actually, we were hoping you would fill us in on the uninteresting parts.
We are confident that you won't fail us.

The biggest problem I have with our involvement in Iraq, is how we are
rebuilding it. We are building high tech schools and hospitals that could
be used by the people that are paying for them over here.

Well, the money used to bomb and burn the ones they already had could have
been used by the people who paid for it over here too. But what good would
THAT do anyone?

Wolfgang

I guess everything is relative.

Then I guess thats how I'll be remembered.

"Benjamin Turek" wrote in message
news:AMkUf.14655$gD4.5707@trnddc05...
Then I guess thats how I'll be remembered.
well, benjamin, i'm sorry about that. i really am.