Murderers without a conscience

[Richard Bingham]

No different to the IRA really.

'I never think about the number of people my bombs might have killed,
you're doing a job”

Alan Biffen Bomber Command pilot'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18501658

[The Todal]

I really cannot find it in myself to blame any of the brave pilots and
crew who risked their lives for us in WW2 or any other wars.

What I cannot understand is how Tony Blair sleeps at night, knowing that
there were never any WMDs, knowing that there was no need to go to war,
knowing that he has directly caused a huge amount of death and horrible
injuries. He should be hiding himself away and paying a large team of
monks to flagellate him hourly. In fact, there would be no need to pay
them and I expect they'd add waterboarding as well.

[Mel Rowing]

He sleeps at night because he did what, after all due consideration,
he thought to be necessary and there's an end to it.

Why does this sanctimonious regurgitation of an episode gradually
sinking into history have to be resurrected out of context at every
opportunity.

It's over!

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 27, 12:29 pm, Richard Bingham <henrytheei...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

It's very different to the IRA. The IRA had resort to the ballot box.
In the end the ballot box won.

I am old enough to have worked with and so been on first name terms
with veterans of Bomber Command. I can't remember one who glorified
their experiences. Indeed generally speaking there existed a
reluctance to share their experiences. One can understand that. For
them the war contained memories of friends they dined with and were
missing for breakfast. My late sister put iy another way. She worked
in a NAFFI canteen on an airbase, "Bright eyed, noisy, cheeky lads"
she recounted, "Six weeks on ops and half of them were gone."

When you have gone through such experiences the welfare of an enemy
three thousand feet below you becomes of minor concern.

They did it because it had to be done!

[Jethro_uk]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:19:21 -0700, Mel Rowing wrote:

> On Jun 27, 12:37 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 27/6/12 12:29, Richard Bingham wrote:
>
>> I really cannot find it in myself to blame any of the brave pilots and
>> crew who risked their lives for us in WW2 or any other wars.
>>
>> What I cannot understand is how Tony Blair sleeps at night, knowing
>> that there were never any WMDs, knowing that there was no need to go to
>> war, knowing that he has directly caused a huge amount of death and
>> horrible injuries. He should be hiding himself away and paying a large
>> team of monks to flagellate him hourly. In fact, there would be no need
>> to pay them and I expect they'd add waterboarding as well.
>
> He sleeps at night because he did what, after all due consideration, he
> thought to be necessary and there's an end to it.

Despite lying to the country to get there ?

>
> Why does this sanctimonious regurgitation of an episode gradually
> sinking into history have to be resurrected out of context at every
> opportunity.

Because there's less chance a future PM could get away with it ?
>
> It's over!

So is the holocaust. Perhaps we should forget that too ?

[JohnR]

You wish.

Only in your loony fantasies is it over, it will take decades for any
sort of normality to return to Iraq. Perhaps you're hoping the failures
and mass murder are quickly forgotten so the focus can be directed
exclusively to Iran, the next on the nutty zionist list for destruction.

As for Blair he cleared off to the middle east to collect his bounty
from the terrorists in the thiefdom for a job well done on their behalf
and to cash in on his quartet "envoy" reward and looted Iraqi oil deals.
Levy must be proud of him.

As a war criminal and human filth he's in good company over their,
swanning around enriching himself and doing the thiefdoms bidding in
disguise.

[The Todal]

On 27/6/12 13:19, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:37 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 27/6/12 12:29, Richard Bingham wrote:
>
>> I really cannot find it in myself to blame any of the brave pilots and
>> crew who risked their lives for us in WW2 or any other wars.
>>
>> What I cannot understand is how Tony Blair sleeps at night, knowing that
>> there were never any WMDs, knowing that there was no need to go to war,
>> knowing that he has directly caused a huge amount of death and horrible
>> injuries. He should be hiding himself away and paying a large team of
>> monks to flagellate him hourly. In fact, there would be no need to pay
>> them and I expect they'd add waterboarding as well.
>
> He sleeps at night because he did what, after all due consideration,
> he thought to be necessary and there's an end to it.

Yes, and when Nixon took part in the Watergate cover-up he did what he
thought to be necessary. And if we forget all about it there is more
likelihood that it will happen again, maybe in the White House, maybe in
Downing Street.

>
> Why does this sanctimonious regurgitation of an episode gradually
> sinking into history have to be resurrected out of context at every
> opportunity.

Like the Holocaust. In fact, very like the Holocaust. The stronger
inflicting death and injury on the powerless.

>
> It's over!
>
>

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Richard Bingham]

On 27/06/2012 13:42, Mel Rowing wrote:

>
> I am old enough to have worked with and so been on first name terms
> with veterans of Bomber Command. I can't remember one who glorified
> their experiences.

See the OP then

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 27, 2:04 pm, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ... so the focus can be directed

> exclusively to Iran, the next on the nutty zionist list for destruction.

As soon as I read anything like that I simply switch off.

So don't waste your time!

[JohnR]

It isn't my time being wasted, it's the lives of those unfortunate
enough to live in countries that make it onto the US sponsored terror
states destruction list.

[Mel Rowing]

But whatever the whys and wherefores, its out of context! We were not
discussing Iraq! it has no place here.

By bringing it into the argument you simply elevate it to a level of
importance that is unjustifiable. set alongside WW2 Iraq has no order
of significance wahtsoever so what is the pupose of pretending
otherwise?

> > It's over!
>
> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Don't be silly I had no involvement whatsoever in the incident so what
have I got to repeat?

In any case, I'm not so narrowly focussed as to believe Bush and Blair
(along with less conspicuous others) got it that wrong.

You have no monoply on morality you know!

[Mel Rowing]

So Alan Biffen did?

That's not I see it

[The Todal]

On 27/6/12 15:23, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:19 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 27/6/12 13:19, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>>> Why does this sanctimonious regurgitation of an episode gradually
>>> sinking into history have to be resurrected out of context at every
>>> opportunity.
>>
>> Like the Holocaust. In fact, very like the Holocaust. The stronger
>> inflicting death and injury on the powerless.
>
> But whatever the whys and wherefores, its out of context! We were not
> discussing Iraq! it has no place here.

I disagree. This was a discussion about people who are employed to drop
bombs on civilians and who are able to do so without any pangs of
conscience.

> By bringing it into the argument you simply elevate it to a level of
> importance that is unjustifiable. set alongside WW2 Iraq has no order
> of significance wahtsoever so what is the pupose of pretending
> otherwise?

I'm sorry that you think that millions of ordinary civilians who were
exposed to our bombs and our missiles have no order of significance
whatsoever.

It's attitudes like that which ensure that the UK and USA continue to
terrorise weaker nations with impunity.

>
>>> It's over!
>>
>> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> Don't be silly I had no involvement whatsoever in the incident so what
> have I got to repeat?

I would hope that everyone else has understood the point. If we as a
nation do not learn from history, we as a nation are doomed to repeat
the same mistakes. And those who think that WW2 was all about a mad
dictator who tried to take over the world but was eventually quelled by
the sane civilised nations, is obviously reading the Ladybird Book
version of events.

[JohnR]

As a rabid Zionist you'd do better being honest and say you admire them,
both did exactly what they were persuaded to do, destroy Iraq and reduce
it to basket case status in the region. Next up, Iran.

[Ophelia]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:a50jvu...@mid.individual.net...

Amen

--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Mel Rowing]

Had Germany been held to its obligations under the Treaty of
Versailles

Had German assets been sezed in lieu of reparations.

Had she not been allowed to re-arm.

Had British and French troops invaded and occupied the Ruhr in
response to its re-militarisation as Churchill wanted at the time.

Had the occupation of the Sudetenland been resisted.

Then war would have been impossible.

As it was the question was allowed to come down to a piece of paper
with Herr Hitler's name on it and "Peace in our time!" A peace I
would add that was very expensively paid for. The most expensive peace
in history in fact.

As a direct result of all these mistakes, we ended up honouring our
obligations to Poland. That was the cause of the outbreak of WW2.
Nothing else!

I would love to believe that that lesson had been learned!

I'm far from convinced that Hitler was mad certainly at the beginning
of his Chancellorship. he may have moved that way towards the end but
then he had every reason so to be. Initially he was given every
assistance by the Briritsh and French to consolidate his hold on
power.

[Cassandra]

Bomber Command lost one man for every ten they murdered

The IRA had a much better kill ratio.

[Cynic]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:19:21 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Why does this sanctimonious regurgitation of an episode gradually
>sinking into history have to be resurrected out of context at every
>opportunity.

>It's over!

No, actually it is far from over for the people living in Iraq, who
are still very much suffering from the destruction of their country's
infrastructure and the removal of law and order.

Of course, it would be convenient for apologists such as yourself if
everyone were to forget something that not even you can find a
plausible way of justifying.

A couple of months ago there was yet another case where a child abuser
was convicted of crimes he committed well over a decade ago. Do you
similarly believe that it would have been far better if the judge had
said, "He acted in a way that he believed was OK at the time, and it
was a very long time ago, it's over so let's just forget it."?

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:23:04 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Don't be silly I had no involvement whatsoever in the incident so what
>have I got to repeat?

You were part of the democratic process that elected the government
that did it. AFAIR you made no objection at the time - in fact did
you not actually support the action at that time? Therefore it can be
argued that you *do* have some responsibility. That is, after all,
the argument used when we kill innocent Pakistan citizens. Was it
yourself or another poster who stated that they have only themseves to
blame because they are not forcing their government to stop terrorists
entering their country?

--
Cynic

[The Todal]

On 27/6/12 23:11, Kim Bolton wrote:

>
> Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>> we ended up honouring our
>> obligations to Poland. That was the cause of the outbreak of WW2.
>> Nothing else!
>

> ITYM "...WW2 broke out, and we then honoured our obligations to
> Poland".
>

Except that we didn't honour our obligations to Poland because at the
end of the war we delivered Poland as a captive nation to the Soviet Union.

[The Todal]

On 27/6/12 17:53, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:34 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 27/6/12 15:23, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>> I would hope that everyone else has understood the point. If we as a
>> nation do not learn from history, we as a nation are doomed to repeat
>> the same mistakes. And those who think that WW2 was all about a mad
>> dictator who tried to take over the world but was eventually quelled by
>> the sane civilised nations, is obviously reading the Ladybird Book
>> version of events.
>
> Had Germany been held to its obligations under the Treaty of
> Versailles

Everyone believed, rightly, that the Versailles Treaty imposed
humiliating and excessive obligations on Germany. And in retrospect,
this was one of the main causes of WW2.

>
> Had German assets been sezed in lieu of reparations.
>
> Had she not been allowed to re-arm.

We would have had to invade Germany when we saw that she was re-arming.
It would have been the only way to "not allow" the re-arming.

>
> Had British and French troops invaded and occupied the Ruhr in
> response to its re-militarisation as Churchill wanted at the time.
>
> Had the occupation of the Sudetenland been resisted.
>
> Then war would have been impossible.
>
> As it was the question was allowed to come down to a piece of paper
> with Herr Hitler's name on it and "Peace in our time!" A peace I
> would add that was very expensively paid for. The most expensive peace
> in history in fact.

No, I can't see that at all. You are promulgating a myth. We were
negotiating from a position of extreme weakness and we needed to buy
some time. If we had not signed the piece of paper, if we had given an
ultimatum, then war would have happened sooner. It would not have been
avoided.

>
> As a direct result of all these mistakes, we ended up honouring our
> obligations to Poland. That was the cause of the outbreak of WW2.
> Nothing else!
>
> I would love to believe that that lesson had been learned!

One lesson that has been learned is that it is necessary to be
magnanimous in victory otherwise you store up problems for the future.

>
> I'm far from convinced that Hitler was mad certainly at the beginning
> of his Chancellorship. he may have moved that way towards the end but
> then he had every reason so to be. Initially he was given every
> assistance by the Briritsh and French to consolidate his hold on
> power.
>

Even with the benefit of hindsight it is difficult to see what we could
have done to halt Hitler's plans. Unfortunately the trite lesson that we
often hear, especially in relation to Iraq, is that we have to opt for a
pre-emptive strike before a dictator gets too powerful. That is simply
an excuse for bullying weaker nations everywhere.

In a serious economic crisis, if the nations of the world do not help
each other there is more likelihood of fascism taking a foothold.

[The Todal]

On 28/6/12 09:14, Kim Bolton wrote:

>
> The Todal wrote:
>
>> And those who think that WW2 was all about a mad
>> dictator who tried to take over the world but was eventually quelled by
>> the sane civilised nations, is obviously reading the Ladybird Book
>> version of events.
>

> Even the Ladybird Book of WWII could manage to say that a mad dictator
> tried to take over the world by military means, but he was defeated by
> a group of nations that sometimes did bad things so that the evil
> things carried out by the mad dictator could be ended speedily.
>

He wasn't mad, though. He figured out how to take power in his country,
then figured out how to subdue other lands. He didn't try to take over
the world, but he overstepped himself when he drew us into a war. We
then had to ensure that the balance of power was restored, and it was
never part of our plan to save the jews or the Poles from tyranny, only
to safeguard our own territories and our assets.

[JohnR]

> This is, of course, way beyond the scope of the Ladybird book you
> originally mentioned - which also included the phrase 'mad dictator'.
>
>
The same Ladybird Book series GWB was learning to read from, about Iraq.

[Steerpike]

The only real difference between IRA terrorists, and the UK forces
responsible for terrorist attacks against German civilians in WW2, is
the fact that numbers murdered by the IRA can be measured in 100s, and
those murdered by UK forces in 100s of 1000s!

As to the establishment view of events surrounding WW2, in reality
these are probably almost as ridiculous as claims made concerning the
current "war on terror", which ironically are mainly being made by the
worlds No1 terror state, the good old USA...............

Good example of this were the lies generated to support UK involvement
in terror attack against the people of Iraq, which seem to have
merited an very costly long drawn out inquiry, seemingly designed to
suggest black is white! This type of thing is deeply worrying, and can
only happen in a system where public opinion is largely dictated and
formed through the agency of corporate media/establishment propaganda.

Nearly every post on this thread has the flavour of regurgitated
corporate media nonsense, which is far removed from either truth or
reality.

[Steerpike]

Why has no one tried to do anything to temper the plans of the worlds
No1 terror state, in furthering its own economic and political ends,
through the agency of terror attacks in many different locations
around the world?

[JohnR]

It will only stop when national wealth of the US and others, being
transferred from the current population and those not yet born, has been
completely stolen by the central banking crooks via counterfeit
currency, fractional reserve theft and government debt collusion.

For most countries in the so called free world that scenario is just a
matter of a few short decades away.

[Steerpike]

Wealth, control, or power have never been in the hands of the
majority. The fact that in recent years horrendous crimes have been
committed in order to further the interests of various privileged
elite groups, is very similar to the situation around the time of WW2!
Only major difference being is that today the bogey man is "terrorism"
rather than Nazi Germany! This means that attacks can be carried out
pretty anywhere in the world, and its far easier to deceive consumers
of corp media propaganda, and suggest that these attacks are being
carried out on their behalf.

Worlds No1 terror state is carrying out drone attacks against
civilians in Pakistan, which is directly contrary to all international
law, and I would think in revenge for Pakistan sheltering Bin Laden
over several years. One wonders what the reaction would be if
Palestine carried out drone attacks on Israel, which like the US
commonly engages in terror attacks?

[The Todal]

And in today's news, Tony Blair has announced that he would really like
to be Prime Minister again. If that nightmare scenario were ever to
happen, he would probably declare war on Iran and maybe North Korea too.
He is, in fact, the modern day equivalent of Hitler, except that he
always makes sure that the school bully, the USA, is ready to step in
and help him when required.

[®i©ardo]

Not on our own we didn't! You can blame the collusion of the USA and the
USSR for that Britain had already been sidelined.

This has all been explained to you, but you're blinded by your own
bigotry, aren't you? Once again you're trying to rewrite history.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[®i©ardo]

Or the Commie bastards, don't forget them, now.

[Steerpike]

Tony Blair was serving the interests of those in control when he
decided the UK would join the worlds No1 terror state in attacks on
the people of Afghanistan and Iraqi. In reality is there any real
difference between the way the US/UK have behaved recently and the
actions of Nazi Germany in the 1930s? In common with the Nazi's the US/
UK hold no regard for international law, and seem comfortable with
doing what ever it takes to further the political and economic
interests of various elite groups.

As to a memorial for the killers responsible for the murder of hundred
of thousands of German civilians, why not have something along the
same lines for SS concentration camp guards, who behaved in pretty
much the same way, yet today are regarded as anything but "heros" who
deserve to be remembered?

[Cynic]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:58:36 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>Even with the benefit of hindsight it is difficult to see what we could
>have done to halt Hitler's plans. Unfortunately the trite lesson that we
>often hear, especially in relation to Iraq, is that we have to opt for a
>pre-emptive strike before a dictator gets too powerful.

Hitler was not a dictator by any definition of the word I am familiar
with.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:14:21 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
wrote:

>>And those who think that WW2 was all about a mad
>>dictator who tried to take over the world but was eventually quelled by
>>the sane civilised nations, is obviously reading the Ladybird Book
>>version of events.

>Even the Ladybird Book of WWII could manage to say that a mad dictator
>tried to take over the world by military means, but he was defeated by
>a group of nations that sometimes did bad things so that the evil
>things carried out by the mad dictator could be ended speedily.

If Hitler was a dictator, then so was Gordon Brown.

--
Cynic

[Steerpike]

In the world of those gullible enough to believe corporate media
propaganda, its just not cricket to take issue with any of the crap,
even though its very obviously untrue, and would only be regarded
seriously by the simple minded...................

[JohnR]

It's not the same by any stretch, I'm all for challenging conventional
wisdom but you can't compare the two and be taken seriously.

To answer your question, because the powers that be won the war and so
get to write and narrate the story, they make history the way they want
it told, although the information and internet age is making that
increasingly difficult for them.

[Steerpike]

Its exactly the same............those flying the bombers were
knowingly murdering defenceless civilians and so were the SS camp
guards!

[The Todal]

On 28/6/12 17:08, 展奄rdo wrote:
> On 28/06/2012 08:51, The Todal wrote:
>> On 27/6/12 23:11, Kim Bolton wrote:
>>>
>>> Mel Rowing wrote:
>>>
>>>> we ended up honouring our
>>>> obligations to Poland. That was the cause of the outbreak of WW2.
>>>> Nothing else!
>>>
>>> ITYM "...WW2 broke out, and we then honoured our obligations to
>>> Poland".
>>>
>>
>> Except that we didn't honour our obligations to Poland because at the
>> end of the war we delivered Poland as a captive nation to the Soviet
>> Union.
>
> Not on our own we didn't! You can blame the collusion of the USA and the
> USSR for that Britain had already been sidelined.

You did nothing at all.

Stop whingeing. The fault lay with all the allies for capitulating to
Stalin's demands at Yalta and accepting his false assurances about
Poland's independence. So we appeased him in exactly the same way that
we appeased Hitler before the war. Complaining that it was all someone
else's fault isn't good enough.

>
> This has all been explained to you, but you're blinded by your own
> bigotry, aren't you? Once again you're trying to rewrite history.
>

No, I seem to be chatting with a moron on the internet who knows no
history but feels the need to cheer England from the sidelines and paint
his face with the union jack.

[Steerpike]

On Jun 29, 9:12 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:

Maybe he is football fan, and reads the Sun?

[Jethro_uk]

I was trying to picture the scene at Labour Party HQ, when that hit the
press ... I had this vision of everyone flapping and running around like
headless chickens.

I hope the country wouldn't be stupid enough to give him a second chance.
Who does he think he is, Putin ?

[JohnR]

To do what he's done, commit those crimes and be rewarded in the way he
has, there's little wonder he's become a hopeless megalomaniac.

[®i©ardo]

On 29/06/2012 09:12, The Todal wrote:
> On 28/6/12 17:08, 展奄rdo wrote:
>> On 28/06/2012 08:51, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 27/6/12 23:11, Kim Bolton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mel Rowing wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> we ended up honouring our
>>>>> obligations to Poland. That was the cause of the outbreak of WW2.
>>>>> Nothing else!
>>>>
>>>> ITYM "...WW2 broke out, and we then honoured our obligations to
>>>> Poland".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that we didn't honour our obligations to Poland because at the
>>> end of the war we delivered Poland as a captive nation to the Soviet
>>> Union.
>>
>> Not on our own we didn't! You can blame the collusion of the USA and the
>> USSR for that Britain had already been sidelined.
>
> You did nothing at all.
>

And you did even less!
> Stop whingeing.

I'm not, I'm merely trying to fill in the gaps of your knowledge of history.

The fault lay with all the allies for capitulating to
> Stalin's demands at Yalta and accepting his false assurances about
> Poland's independence.

Precisely! And Britain had been sidelined by both the USA and the USSR.
The suggestion that Britain should have taken on the USSR single handed
is worse than naive - it would have been the ultimate act of
irresponsibility.

So we appeased him in exactly the same way that
> we appeased Hitler before the war. Complaining that it was all someone
> else's fault isn't good enough.
>

See above...

>>
>> This has all been explained to you, but you're blinded by your own
>> bigotry, aren't you? Once again you're trying to rewrite history.
>>
>
> No, I seem to be chatting with a moron on the internet who knows no
> history but feels the need to cheer England from the sidelines and paint
> his face with the union jack.

Why suddenly introduce "England" when my references have been to Britain
- is it because you are out of your depth and childish insults are
required to kick-start your loss of self esteem? After all, if your
responses sum up your attitude when it comes to history, you're an even
sadder little chap than many of your puerile posts would suggest.

Keep it up - if you can!

[®i©ardo]

On 29/06/2012 09:28, Steerpike wrote:
> On Jun 29, 9:12 am, The Todal<deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:

Hello, who pulled your chain? Bloody Daily Mirror "readers".

[®i©ardo]

And you did what to stop them? Also, what did you do to stop the more
modern - and less justified - equivalent of the invasion of Iraq?

[The Todal]

Oh for goodness sake, nobody is suggesting that Britain should have
declared war on the Soviet Union. Nobody had "sidelined" the UK, and we
could have agreed with the other allies that a stand needed to be taken,
and let the USA do the sabre-rattling.

>
> So we appeased him in exactly the same way that
>> we appeased Hitler before the war. Complaining that it was all someone
>> else's fault isn't good enough.
>>
>
> See above...
>
>>>
>>> This has all been explained to you, but you're blinded by your own
>>> bigotry, aren't you? Once again you're trying to rewrite history.
>>>
>>
>> No, I seem to be chatting with a moron on the internet who knows no
>> history but feels the need to cheer England from the sidelines and paint
>> his face with the union jack.
>
> Why suddenly introduce "England" when my references have been to Britain
> - is it because you are out of your depth and childish insults are
> required to kick-start your loss of self esteem? After all, if your
> responses sum up your attitude when it comes to history, you're an even
> sadder little chap than many of your puerile posts would suggest.
>
> Keep it up - if you can!

You sound like a lager-lout at a Millwall match. And not a historian.
Sorry if you were hoping to use this as part of your job application for
Professor of History.

[Steerpike]

Unless you are a member of one of the privileged elite groups who
engineer the creation of wars in the first place, there is little or
nothing that can be done to prevent a war.

[Steerpike]

On Jun 29, 10:46 am, ®i©ardo <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/2012 09:28, Steerpike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 9:12 am, The Todal<deadmail...@beeb.net>  wrote:

Interestingly enough the Mirror was the only corp media paper that
opposed attacking the people of Iraqi throughout! Bearing in mind the
loss of life that has ensued, and the squandering of many billions of
UK taxpayers money, maybe the Mirror should be applauded?

[®i©ardo]

Maybe they should. They are, however, a mere shadow of what they were
sixty years ago when it was my parents' choice of newspaper -
"The Daily Mirror - The Biggest Daily Sale On Earth"! At present have a
"nil" influence on anything.

[®i©ardo]

You obviously know far better than I do what that sounds like then. The
nearest I've been to Millwall is sitting in a train going non-stop
through New Cross station.

Good heavens, that must be where you picked up your education - at "The
Den" wiv all yer mates an' a pint o' larger in yer 'and. Good heavens,
is that where you pick up your education - at "The Den" wiv all yer
mates? Well, I really must bow to your experience there, your "Britishness"!

And not a historian.
> Sorry if you were hoping to use this as part of your job application for
> Professor of History.

[®i©ardo]

That was the point that I was moving on to. The majority of those who
have served in wars since the beginning of time had no wish to be there,
nor to inflict death and destruction upon their fellow men. However,
with such things as conscription there was very little they could do
about it!

[The Main Man]

In article <b7aa2bad-0006-4646-8986-dacc61d1e0a1
@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, gloomy....@gmail.com says...

So you'd have been cheering on these chaps, eh, given that this took
place 3 years before the Drsden attack:

http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/two_nights_of_bombing_70
_years_ago_1_1425080

Presumably you think that turning the other cheek would solve the
problem?

--
That's it chums!

[harry]

On Jun 27, 3:23 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:19 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > On 27/6/12 13:19, Mel Rowing wrote:
> > > Why does this sanctimonious regurgitation of an episode gradually
> > > sinking into history have to be resurrected out of context at every
> > > opportunity.
>
> > Like the Holocaust. In fact, very like the Holocaust. The stronger
> > inflicting death and injury on the powerless.
>
> But whatever the whys and wherefores,  its out of context! We were not
> discussing Iraq! it has no place here.
>
> By bringing it into the argument you simply elevate it to a level of
> importance that is unjustifiable. set alongside WW2 Iraq has no order
> of significance wahtsoever so what is the pupose of pretending
> otherwise?
>
> > > It's over!
>
> > Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> Don't be silly I had no involvement whatsoever in the incident so what
> have I got to repeat?
>
> In any case, I'm not so narrowly focussed as to believe Bush and Blair
> (along with less conspicuous others) got it that wrong.
>
> You have no monoply on morality you know!

And you seem tohave none whatsoever.

[®i©ardo]

On 29/06/2012 11:58, The Todal wrote:

> On 29/6/12 10:45, ®i©ardo wrote:
>> On 29/06/2012 09:12, The Todal wrote:

What other allies? The fate of Poland was decided at the Tehran
Conference in 1943:

"One of Roosevelt and Churchill's main concessions concerned post-war
Poland. Stalin wished for an area in the Eastern part of Poland to be
added to the USSR, and for the border to be lengthened elsewhere in the
country. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to this demand, and Poland’s
borders were declared to lie along the Oder and Neisse rivers and the
Curzon line, despite protests of the Polish government-in-exile in
London. Churchill and Roosevelt also consented to the USSR setting up
puppet communist governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic
states, Romania, and other Eastern European countries which would result
in a loss of freedom by these countries for the next fifty years and
would be the genesis of the Cold War.[citation needed] After the
conference it was agreed that military leaders of the three countries
would meet together often, for further discussion."

Whatever Britain decided, it was not in a position to go anywhere
without the USA.

>>
>> So we appeased him in exactly the same way that
>>> we appeased Hitler before the war. Complaining that it was all someone
>>> else's fault isn't good enough.
>>>
>>
>> See above...
>>
>>>>
>>>> This has all been explained to you, but you're blinded by your own
>>>> bigotry, aren't you? Once again you're trying to rewrite history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I seem to be chatting with a moron on the internet who knows no
>>> history but feels the need to cheer England from the sidelines and paint
>>> his face with the union jack.
>>
>> Why suddenly introduce "England" when my references have been to Britain
>> - is it because you are out of your depth and childish insults are
>> required to kick-start your loss of self esteem? After all, if your
>> responses sum up your attitude when it comes to history, you're an even
>> sadder little chap than many of your puerile posts would suggest.
>>
>> Keep it up - if you can!
>
> You sound like a lager-lout at a Millwall match. And not a historian.

Thank you for the insight that drives your "arguments". I'm sure that
your learned discussions on the terraces at The Den have always stood
you in good stead, given the intellectual level of your mentors there:
"Nuvver pint o' larger John, wiv plenny of bubbles mate" or "Oi ref,
where's yer f*ckin' guide dog?". Still. I suppose it reinforces your
"Britishness", allowing you to mock those who don't subscribe to your
doubtful values.

The closest I have been to Millwall's ground is passing through New
Cross station in what was a non-stop train - luckily, given the
rampaging crowds of dick-heads who were intent on wrecking the place at
the time.

> Sorry if you were hoping to use this as part of your job application for
> Professor of History.

Sorry about your failed attempt to grab the high moral and intellectual
ground, but history is what has happened, not what necessarily SHOULD
have happened or even what YOU "think" should, or you would have LIKED
to have happened.

As the saying goes: "hindsight is tuppence a bucketful".

[Steerpike]

Indeed................the fact that consumers of corp media trash
still seem to favour the outpourings of the Murdoch empire is maybe
something that should tell as something?

[Steerpike]

Maybe if people choose to act as individuals with a conscience and
morally responsible for the well being of their fellow men, rather
than being held within the thrall of establishment propaganda, wars
fought for the benefit of the rich and powerful would be no more?

[Steerpike]

In actual fact "history" is a very long way from events that might
actually have occurred in the past. It is a version of events written
from the perspective of the winning side, which in many cases is
likely to almost unrecognisable to anyone actually involved. A good
example of this is members of UK bomber command now being feted as
"hero's" , even though a reality check seems to suggest they are cold
blooded murderers.

[Big Les Wade]

®i©ardo <he...@nowhere.com> posted

>
>That was the point that I was moving on to. The majority of those who
>have served in wars since the beginning of time had no wish to be
>there, nor to inflict death and destruction upon their fellow men.
>However, with such things as conscription there was very little they
>could do about it!

That's largely true, but it doesn't imply that we have to call them
heroes and commemorate the evil they did.

--
Les

[The Todal]

The word "hero" is usually inappropriate. Someone who enters a blazing
building to rescue a child might be described as a hero. Someone who, as
a soldier, charges into enemy trenches in obedience to an order doesn't
qualify as a hero in my opinion. Soldiers are carefully trained to obey
orders and to suppress their fear and their scruples about killing
people. They may be brave, sometimes, but I wouldn't call them heroes.

I recommend a really good DVD on this topic. "The Ground Truth" directed
by Patricia Foulkrod. It consists mainly of interviews with US soldiers
and marines, those who went to fight in Iraq, describing how they were
trained to become killers, many of them having been enlisted with the
promise that they would get their college fees paid and wouldn't be
required to go abroad, how they ended up killing innocent civilians and
were traumatised by that experience (as well as by seeing their comrades
killed in horrible ways) and how they returned with physical and mental
injuries and were abandoned by their government which refused to accept
that post traumatic stress could be caused by warfare. To one soldier
who described seeing the mutilated bodies of children, the American
doctor said "I can't help you. I can't help conscientious objectors".

And someone who flies in a plane over enemy terrain, being shot at by
anti-aircraft guns and by enemy fighters, might not exactly be a hero
but I think he deserves the admiration of a grateful nation.

[Steerpike]

On Jul 3, 3:18 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 3/7/12 15:01, Big Les Wade wrote:
>

> > ®i©ardo <h...@nowhere.com> posted

Why exactly the UK as a nation should be greatful for those carrying
out murderous attacks on defenceless civilians, is something that
escapes me for some reason?

As to "Heros" all recent wars the UK has become involved with, are
related to the advancement of US political and economic interests, and
have had nothing whatsoever to do with the security of this country,
so in terms of international law would rightly be seen as being
illegal. Therefore those taking part should properly be regarded as
criminals, notwithstanding the oft provided excuse that they are
merely carrying out orders!

[®i©ardo]

No, they were conscripted men who had no choice but to obey their orders.

[®i©ardo]

On 04/07/2012 08:16, Steerpike wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:18 pm, The Todal<deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 3/7/12 15:01, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>

>>> ŽiŠardo<h...@nowhere.com> posted

So you, who helps elect those that make the decisions as to whether the
country goes to war, are equally to blame, surely? Even worse if you
just stood back and did nothing.

[Steerpike]

On Jul 4, 8:35 am, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:

> Steerpike wrote:
> >Why exactly the UK as a nation should be greatful for those carrying
> >out murderous attacks on defenceless civilians, is something that
> >escapes me for some reason?
>

> I guess the light under your bridge is too dim to let you read the
> relevant history.
>
> --
> from
> Kim Bolton

Like it or not murdering 100,000 German civilians, made little
difference to the final outcome of the war, but did say very clearly
that the British had a similar level of respect for rules of war, as
that of the Nazi's................

[Steerpike]

" I was only following orders" is a defence that was in many cases
offered by Nazi's involved with the death camps. Why should British
murderers be regarded differently to the Nazi killers I wonder?

[Steerpike]

On Jul 4, 9:24 am, ®i©ardo <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 04/07/2012 08:16, Steerpike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 3:18 pm, The Todal<deadmail...@beeb.net>  wrote:
> >> On 3/7/12 15:01, Big Les Wade wrote:
>

> >>> ®i©ardo<h...@nowhere.com>  posted

Anyone who suggests that participatory democracy is in operation
anywhere in the world, may well have overdosed on ridiculous corporate
media propaganda, to the extent they actually believe the
stuff........................

[Cynic]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
<gloomy....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anyone who suggests that participatory democracy is in operation
>anywhere in the world, may well have overdosed on ridiculous corporate
>media propaganda, to the extent they actually believe the
>stuff........................

Well *I* say that there are places wher it is practised. Independent
tribal villages, where the population is measured in hundreds, for
example.

--
Cynic

[JohnR]

I agree the justifications are extremely flimsy and distasteful but the
intent, perhaps, was not necessarily the same as the effect. What I mean
by that is the destruction of German infrastructure was the intent.

Don't forget this wasn't some modern day display of petulance by a
western leader, who's decided he wants to slaughter a defenceless third
world shit hole and reduce it to rubble because it's leader won't bend
over and do as he's told he must by the omnipotent US.

This was a total war for survival, it's as sure as eggs is eggs that the
fate awaiting the entire planet had the Nazis won, was already in place
and being put into practice. That's one charge you cannot level against
the allies, whatever your opinion of their tactics in the war, because
we know what would have happened if the allies had won.

[JohnR]

On 04/07/2012 18:08, Steerpike wrote:
>
>
> Anyone who suggests that participatory democracy is in operation
> anywhere in the world, may well have overdosed on ridiculous corporate
> media propaganda, to the extent they actually believe the
> stuff........................
>

I agree. The quinquennial punch and judy show is just a smoke screen to
confuse, distract and preoccupy, to get the general population at odds
with each other while the unelected and largely invisible establishment
get about their business of controlling and plundering unhindered.

[Steerpike]

On Jul 4, 6:14 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
>

> <gloomy.gobli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Anyone who suggests that participatory democracy is in operation
> >anywhere in the world, may well have overdosed on ridiculous corporate
> >media propaganda, to the extent they actually believe the
> >stuff........................
>
> Well *I* say that there are places wher it is practised.  Independent
> tribal villages, where the population is measured in hundreds, for
> example.
>
> --
> Cynic

Yes you may well be right, but it certainly plays no part in the
political systems which are jokingly termed to be
"democratic"................

[Steerpike]

I dont think you really have that much grasp of the reasoning behind
carpet bombing civilian targets? The main purpose of this was to
propagate terror, and break the spirit of the German people, which the
bombing seemed to do pretty effectively.

No war has anything much to do with survival, its simply a matter of
deciding which elite group holds the controlling interest in any
particular region. To this end the majority always suffer, and seem
extraordinarily willing to give their lives, for little more than an
unfaltering believe in propaganda, which in most cases is very crude
and easily disproved.

[Cynic]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
<gloomy....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> <gloomy.gobli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Anyone who suggests that participatory democracy is in operation
>> >anywhere in the world, may well have overdosed on ridiculous corporate
>> >media propaganda, to the extent they actually believe the
>> >stuff........................
>>

>> Well *I* say that there are places wher it is practised. =A0Independent

>> tribal villages, where the population is measured in hundreds, for
>> example.

>Yes you may well be right, but it certainly plays no part in the
>political systems which are jokingly termed to be
>"democratic"................

I agree. The irony is that the places where it *is* practised are
usually governed by what is ostensibly an hereditory tribal chief, and
so regarded by the West as being an *undemocratic* system.

--
Cynic

[Steerpike]

Seems a real shame that few people seem to understand these things.
Furthermore they seem unable to grasp how deeply condescending
ridiculous public inquiry's, designed to obfuscate issues from phone
hacking to war crimes are in real terms, or how the conduct of these
pantomimes indicates clearly how deeply dishonest and corrupt the
establishment really is.

[JohnR]

then you're into the realm of deciding whether the end justifies the
means, would it have been better if we had lost the war for instance?

[Steerpike]

On Jul 4, 6:45 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
>

Real democracy is where the interests of the many, are seen to be of
more importance than those of very small privileged elite groups, who
at this moment in time are steering this planet towards catastrophe!

[Ophelia]

"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BI%Ir.460080$pN4.1...@fx16.am4...

Very good question!

--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Steerpike]

On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
> Steerpike wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 8:35 am, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
> >> Steerpike wrote:
> >> >Why exactly the UK as a nation should be greatful for those carrying
> >> >out murderous attacks on defenceless civilians, is something that
> >> >escapes me for some reason?
>
> >> I guess the light under your bridge is too dim to let you read the
> >> relevant history.

> >Like it or not murdering 100,000 German civilians, made little
> >difference to the final outcome of the war, but did say very clearly
> >that the British had a similar level of respect for rules of war, as
> >that of the Nazi's................
>

> This was dealt with extensively on the Bomber Command thread, and your
> viewpoint was shown to be wrong.
>
> --
> from
> Kim Bolton

Unfortunately avid consumers of corp media clap trap, are not able to
change or alter the fact that the murders of 100,000 German civilians
didnt alter the final outcome of WW2 one iota! The UK bombing directed
against German civilian targets over many months, was according to US
definitions of the word a terrorist action pure and simple, and trying
to deny this is a bit like Chilcot trying to deny the fact bliar is a
war criminal.....................

[Steerpike]

On Jul 4, 7:31 pm, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
> "JohnR" <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

For anyone who wasnt a member of one of the minority interest groups
who stood to make enormous financial gains through WW2, then losing
the war to Germany would almost certainly have been a very good thing.
This would have meant a united europe, and no question of the US being
the No1 world power, and having complete autonomy to advance its own
interests around the world through terrorist actions against anyone
who got in the way.

[®i©ardo]

...and yet the US did EXACTLY THE SAME in Europe and far far worse in
Japan. They have no moral right to judge anyone.

, and trying
> to deny this is a bit like Chilcot trying to deny the fact bliar is a
> war criminal.....................

[Cynic]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
<gloomy....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Real democracy is where the interests of the many, are seen to be of
>more importance than those of very small privileged elite groups, who
>at this moment in time are steering this planet towards catastrophe!

The trick is to try to arrange a system whereby the interests of the
many *become* the interests of those in power. It is very much in the
intersts of a tribal chief to keep the tribe happy. If he were to act
in ways that put his own selfish interests too far above that of the
villagers, he would probably suffer some sort of "accident" before too
long. The entire population is simply too small to allow him to set
up a buffer between himself and his people.

In a larger population however, the leaders can isolate themselves
from the bulk of the population so that the common person has no
access to the leader, either physical or otherwise. It can even
develop into a situation where the isolation is both ways - the
leaders themselves are told only what they want to hear, and have no
idea whatsoever of how unpopular their policies have become or that
the population is undergoing very real hardships.

The most productive group of people are those who are comfortable and
reasonably content with the status quo, but not particularly well-off,
and who are able to improve their standards by means of greater
productivity. It is in the self-interest of the owner of a business
therefore to try to arrange that his employees are in that situation,
and so arguably a business is an example of an ideal form of
government - a benevolent dictatorship. All sorts of factors may
however upset the ideal position, so it does not follow that that is
indeed the way any particular company is run (though it is true enough
of the majority of companies).

Note that the general population must not be *too* well off in order
to maintain productivity. A population that is too well off becomes
"degenerate" and productivity falls. Imagine the situation if the
owner of a company that employed 100 people decided to give them all a
share of a bumper profit, and they each received £5 million. It is
unlikely that he would have sufficient employees to keep the business
running a week later. Whilst that is an extreme example, I have see
businesses fail because the owner was *too* generous during the good
years, and the productivity of the employees fell way below what was
necessary to keep the company afloat when hard times hit. It didn't
end up doing the employees any favours either, because their inflated
income had ensured that they had become accustomed to a lifestyle that
they had absolutely no chance of sustaining on a more realistic income
after they were forced to find a new job. That sudden and dramatic
drop in living standards led to several divorces and tragically one
suicide.

--
Cynic

[Steerpike]

On Jul 5, 12:19 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
>

Certainly............in effect wage slavery and something that allows
privileged elite groups to do pretty much exactly as they please!

Good examples of that here in the UK is how taxpayers money is
squandered on things like corrupt bankers, jubilee, Olympics, and
these scandals result in mindless acceptance, rather than organised
direct action which would certainly make things more difficult for
those wanting to waste taxpayers money in those ways.

[Steerpike]

On Jul 5, 2:57 pm, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
> Steerpike wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 10:50 pm, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
> >> Steerpike wrote:
> >> >Like it or not murdering 100,000 German civilians, made little
> >> >difference to the final outcome of the war, but did say very clearly
> >> >that the British had a similar level of respect for rules of war, as
> >> >that of the Nazi's................
>
> >> This was dealt with extensively on the Bomber Command thread, and your
> >> viewpoint was shown to be wrong.

> >Unfortunately avid consumers of corp media clap trap, are not able to
> >change or alter the fact that the murders of 100,000 German civilians
> >didnt alter the final outcome of WW2 one iota! The UK bombing directed
> >against German civilian targets over many months, was according to US
> >definitions of the word a terrorist action pure and simple, and trying
> >to deny this is a bit like Chilcot trying to deny the fact bliar is a
> >war criminal.....................
>
> This was dealt with extensively on the Bomber Command thread, and your
> viewpoint was shown to be wrong.
>
> --
> from
> Kim Bolton

Just to remind me how does a clueless moron with little or no
knowledge of the true facts, posting clap trap on an obscure NG,
mitigate the murders of 100,000 people?

[Jim]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:16:54 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
<gloomy....@gmail.com> wrote:

>As to "Heros" all recent wars the UK has become involved with, are
>related to the advancement of US political and economic interests, and
>have had nothing whatsoever to do with the security of this country,
>so in terms of international law would rightly be seen as being
>illegal.

Well said !

Therefore those taking part should properly be regarded as
>criminals, notwithstanding the oft provided excuse that they are
>merely carrying out orders!

That was the excuse the Germans used. They didn't get away
with it, why should the likes of Blair and Bush ?

[ken]

More to the point why should the killers who carried out Blair/Bush dirty work for them?

[Jim]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 00:29:43 -0700 (PDT), ken <gloomy....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Therefore those taking part should properly be regarded as
>> >criminals, notwithstanding the oft provided excuse that they are
>> >merely carrying out orders!
>>
>>
>>
>> That was the excuse the Germans used. They didn't get away
>>
>> with it, why should the likes of Blair and Bush ?
>
>More to the point why should the killers who carried out Blair/Bush
>dirty work for them?

Far too many to prosecute - get the politicians and generals.