Very sorry to hear it

Never has been, since they discovered the oil!

Greg.P.

I'm sure we agree on most things.

"Greg Procter" wrote

Now I guess it just relies on Australia for its defence? ;-)

John.

Dresden? Hiroshima?

At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:19:18 GMT, message was posted by "Lost Control" , including some, all or none of the following:

Is this a Godwin post? I hope so. If not a Godwin post it displays a fine ignorance of history. The Hiroshima bomb might be argued to have been militarily justifiable, but the Nagasaki bomb was undoubtedly an atrocity, dropped mainly out of technical curiosity. Gassing the Kurds? Churchill got there first. And the British invented the concentration camp as well.

The old saw that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has always been true.

Guy

A rather predictably boring post, its amazing how many trolls trot out on a UK newsgroup when such attrocities occur in the UK to tell the UK they had it coming - I rather suspect these trolls live in rather safe parts of the world which has never achieved anything and never likely to. i would suggest such trolls go and find a more suitable group to spout their cr*p, alt.politics perhaps?

Yes Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all believed to be necessary at the time in order to defeat a dangerous evil - hindsight however is a wonderful thing however I'm not sure with hindsight anything would have been different. Those who have replied to my original post siting previous British attrocities appear to have forgotten that the world has moved on by several many decades since these attrocities were commited, there isn't a Western nation who has a dark murky past many would rather didn't happen however nothing is justification for targeting innocent civilians.

"Lost Control" <

RAF night-time "area bombing" directed solely at civilians?

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:16:54 GMT, message was posted by "Lost Control" , including some, all or none of the following:

You seem to be using the word troll in the sense of "person who disagrees" and suggesting that off-topic posting is only appropriate when you do it. I am sure this is not your real position, but that's how it looks.

It was you who brought up British history, claiming that we have not deliberately targeted civilians. As stated, you display an ignorance of history. We have committed more and bloodier atrocities in the name of Queen and country than you apparently realise.

You know the Hogwarts motto? Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus? Shrub has been aggressively poking dragons which were only pretending to be asleep in the first place. Shrub has an excuse: he is venal and stupid. Blair is not stupid and claims not to be venal.

Overall, I think this country would be safer if we did not help the US with their oil-driven foreign policy; I may be wrong in this.

Guy

Greg,

I and other UK citizens on this UK newsgroup are getting rather annoyed at your comments made regarding who is really at fault over the London bombing, I cannot be bothered to go through every single point you made and pick holes in your argument, however let me assure you that your argument is most unwelcome and inappropriate on this group, we are after all here to discuss model railways not discuss the finer points of middle east policy and the role British history has played in upsetting various corners of this globe we all share.

However, there is never and never will be any justification for targeting innocent civilians, especially at soft targets such as tube trains or packed buses. No twisting history or using current events to justify such horrific attacks. Events of 50+ years ago commited by politians or military leaders in the name of Britain were horrific, whether they were necessary at the time is a matter of conjecture however hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do I have anything to appologise for? No, in the same way I would not expect my generation of Germans to appologise for attrocities commited by their elders

As for whether Iraq was the justification for the attacks? I rather suspect the attacks would have happened anyway and severely doubt they were commited by Iraqis in revenge over the so called "occupation" of their country. Most attackers is the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia - a country that has benefitted enormously from its alliance with the West - both in terms of trade and military protection from aggressive neighbours. Most "Al Qaeda" attacks are motivated by theology based on a twisted interpretation of Islam, current political events are merely used to window dress their justifications.

Now I would politely suggest that the minority avoid making insensitive "I told you so" comments on a UK based newsgroup after the UK has suffered an attrocity - I suggest they continue this thread elsewhere, somewhere more suitable such as alt.politics.

We are fortunate to live in a country where we are allowed to disagree with each other, unlike of course some of the countries that have bred the hatred towards our nation that will probably be used as the justification for the attacks. You obviously feel it is necessary to reply to my off topic post just as I feel it is necessary to reply to yours.

Without wishing to go into great detail of British history I do recognise that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden are not the only civilian attacks that Britain has played a part in however I would not expect a German of my generation appologise for the attrocity commited in the name of his/her nation in Coventry, just the same as I would not expect to be asked to appologise for the attrocity of Dresden. Same argument goes for Nagasaki/Hiroshima and the Japanese attrocities towards Allied PoW's - many women and children. I do not feel it necessary to go and bomb German or Japanese cities in revenge for attrocities commited by their nations towards mine in past decades.

The use of history to justify such horrors is quite frankly stupid.

The dragon made the first move by flying planes into civilian and military targets in the U.S. You cannot expect to punch a grissly bear between the eyes and not think it won't retaliate. It is also rather stupid to bite the hand that fed it. Whether the US should have ever fed the dragon in the first place is something a debate that will no doubt rumble on for longer than I care so don't wish to go there...

There will always be angry young men or women who are manipulated by elders who wish to use history or twisted religion to justify current day attrocities. Britain's influence in the world will always mean we are a target. If you don't like it then move somewhere safe like New Zealand.

We still defend Australia, the US and Britain, as well as having forces in 13 different peace-keeping roles under UN auspices. This stupid story about NZ not having any military comes about because we didn't buy a squadron of F15s that the US had mothballed after they got titchy with Pakistan. Just think about an Island nation surrounded by thousands of kilometers of sea in every direction having almost it's entire defense budget tied up in single engined supersonic fighter aircraft! They would be insufficient in numbers to defend our country and the only practical opposition would be an aircraft carrier, at which point they would be totally outnumbered. We're better off with three frigates, patrol aircraft and a usefully sized army.

Regards, Greg.P.

In message , Lost Control writes

I'm a UK citizen and I don't object to Gregs comments. We are in a democracy and everyone is allowed to say what they want, unless Tony and his mafia have used last week as an excuse to repeal that.

You only have to look at the accuracy of bombing available during WWII to realize why cities were targetted - they were counted in percentages of bombs dropped within 5-10-20 mile radiuses of the intended target centers and the actual percentages were low.

Of course, but my comments are intended to be positive.

Certainly, but I _responded_, I did not start the discussion.

I fully agree.

Check out your actions in, for example, Basra, where you bombarded an entire city for several weeks from a safe distance.

I agree.

You are right now funding horrific actions in Iraq and grumbling about retaliation for the London attrocity.

You really should look more closely at Saudi Arabia - a limited percentage of the population is fabulously wealthy but a very high proportion of the population is unemployed and poor. You support a feudal monarchy there that gives the majority no say in their country and very few opportunities in life. The rulers would rather employ foreigners than train their own population to do any more than menial work. You look at the map, neatly divided into separate countries, and then wonder why "Saudis" would support "Iraqis" or "Iranians". Those map divisions are wonderful for dividing up the region into appreciable oppressable segments, but the divisions aren't those of the population.

Don't make the stupid assumption that I support al Qaeda, I'm against all terrorism, both by political organisations and powerful nations.

"Greg Procter" wrote

Let's be clear though that both allied and axis powers in WWII resorted to carpet bombing of cities. I've no idea which did it first.

John.

I fail to find where I made that stupid assumption - I have made no such assumption therefore to suggest otherwise would be stupid of you.

In what category does the terrorists otherwise loosly called Al-qaeda fall into? Its not a politcal organisation nor is it a powerful nation and it pretends to represent neither - should we wish a peaceful settlement to this "war" then who do we negotiate with?

The collective "we" is of course the British government. "I" am of course personally responsible for anarchy and death in Iraq.

Al-qaeda is more a collection of terrorist cells who follow a broadly similar theology they are not connected by a defined organisational, communications or supply structure although no doubt do communicate with contacts in other cells from time to time to share knowledge and draw strength from each others successes. Their goals of ending Christian occupation of Muslim countries and the destruction of the Israeli state are neither practical nor likely in our lifetime. The extreem Islam that they practice does not follow the mainstream Islam followed by the vast majority of Muslims throughout the globe and is most unwelcome by mainstream Muslim leaders. If we wish to end this war of terror by peaceful means then how do we negotiate with a collection of terrorists with no defined structure?

You have assumed that the London bombings are in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and you continue to quote Britain's role in the liberation of Basra, a mainly Shite city who largely welcomed the overthrow of Saddam as they had suffered greatly under his reign, as the likely justification for the bombings. There has yet to be any official identification of who was responsible for the London attack, to speculate otherwise is probably not helpful in your arguments. It is suggested by people with far greater knowledge of these things than you or I that those responsible were probably British by nationality. Terrorism in Iraq has been committed by largely non-Iraqi's. If Iraq was the powder keg for the London bombings then what was the powder keg for the Bali bombings? Iraq is just a convenient excuse for those who wish to justify their own political viewpoint, i.e. that despicable excuse for an MP - Galloway is one.

No, I requested that you don't make such an assumption. It's something I frequently get accused of by people less intelligent than yourself.

"Terrorist".

I thought it was!

I imagine the view of al Qaeda leaders is that if they make themselves known, as in being available for negotiations, they will become targets. That would be something of a disincentive. OTOH, who should al Qaeda negotiate with to get you to stop interfering in their region? What are their chances of a successful outcome? (nil?)

Britain is a democracy - your representatives are pursuing this course of interference in the ME - you pay taxes to fund the war.

Sure, that's all assumption but I'll go along with it for now.

That sounds reasonable.

Ending foreign occupation of Muslim countries could be achieved in a matter of weeks, all it needs is for you to pack your bags and go.

Sure.

The terrorists are there as a reaction to your occupation of their lands. Certainly the terrorism needs to end, but the situation is the proverbial can of worms - you've opened the can and you're continually trying to get them all back in, you can't succeed.

I mentioned Basra as an example of the British actions likely to create terrorism, not as _the_ specific cause.

The attack has been claimed by people claiming to be associated with al Qaeda . Your government has an agenda of it's own and may well lay the blame where it does them the most good. As I commented elsewhere (with tongue firmly in cheek) "just how many enemies who want to kill you do you have?"

ok.

Exactly where do you get that "fact" from?

Australia's involvement in Iraq. That's now fairly well accepted.

Why would you think you can illegally invade a sovereign nation, occupy and repress it's population, steal their oil and _not_ upset it's population?

Regards, Greg.P.

Well, there was a brief period in the 1990s...

When I read u on it a while ago I didn't find much evidence of it being an integrated part of something equivalent to modern Iraq. It seems to depend on what the definition of "part of" is, and hoping to find a modern, well-defined western European style nation state in middle eastern history is probably futile.

There is a discussion here:

No trains in Kuwait (probably?)

This is frequently claimed, yet AFAICT no-one seems to have found any evidence, other than a memo where he suggested discomfort and illness from gas would be better than using explosives to kill people outright. I'd be genuinely interested to see any evidence that gassing was carried out on Churchill's orders in that area.

Anyone built any models of Mesopotamian railways? :-)