This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops
is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts, not
to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Here's an interesting interview in which the ex- PM of Israel is very >indignant at the suggestion that we should care about civilians in Gaza >hospitals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLx9XN8sLc
If you want to cut to the chase, look at 4 minutes onwards.
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently, sent a boat with supporting troopsThe Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts, not
to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
--
Colin Bignell
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:07:36 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts, not
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected. >>>
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops
to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might beWhat war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an armed
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
conflict are not automatically war crimes.
--
Colin Bignell
Any troops on board are likely to be either marines to repel boarding attempts and / or SAS to rescue any British hostages held by Hamas.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act of genocide and a war crime.
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
Not even close to being rejected, as far as I'm concerned.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
It doesn't seem possible that any prosecution could ever take place,
other than a prosecution of Hamas terrorists and/or Hamas politicians.
I think we should put to one side the whataboutery of how the barbaric >actions of Hamas somehow excuse all and any actions committed by Israel
and its armed forces.
Gaza has a huge civilian population. The citizens have no army or planes
and are wholly defenceless, but among them there will be a tiny
proportion of terrorists/insurgents/enemy combatants.
Israel's spokesmen say that if there is a "human shield" standing
between an Israeli soldier and a terrorist, you are entitled to shoot
the human shield, no question.
They also say that they are entitled to bomb and burn any dwelling where >Hamas are believed to be hiding out, regardless of how many civilian
lives will be destroyed. And that it is legitimate to commence a sort of >mediaeval siege of Gaza, starving the population of food, water,
electricity and medicine, because a collective punishment is justified.
Back in the day, it was the Nazis and the Japanese who were most likely
to punish entire communities with executions, if there were believed to
be enemy soldiers or members of the Resistance hidden within the
communities.
Here's an interesting interview in which the ex- PM of Israel is very >indignant at the suggestion that we should care about civilians in Gaza >hospitals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLx9XN8sLc
If you want to cut to the chase, look at 4 minutes onwards.
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected. >>>
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an armed
conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill the
terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is no answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in
Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in
short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour
in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill the
terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is no
answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
On 13/10/2023 03:21 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in
Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in
short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an armed
conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour
in public - which obviously encourages it.
Has ANY politician in the UK condemned it (other than Gorgeous George, obviously)?
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat
operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill the
terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is no answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11. There,
1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of the ongoing
'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of Iraqis dying,
even though they were not involved.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
For comparison, if the government of the Isle of Man slaughtered the
entire population of a small British city like Salisbury, how much
restraint would you urge the British government to show?
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 15:11:29 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
Not even close to being rejected, as far as I'm concerned.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
It doesn't seem possible that any prosecution could ever take place,
other than a prosecution of Hamas terrorists and/or Hamas politicians.
I think we should put to one side the whataboutery of how the barbaric
actions of Hamas somehow excuse all and any actions committed by Israel
and its armed forces.
Gaza has a huge civilian population. The citizens have no army or planes
and are wholly defenceless, but among them there will be a tiny
proportion of terrorists/insurgents/enemy combatants.
Israel's spokesmen say that if there is a "human shield" standing
between an Israeli soldier and a terrorist, you are entitled to shoot
the human shield, no question.
They also say that they are entitled to bomb and burn any dwelling where
Hamas are believed to be hiding out, regardless of how many civilian
lives will be destroyed. And that it is legitimate to commence a sort of
mediaeval siege of Gaza, starving the population of food, water,
electricity and medicine, because a collective punishment is justified.
Back in the day, it was the Nazis and the Japanese who were most likely
to punish entire communities with executions, if there were believed to
be enemy soldiers or members of the Resistance hidden within the
communities.
What made the carpet bombing of Dresden different? Or dropping the
atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Here's an interesting interview in which the ex- PM of Israel is very
indignant at the suggestion that we should care about civilians in Gaza
hospitals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLx9XN8sLc
If you want to cut to the chase, look at 4 minutes onwards.
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in
Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in
short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour
in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat
operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill the
terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is no
answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
In 2006 Palestinians voted for Hamas knowing they openly avowed the use
of violence and suicide bombings. Hamas acts with backing of
Palestinians. Recently, none of the civilian population in Gaza warned
the Israelis about the terror attack which they would surely have known
was being prepared.
It is hard to feel any outpouring of sympathy for those Palestinians
now affected by the Israeli response Hamas certainly knew it was
provoking. Especially by deliberately killing civilians and taking
other civilians hostage. A strong Israeli response is so utterly
predictable that one wonders what Hamas and Iran are up to.
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in
Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in
short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour
in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat
operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill the
terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is no
answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
In 2006 Palestinians voted for Hamas knowing they openly avowed the use
of violence and suicide bombings. Hamas acts with backing of
Palestinians. Recently, none of the civilian population in Gaza warned
the Israelis about the terror attack which they would surely have known
was being prepared.
It is hard to feel any outpouring of sympathy for those Palestinians
now affected by the Israeli response Hamas certainly knew it was
provoking. Especially by deliberately killing civilians and taking
other civilians hostage. A strong Israeli response is so utterly
predictable that one wonders what Hamas and Iran are up to.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 15:11:29 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's rejected.
Not even close to being rejected, as far as I'm concerned.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack against
Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in Gaza and
with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and, apparently,
sent a boat with supporting troops is it possible that the UK might be
found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
It doesn't seem possible that any prosecution could ever take place,
other than a prosecution of Hamas terrorists and/or Hamas politicians.
I think we should put to one side the whataboutery of how the barbaric
actions of Hamas somehow excuse all and any actions committed by Israel
and its armed forces.
Gaza has a huge civilian population. The citizens have no army or planes
and are wholly defenceless, but among them there will be a tiny
proportion of terrorists/insurgents/enemy combatants.
Israel's spokesmen say that if there is a "human shield" standing
between an Israeli soldier and a terrorist, you are entitled to shoot
the human shield, no question.
They also say that they are entitled to bomb and burn any dwelling where
Hamas are believed to be hiding out, regardless of how many civilian
lives will be destroyed. And that it is legitimate to commence a sort of
mediaeval siege of Gaza, starving the population of food, water,
electricity and medicine, because a collective punishment is justified.
Back in the day, it was the Nazis and the Japanese who were most likely
to punish entire communities with executions, if there were believed to
be enemy soldiers or members of the Resistance hidden within the
communities.
What made the carpet bombing of Dresden different? Or dropping the
atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Here's an interesting interview in which the ex- PM of Israel is very
indignant at the suggestion that we should care about civilians in Gaza
hospitals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLx9XN8sLc
If you want to cut to the chase, look at 4 minutes onwards.
On 13/10/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11.
There, 1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of
the ongoing 'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of
Iraqis dying, even though they were not involved.
Given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it is obvious that the
attack on Iraq was an irrational decision, still less a proportionate response to the 9/11 attack.
But our senior politicians were too polite and cowardly to tell the USA
that they were acting unlawfully and irrationally. So that's similar to
our behaviour towards Israel now. Sympathy for a terrible act of
terrorism seemingly justifies a barbaric response directed - to a large
part - at innocent civilians.
And there were the arrests and tortures in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
Bay. All to appease American voters.
If they did manage to capture any genuine terrorists I don't think
anyone would claim that those terrorists should be treated with kid gloves.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
And someone must pay. Someone, anyone. Yes.
For comparison, if the government of the Isle of Man slaughtered the
entire population of a small British city like Salisbury, how much
restraint would you urge the British government to show?
For comparison, if an IRA active service unit bombed a pub in Manchester
city centre, how much restraint would you expect the British government
to show towards the civilian population of Belfast?
On 13/10/2023 18:51, The Todal wrote:
On 13/10/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11.
There, 1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of
the ongoing 'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of
Iraqis dying, even though they were not involved.
Given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it is obvious that the
attack on Iraq was an irrational decision, still less a proportionate
response to the 9/11 attack.
But our senior politicians were too polite and cowardly to tell the USA
that they were acting unlawfully and irrationally. So that's similar to
our behaviour towards Israel now. Sympathy for a terrible act of
terrorism seemingly justifies a barbaric response directed - to a large
part - at innocent civilians.
And there were the arrests and tortures in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
Bay. All to appease American voters.
If they did manage to capture any genuine terrorists I don't think
anyone would claim that those terrorists should be treated with kid gloves. >>
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
And someone must pay. Someone, anyone. Yes.
There's a large element of that, obviously. "We have to do something.
This is something, so let's do it!"
My point is that, whilst I don't believe an attack on Gaza is right (for
a number of reasons, both moral and practical), I think many countries
would act in the same way as Israel.
For comparison, if the government of the Isle of Man slaughtered the
entire population of a small British city like Salisbury, how much
restraint would you urge the British government to show?
For comparison, if an IRA active service unit bombed a pub in Manchester
city centre, how much restraint would you expect the British government
to show towards the civilian population of Belfast?
It's a very, very poor comparison. Substitute the government of the
Irish Republic for the IRA, and with the target not a pub but an entire
city, with say 20,000 dead, and now tell me that the UK government would
do nothing.
On 13/10/2023 18:51, The Todal wrote:
On 13/10/2023 16:09, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11.
There, 1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of
the ongoing 'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of
Iraqis dying, even though they were not involved.
Given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it is obvious that the
attack on Iraq was an irrational decision, still less a proportionate
response to the 9/11 attack.
But our senior politicians were too polite and cowardly to tell the
USA that they were acting unlawfully and irrationally. So that's
similar to our behaviour towards Israel now. Sympathy for a terrible
act of terrorism seemingly justifies a barbaric response directed - to
a large part - at innocent civilians.
And there were the arrests and tortures in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
Bay. All to appease American voters.
If they did manage to capture any genuine terrorists I don't think
anyone would claim that those terrorists should be treated with kid
gloves.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
And someone must pay. Someone, anyone. Yes.
There's a large element of that, obviously. "We have to do something. This is something, so let's do it!"
My point is that, whilst I don't believe an attack on Gaza is right (for
a number of reasons, both moral and practical), I think many countries
would act in the same way as Israel.
For comparison, if the government of the Isle of Man slaughtered the
entire population of a small British city like Salisbury, how much
restraint would you urge the British government to show?
For comparison, if an IRA active service unit bombed a pub in
Manchester city centre, how much restraint would you expect the
British government to show towards the civilian population of Belfast?
It's a very, very poor comparison. Substitute the government of the
Irish Republic for the IRA, and with the target not a pub but an entire
city, with say 20,000 dead, and now tell me that the UK government would
do nothing.
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act of
genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11. There,
1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of the ongoing
'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of Iraqis dying,
even though they were not involved.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
It's a very, very poor comparison. Substitute the government of the
Irish Republic for the IRA, and with the target not a pub but an entire
city, with say 20,000 dead, and now tell me that the UK government would
do nothing.
But Ireland is an independent country with its own government which controls its trade and economy. Gaza is in no sense any of these things.
On 14/10/2023 00:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
Gaza is effectively a Bantustan. Some years ago, it was packed with undesirable Palestinians who were deported from the West Bank. TheIt's a very, very poor comparison. Substitute the government of the
Irish Republic for the IRA, and with the target not a pub but an
entire city, with say 20,000 dead, and now tell me that the UK
government would do nothing.
But Ireland is an independent country with its own government which
controls its trade and economy. Gaza is in no sense any of these
things.
obvious plan being to separate it from Israel at a future date and thus remove many non-Jewish inhabitants from the demographic of Israel,
ethnic cleansing. It was never a remotely viable autonomous region.
The fact that our MSM do not talk about this now is astonishing. Along
with the stifling of comparisons to the Warsaw Ghetto. Even 10 years
ago, we had much more free speech. I see now the EU are threatening
Twitter and Facebook.
I strongly feel there is a need for a new P2P/distributed/federated
social media platform like Usenet, that is uncontrollable by
governments.
Gaza is effectively a Bantustan. Some years ago, it was packed with undesirable Palestinians who were deported from the West Bank.
The fact that our MSM do not talk about this now is astonishing. Along
with the stifling of comparisons to the Warsaw Ghetto.
My best guess is that it was designed to illicit a response from Israel
that would prevent normalisation of relations with Saudi.
On 2023-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act of
genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11. There,
1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of the ongoing
'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of Iraqis dying,
even though they were not involved.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
Israel has apparently killed over 1 in 1,500 Palestinians since Saturday.
And they're just getting started.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Yes, it does have that obligation. Gaza is not an independent country
but a vast concentration camp mainly under the control of Israel.
If there are many of a similar mind to you, then the tactic of Hamas
will presumably be to execute their hostages one by one, uploading proof
of the executions, as a way to force the Israelis to show restraint.
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army, taking
"every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not prevent them
from bombing civilians and burning them with white phosphorus if they
judge that this is the only way to kill a handful of terrorists nearby.
On 13/10/2023 03:21 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in
Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in
short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an armed
conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour
in public - which obviously encourages it.
Has ANY politician in the UK condemned it (other than Gorgeous George, obviously)?
On 13/10/2023 23:39, Pancho wrote:
My best guess is that it was designed to illicit a response from Israel that would prevent normalisation of relations with Saudi.That is one of the practical reasons for not retaliating.
On 13 Oct 2023 at 17:34:14 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live
in Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to
leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably
injure/kill civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian
efforts, not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing
war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an
act of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this
behaviour in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during
combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill
the terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is
no answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the
Troubles.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Given the recent history it is totally the responsibility of Israel.
Israel,
with its ally Egypt controls all the borders of Gaza
including the sea border, and controls what Gaza is allowed to import
or export. So, yes, it is Israel's responsibility because they have
chosen since 1967 to insist at the point of a gun that it is their responsibility.
On 13/10/2023 17:34, Pamela wrote:
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live
in Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to
leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably
injure/kill civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian
efforts, not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing
war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an
act of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this
behaviour in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during
combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill
the terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is
no answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the
Troubles.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Yes, it does have that obligation. Gaza is not an independent country
but a vast concentration camp mainly under the control of Israel.
quote
The UNs Human Rights Council announced it already has "clear
evidence" of war crimes committed by both sides. On Gaza, it said:
The Commission is gravely concerned with Israels announcement of
a complete siege on Gaza which will undoubtfully cost civilian
lives and constitutes collective punishment. An Independent
International Commission of Inquiry is investigating.
[snip]
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat operations is a war crime.It is? I am afraid I'll have to ask you for a cite for that .
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
It is worth remembering the lesson of the IRA in the UK. Killing
civilians is largely counterproductice, bad PR. The public hate it, but
the elite decision makers don't really care. On the otherhand massive
damage to property is much more effective, the public don't care that
much, but the people controlling the money do.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:49:45 AM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 23:39, Pancho wrote:
My best guess is that it was designed to illicit a response from
Israel that would prevent normalisation of relations with Saudi.
That is one of the practical reasons for not retaliating.
It look as though Hamas may already have had some success
in that direction (of preventing normalisation of relations with
Saudi).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364
Sat 14 Oct 2023 at 12:19 pm
Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'categorically reject' evacuation of Gazans
Qatar and Saudi Arabia both say they categorically reject the
forcible displacement of Palestinians inside Gaza, after Israel
called on Gazans to leave the north of the territory and head
south.
[SNIP]
On 14/10/2023 01:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act of >>>> genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11. There,
1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware of the ongoing >>> 'war against terror' that resulted. Including millions of Iraqis dying,
even though they were not involved.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as big.
Israel has apparently killed over 1 in 1,500 Palestinians since Saturday.
And they're just getting started.
I agree that it's completely wrong. My point is that most governments
would make the same mistake.
On 19:17 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 17:34, Pamela wrote:
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live
in Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to
leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably
injure/kill civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian
efforts, not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing
war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an
act of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this
behaviour in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during
combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill
the terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is
no answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the
Troubles.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Yes, it does have that obligation. Gaza is not an independent country
but a vast concentration camp mainly under the control of Israel.
You must be using an unusual definition of concentration camp.
At
worst, parts of Gaza are similar to a refugee camp. It's a pity Egypt
has been obstructive to Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza but one can understand Egypt doesn't want to admit hostile and violent people, nor
active members of a terrorist organisation.
quote
The UN’s Human Rights Council announced it already has "clear
evidence" of war crimes committed by both sides. On Gaza, it said:
“The Commission is gravely concerned with … Israel’s announcement of >> a complete siege on Gaza … which will undoubtfully cost civilian
lives and constitutes collective punishment.” An Independent
International Commission of Inquiry is investigating.
[snip]
The UN has lost what little credibility it had in advising potential
host countries about the so called rights of refugees. Just look at its pronouncements regarding the fake asylum seekers attempting to enter
Europe.
Nor would I rely on a pro-Arab news source such as Al-Jazeera (which is
where your quotation comes from) for balanced reporting about Israel
and the Middle East. It is financed by Qatar, which also sends money to support Hamas and the the Gaza Strip.
On 13/10/2023 19:17, The Todal wrote:
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Yes, it does have that obligation. Gaza is not an independent country
but a vast concentration camp mainly under the control of Israel.
It's a refugee camp, and Egypt is surely equally responsible?
Hamas could release the hostages, and get the electricity turned back on straight away. So, surely they have responsibility, too?
If there are many of a similar mind to you, then the tactic of Hamas
will presumably be to execute their hostages one by one, uploading
proof of the executions, as a way to force the Israelis to show
restraint.
You know perfectly well that it will have the opposite effect.
On 20:58 13 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 13 Oct 2023 at 17:34:14 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live
in Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to
leave in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably
injure/kill civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian
efforts, not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing
war crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an
act of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this
behaviour in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during
combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill
the terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is
no answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the
Troubles.
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Given the recent history it is totally the responsibility of Israel.
Israel,
It may be more useful to consider the effect of very recent events on any Israeli moral responsibility to supply an openly hostile civilian
population in Gaza which gives succour to terrorists attempting to provoke war.
The coming war was always bound to create a humanitarian catastrophe, as Hamas well knows.
with its ally Egypt controls all the borders of Gaza
including the sea border, and controls what Gaza is allowed to import
or export. So, yes, it is Israel's responsibility because they have
chosen since 1967 to insist at the point of a gun that it is their
responsibility.
You mention 1967 which is when Israel's enemies initiated the Six Day war. Israel can rightly consider the Gaza strip as one of the spoils of a war
it didn't start.
On 13/10/2023 23:39, Pancho wrote:
My best guess is that it was designed to illicit a response from
Israel that would prevent normalisation of relations with Saudi.
That is one of the practical reasons for not retaliating.
So more likely to happen. Why can't Israel simply show some restraint.
The outcomes are utterly predictable and Hamas has won this battle and
has already achieved their aims.
There are many articles that suggest once Egypt accepted refugees from
Gazza:
1) Israel would not let them return.
2) Ethnic cleansing would then be complete.
On 12:58 14 Oct 2023, pensive hamster said:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:49:45 AM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 23:39, Pancho wrote:
My best guess is that it was designed to illicit a response from
Israel that would prevent normalisation of relations with Saudi.
That is one of the practical reasons for not retaliating.
It look as though Hamas may already have had some success
in that direction (of preventing normalisation of relations with
Saudi).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364
Sat 14 Oct 2023 at 12:19 pm
Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'categorically reject' evacuation of Gazans
Qatar and Saudi Arabia both say they categorically reject the
forcible displacement of Palestinians inside Gaza, after Israel
called on Gazans to leave the north of the territory and head
south.
[SNIP]
Perhaps Qatar and Saudi Arabia will offer to host Palestinian refugees
to help out with the current situation.
Furthermore, Qatar and Saudi Arabia may wish to consider signing up to
the 1951 Refugee Convention some day soon. It's long overdue.
On 15/10/2023 00:08, Fredxx wrote:
There are many articles that suggest once Egypt accepted refugees from Gazza:
1) Israel would not let them return.
2) Ethnic cleansing would then be complete.
Given that the mass exodus from Israel occurred over 70 years ago, any
ethnic cleansing was complete long, long ago.
What you are quoting is simply a justification for not welcoming the
refugees and giving them homes.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 11:05:10 AM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 00:08, Fredxx wrote:
There are many articles that suggest once Egypt accepted refugees from
Gazza:
1) Israel would not let them return.
2) Ethnic cleansing would then be complete.
Given that the mass exodus from Israel occurred over 70 years ago, any
ethnic cleansing was complete long, long ago.
Not all Palestinians left Israel or the occupied territories
70 years ago, so in that sense, the (alleged) ethnic cleansing
is incomplete.
Aren't there Palestinian refugee camps within Gaza, and also
the West Bank?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee_camps
'Gaza Strip: The Gaza Strip has eight official and no unofficial
refugee camps,[2] and 1,221,110 registered refugees.
'West Bank: The West Bank has 19 official and four unofficial
refugee camps,[2] and 741,409 registered refugees.'
What you are quoting is simply a justification for not welcoming the
refugees and giving them homes.
On 15/10/2023 14:07, pensive hamster wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee_camps
'Gaza Strip: The Gaza Strip has eight official and no unofficial
refugee camps,[2] and 1,221,110 registered refugees.
The population of Gaza is usually quoted as 2.3m, rather than 1.2m, so
who are the other 1.1m?
Going into pedantic mode for a minute: There can't be many left of the original refuges from 1948? Are the offspring of refugees, born in Gaza, themselves refugees?
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:19:46 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:07, pensive hamster wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee_camps
'Gaza Strip: The Gaza Strip has eight official and no unofficial
refugee camps,[2] and 1,221,110 registered refugees.
The population of Gaza is usually quoted as 2.3m, rather than 1.2m, so
who are the other 1.1m?
Palestinians (mostly) not registered as refugees?
So according to that definition, descendants of refugees seem
to be considered also refugees.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 23:39:39 +0100, Pancho wrote:
It is worth remembering the lesson of the IRA in the UK. Killing
civilians is largely counterproductice, bad PR. The public hate it, but
the elite decision makers don't really care. On the otherhand massive
damage to property is much more effective, the public don't care that
much, but the people controlling the money do.
Having lived through it - and with friends from NI - I think the IRAs
shift from killing innocent people who meant fuck all to the UK
government, to killing business confidence which meant a lot is what
started the eventual dialogue that led to where we are. If the UK wants
to believe it's because the military advantage then more fool them.
I strongly feel there is a need for a new P2P/distributed/federated
social media platform like Usenet, that is uncontrollable by
governments.
You mean something lik ewhat they are trying to ban ?
Ironically, it's one practical use of blockchain.
On 14/10/2023 09:46, Pamela wrote:
On 19:17 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
[snip]
The UN has lost what little credibility it had in advising potential
host countries about the so called rights of refugees. Just look at
its pronouncements regarding the fake asylum seekers attempting to
enter Europe.
Hardly fake, especially when the US and Europe create the conditions
of instability and fund hostilities in numerous countries. It wasn't
that long ago that the US classed any male between 16 and 50 as a
combatant, and hence automatically get refugee status.
Nor would I rely on a pro-Arab news source such as Al-Jazeera (which
is where your quotation comes from) for balanced reporting about
Israel and the Middle East. It is financed by Qatar, which also
sends money to support Hamas and the the Gaza Strip.
Each side has an axe to grind. What would be your preferred news
source?
On 14/10/2023 11:01, GB wrote:
On 14/10/2023 01:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an
act of genocide and a war crime.
In terms of urging restraint, it's worth comparing this to 9/11.
There, 1 in 100,000 Americans were killed, and, we are all aware
of the ongoing 'war against terror' that resulted. Including
millions of Iraqis dying, even though they were not involved.
This incident has killed 1 in 5,000 Israelis, ie it's 20 times as
big.
Israel has apparently killed over 1 in 1,500 Palestinians since
Saturday. And they're just getting started.
I agree that it's completely wrong. My point is that most
governments would make the same mistake.
I respectfully disagree.
Why should a life become of less value if a country's population is
greater?
Some might say that a young child's life extinguished in an occupied territory, starved of running water and power through collective
punishment, should have no consequence and not compared with the
greater value of a child's life taken in another country.
On 13/10/2023 16:38, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 15:11:29 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
Not even close to being rejected, as far as I'm concerned.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live
in Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave
in short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops is it possible that
the UK might be found guilty of committing war crimes or aiding
and abetting them?
It doesn't seem possible that any prosecution could ever take
place, other than a prosecution of Hamas terrorists and/or Hamas
politicians.
I think we should put to one side the whataboutery of how the
barbaric actions of Hamas somehow excuse all and any actions
committed by Israel and its armed forces.
Gaza has a huge civilian population. The citizens have no army or
planes and are wholly defenceless, but among them there will be a
tiny proportion of terrorists/insurgents/enemy combatants.
Israel's spokesmen say that if there is a "human shield" standing
between an Israeli soldier and a terrorist, you are entitled to
shoot the human shield, no question.
They also say that they are entitled to bomb and burn any dwelling
where Hamas are believed to be hiding out, regardless of how many
civilian lives will be destroyed. And that it is legitimate to
commence a sort of mediaeval siege of Gaza, starving the population
of food, water, electricity and medicine, because a collective
punishment is justified.
Back in the day, it was the Nazis and the Japanese who were most
likely to punish entire communities with executions, if there were
believed to be enemy soldiers or members of the Resistance hidden
within the communities.
What made the carpet bombing of Dresden different? Or dropping the
atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
There's little or no moral difference. Few would now attempt to
justify Dresden or Hamburg. The pretext was to destroy factories and
damage Germany's ability to wage war. But terrorism - the infliction
of terror to damage morale - was the main aim, surely. We make a lot
of fuss about the London Blitz. We got off very lightly. Imagine if
we had sustained the same loss of civilian life as Germany or Russia.
How can you ever forgive a nation that inflicts that evil on your
people?
You might say, how can Israel ever forgive Hamas. Obviously it
cannot. How can it forgive "the Palestinians"? By recognising that
they too want to live in peace and prosperity.
Hiroshima was a virgin target that had been spared so that the
boffins could properly assess the damage that would be caused by an
atomic bomb. The pretext was to save the lives of soldiers who would otherwise have to invade Japanese territory but the actual aim was to
prove that America was now the world's most powerful nation and could
defy Russian territorial ambitions. But all that is to state the
obvious.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:13:16 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 14 Oct 2023, pensive hamster said:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:49:45 AM UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 23:39, Pancho wrote:
My best guess is that it was designed to illicit a response
from Israel that would prevent normalisation of relations with
Saudi.
That is one of the practical reasons for not retaliating.
It look as though Hamas may already have had some success
in that direction (of preventing normalisation of relations with
Saudi).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364
Sat 14 Oct 2023 at 12:19 pm
Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'categorically reject' evacuation of Gazans
Qatar and Saudi Arabia both say they categorically reject the
forcible displacement of Palestinians inside Gaza, after Israel
called on Gazans to leave the north of the territory and head
south.
[SNIP]
Perhaps Qatar and Saudi Arabia will offer to host Palestinian
refugees to help out with the current situation.
Do you think Israel will offer to host Palestinian refugees
to help out with the current situation?
My understanding of Israel's position is, no right of return
for Palestinian refugees.
Furthermore, Qatar and Saudi Arabia may wish to consider signing up
to the 1951 Refugee Convention some day soon. It's long overdue.
https://www.unhcr.org/il/en/1951-refugee-convention-and- international-conventions
'The core principle [of the1951 Refugee Convention] is
non-refoulement, which asserts that refugees should not
be returned to a country where they face serious threats
to their life or freedom. This is considered customary
international law.'
That's not quite the same as the ratifying States undertaking
not to categorically reject the forcible displacement of
Palestinians inside Gaza (or any similar forcible displacement).
On 14/10/2023 09:30, Pamela wrote:
On 20:58 13 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 13 Oct 2023 at 17:34:14 BST, "Pamela" wrote:
[snip]
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Given the recent history it is totally the responsibility of
Israel. Israel,
It may be more useful to consider the effect of very recent events
on any Israeli moral responsibility to supply an openly hostile
civilian population in Gaza which gives succour to terrorists
attempting to provoke war.
The coming war was always bound to create a humanitarian
catastrophe, as Hamas well knows.
with its ally Egypt controls all the borders of Gaza including the
sea border, and controls what Gaza is allowed to import or export.
So, yes, it is Israel's responsibility because they have chosen
since 1967 to insist at the point of a gun that it is their
responsibility.
You mention 1967 which is when Israel's enemies initiated the Six
Day war. Israel can rightly consider the Gaza strip as one of the
spoils of a war it didn't start.
Quite, some would say that Israel was the spoil of a war, that at the
time was described as terrorism. However the winners of a terrorist
war are revered, an example is Nelson Mandela. After all, winners of terrorism can always denounce terrorism once they have achieved their
goals.
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combatIt is? I am afraid I'll have to ask you for a cite for that .
operations is a war crime.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.
True, but we (well the Paras[an illustration of why you shouldn't use
shock troops as policemen]) shot people Divis adjacent.
Aside my own brother had a fridge dropped on him (fortunately it missed
but it was a 'brown trouser moment')at the Divis but the B.A. not being
war criminals (probably?) he did not rake the flats with gunfire
An old soldier once told me it was a waste of ammunition to kill unarmed civilians. You should save your bullets for the people on the other side
who also have bullets.
That's the economic case against killing civilians if the moral one isn't good enough. It's terribly inefficient.
On 15/10/2023 00:12, Fredxx wrote:
So more likely to happen. Why can't Israel simply show some restraint.
The outcomes are utterly predictable and Hamas has won this battle and
has already achieved their aims.
There's one thing I can absolutely guarantee. Killing any number of Palestinians will not bring any of the dead back to life.
Netanyahu would argue that they need to pursue Hamas, wherever they may
be hiding, and since they seem to be hiding in tunnels under Gaza,
that's where the Israelis need to go.
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army, taking
"every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not prevent them
from bombing civilians and burning them with white phosphorus if they
judge that this is the only way to kill a handful of terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
On 15/10/2023 10:35, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 00:12, Fredxx wrote:
So more likely to happen. Why can't Israel simply show some
restraint. The outcomes are utterly predictable and Hamas has won
this battle and has already achieved their aims.
There's one thing I can absolutely guarantee. Killing any number of
Palestinians will not bring any of the dead back to life.
Netanyahu would argue that they need to pursue Hamas, wherever they
may be hiding, and since they seem to be hiding in tunnels under Gaza,
that's where the Israelis need to go.
To say that the IDF have a realistic plan for capturing or killing all
Hamas terrorists is plainly untrue.
Logically the main aim can only be to terrorise ordinary civilians in
Gaza to force them to abandon their support for Hamas in any future
elections and also to betray (or inform on) any Hamas people known to
them in the community - and that would probably lead to savage
punishment from Hamas in the same way that the IRA punished informers.
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army, taking
"every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not prevent
them from bombing civilians and burning them with white phosphorus if
they judge that this is the only way to kill a handful of terrorists
nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
On 15/10/2023 10:35, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 00:12, Fredxx wrote:
So more likely to happen. Why can't Israel simply show some restraint.
The outcomes are utterly predictable and Hamas has won this battle and
has already achieved their aims.
There's one thing I can absolutely guarantee. Killing any number of
Palestinians will not bring any of the dead back to life.
Netanyahu would argue that they need to pursue Hamas, wherever they may
be hiding, and since they seem to be hiding in tunnels under Gaza,
that's where the Israelis need to go.
To say that the IDF have a realistic plan for capturing or killing all
Hamas terrorists is plainly untrue.
Logically the main aim can only be to terrorise ordinary civilians in
Gaza to force them to abandon their support for Hamas in any future
elections and also to betray (or inform on) any Hamas people known to
them in the community - and that would probably lead to savage
punishment from Hamas in the same way that the IRA punished informers.
Reminiscent of the way the Taliban took revenge on informers when the
Allies had left Afghanistan. Who protects those civilian informers? Who cares?
On 15/10/2023 18:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/10/2023 10:35, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 00:12, Fredxx wrote:
So more likely to happen. Why can't Israel simply show some
restraint. The outcomes are utterly predictable and Hamas has won
this battle and has already achieved their aims.
There's one thing I can absolutely guarantee. Killing any number of
Palestinians will not bring any of the dead back to life.
Netanyahu would argue that they need to pursue Hamas, wherever they
may be hiding, and since they seem to be hiding in tunnels under Gaza,
that's where the Israelis need to go.
To say that the IDF have a realistic plan for capturing or killing all
Hamas terrorists is plainly untrue.
Logically the main aim can only be to terrorise ordinary civilians in
Gaza to force them to abandon their support for Hamas in any future
elections and also to betray (or inform on) any Hamas people known to
them in the community - and that would probably lead to savage
punishment from Hamas in the same way that the IRA punished informers.
I don't think that's the aim - although I have no hot line to Jerusalem,
or anything like that, so I'm just speculating.
There are roughly 500 miles of tunnels under Gaza, and I think the IDF intends to blow them up. That could weaken any buildings on top, of course...
There's quite a lot of open land in Gaza, but the tunnels are mostly not under that. They have been dug under the most heavily built up areas.
I assume that, by the time the IDF gets to the tunnels in Northern Gaza,
they will be empty, apart from some booby traps.
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise,
and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties.
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by the
Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding? Isn't this
to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution is inflicted by
the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied medical care - all
the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has zero responsibility, we are told.
What made the carpet bombing of Dresden different? Or dropping the
atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
On 14/10/2023 14:20, soup wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combatIt is? I am afraid I'll have to ask you for a cite for that .
operations is a war crime.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
quotes
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such
or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including
wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
quotes
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such
or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including
wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.
On 15:21 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 13/10/2023 15:06, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/10/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This may be too raw/emotive so I will fully understand if it's
rejected.
It seems clear that Israel is going to launch a ground attack
against Gaza in the near future. Many Palestinian civilians live in
Gaza and with the best will in the world won't be able to leave in
short order.
In the circumstances any ground attack will inevitably injure/kill
civilians, many of whom will be women and children.
Since the UK has expressed its full support for Israel and,
apparently, sent a boat with supporting troops
The Royal Navy task force has been sent to aid humanitarian efforts,
not to support Israeli military action.
is it possible that the UK might be found guilty of committing war
crimes or aiding and abetting them?
What war crimes are you anticipating? Civilian deaths during an
armed conflict are not automatically war crimes.
Cutting off electricity, food etc to a civilian population is an act
of genocide and a war crime.
Israel has been criticised for this by eminent lawyers but our
government and that of the USA is unwilling to condemn this behaviour
in public - which obviously encourages it.
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians during combat operations is a war crime. To say "how else can Israel kill the
terrorists other than by blowing up the entire tower block" is no
answer.
We didn't bomb the Divis Flats or the Falls Road during the Troubles.Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
In 2006 Palestinians voted for Hamas knowing they openly avowed the use
of violence and suicide bombings. Hamas acts with backing of
Palestinians. Recently, none of the civilian population in Gaza warned
the Israelis about the terror attack which they would surely have known
was being prepared.
It is hard to feel any outpouring of sympathy for those Palestinians
now affected by the Israeli response Hamas certainly knew it was
provoking. Especially by deliberately killing civilians and taking
other civilians hostage. A strong Israeli response is so utterly
predictable that one wonders what Hamas and Iran are up to.
On 15/10/2023 19:00, The Todal wrote:
On 14/10/2023 14:20, soup wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:21, The Todal wrote:
Failing to take any proper steps to safeguard civilians duringIt is? I am afraid I'll have to ask you for a cite for that .
combat operations is a war crime.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
quotes
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as
such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in
hostilities;
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack
will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by
depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including
wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva
Conventions.
What has any of that to do with the UK being accused of war crimes?
Surely it is Israel that MAY be guilty of those things so why would the
UK be guilty when it is another nation potentially being at fault?
On 15/10/2023 18:56, The Todal wrote:
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army, taking
"every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not prevent
them from bombing civilians and burning them with white phosphorus
if they judge that this is the only way to kill a handful of
terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
I had not realised that you were in favour of a wholesale ground
offensive. But, there it is from your own keyboard! Frankly, I'm flabbergasted.
Moreover, you are going well beyond what the wildest hawks would do,
because, before your couple of coppers could march down the road, knock
on the door of the tunnel, and arrest a couple of off-duty Hamas
fellows, everything within a mile or two would have to be flattened.
Maybe, a nuclear strike?
I think you regard Gaza as being like Belfast. It's not remotely the same.
I think you regard Gaza as being like Belfast. It's not remotely the
same.
It isn't the same because of the very high concentration of innocent civilians within the small area of Gaza and the strong likelihood of
civilian deaths.
We know from Edward Snowden how efficiently the USA and UK monitor all
forms of communication throughout the world but especially for suspected terrorists. It isn't beyond the skill of Mossad with its friends in the
CIA, FBI etc to identify Hamas terrorists, visit them and arrest or kill them.
To assume that the civilian population of Gaza are all friends of
Hamas and determined to hide and defend those terrorists, is a cynical attempt to justify Israel's genocidal behaviour.
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise,
and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties.
I think you are being a bit credulous.
The UK is a cheerleader for Israel, in order to placate the Jewish
voters in the UK who are assumed, probably wrongly, to desire
annihilation of the people of Gaza.
Any Jews who have sympathy for the
Palestinians are the wrong sort of Jews. They end up getting expelled
from the Labour Party.
On 16/10/2023 11:32, The Todal wrote:
I think you regard Gaza as being like Belfast. It's not remotely the
same.
It isn't the same because of the very high concentration of innocent
civilians within the small area of Gaza and the strong likelihood of
civilian deaths.
That's incorrect. It isn't the same, because Hamas has 40,000 heavily
armed soldiers, operated from a vast network of tunnels under the city.
The IRA, at its peak, had under 1000, and the IRA never had access to
rocket launchers, for example.
Gaza is certainly a built up area, but sometimes it is portrayed as if
it is far more crowded than it is. Its population density is actually a
bit lower than London's and half of New York's.
We know from Edward Snowden how efficiently the USA and UK monitor all
forms of communication throughout the world but especially for
suspected terrorists. It isn't beyond the skill of Mossad with its
friends in the CIA, FBI etc to identify Hamas terrorists, visit them
and arrest or kill them.
Of course, they know who a fair number of the Hamas people are. It's
simply ridiculous to suggest that they can be picked up in their homes, though. You are an intelligent man, and yet you suggest (once again)
this wholly unpractical approach.
To assume that the civilian population of Gaza are all friends of
Hamas and determined to hide and defend those terrorists, is a cynical
attempt to justify Israel's genocidal behaviour.
I don't assume that for one moment. Perhaps you could just quote where I
have said that, please?
I don't think Israel should go after Hamas, because it is impossible to
do so without inflicting very significant harm on the civilian
population, but not many people would agree with me.
On 16/10/2023 11:35, The Todal wrote:
The UK is a cheerleader for Israel, in order to placate the Jewish
voters in the UK who are assumed, probably wrongly, to desire
annihilation of the people of Gaza.
That is a misrepresentation. The UK leadership does not care about
Jewish votes, there are so few. It cares about Zionist influence. It is
yet another example of something that is clearly true, but that we are
not supposed to say out loud.
Any Jews who have sympathy for the Palestinians are the wrong sort of
Jews. They end up getting expelled from the Labour Party.
Well, they are antisemites! The Labour left was hoist by its own petard.
They invented a system where claims of victimhood by minority or “oppressed” groups had to be accepted and not challenged. It is only natural that this would be exploited opportunistically.
On 15/10/2023 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise,
and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties.
I think you are being a bit credulous.
You do realise that the claim was made by Hamas?
Anyway, here's a link to WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
On 15/10/2023 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise,
and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties.
I think you are being a bit credulous.
You do realise that the claim was made by Hamas?
Anyway, here's a link to WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
On 19:03 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
You might say, how can Israel ever forgive Hamas. Obviously it
cannot. How can it forgive "the Palestinians"? By recognising that
they too want to live in peace and prosperity.
Strong, albeit not exclusive, Palestinian support for terrorist
organisations indicates that living in peace and prosperity is not a
primary and exclusive objective of the majority.
Hiroshima was a virgin target that had been spared so that the
boffins could properly assess the damage that would be caused by an
atomic bomb. The pretext was to save the lives of soldiers who would
otherwise have to invade Japanese territory but the actual aim was to
prove that America was now the world's most powerful nation and could
defy Russian territorial ambitions. But all that is to state the
obvious.
I believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an attempt to end
the coming war in Japan quickly. The Japanese civilian population was
showing no sign of capitulation and appeared ready to engage with the Americans in a lengthy war of attrition, just as Japanese troops had in
the Pacific (Okinawa, etc). Not sure this had much to do with
containing Russia.
On 16/10/2023 13:01, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise, >>>> and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties.
I think you are being a bit credulous.
You do realise that the claim was made by Hamas?
Anyway, here's a link to WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
Perhaps the wiki has been updated, but I don't see any reference to
Hamas claiming these tunnels could be destroyed without major civilian casualties?
Thought I suppose that depends on major. We already have a situation
that the deaths through retribution in the past few days are greater
than the terrorists (someone else's freedom fighters) ever unleashed
upon Israel.
I can't think of a better recruiting ground for Hamas.
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We don't
want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
"Yeah. That'll tell the Ruskies who's boss. Let's hope no-one tells them
how they're made. Are the Brits reliable?"
"Probably not."
On 16/10/2023 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:01, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote:Perhaps the wiki has been updated, but I don't see any reference to
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise, >>>>> and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties. >>>>I think you are being a bit credulous.
You do realise that the claim was made by Hamas?
Anyway, here's a link to WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip >>
Hamas claiming these tunnels could be destroyed without major civilian
casualties?
Roger said that these were just the usual sewers and suchlike that you
find under any city. I was just pointing out that Hamas had boasted
about building them for the purpose of war.
Thought I suppose that depends on major. We already have a situation
that the deaths through retribution in the past few days are greater
than the terrorists (someone else's freedom fighters) ever unleashed
upon Israel.
I can't think of a better recruiting ground for Hamas.
I agree that it's the wrong response.
On 16 Oct 2023 at 15:17:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:01, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote:Perhaps the wiki has been updated, but I don't see any reference to
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly precise, >>>>>> and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian casualties. >>>>>I think you are being a bit credulous.
You do realise that the claim was made by Hamas?
Anyway, here's a link to WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip >>>
Hamas claiming these tunnels could be destroyed without major civilian
casualties?
Roger said that these were just the usual sewers and suchlike that you
find under any city. I was just pointing out that Hamas had boasted
about building them for the purpose of war.
I said nothing of the sort. I just said that if you destroy all tunnels under a city you will effectively destroy the city. Have the Israelis got special bombs that can destroy only one kind of tunnel?
On 16/10/2023 15:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Oct 2023 at 15:17:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 13:01, GB wrote:
On 15/10/2023 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nevertheless, blowing up the tunnels is an aim that is fairly
precise,
and it is theoretically achievable without major civilian
casualties.
I think you are being a bit credulous.
You do realise that the claim was made by Hamas?
Anyway, here's a link to WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
Perhaps the wiki has been updated, but I don't see any reference to
Hamas claiming these tunnels could be destroyed without major civilian >>>> casualties?
Roger said that these were just the usual sewers and suchlike that you
find under any city. I was just pointing out that Hamas had boasted
about building them for the purpose of war.
I said nothing of the sort. I just said that if you destroy all
tunnels under
a city you will effectively destroy the city. Have the Israelis got
special
bombs that can destroy only one kind of tunnel?
Isn't that why they are going in on the ground, and they'll blow up the
war tunnels and leave the cable ducts?
If Hamas has repurposed the sewers, I guess those will get blown up, too.
You may be over-thinking this!
On 15/10/2023 18:56, The Todal wrote:
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by the
Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding? Isn't
this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution is
inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has zero
responsibility, we are told.
Nor should we pretend that Hamas has zero responsibility.
Even as Israel bombs Gaza, and AIUI trying (with limited success) to hit
the correct targets, Hamas continue to fire rockets into Israel with no
aim at all. The actions of Hamas meet all the definitions of a war crime.
I fear that there is no solution to this.
The Romans forced the Jews out of Israel, and after The Holocaust they
want it back.
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the time?
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 18:39:06 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
[TRIMMED]
Surely Israel has no obligation to supply food or electricity to
another country or region if it chooses not to. Another region's
dependency is hardly the responsibility of Israel.
Maybe, but Israel is blockading Gaza so nobody else can supply food
in particular.
In 2006 Palestinians voted for Hamas knowing they openly avowed the
use of violence and suicide bombings. Hamas acts with backing of
Palestinians. Recently, none of the civilian population in Gaza
warned the Israelis about the terror attack which they would surely
have known was being prepared.
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
It is hard to feel any outpouring of sympathy for those Palestinians
now affected by the Israeli response Hamas certainly knew it was
provoking. Especially by deliberately killing civilians and taking
other civilians hostage. A strong Israeli response is so utterly
predictable that one wonders what Hamas and Iran are up to.
and Israel - why let the attack unfold without bolstering defences?
22nd June 1941...
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army, taking
"every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not prevent
them from bombing civilians and burning them with white phosphorus
if they judge that this is the only way to kill a handful of
terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution is inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has zero responsibility, we are told.
On 15/10/2023 11:34, Pamela wrote:
On 19:03 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
You might say, how can Israel ever forgive Hamas. Obviously it
cannot. How can it forgive "the Palestinians"? By recognising that
they too want to live in peace and prosperity.
Strong, albeit not exclusive, Palestinian support for terrorist
organisations indicates that living in peace and prosperity is not a
primary and exclusive objective of the majority.
I don't think the Israelis want the Palestinians "to live in peace
and prosperity" as they keep taking their land and demolishing their
houses.
Hiroshima was a virgin target that had been spared so that the
boffins could properly assess the damage that would be caused by an
atomic bomb. The pretext was to save the lives of soldiers who
would otherwise have to invade Japanese territory but the actual
aim was to prove that America was now the world's most powerful
nation and could defy Russian territorial ambitions. But all that
is to state the obvious.
I believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an attempt to
end the coming war in Japan quickly. The Japanese civilian
population was showing no sign of capitulation and appeared ready to
engage with the Americans in a lengthy war of attrition, just as
Japanese troops had in the Pacific (Okinawa, etc). Not sure this had
much to do with containing Russia.
"Hey, guys we've got this bomb. The Germans caved, so how can we see
that it does the business?"
"Yeah, but which one do we use? The uranium one, or the plutonium?"
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
"Yeah. That'll tell the Ruskies who's boss. Let's hope no-one tells
them how they're made. Are the Brits reliable?"
"Probably not."
On 18:56 15 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army, taking
"every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not prevent
them from bombing civilians and burning them with white phosphorus
if they judge that this is the only way to kill a handful of
terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution is
inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has zero
responsibility, we are told.
Although Hamas enjoys much support in the civilian population in Gaza, it appears to be pushing the limits of what its supporters are prepared to accept.
There are some intriguing poll results at the following link, especially
the first one on the page called: "Polls Show Majority of Gazans Were
Against Breaking Ceasefire".
<https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/washington-institute- 2023-polling-data-and-analysis>
Howeevr these findings have become largely academic.
On 14:58 16 Oct 2023, Max Demian said:
On 15/10/2023 11:34, Pamela wrote:
On 19:03 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
You might say, how can Israel ever forgive Hamas. Obviously it
cannot. How can it forgive "the Palestinians"? By recognising that
they too want to live in peace and prosperity.
Strong, albeit not exclusive, Palestinian support for terrorist
organisations indicates that living in peace and prosperity is not a
primary and exclusive objective of the majority.
I don't think the Israelis want the Palestinians "to live in peace
and prosperity" as they keep taking their land and demolishing their
houses.
Hiroshima was a virgin target that had been spared so that the
boffins could properly assess the damage that would be caused by an
atomic bomb. The pretext was to save the lives of soldiers who
would otherwise have to invade Japanese territory but the actual
aim was to prove that America was now the world's most powerful
nation and could defy Russian territorial ambitions. But all that
is to state the obvious.
I believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an attempt to
end the coming war in Japan quickly. The Japanese civilian
population was showing no sign of capitulation and appeared ready to
engage with the Americans in a lengthy war of attrition, just as
Japanese troops had in the Pacific (Okinawa, etc). Not sure this had
much to do with containing Russia.
"Hey, guys we've got this bomb. The Germans caved, so how can we see
that it does the business?"
"Yeah, but which one do we use? The uranium one, or the plutonium?"
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
"Yeah. That'll tell the Ruskies who's boss. Let's hope no-one tells
them how they're made. Are the Brits reliable?"
"Probably not."
The Americans fought a bloody and spectacular series of battles with
the Japanese in the Pacific costing them over 100,000 lives and quarter
of a million wounded.
For their part, the Japanese still remained willing to sacrifice their
own lives to keep the enemy out of their country.
bombs brought several years of bloody war to an end at a cost of less
than a tenth of lost Japanese lives in the rest of the conflict.
The alternatives were grim.
Any benefits regarding parading American might, to let the Germans or Russians notice, seem largely incidental.
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
On 16/10/2023 16:18, Pamela wrote:
Two atomic bombs were dropped in quick succession leaving no time for Japanese scientists to make a proper assessment of the nature of the
weapons and the extent of the damage.
There was no need for the second bomb. And the first bomb could have been demonstrated with no loss of life.
On 16/10/2023 16:31, Pamela wrote:
On 18:56 15 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army,
taking "every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not
prevent them from bombing civilians and burning them with white
phosphorus if they judge that this is the only way to kill a
handful of terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution
is inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has
zero responsibility, we are told.
Although Hamas enjoys much support in the civilian population in
Gaza, it appears to be pushing the limits of what its supporters are
prepared to accept.
There are some intriguing poll results at the following link,
especially the first one on the page called: "Polls Show Majority of
Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire".
<https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/washington-
institute- 2023-polling-data-and-analysis>
Howeevr these findings have become largely academic.
The findings will clearly be academic when all the people who voted
in the polls have been blasted to bits by Israeli tanks and
artillery.
The IRA were almost all British citizens. If they had blown up a few
pubs and railway stations in London, how many of your own friends and relatives would you think it fair and reasonable to be killed in
revenge, to atone for the actions of your fellow Brits?
On 16/10/2023 16:18, Pamela wrote:
On 14:58 16 Oct 2023, Max Demian said:
On 15/10/2023 11:34, Pamela wrote:
On 19:03 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
You might say, how can Israel ever forgive Hamas. Obviously it
cannot. How can it forgive "the Palestinians"? By recognising
that they too want to live in peace and prosperity.
Strong, albeit not exclusive, Palestinian support for terrorist
organisations indicates that living in peace and prosperity is not
a primary and exclusive objective of the majority.
I don't think the Israelis want the Palestinians "to live in peace
and prosperity" as they keep taking their land and demolishing
their houses.
Hiroshima was a virgin target that had been spared so that the
boffins could properly assess the damage that would be caused by
an atomic bomb. The pretext was to save the lives of soldiers who
would otherwise have to invade Japanese territory but the actual
aim was to prove that America was now the world's most powerful
nation and could defy Russian territorial ambitions. But all that
is to state the obvious.
I believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an attempt to
end the coming war in Japan quickly. The Japanese civilian
population was showing no sign of capitulation and appeared ready
to engage with the Americans in a lengthy war of attrition, just
as Japanese troops had in the Pacific (Okinawa, etc). Not sure
this had much to do with containing Russia.
"Hey, guys we've got this bomb. The Germans caved, so how can we
see that it does the business?"
"Yeah, but which one do we use? The uranium one, or the plutonium?"
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
"Yeah. That'll tell the Ruskies who's boss. Let's hope no-one tells
them how they're made. Are the Brits reliable?"
"Probably not."
The Americans fought a bloody and spectacular series of battles with
the Japanese in the Pacific costing them over 100,000 lives and
quarter of a million wounded.
For their part, the Japanese still remained willing to sacrifice
their own lives to keep the enemy out of their country.
They were about to surrender. They knew they were losing.
Two atomic bombs were dropped in quick succession leaving no time for Japanese scientists to make a proper assessment of the nature of the
weapons and the extent of the damage.
There was no need for the second bomb. And the first bomb could have
been demonstrated with no loss of life.
Using the atomic bombs brought several years of bloody war to an end
at a cost of less than a tenth of lost Japanese lives in the rest of
the conflict.
The alternatives were grim.
Any benefits regarding parading American might, to let the Germans
or Russians notice, seem largely incidental.
You've bought into the lie. Doesn't matter. You don't teach anyone
history.
On 15/10/2023 21:38, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/10/2023 18:56, The Todal wrote:
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution is
inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has zero
responsibility, we are told.
Nor should we pretend that Hamas has zero responsibility.
Even as Israel bombs Gaza, and AIUI trying (with limited success) to
hit the correct targets, Hamas continue to fire rockets into Israel
with no aim at all. The actions of Hamas meet all the definitions of a
war crime.
No aim? They killed the enemy
The only war crime is losing.
I fear that there is no solution to this.
The Romans forced the Jews out of Israel, and after The Holocaust they
want it back.
Yes and we want compensation for the Norman invasion.
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the
latest terrorist attack.
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the
latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies are
said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I don't know
the details, nor how often this type of report is inaccurate. Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
On 18:42 16 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 16/10/2023 16:31, Pamela wrote:
On 18:56 15 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army,
taking "every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not
prevent them from bombing civilians and burning them with white
phosphorus if they judge that this is the only way to kill a
handful of terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution
is inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has
zero responsibility, we are told.
Although Hamas enjoys much support in the civilian population in
Gaza, it appears to be pushing the limits of what its supporters are
prepared to accept.
There are some intriguing poll results at the following link,
especially the first one on the page called: "Polls Show Majority of
Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire".
<https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/washington-
institute- 2023-polling-data-and-analysis>
Howeevr these findings have become largely academic.
The findings will clearly be academic when all the people who voted
in the polls have been blasted to bits by Israeli tanks and
artillery.
Unfortunately that's what happens when a terrorist organisation
undertakes an act of war whilst hiding amongst a (largely supportive) civilian population. Our concern should be for those Palestinians who
clearly oppose Hamas who get caught up in the retaliation.
The IRA were almost all British citizens. If they had blown up a few
pubs and railway stations in London, how many of your own friends and
relatives would you think it fair and reasonable to be killed in
revenge, to atone for the actions of your fellow Brits?
I am not sure that's a helpful way to see things. If anything, that
question should be framed the other way around? It might be better to
ask how many IRA terrorists (a paramilitary group) would it be fair and reasonable to kill in revenge for their unwarranted murder of British civilians?
Hamas administered Gaza badly and poured all Gaza's resources into antagonising Israel rather than attempting co-existence. Consequently
life in Gaza has become wretched but with a strong element of self flagellation.
If you are displeased at Israeli retaliation at an act of terrorism
then what would be your solution to the Palestinian question?
On 16/10/2023 19:38, Pamela wrote:
On 18:42 16 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 16/10/2023 16:31, Pamela wrote:
On 18:56 15 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army,
taking "every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not >>>>>>> prevent them from bombing civilians and burning them with white
phosphorus if they judge that this is the only way to kill a
handful of terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution
is inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has
zero responsibility, we are told.
Although Hamas enjoys much support in the civilian population in
Gaza, it appears to be pushing the limits of what its supporters are
prepared to accept.
There are some intriguing poll results at the following link,
especially the first one on the page called: "Polls Show Majority of
Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire".
<https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/washington-institute- >>>> 2023-polling-data-and-analysis>
Howeevr these findings have become largely academic.
The findings will clearly be academic when all the people who voted
in the polls have been blasted to bits by Israeli tanks and
artillery.
Unfortunately that's what happens when a terrorist organisation
undertakes an act of war whilst hiding amongst a (largely supportive)
civilian population. Our concern should be for those Palestinians who
clearly oppose Hamas who get caught up in the retaliation.
Unfortunately terrorism is born from a lack of political power.
Otherwise Nelson Mandela would never have commanded so much respect. He
has much in common with Hamas.
The IRA were almost all British citizens. If they had blown up a few
pubs and railway stations in London, how many of your own friends and
relatives would you think it fair and reasonable to be killed in
revenge, to atone for the actions of your fellow Brits?
I am not sure that's a helpful way to see things. If anything, that
question should be framed the other way around? It might be better to
ask how many IRA terrorists (a paramilitary group) would it be fair and
reasonable to kill in revenge for their unwarranted murder of British
civilians?
It's perhaps ironic that the army sent into NI and subsequent troubles
were to safeguard the minority in NI, namely the republican movement.
Yet the IRA saw them as their foe.
Hamas administered Gaza badly and poured all Gaza's resources into
antagonising Israel rather than attempting co-existence. Consequently
life in Gaza has become wretched but with a strong element of self
flagellation.
There are reasons why they were voted in, namely frustration towards
those who endorse, largely by inaction, the situation where those living
in Palestine and their families are ethnically cleansed from the state
of Israel.
If you are displeased at Israeli retaliation at an act of terrorism
then what would be your solution to the Palestinian question?
The idea of a religious state should be replaced by na secular
government, where you aren't able to stone anyone driving a car with
impunity on certain days of the week.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/israel/local-laws-and-customs
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the time?
On 16/10/2023 22:42, Fredxx wrote:potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:indeed yes.
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the
latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies are
said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I don't
know the details, nor how often this type of report is inaccurate.
Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-warnings-
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source. I reckon they might have a few Boris Johnsons
in their government. People who deny what it is inconvenient to admit.
On 15/10/2023 21:38, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/10/2023 18:56, The Todal wrote:
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from
informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by
the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution is
inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied
medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has zero
responsibility, we are told.
Nor should we pretend that Hamas has zero responsibility.
Even as Israel bombs Gaza, and AIUI trying (with limited success) to
hit the correct targets, Hamas continue to fire rockets into Israel
with no aim at all. The actions of Hamas meet all the definitions of a
war crime.
No aim? They killed the enemy
The only war crime is losing.
I fear that there is no solution to this.
The Romans forced the Jews out of Israel, and after The Holocaust they
want it back.
Yes and we want compensation for the Norman invasion.
On 16/10/2023 22:42, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the
latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies are
said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I don't
know the details, nor how often this type of report is inaccurate.
Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
indeed yes.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-warnings-potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source.
I reckon they might have a few Boris Johnsons
in their government.
On 16 Oct 2023 at 23:09:17 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 19:38, Pamela wrote:
On 18:42 16 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 16/10/2023 16:31, Pamela wrote:
On 18:56 15 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 14/10/2023 11:11, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2023 18:55, The Todal wrote:
It's sufficiently vague and ambiguous. To the Israeli army,
taking "every possible precaution to protect civilians" does not >>>>>>>> prevent them from bombing civilians and burning them with white >>>>>>>> phosphorus if they judge that this is the only way to kill a
handful of terrorists nearby.
How should they go about it? What, if anything, should they do?
Rely on intelligence - intercepting communications and reports from >>>>>> informers - to arrest and interrogate suspected terrorists.
It might not be the grand gesture that would appease the Israeli
population but it would be more ethical than what is planned.
Meanwhile we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors perpetrated by >>>>>> the Hamas terrorists in Israel. Do we need any further reminding?
Isn't this to soften us up and applaud whatever savage retribution >>>>>> is inflicted by the IDF? Those patients in hospital who are denied >>>>>> medical care - all the fault of Hamas, blame Hamas, the IDF has
zero responsibility, we are told.
Although Hamas enjoys much support in the civilian population in
Gaza, it appears to be pushing the limits of what its supporters are >>>>> prepared to accept.
There are some intriguing poll results at the following link,
especially the first one on the page called: "Polls Show Majority of >>>>> Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire".
<https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/washington-institute-
2023-polling-data-and-analysis>
Howeevr these findings have become largely academic.
The findings will clearly be academic when all the people who voted
in the polls have been blasted to bits by Israeli tanks and
artillery.
Unfortunately that's what happens when a terrorist organisation
undertakes an act of war whilst hiding amongst a (largely supportive)
civilian population. Our concern should be for those Palestinians who
clearly oppose Hamas who get caught up in the retaliation.
Unfortunately terrorism is born from a lack of political power.
Otherwise Nelson Mandela would never have commanded so much respect. He
has much in common with Hamas.
The IRA were almost all British citizens. If they had blown up a few
pubs and railway stations in London, how many of your own friends and
relatives would you think it fair and reasonable to be killed in
revenge, to atone for the actions of your fellow Brits?
I am not sure that's a helpful way to see things. If anything, that
question should be framed the other way around? It might be better to
ask how many IRA terrorists (a paramilitary group) would it be fair and
reasonable to kill in revenge for their unwarranted murder of British
civilians?
It's perhaps ironic that the army sent into NI and subsequent troubles
were to safeguard the minority in NI, namely the republican movement.
Yet the IRA saw them as their foe.
Hamas administered Gaza badly and poured all Gaza's resources into
antagonising Israel rather than attempting co-existence. Consequently
life in Gaza has become wretched but with a strong element of self
flagellation.
There are reasons why they were voted in, namely frustration towards
those who endorse, largely by inaction, the situation where those living
in Palestine and their families are ethnically cleansed from the state
of Israel.
If you are displeased at Israeli retaliation at an act of terrorism
then what would be your solution to the Palestinian question?
The idea of a religious state should be replaced by na secular
government, where you aren't able to stone anyone driving a car with
impunity on certain days of the week.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/israel/local-laws-and-customs
Perhaps Israel could have compromised with the Palestinians when most of their
leadership was secularist?
On 16/10/2023 19:38, Pamela wrote:
If you are displeased at Israeli retaliation at an act of terrorism
then what would be your solution to the Palestinian question?
The idea of a religious state should be replaced by na secular
government, where you aren't able to stone anyone driving a car with
impunity on certain days of the week.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/israel/local-laws-and-customs
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the job. Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none
of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no interest
in.
On 19:03 13 Oct 2023, The Todal said:...
Hiroshima was a virgin target that had been spared so that the
boffins could properly assess the damage that would be caused by an
atomic bomb. The pretext was to save the lives of soldiers who would
otherwise have to invade Japanese territory but the actual aim was to
prove that America was now the world's most powerful nation and could
defy Russian territorial ambitions. But all that is to state the
obvious.
I believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an attempt to end
the coming war in Japan quickly. The Japanese civilian population was
showing no sign of capitulation and appeared ready to engage with the Americans in a lengthy war of attrition, just as Japanese troops had in
the Pacific (Okinawa, etc). Not sure this had much to do with
containing Russia.
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the job.
Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none
of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no interest
in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after the
war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the
job.
Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none
of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no
interest
in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for
American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after
the war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure whether
they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a third one?
On 17/10/2023 11:57, GB wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the
job.
Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none >>>> of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no
interest
in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for
American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after
the war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as
possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure whether
they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a third one?
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in completely different ways.
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the time?This was the largest battle but there were many others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
Japanese dead: 110,000 US estimate (77,000 Japanese soldiers, 30,000
Okinawan conscripts) plus 40-150,000 civilians killed.
US dead: 12,500
One could argue that without the dropping of the atomic bombs many more Japanese would have died. Who knows?
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US interference.
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US interference.
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the job. >>> Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none
of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no interest >>> in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for
American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after the
war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure whether
they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a third one?
On 2023-10-17, GB wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the job. >>>> Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none >>>> of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no interest >>>> in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for
American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after the
war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure whether
they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a third one?
The core for the third bomb was the same as for the second (and ended
up being used for some extremely careless experiments):
On August 13, the third bomb was scheduled. It was anticipated that
it would be ready by August 16 to be dropped on August 19.[3] This
was pre-empted by Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945, while
preparations were still being made for it to be couriered to
Kirtland Field. The third core remained at Los Alamos.[5]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Manufacturing_and_early_history>
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 17/10/2023 11:57, GB wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the
job.
Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none >>>> of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no
interest
in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for
American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after
the war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as
possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure whether
they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a third one?
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in completely different ways.
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be extracted chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched by
centrifuges or other means?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:01:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 16/10/2023 22:42, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:indeed yes.
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the
latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies
are said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I
don't know the details, nor how often this type of report is
inaccurate. Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-
warnings- potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-
days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source. I reckon they might have a few Boris
Johnsons in their government. People who deny what it is
inconvenient to admit.
I find it interesting that the implication of the incident - that a
known hostile actor was able to amass an *enormous* stock of weapons
and carefully plan a highly coordinated attack - without a whisper
anywhere in the earshot of the most sophisticated intelligence
networks ever knowns astonishing. In fact, I might go as far as to
say it's hard to believe.
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the >>>> time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US interference.Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
On 2023-10-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be extracted
chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched by
centrifuges or other means?
Extracted chemically from what? Nothing exists in nature containing any noticeable amount of plutonium to extract in the first place. If you
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear reactions.
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between
them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can
test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty
rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from
US interference.
Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to
Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks
would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or
more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the
US would get involved. So they thought it would be an excellent idea
to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the
bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US
would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so
we'll let you get on with it".
On 2023-10-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be extracted
chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched by
centrifuges or other means?
Extracted chemically from what? Nothing exists in nature containing any noticeable amount of plutonium to extract in the first place.
If you
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear reactions.
On 07:29 17 Oct 2023, Jethro_uk said:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:01:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 16/10/2023 22:42, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:indeed yes.
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the
latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies
are said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I
don't know the details, nor how often this type of report is
inaccurate. Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-
warnings- potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-
days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source. I reckon they might have a few Boris
Johnsons in their government. People who deny what it is
inconvenient to admit.
I find it interesting that the implication of the incident - that a
known hostile actor was able to amass an *enormous* stock of weapons
and carefully plan a highly coordinated attack - without a whisper
anywhere in the earshot of the most sophisticated intelligence
networks ever knowns astonishing. In fact, I might go as far as to
say it's hard to believe.
Those news links above say information about Hamas's plans for some unspecified action were provided to the Israelis, although without
details. Nevertheless the Israelis must surely have directly gleaned additional reports from their field agents amongst the Palestinian population.
The failure is so catastrophic that it's almost as if Israeli
intelligence was deliberately compromised. It sounds unlikely but who
knows if an essential link in the Israeli chain of communication was
working for the Palestinians?
Public anger in Israel about this is enormous and I suspect even remote possibilites and seemingly wild theories will get investigated.
On 17/10/2023 19:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear
reactions.
Quite, so what is the advantage over uranium? Apart from plutonium can
be easily made in a reactor, and easily separated using chemical means?
On 17 Oct 2023 at 13:12:35 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 07:29 17 Oct 2023, Jethro_uk said:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:01:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 16/10/2023 22:42, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:indeed yes.
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the >>>>>> latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies
are said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I
don't know the details, nor how often this type of report is
inaccurate. Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-
warnings- potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-
days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source. I reckon they might have a few Boris
Johnsons in their government. People who deny what it is inconvenient
to admit.
I find it interesting that the implication of the incident - that a
known hostile actor was able to amass an *enormous* stock of weapons
and carefully plan a highly coordinated attack - without a whisper
anywhere in the earshot of the most sophisticated intelligence
networks ever knowns astonishing. In fact, I might go as far as to say
it's hard to believe.
Those news links above say information about Hamas's plans for some
unspecified action were provided to the Israelis, although without
details. Nevertheless the Israelis must surely have directly gleaned
additional reports from their field agents amongst the Palestinian
population.
The failure is so catastrophic that it's almost as if Israeli
intelligence was deliberately compromised. It sounds unlikely but who
knows if an essential link in the Israeli chain of communication was
working for the Palestinians?
More likely than that, though still a remote conspiracy theory, is that elements in the government suppressed the information, hoping that a significant Hamas attack might enable them to have another go at solving
the Gaza problem. The Gaza problem of course is 2 million non-Israelis
living in occupied land that Israel wants to keep.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 20:05:13 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 19:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear
reactions.
Quite, so what is the advantage over uranium? Apart from plutonium can
be easily made in a reactor, and easily separated using chemical means?
A lot more bang for your buck, basically.
The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained 64kg of uranium, and generated 63 TJ (terajoules) of energy (equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT). The "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained 6.4kg of plutonium - that is, 10% of the weight of the fissile material in Little Boy - and generated 88 TJ of energy (21 kilotons).
On 17/10/2023 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:57, GB wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done
the job.
Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But
none
of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no
interest
in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion
for American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big
factor compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence
after the war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far
as possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure
whether they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a
third one?
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in
completely different ways.
They literally only had the two bombs they dropped.
The entire output of the Manhattan Project by that time had been three
bombs, one of which was tested in Nevada. What I was asking was how
quickly could they produce the fuel to make new bombs, as I assume all
the mechanical bits could be produced easily enough.
On 17/10/2023 11:57, GB wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 17/10/2023 07:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
The second bomb was needed, because just one would not have done the
job.
Which loops around to support the decision in the first place.
There were lots of "additional benefits" to dropping the bomb, But none >>>> of them preclude the publicly stated one of ending the war. Which a
nuanced view of history would cover, and a soundbite view has no
interest
in.
Ending the war with maximum advantage to the USA.
During wartime, life is cheap and I don't believe that compassion for
American soldiers poised to fight in mainland Japan was a big factor
compared with the prospect of carving up spheres of influence after
the war and ensuring that Communism would be weakened as far as
possible.
But each to his own theory, of course.
The US just had the two bombs, and they were not entirely sure whether
they would work. Do you know the timescale for building a third one?
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in completely different ways.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 20:05:13 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 19:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear
reactions.
Quite, so what is the advantage over uranium? Apart from plutonium can
be easily made in a reactor, and easily separated using chemical means?
A lot more bang for your buck, basically.
The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained 64kg of uranium, and generated 63 TJ (terajoules) of energy (equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT). The "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained 6.4kg of plutonium - that is, 10% of the weight of the fissile material in Little Boy - and generated 88 TJ of energy (21 kilotons).
On 17/10/2023 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in
completely different ways.
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be extracted chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched by
centrifuges or other means?
The implosion technique is used for both Uranium and Plutonium bombs, an advantage is that you need less plutonium to get to critical mass.
Please feel free to correct me.
On 18/10/2023 11:55, Max Demian wrote:
I thought that the implosion technique was only used for the plutonium
bomb, and that the uranium bomb had two sub critical masses banged
together. Maybe it was just the techniques that needed to be compared
rather than the fissile materials.
No, the gun method was only used for the first uranium bomb. It is
simpler. The implosion method creates a denser critical mass before the fission reaction blows it apart. So once you have the implosion method,
there is no reason for the gun method. As stated, the gun method was not practical for plutonium due to an isotope, Plutonium-240, having a high
rate of spontaneous fission, leading to a tendency for premature
detonation.
There was a very good BBC series in 1980, called Oppenheimer. That
explained all this. Maybe the recent film of the same name does, too.
On 17/10/2023 13:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in
completely different ways.
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be
extracted chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched
by centrifuges or other means?
The implosion technique is used for both Uranium and Plutonium bombs,
an advantage is that you need less plutonium to get to critical mass.
Please feel free to correct me.
I thought that the implosion technique was only used for the plutonium
bomb, and that the uranium bomb had two sub critical masses banged
together. Maybe it was just the techniques that needed to be compared
rather than the fissile materials.
On 17/10/2023 19:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be extracted
chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched by
centrifuges or other means?
Extracted chemically from what? Nothing exists in nature containing any noticeable amount of plutonium to extract in the first place.Reactors were specially build and even civilian reactors were optimised
to produce plutonium. Given the supply of plentiful plutonium it's not relevant that none, or very little, occurs in nature.
If youQuite, so what is the advantage over uranium? Apart from plutonium can
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear reactions.
be easily made in a reactor, and easily separated using chemical means?
On 17/10/2023 13:43, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between
them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can
test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty
rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from
US interference.
Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.Creating a blockade is dangerous for all. Just think what would have
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks
would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or
more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the
US would get involved. So they thought it would be an excellent idea
to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the
bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US
would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so
we'll let you get on with it".
happened if a few torpedoes were set upon a few ships surrounding Cuba
in 1962.
On 17/10/2023 20:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 20:05:13 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 19:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you
want any useful amount you have to create it from uranium using nuclear >>> reactions.
Quite, so what is the advantage over uranium? Apart from plutonium can
be easily made in a reactor, and easily separated using chemical means?
A lot more bang for your buck, basically.
The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained 64kg of uranium, and generated 63 TJ (terajoules) of energy (equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT). The "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained 6.4kg of plutonium - that is, 10% of the weight of the fissile material in Little Boy - and generated 88 TJ of energy (21 kilotons).Yet because of the difficulty of a clean(ish) bomb using plutonium, the
final weight was about the same to obtain a similar yield. The fissile material being a small fraction of the final weight.
As I said earlier the major difference is that there is no need for
exotic means to concentrate fissile material for plutonium that is
required for uranium.
On 17 Oct 2023 at 13:12:35 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 07:29 17 Oct 2023, Jethro_uk said:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:01:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 16/10/2023 22:42, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 16:05, Pamela wrote:indeed yes.
On 10:01 16 Oct 2023, notya...@gmail.com said:
<snip>
Others certainly warned Israel, but the Israeli government did
nothing until after Hamas's attack.
Who "certainly warned Israel"? I'm not aware anybody warned of the >>>>>> latest terrorist attack.
There were a few articles where Egypt and other security agencies
are said to have warned Israel of an impending action by Hamas. I
don't know the details, nor how often this type of report is
inaccurate. Either way Israel was caught with its pants down.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-
warnings- potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-
days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source. I reckon they might have a few Boris
Johnsons in their government. People who deny what it is
inconvenient to admit.
I find it interesting that the implication of the incident - that a
known hostile actor was able to amass an *enormous* stock of weapons
and carefully plan a highly coordinated attack - without a whisper
anywhere in the earshot of the most sophisticated intelligence
networks ever knowns astonishing. In fact, I might go as far as to
say it's hard to believe.
Those news links above say information about Hamas's plans for some
unspecified action were provided to the Israelis, although without
details. Nevertheless the Israelis must surely have directly gleaned
additional reports from their field agents amongst the Palestinian
population.
The failure is so catastrophic that it's almost as if Israeli
intelligence was deliberately compromised. It sounds unlikely but who
knows if an essential link in the Israeli chain of communication was
working for the Palestinians?
More likely than that, though still a remote conspiracy theory, is that elements in the government suppressed the information, hoping that a significant Hamas attack might enable them to have another go at solving the Gaza problem. The Gaza problem of course is 2 million non-Israelis living in occupied land that Israel wants to keep.
Public anger in Israel about this is enormous and I suspect even remote
possibilites and seemingly wild theories will get investigated.
On 13:57 15 Oct 2023, pensive hamster said:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:13:16 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
Perhaps Qatar and Saudi Arabia will offer to host Palestinian
refugees to help out with the current situation.
Do you think Israel will offer to host Palestinian refugees
to help out with the current situation?
That appears to be the status quo with Gaza as one such self-governing
region within Israel.
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at
the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring
a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Unless people also believe the UK deliberately suppressed details of
Pearl Harbour
rabbit hole ------------------------------>
More likely than that, though still a remote conspiracy theory, is that
elements in the government suppressed the information, hoping that a
significant Hamas attack might enable them to have another go at
solving the
Gaza problem. The Gaza problem of course is 2 million non-Israelis
living in
occupied land that Israel wants to keep.
I think that is at least plausible.
Although my instinct is not an
intelligence failure but a political decision made right at the top.
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at
the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring
a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_HarborIt's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they
still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
On 18/10/2023 11:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 13:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
They only developed two types. Uranium and plutonium, which work in
completely different ways.
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be
extracted chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched
by centrifuges or other means?
The implosion technique is used for both Uranium and Plutonium bombs,
an advantage is that you need less plutonium to get to critical mass.
Please feel free to correct me.
I thought that the implosion technique was only used for the plutonium
bomb, and that the uranium bomb had two sub critical masses banged
together. Maybe it was just the techniques that needed to be compared
rather than the fissile materials.
No, the gun method was only used for the first uranium bomb. It is
simpler. The implosion method creates a denser critical mass before the fission reaction blows it apart. So once you have the implosion method,
there is no reason for the gun method. As stated, the gun method was not practical for plutonium due to an isotope, Plutonium-240, having a high
rate of spontaneous fission, leading to a tendency for premature
detonation.
There was a very good BBC series in 1980, called Oppenheimer. That
explained all this. Maybe the recent film of the same name does, too.
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side.
I'm sure a country that was enduring a
US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The
movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at
the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring
a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The
movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they
still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion
of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the >>>>>> time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who >>>>> lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US
interference.
Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the US would get involved. So they thought it wouldbe an excellent idea to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so we'll let you get on with it".
On 17/10/2023 13:43, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between
them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can
test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty
rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from
US interference.
Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to
Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks
would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or
more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the
US would get involved. So they thought it would be an excellent idea
to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the
bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US
would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so
we'll let you get on with it".
Creating a blockade is dangerous for all. Just think what would have
happened if a few torpedoes were set upon a few ships surrounding Cuba
in 1962.
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at
the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring
a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The
movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor >>
Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they
still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already divvied
up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion
of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by
Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
On 17/10/2023 01:43 pm, Brian W wrote:would be an excellent idea to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so we'll let you get on
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the >>>>>> time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who >>>>> lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US
interference.
Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.Nowadays, we call such actions "economic sanctions".
...and so what?
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the US would get involved. So they thought it
All Japan had to do was to desist from waging war on China.
The didn't "need" to carry on with it in the face of international condemnation.
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them.
We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at
the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby
uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by
the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been
seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this
in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true,
they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties
felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
On 18/10/2023 10:23, Martin Brown wrote:
More likely than that, though still a remote conspiracy theory, is that
elements in the government suppressed the information, hoping that a
significant Hamas attack might enable them to have another go at
solving the
Gaza problem. The Gaza problem of course is 2 million non-Israelis
living in
occupied land that Israel wants to keep.
I think that is at least plausible.
Surely, you are stretching the word plausible there? I know some people
will believe almost anything, but ...
Although my instinct is not an
intelligence failure but a political decision made right at the top.
And, how many people would have to keep quiet about that one? That isn't
even plausible on any planet outside the looney bin.
Why not say something a bit more plausible, like it was Martian lizards dressed up as people?
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 16:02:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:would be an excellent idea to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so we'll let you get on
On 17/10/2023 01:43 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:Nowadays, we call such actions "economic sanctions".
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them." >>>Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the >>>>>>>> time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who >>>>>>> lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US
interference.
Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.
...and so what?
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the US would get involved. So they thought it
to desist.All Japan had to do was to desist from waging war on China.
The didn't "need" to carry on with it in the face of international
condemnation.
Well of course I agree with you. I am simply trying to explain it from the Japanese perspective - they thought it was most impudent of the US to interfere in their genocidal war with China, so took what they saw as appropriate action to persuade the US
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. >>>>>>>> We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of >>>>>>>> them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at >>>>>>> the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby
uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by
the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been
seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this
in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true,
they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties
felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly exaggerated) fears.
On 18/10/2023 12:19 pm, Pancho wrote:
There was a very good BBC series in 1980, called Oppenheimer. That
explained all this. Maybe the recent film of the same name does, too.
The recent movie doesn't go into that much detail about the bombs. It is
more centred upon the personal experiences of Oppenheimer before and
after the war.
I do remember the TV series though. It would be good if BBC repeated it
on BBC4.
On 17/10/2023 07:29 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/10/2023 13:43, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between
them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can
test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty
rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from
US interference.
Harbo(u)r.
Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to
Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks
would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or
more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the
US would get involved. So they thought it would be an excellent idea
to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the
bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US
would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so
we'll let you get on with it".
Creating a blockade is dangerous for all. Just think what would have
happened if a few torpedoes were set upon a few ships surrounding Cuba
in 1962.
Calculated risk.
It worked.
On 18/10/2023 03:13 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at >>>>>>> the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)? >>>>>
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring
a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The
movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor >>>
Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they
still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
Not even discontinuing their aggression against China?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion
of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by
Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
Has Ukraine got a history of threatening Moscow with nuclear-armed
missiles?
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between
them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test >>>>>>>>> both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates
at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier
by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have
been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this
in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true,
they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between
them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test >>>>>>>>>> both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates >>>>>>>>> at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier
by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have
been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this
in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true,
they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
On the other hand, the loss of Russian language opportunities (as
discussed here at the outbreak of the Ukrainian war) is subjective and
in itself hardly a matter for war.
Well, if you must have a conspiracy theory, here's one.
That many people died as the result of an explosion at Al-Ahli Arab
Hospital is undoubtedly true.
Hamas immediately said that Israel bombed it.
Israel said that rockets fired by Islamic Jihad accidentally hit the hospital.
But, of course, I know better. And, I'll let you in on it.
Al-Ahli Arab Hospital: It's a Christian hospital, run by the Anglican Communion. And Islamic Jihad, well it's all in the name, innit. They deliberately fired their rockets at the Christian hospital. So, it was
no accident, and the Christians were the perfect target for propaganda purposes. Two birds, one stone. Jihad. Stands to reason!
I think I've got the hang of this conspiracy theory business. Any old
crap strung together. Make up anything you like. Speculate. Draw
ridiculous conclusions without any evidence. And, it's wonderful. Not
only does nobody challenge you, but it gets repeated, as if there were
some truth in it.
Truth is the first casualty of war. Common sense went ages ago.
On 18/10/2023 16:38, Brian W wrote:would be an excellent idea to cripple the US battle fleet, grab the oil, and ... well that's the bit I've never been clear about. Did they really think that the US would just shrug and say "whatever, lads, you've sunk our fleet so we'll let you get on
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 16:02:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 01:43 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 12:50:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:Nowadays, we call such actions "economic sanctions".
On 17/10/2023 12:05 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them." >>>Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the >>>>>>>> time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who >>>>>>> lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The Japanese just wanted to protect their Asian operations from US >>>>> interference.
Jeez.... that is *some attempt at justification for Pearl Harbo(u)r. >>>> Japan expressed that desire by waging war upon the United States,
murdering many people in the process, just on the opening day.
Well, I mean it's kind of true, but still ...
As I understand it, the US had introduced an embargo on oil supply to Japan, in protest at the Japanese conduct in the war against China.
...and so what?
Japan knew, in the absence of domestic supplies of oil, its stocks would run out in about 18 months. So Japan needed to conquer one or more oil producing Pacific countries, but knew that if it did so the US would get involved. So they thought it
US to desist.All Japan had to do was to desist from waging war on China.
The didn't "need" to carry on with it in the face of international
condemnation.
Well of course I agree with you. I am simply trying to explain it from the Japanese perspective - they thought it was most impudent of the US to interfere in their genocidal war with China, so took what they saw as appropriate action to persuade the
The full extent of Japan's genocidal ambitions and its duplicity in
relations with the UK and USA are set out in "The Knights of Bushido", a non-fiction account of Japanese war crimes.
On 18/10/2023 18:23, GB wrote:
Well, if you must have a conspiracy theory, here's one.
That many people died as the result of an explosion at Al-Ahli Arab
Hospital is undoubtedly true.
Hamas immediately said that Israel bombed it.
Israel said that rockets fired by Islamic Jihad accidentally hit the
hospital.
But, of course, I know better. And, I'll let you in on it.
Al-Ahli Arab Hospital: It's a Christian hospital, run by the Anglican
Communion. And Islamic Jihad, well it's all in the name, innit. They
deliberately fired their rockets at the Christian hospital. So, it was
no accident, and the Christians were the perfect target for propaganda
purposes. Two birds, one stone. Jihad. Stands to reason!
I think I've got the hang of this conspiracy theory business. Any old
crap strung together. Make up anything you like. Speculate. Draw
ridiculous conclusions without any evidence. And, it's wonderful. Not
only does nobody challenge you, but it gets repeated, as if there were
some truth in it.
Truth is the first casualty of war. Common sense went ages ago.
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The main problem we face is that our media pundits, the columnists in newspapers and the presenters on telly, are under pressure to keep
feeding us news and opinions even if the source material is ambiguous or scanty. And to find new angles, new facts, all the time.
And our politicians feel under pressure to declare their support for
Israel and their hope for a peaceful solution and their concerns about
the starving, bombed Palestinians in Gaza but it's all virtue-signalling directed at the public. They have nothing worthwhile to offer other than
hot air.
It does seem to have been a Hamas rocket. Even knowing how superpowers
lie and dissemble and pick and choose whichever facts best support them,
it does seem to have been a Hamas rocket.
The people wouldn't all have been crowded into a courtyard if it hadn't
been for Israel's threats that unless they left their homes Israel can't guarantee their safety (ie, they become human shields which are fair
game if there is a terrorist somewhere nearby).
There will be thousands more deaths of innocent people. The way to salve one's conscience is to say that any Palestinians who voted for Hamas or
*may perhaps* have voted for Hamas, have only themselves to blame.
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test >>>>>>>>>>> both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates >>>>>>>>>> at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier
by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have >>>>>>> been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this >>>>>> in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, >>>>>> they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much a
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack from the
USA.
On the other hand, the loss of Russian language opportunities (as
discussed here at the outbreak of the Ukrainian war) is subjective and
in itself hardly a matter for war.
I can't even remember what that was about. Many people who live in
Ukraine are bilingual.
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test >>>>>>>>>>> both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates >>>>>>>>>> at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier
by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have >>>>>>> been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this >>>>>> in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, >>>>>> they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much a
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack from the
USA.
On the other hand, the loss of Russian language opportunities (as
discussed here at the outbreak of the Ukrainian war) is subjective and
in itself hardly a matter for war.
I can't even remember what that was about. Many people who live in
Ukraine are bilingual.
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We
don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at the
time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians (who
lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
Taken completely by surprise, TWO YEARS into a global war ( thanks Al) .
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at
the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians
(who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring
a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The
movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in
Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they
still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already divvied
up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion
of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by
Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The Israelis have said it was not a large high explosive rocket or bomb fired from an aeroplane because the crater was small. They have not said that it wasn't a small anti-personnel rocket fired from a drone, such as the Americans
regularly use to kill individuals.
I'm not saying it was a drone attack, but I don't think the possibility has been sufficiently explored.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to stop
Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
AIUI, Ukraine showed no aggression towards Russia until the invasions started. Ukraine even gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for
"respect [for its] independence and sovereignty in the existing
borders".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content>
On 19/10/2023 11:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Israelis have said it was not a large high explosive rocket or bomb fired
from an aeroplane because the crater was small. They have not said that it >> wasn't a small anti-personnel rocket fired from a drone, such as the Americans
regularly use to kill individuals.
I'm not saying it was a drone attack, but I don't think the possibility has >> been sufficiently explored.
Do you have any evidence that it hasn't been explored?
The reality is that it doesn't matter who fired this missile or bomb.
The likelihood is that it wasn't intentionally aimed at this huddle of
people in the hospital courtyard.
indeed yes.
It doesn't require much googling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-warnings-potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/10/12/us-confirms-egypt-warned-israel-days-before-hamas-attack/
However, Israeli spokesmen have firmly denied that they received any
warnings from any source. I reckon they might have a few Boris Johnsons
in their government. People who deny what it is inconvenient to admit.
I can't even remember what that was about. Many people who live in
Ukraine are bilingual.
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be extracted chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched by
centrifuges or other means?
The implosion technique is used for both Uranium and Plutonium bombs, an advantage is that you need less plutonium to get to critical mass.
Please feel free to correct me.
On 18/10/2023 16:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2023 03:13 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of
them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at >>>>>>>> the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians >>>>>>> (who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)? >>>>>>
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring >>>>> a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The >>>>> movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in
Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they
still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
Not even discontinuing their aggression against China?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion >>>> of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by
Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
Has Ukraine got a history of threatening Moscow with nuclear-armed
missiles?
I never said it had, but NATO has.
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:19 pm, Pancho wrote:
There was a very good BBC series in 1980, called Oppenheimer. That
explained all this. Maybe the recent film of the same name does, too.
The recent movie doesn't go into that much detail about the bombs. It is
more centred upon the personal experiences of Oppenheimer before and
after the war.
I do remember the TV series though. It would be good if BBC repeated it
on BBC4.
The 1980 seven-episode TV series is currently available on iPlayer.
On 19/10/2023 13:32, Adam Funk wrote:
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
AIUI, Ukraine showed no aggression towards Russia until the
invasions started. Ukraine even gave up its nuclear weapons in
exchange for "respect [for its] independence and sovereignty in the
existing borders".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content>
Ukraine was threatening to join an economic and military adversary of
Russia. It is clear Russian interests were being threatened. The US
sanctions on Nord Stream 2 being an obvious sign of things to come.
Respect for national borders only goes so far. The Cuban missile
crisis is one counter-example. Others include Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria, and military threats + economic sanctions against Iran.
If you want a different example, there is the Ethiopian dam on the
Nile, threatening Egyptian water supply. It is clear that Ethiopia
should not have carte blanche to control the Nile, but it is also
clear previous treaties are unfair and forced upon Ethiopia when it
was weak and Egypt was strong.
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test >>>>>>>>>>> both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates >>>>>>>>>> at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier
by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have >>>>>>> been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this >>>>>> in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, >>>>>> they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much a
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack from the
USA.
On the other hand, the loss of Russian language opportunities (as
discussed here at the outbreak of the Ukrainian war) is subjective and
in itself hardly a matter for war.
I can't even remember what that was about. Many people who live in
Ukraine are bilingual.
On 19 Oct 2023 at 14:34:07 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 11:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Israelis have said it was not a large high explosive rocket or bomb fired
from an aeroplane because the crater was small. They have not said that it >>> wasn't a small anti-personnel rocket fired from a drone, such as the Americans
regularly use to kill individuals.
I'm not saying it was a drone attack, but I don't think the possibility has >>> been sufficiently explored.
Do you have any evidence that it hasn't been explored?
The reality is that it doesn't matter who fired this missile or bomb.
The likelihood is that it wasn't intentionally aimed at this huddle of
people in the hospital courtyard.
Fair enough, but what I mean is that it hasn't been publicly explored by the media and propagandists on each side.
On 19/10/2023 15:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Oct 2023 at 14:34:07 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 19/10/2023 11:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Israelis have said it was not a large high explosive rocket or bomb fired
from an aeroplane because the crater was small. They have not said that it >>>> wasn't a small anti-personnel rocket fired from a drone, such as the Americans
regularly use to kill individuals.
I'm not saying it was a drone attack, but I don't think the possibility has
been sufficiently explored.
Do you have any evidence that it hasn't been explored?
The reality is that it doesn't matter who fired this missile or bomb.
The likelihood is that it wasn't intentionally aimed at this huddle of
people in the hospital courtyard.
Fair enough, but what I mean is that it hasn't been publicly explored by the >> media and propagandists on each side.
The Israelis have said it wasn't them. And, Hamas have just said
'Israeli bomb'. Maybe, they should have said 'Israeli ordnance'?
On 18/10/2023 05:09 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/10/2023 16:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2023 03:13 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in >>>>> Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they >>>>> still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of >>>>>>>>>> them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at >>>>>>>>> the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians >>>>>>>> (who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)? >>>>>>>
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring >>>>>> a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The >>>>>> movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks: >>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor >>>>>
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
Not even discontinuing their aggression against China?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion >>>>> of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by
Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
Has Ukraine got a history of threatening Moscow with nuclear-armed
missiles?
I never said it had, but NATO has.
I think our dictionaries must have completely different definitions of
some words.
"Threaten" in particular.
That plan may possibly have worked - if the IJN defeated the US Navy
it's conceivable that the US public would say "why on earth are we
fighting over something thousands of miles away?", and demand that the politicians reach a negotiated settlement.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 06:59:53 -0700, Brian W wrote:
That plan may possibly have worked - if the IJN defeated the US Navy
it's conceivable that the US public would say "why on earth are we
fighting over something thousands of miles away?", and demand that the
politicians reach a negotiated settlement.
I think Vietnam puts paid to that idea
On 19 Oct 2023 at 15:36:51 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/10/2023 05:09 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/10/2023 16:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2023 03:13 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on this in >>>>>> Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there are true, they >>>>>> still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between them. We >>>>>>>>>>> don't want the Japs to surrender before we can test both of >>>>>>>>>>> them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty rates at >>>>>>>>>> the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese civilians >>>>>>>>> (who lived there), and the US military (who were nearby uninvited)? >>>>>>>>
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was enduring >>>>>>> a US blockade might say the action was started earlier by the US. The >>>>>>> movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as
provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side thinks: >>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor >>>>>>
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for Japan?
Not even discontinuing their aggression against China?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian invasion >>>>>> of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the anxieties felt by >>>>>> Russian-speaking people living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
Has Ukraine got a history of threatening Moscow with nuclear-armed
missiles?
I never said it had, but NATO has.
I think our dictionaries must have completely different definitions of
some words.
"Threaten" in particular.
MAD is certainly a threat, by both sides. And America has *never* said that they would refrain from first use of nuclear weapons.
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can
test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty
rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were
nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier
by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also
have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on
this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there
are true, they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for
Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could
to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the
US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much a
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped
to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack
from the USA.
On 17/10/2023 13:00, Fredxx wrote:
I thought the significant difference is that plutonium can be
extracted chemically whereas weapon grade uranium has to be enriched
by centrifuges or other means?
The implosion technique is used for both Uranium and Plutonium bombs,
an advantage is that you need less plutonium to get to critical mass.
Please feel free to correct me.
Both types of bomb can be detonated by a projectile of fissile material
into a mass, as was done with Little Boy.
On 19/10/2023 15:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Oct 2023 at 14:34:07 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/10/2023 11:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Israelis have said it was not a large high explosive rocket or
bomb fired
from an aeroplane because the crater was small. They have not said
that it
wasn't a small anti-personnel rocket fired from a drone, such as the
Americans
regularly use to kill individuals.
I'm not saying it was a drone attack, but I don't think the
possibility has
been sufficiently explored.
Do you have any evidence that it hasn't been explored?
The reality is that it doesn't matter who fired this missile or bomb.
The likelihood is that it wasn't intentionally aimed at this huddle of
people in the hospital courtyard.
Fair enough, but what I mean is that it hasn't been publicly explored
by the
media and propagandists on each side.
The Israelis have said it wasn't them. And, Hamas have just said
'Israeli bomb'. Maybe, they should have said 'Israeli ordnance'?
On 14:47 19 Oct 2023, Pancho said:
On 19/10/2023 13:32, Adam Funk wrote:
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could to
stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
AIUI, Ukraine showed no aggression towards Russia until the
invasions started. Ukraine even gave up its nuclear weapons in
exchange for "respect [for its] independence and sovereignty in the
existing borders".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content>
Ukraine was threatening to join an economic and military adversary of
Russia. It is clear Russian interests were being threatened. The US
sanctions on Nord Stream 2 being an obvious sign of things to come.
"Threatening Russian interests" is so broad and vague as to embrace
almost any activity at all. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and can take whatever action it wishes without Moscow's permission. If it chooses to
join a defensive militry alliance, such as NATO, or an economic market,
such as the EU, then that is for itself to decide. Moscow can fret as
much as it wishes and harrumph in disapproval but it has no say in what Ukraine does.
Respect for national borders only goes so far. The Cuban missile
crisis is one counter-example. Others include Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria, and military threats + economic sanctions against Iran.
If you want a different example, there is the Ethiopian dam on the
Nile, threatening Egyptian water supply. It is clear that Ethiopia
should not have carte blanche to control the Nile, but it is also
clear previous treaties are unfair and forced upon Ethiopia when it
was weak and Egypt was strong.
Which resources in particular are you suggesting Ukraine was
threatening to cut off from Russia? On the other hand, a parallel
example to yours might be Putin's attempt to make Europe freeze last
winter by cutting off Russian oil and gas.
MAD is certainly a threat, by both sides. And America has *never* said
that
they would refrain from first use of nuclear weapons.
Good. It would be a stupid thing to have said.
On 2023-10-19, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 06:59:53 -0700, Brian W wrote:
That plan may possibly have worked - if the IJN defeated the US Navy
it's conceivable that the US public would say "why on earth are we
fighting over something thousands of miles away?", and demand that the
politicians reach a negotiated settlement.
I think Vietnam puts paid to that idea
Doesn't Vietnam *prove* that idea?
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can >>>>>>>>>>> test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty
rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were >>>>>>>>> nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was
enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier >>>>>>> by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also
have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on
this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there
are true, they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already
divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for
Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian
invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could
to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the
US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only
problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much aThose distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600 miles.
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250 miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were defending
but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, theI do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the Soviets.
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped
to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack
from the USA.
On 20/10/2023 02:39, JNugent wrote:
MAD is certainly a threat, by both sides. And America has *never* said
that
they would refrain from first use of nuclear weapons.
Good. It would be a stupid thing to have said.Under what circumstances do you think the USA should use nuclear weapons first? I can understand the logic of a weak conventional military power,
like Iran or North Korea, threatening first use, to deter an
overwhelmingly superior enemy.
I can't imagine a circumstance where the world's greatest conventional military power would benefit from first use.
Under what circumstances do you think the USA should use nuclear
weapons first? I can understand the logic of a weak conventional
military power, like Iran or North Korea, threatening first use, to
deter an overwhelmingly superior enemy.
I can't imagine a circumstance where the world's greatest
conventional military power would benefit from first use.
On 20/10/2023 02:39, JNugent wrote:
MAD is certainly a threat, by both sides. And America has *never*
said that they would refrain from first use of nuclear weapons.
Good. It would be a stupid thing to have said.
Under what circumstances do you think the USA should use nuclear weapons first?
I can understand the logic of a weak conventional military power,
like Iran or North Korea, threatening first use, to deter an
overwhelmingly superior enemy.
I can't imagine a circumstance where the world's greatest conventional military power would benefit from first use.
On 20/10/2023 10:07, Pancho wrote:
Under what circumstances do you think the USA should use nuclear
weapons first? I can understand the logic of a weak conventional
military power, like Iran or North Korea, threatening first use, to
deter an overwhelmingly superior enemy.
I can't imagine a circumstance where the world's greatest
conventional military power would benefit from first use.
It was rumoured after the Falklands hoo-ha that Argentina had
been warned not to attack the Task Force in the event of a UK defeat
and consequent withdrawal, and that a submarine was on station to
enforce this with nuclear weapons if necessary. OK, so the UK is not
"the world's greatest conventional military power" and zapping Buenos
Aires is arguably not a benefit, but I think the same covert threat
might apply to other conflicts. Including current ones where American forces are being employed [whether or not militarily]. Whether that
threat would ever be carried out is another matter, of course, but it
is at least imaginable.
On 19/10/2023 17:17, GB wrote:
On 19/10/2023 15:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Oct 2023 at 14:34:07 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/10/2023 11:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Israelis have said it was not a large high explosive rocket or
bomb fired
from an aeroplane because the crater was small. They have not said
that it
wasn't a small anti-personnel rocket fired from a drone, such as the >>>>> Americans
regularly use to kill individuals.
I'm not saying it was a drone attack, but I don't think the
possibility has
been sufficiently explored.
ISTR that sort of ordinance leaves recognisable characteristic shrapnel in the vicinity of its target. The mangled casings of whatever it was will probably show conclusively which side it belonged to.
(but might mysteriously disappear if they give the wrong answer)
Do you have any evidence that it hasn't been explored?
The reality is that it doesn't matter who fired this missile or bomb.
The likelihood is that it wasn't intentionally aimed at this huddle of >>>> people in the hospital courtyard.
Fair enough, but what I mean is that it hasn't been publicly explored by >>> the
media and propagandists on each side.
The Israelis have said it wasn't them. And, Hamas have just said 'Israeli
bomb'. Maybe, they should have said 'Israeli ordnance'?
Although it might have been Israeli the evidence so far suggests a comparatively small high explosive warhead and a lot of propellent grade material was involved in the conflagration. That is more consistent with a crude rocket falling out of the sky than a high explosive bomb.
The irony is that no Arab government will believe what Israel or their US supporters actually say about it. The damage is already done.
The 24/7 news cycle has a lot to answer for...
On 20/10/2023 10:07 am, Pancho wrote:
On 20/10/2023 02:39, JNugent wrote:
MAD is certainly a threat, by both sides. And America has *never*
said that they would refrain from first use of nuclear weapons.
Good. It would be a stupid thing to have said.
Under what circumstances do you think the USA should use nuclear
weapons first?
None, I would hope. Certainly none I know about. But do either of us
know everything?
The point is that the bad guys could not be allowed to think that they
would always be allowed the first strike.
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600 miles.
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can >>>>>>>>>>>>> test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese
civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were >>>>>>>>>>> nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was >>>>>>>>> enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier >>>>>>>>> by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also >>>>>>>>> have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side
thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on
this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there
are true, they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already >>>>>>> divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese
military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for
Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian >>>>>>>> invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could
to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the >>>>>>> US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might >>>>>>> understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only >>>>>> problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the
Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing
missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply
as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much a
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250 miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were defending
but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, theI do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the Soviets.
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured
destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped
to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack
from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
On 19/10/2023 11:40, The Todal wrote:
I can't even remember what that was about. Many people who live in
Ukraine are bilingual.
They were part of the Soviet empire for many years.
It's hardly surprising that many of them speak Russian.
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600 miles.
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were already >>>>>>>> divvied up amongst US oil companies.
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was >>>>>>>>>> enduring a US blockade might say the action was started earlier >>>>>>>>>> by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour might also >>>>>>>>>> have been seen as provocative.
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were >>>>>>>>>>>> nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941. >>>>>>>>>>
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side >>>>>>>>>> thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on >>>>>>>>> this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there >>>>>>>>> are true, they still don't justify the attack on Pearl Harbor. >>>>>>>>
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the Japanese >>>>>>>> military machine impotent. I don't see any other way out for
Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current Russian >>>>>>>>> invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account of the
anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in eastern
Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could >>>>>>>> to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the >>>>>>>> US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might >>>>>>>> understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the only >>>>>>> problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and the >>>>>> Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was installing >>>>>> missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, simply >>>>>> as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much a
threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250 miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were defending
but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, theI do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the Soviets.
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured
destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have helped
to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile attack
from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent to
the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the other having a different language and having been demonised over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to attack
or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods as politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest writers, actors and
film directors who were thought to be in any way socialist.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How about the
27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War 2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it did in
Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create ISIS and more Islamic
terrorism.
On 20/10/2023 15:16, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2023 10:07 am, Pancho wrote:
On 20/10/2023 02:39, JNugent wrote:
MAD is certainly a threat, by both sides. And America has *never*
said that they would refrain from first use of nuclear weapons.
Good. It would be a stupid thing to have said.
Under what circumstances do you think the USA should use nuclear
weapons first?
None, I would hope. Certainly none I know about. But do either of us
know everything?
The point is that the bad guys could not be allowed to think that they
would always be allowed the first strike.
"Bad guys"; who might they be?
A country founded on slavery supposedly founding its Constitution on the ideals of two other slave owning supposed democracies; Ancient Greece
and Ancient Rome. Although slaves, in the latter at least, often fared
much better than did those on the plantations.
It was rumoured after the Falklands hoo-ha that Argentina hadThe United Kingdom doesn't and didn't have submarines which fit that narrative. The only nuclear-armed craft are or were Polaris and now
been warned not to attack the Task Force in the event of a UK defeat
and consequent withdrawal, and that a submarine was on station to
enforce this with nuclear weapons if necessary. [...]
Trident. They are not used tactically.
The Royal Navy *was* stated at the time to have had a nuclear
submarine in the south Atlantic, but this would have been a
nuclear-powered ship, not a nuclear armed one. Its armaments would
have been conventional.
FWIW, my belief is that Argentina should have been warned not toUmm. I think that /would/ have been an empty threat. The Task
attack the Task Force in any manner at all and not to resist the
British landings on those islands, with any failure meaning that
Argentina's Atlantic naval bases would have been immediately liable
to attack.
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
... The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent to
the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the
other having a different language and having been demonised over
decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were
about to attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their
livelihoods as politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any
way socialist.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How about
the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War 2, often
at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it did in
Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create ISIS and more Islamic
terrorism.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:31:32 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
A country founded on slavery supposedly founding its Constitution on the
ideals of two other slave owning supposed democracies; Ancient Greece
and Ancient Rome. Although slaves, in the latter at least, often fared
much better than did those on the plantations.
I don't recall much evidence that the Romans needed the myth of *racial* superiority to maintain slavery though.
On 19/10/2023 15:31, Pamela wrote:
On 14:47 19 Oct 2023, Pancho said:
On 19/10/2023 13:32, Adam Funk wrote:
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it could
to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking range of the
US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you might
understand their anxiety.
AIUI, Ukraine showed no aggression towards Russia until the
invasions started. Ukraine even gave up its nuclear weapons in
exchange for "respect [for its] independence and sovereignty in
the existing borders".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content>
Ukraine was threatening to join an economic and military adversary
of Russia. It is clear Russian interests were being threatened. The
US sanctions on Nord Stream 2 being an obvious sign of things to
come.
"Threatening Russian interests" is so broad and vague as to embrace
almost any activity at all. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and can
take whatever action it wishes without Moscow's permission. If it
chooses to join a defensive military alliance, such as NATO, or an
economic market, such as the EU, then that is for itself to decide.
Moscow can fret as much as it wishes and harrumph in disapproval but
it has no say in what Ukraine does.
But Russia has had a say. The argument that sovereign nations are
able to act as they please is clearly not true in practice and not a
good idea in theory. I gave examples.
The Monroe Doctrine outlined the problems. The reasoning is still
valid.
Arguing with people who advocate absolute sovereign national freedom
is a bit like arguing with a free man of the land. We live together,
we need to compromise and cooperate. One country's freedom impacts
another country's.
Respect for national borders only goes so far. The Cuban missile
crisis is one counter-example. Others include Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria, and military threats + economic sanctions against Iran.
If you want a different example, there is the Ethiopian dam on the
Nile, threatening Egyptian water supply. It is clear that Ethiopia
should not have carte blanche to control the Nile, but it is also
clear previous treaties are unfair and forced upon Ethiopia when it
was weak and Egypt was strong.
Which resources in particular are you suggesting Ukraine was
threatening to cut off from Russia? On the other hand, a parallel
example to yours might be Putin's attempt to make Europe freeze last
winter by cutting off Russian oil and gas.
The USA has tried to implement various economic sanctions against
Russia, and economically bullies many other countries. As Ukraine is
a major trading partner, and neighbour, of the Russia, it is clear
that Ukraine, following US direction, could cause considerable harm
to Russia.
Ukraine did threaten to shut the gas supply, through its pipeline.
When Russia attempted to build an alternative route, the USA
sanctioned it. I would be interested to hear your view on what
*right* the USA had to put sanctions on Nordstream2. Yes, Nordstream2
would have given Russia greater economic power over Europe, but it
isn't for the USA to dictate that this should not happen. It is a
typical example of US unfair bullying.
I agree it was not right for Putin to cut the gas supply, he was very reluctant to do it, but by then we were in a war situation. We had
imposed sanctions and were giving Ukraine weapons to attack Russia.
I strongly suspect it was the US the blew up Nordstream2.
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was >>>>>>>>>> enduring a US blockade might say the action was started
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were >>>>>>>>>>>> nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941. >>>>>>>>>>
earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour
might also have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side >>>>>>>>>> thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on >>>>>>>>> this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there >>>>>>>>> are true, they still don't justify the attack on Pearl
Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were
already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the
Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other way
out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current
Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account
of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in
eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it
could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking
range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you
might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the
only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly
exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and
the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was
installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war,
simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much
a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250 miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet
brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured
destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have
helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile
attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent
to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the
other having a different language and having been demonised over
decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods as politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any way socialist.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How about
the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War 2,
often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns and
villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create ISIS
and more Islamic terrorism.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:kpg12nF44l9U1@mid.individual.net...
[SNIP]
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create
ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Not forgetting the misappropriation of an entire Continent starting
with we British. Coupled with ethnic, if not the literal genocide, of
the native American "First Nation". Reduced to being objects of
curiosity for the benefit of folklore enthusiasts.*
A country founded on slavery supposedly founding its Constitution on
the ideals of two other slave owning supposed democracies; Ancient
Greece and Ancient Rome. Although slaves, in the latter at least,
often fared much better than did those on the plantations.
If only they didn't produce TV programmes such as "Breaking Bad",
"Better Call Saul", and "Curb Your Enthusiasm", they'd be totally
beyond the pale.
bb
It was all down to pure economics. Slaves were, at the time simply a
very useful source of cheap labour.
On 20/10/2023 08:00 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
... The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent to the
USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one
superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the
other having a different language and having been demonised over decades.
Are you seriously claiming that the USA has murdered tens of millions of people, its own and those of other nations and states?
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods as
politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any way
socialist.
How many millions of those were killed by the USA?
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How about
the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War 2, often
at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns and villages?
You are using the "bad boys did it first" argument to justify the mass murders.
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts the
governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it did in
Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in Afghanistan and
Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create ISIS and more Islamic
terrorism.
And that is equivalent to mass murder of tens of millions, is it?
Are you sure?
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that was >>>>>>>>>>> enduring a US blockade might say the action was started
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. We don't want the Japs to surrender before we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who were >>>>>>>>>>>>> nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941. >>>>>>>>>>>
earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl Harbour >>>>>>>>>>> might also have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other side >>>>>>>>>>> thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_
Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article on >>>>>>>>>> this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed there >>>>>>>>>> are true, they still don't justify the attack on Pearl
Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were
already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the
Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other way >>>>>>>>> out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current
Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account >>>>>>>>>> of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in >>>>>>>>>> eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it
could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking
range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you
might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the
only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and possibly >>>>>>>> exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba and
the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba was
installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war,
simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to the
American mainland was not exaggerated to justify intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as much
a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250 miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet
brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually assured
destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would have
helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a missile
attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent
to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one
superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the
other having a different language and having been demonised over
decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods as
politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any way
socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago. Nor did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast, the Soviet
military was a genuine threat to the West and only a naif could think
their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like North
Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from leaving,
whereas western countries allowed free movement. That says a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How about
the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War 2,
often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns and
villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create ISIS
and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome, there are
necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as necessary
wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises later turned out
to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The primary moral bankruptcy, which you raise, in America is the
liberal degeneracy of a large part of the population that considers
itself "progressive". It may sound terribly old fashioned. Yet look at
the mess California is now in on account of taking this to American
extremes. To the Soviets' credit, they certainly didn't permit much of
that.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:ugvvtk$3ghd2$9@dont-email.me...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:31:32 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
A country founded on slavery supposedly founding its Constitution on the >>> ideals of two other slave owning supposed democracies; Ancient Greece
and Ancient Rome. Although slaves, in the latter at least, often fared
much better than did those on the plantations.
I don't recall much evidence that the Romans needed the myth of *racial*
superiority to maintain slavery though.
Neither did the Europeans Portuguese, Spanish English etc.
It was all down to pure economics. Slaves were, at the time simply a
very useful source of cheap labour.
It has been argued that the prime factor behind the final abolition of slavery in the 19th century was increased mechanisation. Compared
with which, a system dependant on slaves who had to be clothed and
fed all year round simply couldn't compete.
Although admittedly, such a broadly Marxist interpretation might not necessarily appeal to, let's say the more trailer-park oriented sections
of American society,
The same is broadly true off Empires. While some of the racist attitudes
of even 20th century Imperialists can be toe curling, the fact remains that the primary motivation was always economic. First trade with them. Then
set them off at war against one another. Then invade in order to help one side (as happened in Ireland, England's first colony - and with the Kray Twins with nightclubs ). Then finally take over and secure even better
terms of trade. Rinse and repeat.
And rather than espousing racial theories the Romans were nevertheless Patricians with a strict class system based on founding families Although
as with the Greeks military service was seen as a stepping stone whoever
you were (ISTR)
bb
On 21 Oct 2023 at 10:03:35 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:ugvvtk$3ghd2$9@dont-email.me...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:31:32 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
A country founded on slavery supposedly founding its Constitution on the >>>> ideals of two other slave owning supposed democracies; Ancient Greece
and Ancient Rome. Although slaves, in the latter at least, often fared >>>> much better than did those on the plantations.
I don't recall much evidence that the Romans needed the myth of *racial* >>> superiority to maintain slavery though.
Neither did the Europeans Portuguese, Spanish English etc.
It was all down to pure economics. Slaves were, at the time simply a
very useful source of cheap labour.
It has been argued that the prime factor behind the final abolition of
slavery in the 19th century was increased mechanisation. Compared
with which, a system dependant on slaves who had to be clothed and
fed all year round simply couldn't compete.
Although admittedly, such a broadly Marxist interpretation might not
necessarily appeal to, let's say the more trailer-park oriented sections
of American society,
The same is broadly true off Empires. While some of the racist attitudes
of even 20th century Imperialists can be toe curling, the fact remains that >> the primary motivation was always economic. First trade with them. Then
set them off at war against one another. Then invade in order to help one
side (as happened in Ireland, England's first colony - and with the Kray
Twins with nightclubs ). Then finally take over and secure even better
terms of trade. Rinse and repeat.
And rather than espousing racial theories the Romans were nevertheless
Patricians with a strict class system based on founding families Although >> as with the Greeks military service was seen as a stepping stone whoever
you were (ISTR)
bb
I agree. At least in this country, racist attitudes, especially relating to Indian and African organisational abilities, were a rationalisation after the event to justify Empire to the squeamish at home. Certainly not a relevant motive for imperial conquest.
On 21/10/2023 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2023 08:00 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
... The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent to
the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one
superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the
other having a different language and having been demonised over
decades.
Are you seriously claiming that the USA has murdered tens of millions
of people, its own and those of other nations and states?
I am not claiming it, still less am I "seriously" claiming it.
So presumably your method is to count up the number of murders (or one
might say "undeserved deaths" such as the civilians killed by carpet
bombing in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc) and the side with fewer
murders "wins" the argument, yes?
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods as
politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any way
socialist.
How many millions of those were killed by the USA?
As a rhetorical question, that doesn't win you any arguments. Repressing freedom of speech is deplorable especially in a nation that pretends to
give its citizens freedom of speech and bases its reputation on that...
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How about
the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War 2,
often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns and
villages?
You are using the "bad boys did it first" argument to justify the mass
murders.
It justifies nothing and I haven't suggested that it does. The Russians defeated the Nazis for us, and suffered a huge death toll. If it hadn't
been for the Russians we'd all be speaking German. It was in a time when there were mass murders of Jews, political dissidents, Polish army
officers, anyone who was thought to represent a threat to the
governments of Russia or indeed Germany. In the aftermath of the war,
the "good guys" in the occupied territories murdered many hundreds of innocent civilians who were German or believed to be collaborators.
In the 1950s the Soviet Union was justly suspicious of American
intentions and wanted to safeguard its citizens and its borders.
Are you
"seriously" saying that the USSR had no right to those expectations
because of all the mass murders in the past?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create ISIS
and more Islamic terrorism.
And that is equivalent to mass murder of tens of millions, is it?
Are you sure?
After a million or so mass killings of civilians it really isn't
necessary to keep a running total and a scoreboard.
Yes, America has been responsible for mass killings. Whether you call
them murders is up to you. You can claim that Stalin's victims were
murdered but he and his henchmen would probably say that they were
executed as part of a judicial process. Many of Stalin's victims starved
to death and were arguably not murdered unless you're going to say that
the people in Gaza who starve to death are also murdered.
On 21/10/2023 01:51 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/10/2023 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2023 08:00 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
... The US may have many faults, but is not morally equivalent to
the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than one
superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language, and the
other having a different language and having been demonised over
decades.
Are you seriously claiming that the USA has murdered tens of millions
of people, its own and those of other nations and states?
I am not claiming it, still less am I "seriously" claiming it.
Then in what sense has the USA's behaviour been "morally equivalent" to
that of the USSR and the PRC (each with the blood of millions of their
own people on their hands)?
On 21/10/2023 10:57, Pamela wrote:
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that >>>>>>>>>>>> was enduring a US blockade might say the action was
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them. We don't want the Japs to surrender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941. >>>>>>>>>>>>
started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl >>>>>>>>>>>> Harbour might also have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other >>>>>>>>>>>> side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article >>>>>>>>>>> on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed >>>>>>>>>>> there are true, they still don't justify the attack on
Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were
already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the
Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other
way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current
Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account >>>>>>>>>>> of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in >>>>>>>>>>> eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it
could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking >>>>>>>>>> range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you >>>>>>>>>> might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the >>>>>>>>> only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and
possibly exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba
and the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba
was installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war,
simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American
public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to
the American mainland was not exaggerated to justify
intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as
much a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250
miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the
world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet
brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually
assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would
have helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a
missile attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally
equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered
millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than
one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language,
and the other having a different language and having been demonised
over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods
as politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any
way socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago. Nor
did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast, the
Soviet military was a genuine threat to the West and only a naif
could think their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like
North Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from
leaving, whereas western countries allowed free movement. That says
a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War
2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns
and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create
ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have
occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No
matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome, there
are necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
When was Ancient Rome benevolent? Maybe that's a cosy fantasy based
on fictional representations of Rome.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as necessary
wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises later turned
out to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets invaded
Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The two are indistinguishable. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was
to prop up a regime and defeat the Mujahideen. The USA and UK claimed
that this was outrageous and funded the rebels who then became the
Taliban and thus the USA funded Osama bin Laden, directly or
indirectly.
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was necessary
in self-defence was a political posture designed to appease an angry
American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny by intelligence
services or military advisers.
The primary moral bankruptcy, which you raise, in America is the
liberal degeneracy of a large part of the population that considers
itself "progressive". It may sound terribly old fashioned. Yet look
at the mess California is now in on account of taking this to
American extremes. To the Soviets' credit, they certainly didn't
permit much of that.
I think you're probably alluding to homosexuality, right? You'd have
more respect for the USA if homosexuality and gay marriage were made
illegal again? And maybe make all those hippies cut their hair?
On 21/10/2023 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2023 08:00 pm, The Todal wrote:
[SNIP]
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War
2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns
and villages?
You are using the "bad boys did it first" argument to justify the
mass murders.
It justifies nothing and I haven't suggested that it does. The
Russians defeated the Nazis for us, and suffered a huge death toll.
If it hadn't been for the Russians we'd all be speaking German. It
was in a time when there were mass murders of Jews, political
dissidents, Polish army officers, anyone who was thought to represent
a threat to the governments of Russia or indeed Germany. In the
aftermath of the war, the "good guys" in the occupied territories
murdered many hundreds of innocent civilians who were German or
believed to be collaborators.
In the 1950s the Soviet Union was justly suspicious of American
intentions and wanted to safeguard its citizens and its borders. Are
you "seriously" saying that the USSR had no right to those
expectations because of all the mass murders in the past?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create
ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
And that is equivalent to mass murder of tens of millions, is it?
Are you sure?
After a million or so mass killings of civilians it really isn't
necessary to keep a running total and a scoreboard.
Yes, America has been responsible for mass killings. Whether you call
them murders is up to you. You can claim that Stalin's victims were
murdered but he and his henchmen would probably say that they were
executed as part of a judicial process. Many of Stalin's victims
starved to death and were arguably not murdered unless you're going
to say that the people in Gaza who starve to death are also murdered.
IMHO "Better Call Saul" was a disappointment.
Saul was a great
character and well-played in Breaking Bad but his own series was a damp squib. All those scenes in his brother's electricity-free house were
limp, as were those in the Asian beauty salon where something was just waiting to happen but never did. Events with Charmless Tuco and
his huge handgun almost saved the day but not quite.
The Soviet's massive casualties in WW2 are not a measure of its
contribution. Yes, Russia played an important part but so did America
which not only committed troops but also supplied Stalin with 400,000
trucks, 2,000 locomotives, 10,000 railway cars and billions of dollars'
worth of planes, tanks, food and clothing.
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 10:57, Pamela wrote:
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that >>>>>>>>>>>>> was enduring a US blockade might say the action was
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them. We don't want the Japs to surrender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbour might also have been seen as provocative.
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other >>>>>>>>>>>>> side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article >>>>>>>>>>>> on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed >>>>>>>>>>>> there are true, they still don't justify the attack on >>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were >>>>>>>>>>> already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the
Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other >>>>>>>>>>> way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current >>>>>>>>>>>> Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account >>>>>>>>>>>> of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in >>>>>>>>>>>> eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it >>>>>>>>>>> could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking >>>>>>>>>>> range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you >>>>>>>>>>> might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the >>>>>>>>>> only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and
possibly exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba
and the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba >>>>>>>>> was installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, >>>>>>>>> simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American
public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to
the American mainland was not exaggerated to justify
intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as
much a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA.
miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250
miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the >>>>>>> world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet
brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually
assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would
have helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a
missile attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally
equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered
millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than
one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language,
and the other having a different language and having been demonised
over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods
as politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any
way socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago. Nor
did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast, the
Soviet military was a genuine threat to the West and only a naif
could think their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like
North Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from
leaving, whereas western countries allowed free movement. That says
a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War
2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns
and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create
ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have
occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No
matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome, there
are necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
When was Ancient Rome benevolent? Maybe that's a cosy fantasy based
on fictional representations of Rome.
For the most part Ancient Rome brought peace (Pax Romana) and
prosperity to those countries in its Empire. Of course there were some
major incidents but for almost all parts it brought a better
civilisation which we recognise and still benefit from today (roads,
laws, aqueducts, etc ... per Monty Python). See what a shithole England turned into after the withdrawal of Rome.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as necessary
wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises later turned
out to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets invaded
Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The two are indistinguishable. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was
to prop up a regime and defeat the Mujahideen. The USA and UK claimed
that this was outrageous and funded the rebels who then became the
Taliban and thus the USA funded Osama bin Laden, directly or
indirectly.
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was necessary
in self-defence was a political posture designed to appease an angry
American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny by intelligence
services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without the
benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders like Blair
and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no matter how
mistaken events showed them to be.
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to
better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't big enough
for all the endless detentions and interrogations being asked of it.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the number
in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to
better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the Soviet
Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't big enough
for all the endless detentions and interrogations being asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held-guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the number
in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0A46FEE520C191F3A2@135.181.20.170...
IMHO "Better Call Saul" was a disappointment.
I disagree.
Saul was a great
character and well-played in Breaking Bad but his own series was a damp
squib. All those scenes in his brother's electricity-free house were
limp, as were those in the Asian beauty salon where something was just
waiting to happen but never did. Events with Charmless Tuco and
his huge handgun almost saved the day but not quite.
It was fascinating the way they filled in the backstory - the construction
of the lab - the backstory with Mike who was only originally introduced
as a character in BB to do the "cleanup" after Jesse's girlfriend's death because Bob Oldenkirk (Saul) had been supposed to do it, but had another prior committment on that day. Out of which, a whole new charcter
developed. (The joy of extras) They could possibly have got a whole new backstory series out of Mike except they'd have needed another actor
by that stage
That was another interesting bit, how they used the same actors but a
few years older, but playing characters a few years younger than
before.
Also the tension as to how they were going to end it with the
constant teasers in B/W. of his workling in the fast food place
The B W sequences of the brilliantly played Kim Wexler, working
a humdum job after being a powerful lawyer; maybe cliched, but
there you go. The whole moral dilemma bit.
Also there's no reason to believe that the legal material the
ducking and diving, plea bargaining, conveyerbelt aspects of the US
legal system weren't entirely an accurate reflection. Basically
it did for the US legal sytem what BB did for chemistry.
Although maybe Saul's video blackmail was stretching things a bit
same as the train in BB. Which nevertheles introduced the
pyscopath character played by Jesse Plemons. (Who as a butcher
in "Fargo" cut up a bloke on his bandsaw who his wife had
accidently run down. Or something. Coen Brothers brilliance )
Also there's trying to remember what happened in which series
as they integrate so well..
Also the further fleshing out of Gus. Just before rewatchingh
BCS I was watching "Homicide LIfe on The Street" made years earlier
and hadn't immediately realised that it was Giancarlo Esposito (Gus)
who'd played Yaphet Kotto's son in the final two post-shark series
of HLoTS. With hair that time.
The wide expanse of the New Mexico scenery an ever present star
of the show.
BB was originally have been shot in California apparently.
The inflatable type Statue of Liberty, Saul approprated from the
other lawyer working in the Portakabin.
The way the columns in Saul's Office fell over
The way they only explained the teaser sequences at the start of
some episodes, in later episodes
The gradually disintegrating title sequence as the series
progressed
Relief that Bob Oldenkirk survived his medical problem and
was able to complete the series only for him to finally
do the decent thing.
Although as a smart lawyer, his status and safety in the can,
can almost be guarenteed for the whole of his 86 year sentence.
What's not to like ?
***** five stars
Excellente !
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 10:57, Pamela wrote:
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was enduring a US blockade might say the action was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to Pearl >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbour might also have been seen as provocative.
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them. We don't want the Japs to surrender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily casualty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December 1941. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate article >>>>>>>>>>>>> on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese fears listed >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are true, they still don't justify the attack on >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were >>>>>>>>>>>> already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the >>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other >>>>>>>>>>>> way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current >>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on account >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people living in >>>>>>>>>>>>> eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it >>>>>>>>>>>> could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking >>>>>>>>>>>> range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you >>>>>>>>>>>> might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if the >>>>>>>>>>> only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and
possibly exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba >>>>>>>>>> and the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba >>>>>>>>>> was installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, >>>>>>>>>> simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American
public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to >>>>>>>>> the American mainland was not exaggerated to justify
intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as
much a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the USA. >>>>>>> Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600
miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, the >>>>>>>> world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet
brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually
assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba would >>>>>>>> have helped to reassure the Russians that they were deterring a >>>>>>>> missile attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally
equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered
millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than
one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language,
and the other having a different language and having been demonised
over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about to
attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their livelihoods
as politicians built their careers on outing and humiliating honest
writers, actors and film directors who were thought to be in any
way socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago. Nor
did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast, the
Soviet military was a genuine threat to the West and only a naif
could think their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like
North Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from
leaving, whereas western countries allowed free movement. That says
a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World War
2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying towns
and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It subverts
the governments of other nations and instals puppet regimes, as it
did in Chile. It has been responsible for the slaughter in
Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other than to create
ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have
occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No
matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome, there
are necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
When was Ancient Rome benevolent? Maybe that's a cosy fantasy based
on fictional representations of Rome.
For the most part Ancient Rome brought peace (Pax Romana) and
prosperity to those countries in its Empire. Of course there were some
major incidents but for almost all parts it brought a better
civilisation which we recognise and still benefit from today (roads,
laws, aqueducts, etc ... per Monty Python). See what a shithole England
turned into after the withdrawal of Rome.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as necessary
wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises later turned
out to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets invaded
Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The two are indistinguishable. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was
to prop up a regime and defeat the Mujahideen. The USA and UK claimed
that this was outrageous and funded the rebels who then became the
Taliban and thus the USA funded Osama bin Laden, directly or
indirectly.
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was necessary
in self-defence was a political posture designed to appease an angry
American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny by intelligence
services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without the
benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders like Blair
and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no matter how
mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was silencing David Evans so important if they believed their propaganda? And especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quaeda (America was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq harassing the Iraq government - IOW terrorists) although he told the American people they were. And both, having advisers who knew something about military matters, knew that Iraq had never had weapons he
could use against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't know the details they knew he didn't have significant stocks of WMD. So, sorry, they were both lying for their own reasons, possibly personal rather than patriotic.
On 22/10/2023 12:58 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to
better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the Soviet
Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't big enough
for all the endless detentions and interrogations being asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held-guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the number
in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
Another way is to remember that the prisoners of the USSR were political detainees who had objectively committed no crimes except for those
perversely defined under the Soviet criminal code (mainly: arguing for freedom and democracy).
OTOH, America, as you might recall, had been attacked, with three
thousand American and other citizens the victims of mass murder.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
You can think of agitation for democracy and (even suspicion of
involvement in) murder as morally equivalent if it helps.
On 22 Oct 2023 at 15:23:32 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/10/2023 12:58 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to
better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the Soviet >>>> Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't big enough >>>> for all the endless detentions and interrogations being asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held-guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the number
in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
Another way is to remember that the prisoners of the USSR were political
detainees who had objectively committed no crimes except for those
perversely defined under the Soviet criminal code (mainly: arguing for
freedom and democracy).
OTOH, America, as you might recall, had been attacked, with three
thousand American and other citizens the victims of mass murder.
So belonging to the same religion or nationality as people who attacked America is sufficient justification for life imprisonment, torture and being driven to suicide?
Many of those in Guantanamo had done none of those things.
Some were enemy combatants who should have been treated as prisoners of war and some were just passers by.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
You can think of agitation for democracy and (even suspicion of
involvement in) murder as morally equivalent if it helps.
On 21/10/2023 07:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB0A46FEE520C191F3A2@135.181.20.170...
IMHO "Better Call Saul" was a disappointment.
I disagree.
Saul was a great
character and well-played in Breaking Bad but his own series was a damp
squib. All those scenes in his brother's electricity-free house were
limp, as were those in the Asian beauty salon where something was just
waiting to happen but never did. Events with Charmless Tuco and
his huge handgun almost saved the day but not quite.
It was fascinating the way they filled in the backstory - the construction >> of the lab - the backstory with Mike who was only originally introduced
as a character in BB to do the "cleanup" after Jesse's girlfriend's death
because Bob Oldenkirk (Saul) had been supposed to do it, but had another
prior committment on that day. Out of which, a whole new charcter
developed. (The joy of extras) They could possibly have got a whole new
backstory series out of Mike except they'd have needed another actor
by that stage
That was another interesting bit, how they used the same actors but a
few years older, but playing characters a few years younger than
before.
Also the tension as to how they were going to end it with the
constant teasers in B/W. of his workling in the fast food place
The B W sequences of the brilliantly played Kim Wexler, working
a humdum job after being a powerful lawyer; maybe cliched, but
there you go. The whole moral dilemma bit.
Also there's no reason to believe that the legal material the
ducking and diving, plea bargaining, conveyerbelt aspects of the US
legal system weren't entirely an accurate reflection. Basically
it did for the US legal sytem what BB did for chemistry.
Although maybe Saul's video blackmail was stretching things a bit
same as the train in BB. Which nevertheles introduced the
pyscopath character played by Jesse Plemons. (Who as a butcher
in "Fargo" cut up a bloke on his bandsaw who his wife had
accidently run down. Or something. Coen Brothers brilliance )
Did you see the "Sopranos" episode wherein a couple of Tony's "family"
had to dispose of a dead made man, shot i revenge for an assault by
Tony's sister?
They did it at Satriali's pork butcher's shop seen in the opening
credits. As Chris said: It'll be a long time before I eat anything from Satriali's".
Also there's trying to remember what happened in which series
as they integrate so well..
Also the further fleshing out of Gus. Just before rewatchingh
BCS I was watching "Homicide LIfe on The Street" made years earlier
and hadn't immediately realised that it was Giancarlo Esposito (Gus)
who'd played Yaphet Kotto's son in the final two post-shark series
of HLoTS. With hair that time.
The wide expanse of the New Mexico scenery an ever present star
of the show.
BB was originally have been shot in California apparently.
The inflatable type Statue of Liberty, Saul approprated from the
other lawyer working in the Portakabin.
The way the columns in Saul's Office fell over
The way they only explained the teaser sequences at the start of
some episodes, in later episodes
The gradually disintegrating title sequence as the series
progressed
Relief that Bob Oldenkirk survived his medical problem and
was able to complete the series only for him to finally
do the decent thing.
Although as a smart lawyer, his status and safety in the can,
can almost be guarenteed for the whole of his 86 year sentence.
What's not to like ?
***** five stars
Excellente !
Totally agree over BCS.
Did you see the "Sopranos" episode wherein a couple of Tony's "family" had
to dispose of a dead made man, shot i revenge for an assault by Tony's sister?
They did it at Satriali's pork butcher's shop seen in the opening credits.
As Chris said: It'll be a long time before I eat anything from
Satriali's".
As I recall it from the time (and soory, I wasn't taking notes) the
detainees were people who were not Afghani but were in Afghanistan in circumstances leading to suspicions.
Another way is to remember that the prisoners of the USSR were political detainees who had objectively committed no crimes except for those
perversely defined under the Soviet criminal code (mainly: arguing for freedom and democracy).
OTOH, America, as you might recall, had been attacked, with three thousand American and other citizens the victims of mass murder.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
You can think of agitation for democracy
and (even suspicion of
involvement in) murder as morally equivalent if it helps.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kpkp9oFhrpU1@mid.individual.net...
Did you see the "Sopranos" episode wherein a couple of Tony's "family"
had
to dispose of a dead made man, shot i revenge for an assault by Tony's
sister?
They did it at Satriali's pork butcher's shop seen in the opening
credits.
As Chris said: It'll be a long time before I eat anything from
Satriali's".
I'm not sure that he was a dead "made man" but rather a young Russian or
East European member of some criminal organisation that Tony wanted
to get in with. And Tony wasn't best pleased that Chris had shot him in a
fit of pique.
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago
to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the
Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't
big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being
asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo- remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held- guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the
number in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0A46FEE520C191F3A2@135.181.20.170...
IMHO "Better Call Saul" was a disappointment.
I disagree.
Saul was a great character and well-played in Breaking Bad but his
own series was a damp squib. All those scenes in his brother's
electricity-free house were limp, as were those in the Asian beauty
salon where something was just waiting to happen but never did.
Events with Charmless Tuco and his huge handgun almost saved the day
but not quite.
It was fascinating the way they filled in the backstory - the
construction of the lab - the backstory with Mike who was only
originally introduced as a character in BB to do the "cleanup" after
Jesse's girlfriend's death because Bob Oldenkirk (Saul) had been
supposed to do it, but had another prior committment on that day. Out
of which, a whole new charcter developed. (The joy of extras) They
could possibly have got a whole new backstory series out of Mike
except they'd have needed another actor by that stage
That was another interesting bit, how they used the same actors but a
few years older, but playing characters a few years younger than
before.
Also the tension as to how they were going to end it with the
constant teasers in B/W. of his workling in the fast food place The B
W sequences of the brilliantly played Kim Wexler, working a humdum
job after being a powerful lawyer; maybe cliched, but there you go.
The whole moral dilemma bit.
Also there's no reason to believe that the legal material the ducking
and diving, plea bargaining, conveyerbelt aspects of the US legal
system weren't entirely an accurate reflection. Basically it did for
the US legal sytem what BB did for chemistry.
Although maybe Saul's video blackmail was stretching things a bit
same as the train in BB. Which nevertheles introduced the pyscopath
character played by Jesse Plemons. (Who as a butcher in "Fargo" cut
up a bloke on his bandsaw who his wife had accidently run down. Or
something. Coen Brothers brilliance )
Also there's trying to remember what happened in which series as they integrate so well..
Also the further fleshing out of Gus. Just before rewatchingh BCS I
was watching "Homicide LIfe on The Street" made years earlier and
hadn't immediately realised that it was Giancarlo Esposito (Gus)
who'd played Yaphet Kotto's son in the final two post-shark series
of HLoTS. With hair that time.
The wide expanse of the New Mexico scenery an ever present star of
the show.
BB was originally have been shot in California apparently.
The inflatable type Statue of Liberty, Saul approprated from the
other lawyer working in the Portakabin.
The way the columns in Saul's Office fell over
The way they only explained the teaser sequences at the start of some episodes, in later episodes
The gradually disintegrating title sequence as the series progressed
Relief that Bob Oldenkirk survived his medical problem and was able
to complete the series only for him to finally do the decent thing.
Although as a smart lawyer, his status and safety in the can, can
almost be guarenteed for the whole of his 86 year sentence.
What's not to like ?
***** five stars
Excellente !
bb
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kplqobF66vfU3@mid.individual.net...
As I recall it from the time (and soory, I wasn't taking notes) the
detainees were people who were not Afghani but were in Afghanistan in
circumstances leading to suspicions.
Suspicions that they were about to invade the USA. [ ... ]
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kpkpj5FlnsU1@mid.individual.net...
Another way is to remember that the prisoners of the USSR were
political detainees who had objectively committed no crimes except
for those perversely defined under the Soviet criminal code (mainly:
arguing for freedom and democracy).
They were not "perversely" defined at all.
Ever since its inception, the USSR considered itself in a state of
siege with enemies all around - Japan to the East Persia and other
Western puppets to the South and emergent European states to the
West, All of which had eyes of the former Russian Empire's copious
natural resources which had been so badly mismanaged and exploited
under the incompetent Romanoffs.
Or as Joe Stalin himself might have put it "Just because you're
paranoid that doesn't mean they're not all out to get you"
So right from its inception, given it was forever having to play
catch-up with the West, lead primarily in material terms by the
genocidal former slave owning USA, the USSR ran effectively a War
Economy. With similar restrictions as were imposed on the British
People in World War Two. With the General Election of 1940 postponed
and various other restrictions embodied in the Emergency Powers
(Defence) Act 1939 - UK Parliament
[TRIMMED]
[1 my note] For Stalin the Soviet non-aggression pact with the Nazis
was simply a matter of convenience - similar to Churchill's embrace
of Stalin. As Stalin always expected Hitler to invade eventually but
some respite might allow the USSR to catch up militarily. Barbarossa,
the invasion in June 41, came as such great surprise to Stalin
despite his having been forewarned by almost everyone, simply because
at the time the USSR was still shipping so much oil and grain to the
Germans. Which is why a scorched earth strategy of retreat into the
vastness of the USSR was almost inevitably going to wear the Germans
down.
Reusing actors from "Breaking Bad" to play different characters didn't
work
and the viewer was left trying to fit the old character to the new
part.
The electricity-fearing brother was an attempt to provide strong
local colour (similar to Walter's wife in "Breaking Bad") but those
murkily lit scenes became tedious.
Saul's brinkmanship and besting of the big law firm just rang hollow
and may well have suited a teen audience. Those top lawyers were
portrayed as cardboard cut-out villains, and Saul's girlfriend was no
more convincing as a top lawyer then Meghan Markle's co-actors in
"Suits". [More Ob-legal]
The episodes of "Saul" meandered as if they were being written as the
season progressed, with lengthy diversion. The diversions worked in a
long series like "Breaking Bad" but made "Saul" feel lacking in
direction.
One, maybe two, stars although I know that puts me in a minority. I
would much rather watch "Ozark" or "The Americans".
[1 my note] For Stalin the Soviet non-aggression pact with the Nazis
was simply a matter of convenience - similar to Churchill's embrace
of Stalin. As Stalin always expected Hitler to invade eventually but
some respite might allow the USSR to catch up militarily. Barbarossa,
the invasion in June 41, came as such great surprise to Stalin
despite his having been forewarned by almost everyone, simply because
at the time the USSR was still shipping so much oil and grain to the
Germans. Which is why a scorched earth strategy of retreat into the
vastness of the USSR was almost inevitably going to wear the Germans
down.
Wasn't one important factor making Hitler invade early, his attempt to
secure the Romanian oilfields before Stalin took them by expanding the
Soviet occupation of Bukovina?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_North
e
rn_Bukovina
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago
to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the
Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't
big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being
asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a short
quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a working
day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the brutal
Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag Archipelago" which
depicted an enduring forced labour system spanning decades, coming at
the tail end of a programme of torture for political prisoners and
potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one
hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but militants
and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the other, the
Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors, publishers,
reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to hardened criminals.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-
remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held-
guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the
number in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
I have some familiarity with the detentions at Gitmo and was
corresponding with Clive Stafford Smith abvout the methods used while
he was visiting in 2006.
Khaled Qasim's profile on the net (mentioned in your link) shows he is exactly the sort of high risk militant member of Al-Quaida who should
be kept detained. Your link shows he is well enough looked after to do
fine painting and even have pieces exhibited.
The American methods used at Abu Ghraib were worse than at Gitmo and a genuine disgrace (following many of the methods listed in the Kubark manuals), although not so different to what anti-American militants
were themselves doing in the Middle East.
However none of this matches the horrors of what the Soviets got up to
for decades and on a largely innocent population. The Americans largely
used psychological methods but Russians preferred brutal physical,
almost biblical, means. If you wish to be an apologist for Stalin/Lenin
and their ways by diminishing their cruelty, then I find it sad.
On 23/10/2023 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process".
It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago
to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the
Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't
big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being
asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a short
quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a working
day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the brutal
Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag Archipelago" which
depicted an enduring forced labour system spanning decades, coming at
the tail end of a programme of torture for political prisoners and
potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one
hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but militants
and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the other, the
Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors, publishers,
reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to hardened criminals.
Untrue. Most of those in Guantanamo Bay were innocent people who were
only there because someone wanted to have their revenge on a neighbour
or claim a reward for informing on someone who actually had done nothing wrong. And predictably the majority of internees had no useful
intelligence to offer and could not be prosecuted because there was no evidence against them.
But you probably missed that.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-
remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held-
guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say that
these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with the
number in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's Sunday.
I have some familiarity with the detentions at Gitmo and was
corresponding with Clive Stafford Smith abvout the methods used while
he was visiting in 2006.
Khaled Qasim's profile on the net (mentioned in your link) shows he is
exactly the sort of high risk militant member of Al-Quaida who should
be kept detained. Your link shows he is well enough looked after to do
fine painting and even have pieces exhibited.
The American methods used at Abu Ghraib were worse than at Gitmo and a
genuine disgrace (following many of the methods listed in the Kubark
manuals), although not so different to what anti-American militants
were themselves doing in the Middle East.
However none of this matches the horrors of what the Soviets got up to
for decades and on a largely innocent population. The Americans largely
used psychological methods but Russians preferred brutal physical,
almost biblical, means. If you wish to be an apologist for Stalin/Lenin
and their ways by diminishing their cruelty, then I find it sad.
Haven't you heard of waterboarding? You call that "psychological", do
you? And the prisoners in Gitmo were mostly innocent of any crime.
Have a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques
On 23/10/2023 06:57 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 23/10/2023 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process". >>>>> It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago
to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the
Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't
big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being
asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a short
quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a working
day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the brutal
Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag Archipelago" which
depicted an enduring forced labour system spanning decades, coming at
the tail end of a programme of torture for political prisoners and
potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one
hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but militants
and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the other, the
Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors, publishers,
reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to hardened criminals.
Untrue. Most of those in Guantanamo Bay were innocent people who were
only there because someone wanted to have their revenge on a neighbour
or claim a reward for informing on someone who actually had done
nothing wrong. And predictably the majority of internees had no useful
intelligence to offer and could not be prosecuted because there was no
evidence against them.
But you probably missed that.
How do you say you "know" it?
On 23/10/2023 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 06:57 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 23/10/2023 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process". >>>>>> It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago >>>>>> to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the >>>>>> Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't >>>>>> big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being >>>>>> asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a short >>>> quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a working
day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the brutal
Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag Archipelago" which
depicted an enduring forced labour system spanning decades, coming at
the tail end of a programme of torture for political prisoners and
potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one
hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but militants >>>> and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the other, the
Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors, publishers,
reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to hardened criminals.
Untrue. Most of those in Guantanamo Bay were innocent people who were
only there because someone wanted to have their revenge on a
neighbour or claim a reward for informing on someone who actually had
done nothing wrong. And predictably the majority of internees had no
useful intelligence to offer and could not be prosecuted because
there was no evidence against them.
But you probably missed that.
How do you say you "know" it?
By keeping up to date - how else? Read the reports. For example:
The Intelligence Committee as well often pushes intelligence agencies to
act quickly in response to threats and world events.
Nevertheless, such pressure, fear, and expectation of further terrorist
plots do not justify, temper, or excuse improper actions taken by
individuals or organizations in the name of national security. The major lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need
to act, the Intelligence Community's actions must always reflect who we
are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards. It is precisely
at these times of national crisis that our government must be guided by
the lessons of our history and subject decisions to internal and
external review.
Instead, CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to
initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations,
and our values. This Committee Study documents the abuses and countless mistakes made between late 2001 and early 2009.
#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than
the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department
of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of
the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not
meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number
of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques
were inaccurate.
The CIA never conducted a comprehensive audit or developed a complete
and accurate list of the individuals it had detained or subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques. CIA statements to the Committee and
later to the public that the CIA detained fewer than 100 individuals,
and that less than a third of those 100 detainees were subjected to the
CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, were inaccurate. The
committee's review of CIA records determined that the CIA detained at
least 119 individuals, of whom at least 39 were subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Of the 119 known detainees, at least
26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals
who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were
former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be
connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined
that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide
insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees.
More at: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf
The USA has tried to implement various economic sanctions against
Russia, and economically bullies many other countries. As Ukraine is a
major trading partner, and neighbour, of the Russia, it is clear that Ukraine, following US direction, could cause considerable harm to Russia.
On 24/10/2023 09:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
More at:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf
How do those critical of the actions of the USA in this matter "know"
that the detainees "had done nothing wrong"?
Other than being assured of it by the detainees, of course.
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 10:57, Pamela wrote:
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them. We don't want the Japs to surrender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casualty rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was enduring a US blockade might say the action was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as provocative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate
article on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>> fears listed there are true, they still don't justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were >>>>>>>>>>>> already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the >>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other >>>>>>>>>>>> way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current >>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on
account of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people >>>>>>>>>>>>> living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it >>>>>>>>>>>> could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking >>>>>>>>>>>> range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you >>>>>>>>>>>> might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if >>>>>>>>>>> the only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and >>>>>>>>>>> possibly exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba >>>>>>>>>> and the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba >>>>>>>>>> was installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, >>>>>>>>>> simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American
public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to >>>>>>>>> the American mainland was not exaggerated to justify
intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as
much a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the
USA.
miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250
miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys,
the world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet
brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually
assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba
would have helped to reassure the Russians that they were
deterring a missile attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally
equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered
millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than
one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language,
and the other having a different language and having been
demonised over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about
to attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their
livelihoods as politicians built their careers on outing and
humiliating honest writers, actors and film directors who were
thought to be in any way socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago.
Nor did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast,
the Soviet military was a genuine threat to the West and only a
naif could think their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like
North Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from
leaving, whereas western countries allowed free movement. That
says a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World
War 2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying
towns and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It
subverts the governments of other nations and instals puppet
regimes, as it did in Chile. It has been responsible for the
slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other
than to create ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have
occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No
matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome,
there are necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
When was Ancient Rome benevolent? Maybe that's a cosy fantasy based
on fictional representations of Rome.
For the most part Ancient Rome brought peace (Pax Romana) and
prosperity to those countries in its Empire. Of course there were
some major incidents but for almost all parts it brought a better
civilisation which we recognise and still benefit from today (roads,
laws, aqueducts, etc ... per Monty Python). See what a shithole
England turned into after the withdrawal of Rome.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as
necessary wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises
later turned out to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets
invaded Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The two are indistinguishable. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
was to prop up a regime and defeat the Mujahideen. The USA and UK
claimed that this was outrageous and funded the rebels who then
became the Taliban and thus the USA funded Osama bin Laden,
directly or indirectly.
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was
necessary in self-defence was a political posture designed to
appease an angry American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny
by intelligence services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without the
benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders like
Blair and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no matter
how mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was silencing
David Evans so important if they believed their propaganda? And
especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quaeda (America
was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq harassing the Iraq
government - IOW terrorists) although he told the American people
they were. And both, having advisers who knew something about
military matters, knew that Iraq had never had weapons he could use
against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't know the details they
knew he didn't have significant stocks of WMD. So, sorry, they were
both lying for their own reasons, possibly personal rather than
patriotic.
On 20:35 21 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was
necessary in self-defence was a political posture designed to
appease an angry American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny
by intelligence services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without the
benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders like
Blair and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no matter
how mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was silencing
David Evans so important if they believed their propaganda? And
especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quaeda (America
was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq harassing the Iraq
government - IOW terrorists) although he told the American people
they were. And both, having advisers who knew something about
military matters, knew that Iraq had never had weapons he could use
against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't know the details they
knew he didn't have significant stocks of WMD. So, sorry, they were
both lying for their own reasons, possibly personal rather than
patriotic.
Those points serve to show how misguided were the beliefs at the time
but not that malice was afoot.
Regarding Iraq: there's little doubt Blair, Bush, et al believed what
they stated at the time. Much later Chilcot found Blair foolish and
wrong headed but not malicious nor guilty of breaking laws.
Regarding Afghanistan: the Taliban were refusing to hand over Osama
Bin Laden and the Americans saw the invasion as necessary self defence.
Just as the Israelis see their present attack on Gaza.
Knowledge of a minor subterfuge in the shadows away from public view
feeds the minds of conspiracy theorists but it has always been part and parcel of politics. Those prone to hysterical outrage are probably
better off not learning what occurs behind the scenes. Bismarck's
sausages come to mind.
On 24/10/2023 09:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 23/10/2023 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 06:57 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 23/10/2023 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:Untrue. Most of those in Guantanamo Bay were innocent people who were
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process". >>>>>>> It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago >>>>>>> to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the >>>>>>> Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't >>>>>>> big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being >>>>>>> asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a short >>>>> quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a working >>>>> day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the brutal
Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag Archipelago" which >>>>> depicted an enduring forced labour system spanning decades, coming at >>>>> the tail end of a programme of torture for political prisoners and
potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner >>>>>> without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one >>>>> hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but militants >>>>> and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the other, the >>>>> Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors, publishers,
reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to hardened criminals. >>>>
only there because someone wanted to have their revenge on a
neighbour or claim a reward for informing on someone who actually had
done nothing wrong. And predictably the majority of internees had no
useful intelligence to offer and could not be prosecuted because
there was no evidence against them.
But you probably missed that.
How do you say you "know" it?
By keeping up to date - how else? Read the reports. For example:
The Intelligence Committee as well often pushes intelligence agencies to
act quickly in response to threats and world events.
Nevertheless, such pressure, fear, and expectation of further terrorist
plots do not justify, temper, or excuse improper actions taken by
individuals or organizations in the name of national security. The major
lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need
to act, the Intelligence Community's actions must always reflect who we
are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards. It is precisely
at these times of national crisis that our government must be guided by
the lessons of our history and subject decisions to internal and
external review.
Instead, CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to
initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal
interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations,
and our values. This Committee Study documents the abuses and countless
mistakes made between late 2001 and early 2009.
#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than
the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department
of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and
Interrogation Program.
#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of
the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not
meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number
of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques
were inaccurate.
The CIA never conducted a comprehensive audit or developed a complete
and accurate list of the individuals it had detained or subjected to its
enhanced interrogation techniques. CIA statements to the Committee and
later to the public that the CIA detained fewer than 100 individuals,
and that less than a third of those 100 detainees were subjected to the
CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, were inaccurate. The
committee's review of CIA records determined that the CIA detained at
least 119 individuals, of whom at least 39 were subjected to the CIA's
enhanced interrogation techniques. Of the 119 known detainees, at least
26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the
September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an
"intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as
leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals
who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were
former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be
connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA
detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined
that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide
insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees. >>
More at:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf
How do those critical of the actions of the USA in this matter "know"
that the detainees "had done nothing wrong"?
Other than being assured of it by the detainees, of course.
To quote Alan Partridge: the police are hardly going to arrest someone
who's innocent, are they?
On 2023-10-20, Pancho wrote:
The USA has tried to implement various economic sanctions against
Russia, and economically bullies many other countries. As Ukraine is a
major trading partner, and neighbour, of the Russia, it is clear that
Ukraine, following US direction, could cause considerable harm to Russia.
Wait, harm to the Russian people, or to the oppressive government they
are stuck under?
On 10/25/23 16:18, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Pancho wrote:
The USA has tried to implement various economic sanctions againstWait, harm to the Russian people, or to the oppressive government they
Russia, and economically bullies many other countries. As Ukraine is a
major trading partner, and neighbour, of the Russia, it is clear that
Ukraine, following US direction, could cause considerable harm to Russia. >>
are stuck under?
Yes the USA was harming the interests of the Russian people. That is the
way the Russians I know see it. They aren't Putin supporters, just
normal Russians. That's also the way a lot of people I know, who aren't
from the USA/EU/UK, see it.
The excuse that we are only attacking a foreign despot, not the people,
is a canard rolled out for many wars. The liberated people of Iraq/Vietnam/Syria/Afghanistan will welcome our troops with flowers.
Err, nope!
FWIW, I can't see the population of Gaza welcoming the Israelis, when
they are liberated from Hamas.
On 23/10/2023 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial
process". It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag
Archipelago to better understand what farces passed for judicial
process in the Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building
in Moscow wasn't big enough for all the endless detentions and
interrogations being asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a
short quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a
working day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the
brutal Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag
Archipelago" which depicted an enduring forced labour system
spanning decades, coming at the tail end of a programme of torture
for political prisoners and potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner
without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one
hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but
militants and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the
other, the Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors,
publishers, reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to
hardened criminals.
Untrue. Most of those in Guantanamo Bay were innocent people who were
only there because someone wanted to have their revenge on a
neighbour or claim a reward for informing on someone who actually had
done nothing wrong. And predictably the majority of internees had no
useful intelligence to offer and could not be prosecuted because
there was no evidence against them.
But you probably missed that.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-
remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/10/held-
guantanamo-20-years-without-trial-biden-please-let-me-free
So it "may be useful" for you to read these links.
The only way you can sensibly defend America's actions is to say
that these prisoners are a triflingly small number compared with
the number in Soviet Union gulags, so they need not concern us.
But there is moral equivalence. Sorry if that spoils anyone's
Sunday.
I have some familiarity with the detentions at Gitmo and was
corresponding with Clive Stafford Smith abvout the methods used
while he was visiting in 2006.
Khaled Qasim's profile on the net (mentioned in your link) shows he
is exactly the sort of high risk militant member of Al-Quaida who
should be kept detained. Your link shows he is well enough looked
after to do fine painting and even have pieces exhibited.
The American methods used at Abu Ghraib were worse than at Gitmo and
a genuine disgrace (following many of the methods listed in the
Kubark manuals), although not so different to what anti-American
militants were themselves doing in the Middle East.
However none of this matches the horrors of what the Soviets got up
to for decades and on a largely innocent population. The Americans
largely used psychological methods but Russians preferred brutal
physical, almost biblical, means. If you wish to be an apologist for
Stalin/Lenin and their ways by diminishing their cruelty, then I
find it sad.
Haven't you heard of waterboarding? You call that "psychological", do
you? And the prisoners in Gitmo were mostly innocent of any crime.
Have a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques
On 20:35 21 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 10:57, Pamela wrote:
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600 >>>>>>>> miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them. We don't want the Japs to surrender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casualty rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was enduring a US blockade might say the action was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as provocative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fears listed there are true, they still don't justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were >>>>>>>>>>>>> already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other >>>>>>>>>>>>> way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> account of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it >>>>>>>>>>>>> could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking >>>>>>>>>>>>> range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you >>>>>>>>>>>>> might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if >>>>>>>>>>>> the only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba >>>>>>>>>>> and the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba >>>>>>>>>>> was installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, >>>>>>>>>>> simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American
public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to >>>>>>>>>> the American mainland was not exaggerated to justify
intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as >>>>>>>>> much a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the
USA.
miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, >>>>>>>>> the world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet >>>>>>>> brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually
assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba
would have helped to reassure the Russians that they were
deterring a missile attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally
equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered
millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than
one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language,
and the other having a different language and having been
demonised over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about
to attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their
livelihoods as politicians built their careers on outing and
humiliating honest writers, actors and film directors who were
thought to be in any way socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago.
Nor did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast,
the Soviet military was a genuine threat to the West and only a
naif could think their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like
North Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from
leaving, whereas western countries allowed free movement. That
says a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World
War 2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying
towns and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It
subverts the governments of other nations and instals puppet
regimes, as it did in Chile. It has been responsible for the
slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other
than to create ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have
occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No
matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome,
there are necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
When was Ancient Rome benevolent? Maybe that's a cosy fantasy based
on fictional representations of Rome.
For the most part Ancient Rome brought peace (Pax Romana) and
prosperity to those countries in its Empire. Of course there were
some major incidents but for almost all parts it brought a better
civilisation which we recognise and still benefit from today (roads,
laws, aqueducts, etc ... per Monty Python). See what a shithole
England turned into after the withdrawal of Rome.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as
necessary wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises
later turned out to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets
invaded Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The two are indistinguishable. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
was to prop up a regime and defeat the Mujahideen. The USA and UK
claimed that this was outrageous and funded the rebels who then
became the Taliban and thus the USA funded Osama bin Laden,
directly or indirectly.
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was
necessary in self-defence was a political posture designed to
appease an angry American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny
by intelligence services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without the
benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders like
Blair and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no matter
how mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was silencing
David Evans so important if they believed their propaganda? And
especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quaeda (America
was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq harassing the Iraq
government - IOW terrorists) although he told the American people
they were. And both, having advisers who knew something about
military matters, knew that Iraq had never had weapons he could use
against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't know the details they
knew he didn't have significant stocks of WMD. So, sorry, they were
both lying for their own reasons, possibly personal rather than
patriotic.
Those points serve to show how misguided were the beliefs at the time
but not that malice was afoot.
Regarding Iraq: there's little doubt Blair, Bush, et al believed what
they stated at the time. Much later Chilcot found Blair foolish and
wrong headed but not malicious nor guilty of breaking laws.
Regarding Afghanistan: the Taliban were refusing to hand over Osama
Bin Laden and the Americans saw the invasion as necessary self defence.
Just as the Israelis see their present attack on Gaza.
Knowledge of a minor subterfuge in the shadows away from public view
feeds the minds of conspiracy theorists but it has always been part and parcel of politics. Those prone to hysterical outrage are probably
better off not learning what occurs behind the scenes. Bismarck's
sausages come to mind.
On 25/10/2023 12:37, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2023 09:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
More at:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf
How do those critical of the actions of the USA in this matter "know"
that the detainees "had done nothing wrong"?
Other than being assured of it by the detainees, of course.
To quote Alan Partridge: the police are hardly going to arrest someone
who's innocent, are they?
How do all the informed commentators, the insiders in the American
military and in the CIA, the lawyers who would prosecute the inmates if
they could put together any sort of case, konw that the detainees were innocent and should have been released years ago and should not have
been tortured to try to force confessions? How do we know that Moazzam Begg, released from Gitmo after strenuous pleading from the British Government, wasn't actually a dangerous terrorist?
Perhaps it is unwise to rely on Twitter, Facebook and the Daily Mail as
your only reliable source of information.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 12:37:58 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/10/2023 09:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 23/10/2023 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2023 06:57 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 23/10/2023 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 12:58 22 Oct 2023, The Todal said:Untrue. Most of those in Guantanamo Bay were innocent people who were >>>>> only there because someone wanted to have their revenge on a
On 21/10/2023 16:57, Pamela wrote:
I suppose a Soviet kangaroo court is one form of "judicial process". >>>>>>>> It may be useful to read parts of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago >>>>>>>> to better understand what farces passed for judicial process in the >>>>>>>> Soviet Union. The massive Lubyanka prison building in Moscow wasn't >>>>>>>> big enough for all the endless detentions and interrogations being >>>>>>>> asked of it.
I've read it, and also One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
You may not recall the content of those two books. "One Day" is a short >>>>>> quasi autobiographical novel and is a fictional snapshot of a working >>>>>> day in a labour camp. It is only faintly comparable to the brutal
Kafkaesque "literary investigation" of the "Gulag Archipelago" which >>>>>> depicted an enduring forced labour system spanning decades, coming at >>>>>> the tail end of a programme of torture for political prisoners and >>>>>> potential dissidents.
A modern equivalent would be Guantanamo Bay - lots of terrorist
"suspects" including quite a few innocent goatherds, kept prisoner >>>>>>> without trial and subjected to various forms of torture.
The labour camp gulag comprised a large proportion of political
prisoners and was unlike the American camp at Guantanamo Bay. On one >>>>>> hand those at Guantanamo were not prisoners of conscience but militants >>>>>> and terrorists who had taken arms against America. On the other, the >>>>>> Soviet gulag was stuffed full of innocent authors, publishers,
reporters, teachers, etc living in subjugation to hardened criminals. >>>>>
neighbour or claim a reward for informing on someone who actually had >>>>> done nothing wrong. And predictably the majority of internees had no >>>>> useful intelligence to offer and could not be prosecuted because
there was no evidence against them.
But you probably missed that.
How do you say you "know" it?
By keeping up to date - how else? Read the reports. For example:
The Intelligence Committee as well often pushes intelligence agencies to >>> act quickly in response to threats and world events.
Nevertheless, such pressure, fear, and expectation of further terrorist
plots do not justify, temper, or excuse improper actions taken by
individuals or organizations in the name of national security. The major >>> lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need
to act, the Intelligence Community's actions must always reflect who we
are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards. It is precisely
at these times of national crisis that our government must be guided by
the lessons of our history and subject decisions to internal and
external review.
Instead, CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to
initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal
interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations,
and our values. This Committee Study documents the abuses and countless
mistakes made between late 2001 and early 2009.
#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than
the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department >>> of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and
Interrogation Program.
#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of
the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not
meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number >>> of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques >>> were inaccurate.
The CIA never conducted a comprehensive audit or developed a complete
and accurate list of the individuals it had detained or subjected to its >>> enhanced interrogation techniques. CIA statements to the Committee and
later to the public that the CIA detained fewer than 100 individuals,
and that less than a third of those 100 detainees were subjected to the
CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, were inaccurate. The
committee's review of CIA records determined that the CIA detained at
least 119 individuals, of whom at least 39 were subjected to the CIA's
enhanced interrogation techniques. Of the 119 known detainees, at least
26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the
September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an
"intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as
leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals
who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were
former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be
connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA
detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined
that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide
insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees. >>>
More at:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf
How do those critical of the actions of the USA in this matter "know"
that the detainees "had done nothing wrong"?
Other than being assured of it by the detainees, of course.
And by the US courts in some cases.
A theoretical question could be raised today about
recent events: would it have been justified to interrogate a member of
Hamas using all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention of the recent massacre in Israel?
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about
recent events: would it have been justified to interrogate a member of
Hamas using all the methods available if it were to have led to the
prevention of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas members) over decades to find out when an
unpredicted attack will be, the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of truth.
On 20:35 21 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 21/10/2023 10:57, Pamela wrote:
On 20:00 20 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 20/10/2023 10:23, Brian W wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 09:08:45 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:40 19 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 19:43, Pamela wrote:Those distances are quite different. London to Moscow is 1,600 >>>>>>>> miles. Havana (or the Bay of Pigs) to Miami is less than 250
On 17:03 18 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/10/2023 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 15:13 18 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 18/10/2023 12:43, Pamela wrote:
On 12:51 17 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
On 17/10/2023 04:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2023 05:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/10/2023 15:23, GB wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:58, Max Demian wrote:
"Well both, obviously. And only allow a few days >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them. We don't want the Japs to surrender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before we can test both of them."
Whilst you might be right, what were the daily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casualty rates at the time?
What is the equivalence between casualties of Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians (who lived there), and the US military (who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were nearby uninvited)?
The US military were sent an invitation in December >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1941.
The opinion of the winning side. I'm sure a country that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was enduring a US blockade might say the action was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started earlier by the US. The movement of ships to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl Harbour might also have been seen as provocative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing is simple and best to understand how the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side thinks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl_Harbor
It's interesting to see there's an entire separate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article on this in Wikipedia. Assuming those Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fears listed there are true, they still don't justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oil justified the invasion of Iraq, where oil wells were >>>>>>>>>>>>> already divvied up amongst US oil companies.
The embargo on oil from the US would have rendered the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese military machine impotent. I don't see any other >>>>>>>>>>>>> way out for Japan?
A parallel might be to wrongly assert that the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian invasion of Ukraine is somehow justified on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> account of the anxieties felt by Russian-speaking people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in eastern Ukraine. IYSWIM.
A better parallel would be Cuba, where the US did what it >>>>>>>>>>>>> could to stop Soviet missiles being placed within striking >>>>>>>>>>>>> range of the US.
If you look how close Moscow is to the Ukraine border, you >>>>>>>>>>>>> might understand their anxiety.
The point is a country can't reasonably attack another if >>>>>>>>>>>> the only problems purpose is to allay unsubstantiated (and >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exaggerated) fears.
On that basis it was outrageous of the USA to threaten Cuba >>>>>>>>>>> and the Soviet Union with military force merely because Cuba >>>>>>>>>>> was installing missiles on its own territory. Yes?
Kennedy brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, >>>>>>>>>>> simply as a dick-waving gesture to impress the American
public.
The missiles were on their way to be installed. What was
unsubstantiated about that? The threat the missiles posed to >>>>>>>>>> the American mainland was not exaggerated to justify
intervention.
Our missiles in the UK that were pointed at the USSR were as >>>>>>>>> much a threat to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the
USA.
miles.
Britain's missiles were stationed on the territory they were
defending but the Russia's missiles in Cuba were not there to
defend Cuba.
Why the double standard? Because the USA were the good guys, >>>>>>>>> the world's policemen, and the USSR were the evil empire?
I do tend to see the Americans as good guys compared to the
Soviets. Many countries have learnt to their cost about Soviet >>>>>>>> brutality.
In both cases, using the missiles would result in mutually
assured destruction. The presence of the missiles in Cuba
would have helped to reassure the Russians that they were
deterring a missile attack from the USA.
I agree. The US may have many faults, but is not morally
equivalent to the USSR, which was a vile regime which murdered
millions.
Whereas I can see very little to choose between them, other than
one superpower being our traditional ally, sharing our language,
and the other having a different language and having been
demonised over decades.
Americans were terrified into believing that the Reds were about
to attack or invade them. Many good Americans lost their
livelihoods as politicians built their careers on outing and
humiliating honest writers, actors and film directors who were
thought to be in any way socialist.
McCarthy is from a different time in history over 70 years ago.
Nor did McCarthy reflect the views of all Americans. By contrast,
the Soviet military was a genuine threat to the West and only a
naif could think their intentions were benevolent.
There are several aspects to this comparison but a key difference
between the West and the Soviets was that the Soviets (just like
North Korea and Communist China) prevented their citizens from
leaving, whereas western countries allowed free movement. That
says a lot.
Murdered millions? Are you harking back to Stalin's purges? How
about the 27 million people that the Soviet Union lost in World
War 2, often at the hands of rampaging German armies destroying
towns and villages?
The USA has often shown itself to be morally bankrupt. It
subverts the governments of other nations and instals puppet
regimes, as it did in Chile. It has been responsible for the
slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq which achieved nothing other
than to create ISIS and more Islamic terrorism.
Isn't that no more than realpolitik? These considerations have
occurred throughout history, back to Ancient Egypt and beyond. No
matter how benevolent a country may be, such as Ancient Rome,
there are necessarily some aspects which are distasteful.
When was Ancient Rome benevolent? Maybe that's a cosy fantasy based
on fictional representations of Rome.
For the most part Ancient Rome brought peace (Pax Romana) and
prosperity to those countries in its Empire. Of course there were
some major incidents but for almost all parts it brought a better
civilisation which we recognise and still benefit from today (roads,
laws, aqueducts, etc ... per Monty Python). See what a shithole
England turned into after the withdrawal of Rome.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, weren't those actions seen as
necessary wars of self-defence at the time, even if the premises
later turned out to be misguided? On the other hand, the Soviets
invaded Afghanistan specifically to prop up a puppet regime.
The two are indistinguishable. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
was to prop up a regime and defeat the Mujahideen. The USA and UK
claimed that this was outrageous and funded the rebels who then
became the Taliban and thus the USA funded Osama bin Laden,
directly or indirectly.
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was
necessary in self-defence was a political posture designed to
appease an angry American electorate. It never stood up to scrutiny
by intelligence services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without the
benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders like
Blair and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no matter
how mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was silencing
David Evans so important if they believed their propaganda? And
especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quaeda (America
was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq harassing the Iraq
government - IOW terrorists) although he told the American people
they were. And both, having advisers who knew something about
military matters, knew that Iraq had never had weapons he could use
against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't know the details they
knew he didn't have significant stocks of WMD. So, sorry, they were
both lying for their own reasons, possibly personal rather than
patriotic.
Those points serve to show how misguided were the beliefs at the time
but not that malice was afoot.
Regarding Iraq: there's little doubt Blair, Bush, et al believed what
they stated at the time. Much later Chilcot found Blair foolish and
wrong headed but not malicious nor guilty of breaking laws.
On 26/10/2023 09:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough torture
merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of truth.
It doesn't stop the CIA (and others) from doing it though.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about
recent events: would it have been justified to interrogate a member of
Hamas using all the methods available if it were to have led to the
prevention of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas members) over decades to find out when an
unpredicted attack will be, the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of truth.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about
recent events: would it have been justified to interrogate a member of
Hamas using all the methods available if it were to have led to the
prevention of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas members) over decades to find out when an
unpredicted attack will be, the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of truth.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using
all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention
of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be,
the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough
torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
On 25/10/2023 13:53, Pamela wrote:
On 20:35 21 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was
necessary in self-defence was a political posture designed to
appease an angry American electorate. It never stood up to
scrutiny by intelligence services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without
the benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders
like Blair and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no
matter how mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was
silencing David Evans so important if they believed their
propaganda? And especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting
Al Quaeda (America was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq
harassing the Iraq government - IOW terrorists) although he told
the American people they were. And both, having advisers who knew
something about military matters, knew that Iraq had never had
weapons he could use against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't
know the details they knew he didn't have significant stocks of
WMD. So, sorry, they were both lying for their own reasons,
possibly personal rather than patriotic.
Those points serve to show how misguided were the beliefs at the
time but not that malice was afoot.
Malice? Who said anything about malice?
Regarding Iraq: there's little doubt Blair, Bush, et al believed
what they stated at the time. Much later Chilcot found Blair foolish
and wrong headed but not malicious nor guilty of breaking laws.
Foolish and wrong headed would be bad enough. But lying to the
Commons and to the nation are serious matters.
Bush and his neocon advisers, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were keen to
invade Iraq and to construct a pretext for doing so. They believed
that they could aim for regime change even if Iraq did not pose a
military threat.
Blair followed Bush tamely because he believed that the UK would lose
its influence in the world if it didn't get on board with American
plans. And Blair misled his cabinet and the Commons by exaggerating
the threat from Iraq.
Quotations from the Chilcot report:
In Mr Blairs view, the decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with
the US was an essential demonstration of solidarity with the UKs
principal ally as well as being in the UKs long-term national
interests.
President Bush decided at the end of 2001 to pursue a policy of
regime change in Iraq.
The UK shared the broad objective of finding a way to deal with
Saddam Husseins defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and his
assumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes. However, based
on consistent legal advice, the UK could not share the US objective
of regime change. The UK Government therefore set as its objective
the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with the obligations imposed in
a series of Security Council resolutions.
Mr David Brummell (Legal Secretary to the Law Officers) wrote to Mr
Matthew Rycroft (Mr Blairs Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs)
on 14 March:
It is an essential part of the legal basis for military action
without a further resolution of the Security Council that there is
strong evidence that Iraq has failed to comply with and co-operate
fully in the implementation of resolution 1441 and has thus failed to
take the final opportunity offered by the Security Council in that resolution. The Attorney General understands that it is unequivocally
the Prime Ministers view that Iraq has committed further material
breaches as specified in [operative] paragraph 4 of resolution 1441,
but as this is a judgement for the Prime Minister, the Attorney would
be grateful for confirmation that this is the case.
Mr Rycroft replied to Mr Brummell on 15 March: This is to confirm
that it is indeed the Prime Ministers unequivocal view that Iraq is
in further material breach of its obligations, as in OP4 of UNSCR
1441, because of false statements or omissions in the declarations
submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure to comply
with, and co-operate fully in the interpretation of,this
resolution. It is unclear what specific grounds Mr Blair relied
upon in reaching his view. unquote
[TRIMMED]
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using
all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention
of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of
thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be,
the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough
torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physical
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological and
that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's wish to
lie.
In another post I mentioned the German, Hanns Scharff's approach. There
are public statements by the American Psychological Association (David Hoffman et al) and the British Psychological Society (Peter Kinderman) showing their reluctance to be drawn into using such psychological
methods to help the military. The aim is to get the detainee to
vounteer the information.
Purely psychological techniques were covered in the old US's "School of
the Americas" underground training manuals, which in turn were based on
work by Albert Biderman and Robert Lifton who separately investigated
how the Chinese had managed to break captives solely by psychological methods.
For a country fearing a second 9/11, the US felt it was justified in
using extreme methods, such as at Guantanamo, to prevent a recurrence.
I regret you find such a situation to be "facile".
On 16:51 25 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
On 25/10/2023 13:53, Pamela wrote:
On 20:35 21 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52:52 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:59 21 Oct 2023, The Todal said:
The pretence that the USA's war on Afghanistan and Iraq was
necessary in self-defence was a political posture designed to
appease an angry American electorate. It never stood up to
scrutiny by intelligence services or military advisers.
Contemporary decisions may have to be taken in haste and without
the benefit of perfect hindsight. There's little doubt leaders
like Blair and Bush believed in what they claimed at the time, no
matter how mistaken events showed them to be.
The events at the time are, and were, quite clear. Why was
silencing David Evans so important if they believed their
propaganda? And especially Bush knew that Iraq wasn't supporting
Al Quaeda (America was supporting an Al Quaeda group in North Iraq
harassing the Iraq government - IOW terrorists) although he told
the American people they were. And both, having advisers who knew
something about military matters, knew that Iraq had never had
weapons he could use against Northern Europe. Even if they didn't
know the details they knew he didn't have significant stocks of
WMD. So, sorry, they were both lying for their own reasons,
possibly personal rather than patriotic.
Those points serve to show how misguided were the beliefs at the
time but not that malice was afoot.
Malice? Who said anything about malice?
Regarding Iraq: there's little doubt Blair, Bush, et al believed
what they stated at the time. Much later Chilcot found Blair foolish
and wrong headed but not malicious nor guilty of breaking laws.
Foolish and wrong headed would be bad enough. But lying to the
Commons and to the nation are serious matters.
Blair held certain beliefs and made certain assumptions (see your
quotation below), not all of which proved accurate. That is not so very unusual in a fast moving high-stakes situation. He decided some of it incorrectly but he won't the first nor the last to do that. He clearly botched certain aspects. But what specifically was so egregious about
Blair's behaviour that troubles his detractors so much? Exactly which
lies were told to "the Commons and to the nation"?
Bush and his neocon advisers, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were keen to
invade Iraq and to construct a pretext for doing so. They believed
that they could aim for regime change even if Iraq did not pose a
military threat.
Blair followed Bush tamely because he believed that the UK would lose
its influence in the world if it didn't get on board with American
plans. And Blair misled his cabinet and the Commons by exaggerating
the threat from Iraq.
Quotations from the Chilcot report:
In Mr Blair’s view, the decision to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with >> the US was an essential demonstration of solidarity with the UK’s
principal ally as well as being in the UK’s long-term national
interests.
President Bush decided at the end of 2001 to pursue a policy of
regime change in Iraq.
The UK shared the broad objective of finding a way to deal with
Saddam Hussein’s defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and his
assumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes. However, based
on consistent legal advice, the UK could not share the US objective
of regime change. The UK Government therefore set as its objective
the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with the obligations imposed in
a series of Security Council resolutions.
Mr David Brummell (Legal Secretary to the Law Officers) wrote to Mr
Matthew Rycroft (Mr Blair’s Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs)
on 14 March:
“It is an essential part of the legal basis for military action
without a further resolution of the Security Council that there is
strong evidence that Iraq has failed to comply with and co-operate
fully in the implementation of resolution 1441 and has thus failed to
take the final opportunity offered by the Security Council in that
resolution. The Attorney General understands that it is unequivocally
the Prime Minister’s view that Iraq has committed further material
breaches as specified in [operative] paragraph 4 of resolution 1441,
but as this is a judgement for the Prime Minister, the Attorney would
be grateful for confirmation that this is the case.”
Mr Rycroft replied to Mr Brummell on 15 March: “This is to confirm
that it is indeed the Prime Minister’s unequivocal view that Iraq is
in further material breach of its obligations, as in OP4 of UNSCR
1441, because of ‘false statements or omissions in the declarations
submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure to comply
with, and co-operate fully in the interpretation of,this
resolution’.” It is unclear what specific grounds Mr Blair relied
upon in reaching his view. unquote
[TRIMMED]
Chilcot states "It is unclear what specific grounds Mr Blair relied
upon in reaching his view" is quite different from finding Blair guilty
of lying or deliberately misleading Parliament. Yes, Blair can rightly
be blamed for not sharing collective responsibility with the Cabinet
and then going on to make honest mistakes of his own. As Blair said of
the Chilcot report:
"The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or
deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take
military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and
in what I believed to be the best interests of the country."
Also in Blair's words:
"There was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence", "no
deception of Cabinet" and "no secret commitment to war"
The baying mob of Blair's detractors appear to get very upset about
this topic. They seem primarily motivated to avenge what they see as political betrayal rather than dispassionately assess what Blair did or
did not do. I imagine many of them prefer Jeremy Corbyn.
On 26 Oct 2023 at 11:25:50 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using
all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention
of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of
thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be,
the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough
torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physical
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological and
that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's wish to
lie.
In another post I mentioned the German, Hanns Scharff's approach. There
are public statements by the American Psychological Association (David
Hoffman et al) and the British Psychological Society (Peter Kinderman)
showing their reluctance to be drawn into using such psychological
methods to help the military. The aim is to get the detainee to
vounteer the information.
Purely psychological techniques were covered in the old US's "School of
the Americas" underground training manuals, which in turn were based on
work by Albert Biderman and Robert Lifton who separately investigated
how the Chinese had managed to break captives solely by psychological
methods.
For a country fearing a second 9/11, the US felt it was justified in
using extreme methods, such as at Guantanamo, to prevent a recurrence.
I regret you find such a situation to be "facile".
Almost every other country in the world has put up with much worse damage than
"9/11",
and among the Western ones few have, at least officially, resorted to barbarism as a result. Are the Americans special snowflakes for whom the human
rights of non-Americans mean nothing?
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using
all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention
of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of
thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be,
the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough
torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physical
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological and
that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's wish to
lie.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:25:50 +0100, Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using
all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention
of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of
thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be,
the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough
torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physicalIndeed. It's well known that the TV quiz show Mastermind was based by its creator on his experience of being interrogated by the Gestapo in WWII.
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological and
that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's wish to >lie.
The main problem with torture is that it encourages the subject to say anything that will stop the pain, which isn't necessarily the truth. Telling the interrogator what they want to hear is often just as effective.
Effective interrogation is more about breaking down a person's resistance to talking - because effective lying is difficult, and once a person has
started to speak freely they will often end up betraying the truth even if they remain internally committed to maintaining the lie.
It's fiction, but the accounts of interrogation in John Le Carre's cold war books are generally considered accurate, not least because the author had experience of working in that field.
Where physical violence, or the threat of it, can work is where there is a simple known unknown that the subject is in possession of and can be induced to reveal on the basis that revealing it will cause them less harm than not doing so. XKCD:538 illustrates this very well. But most professional interrogation situations don't fall into this category.
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 10:29:41 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:well work. Obviously, if the question is "Are you guilty?", whereas you might eventually get the answer you want, it is probably going to be unreliable.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:25:50 +0100, Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> >> wrote:
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:Indeed. It's well known that the TV quiz show Mastermind was based by its
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using
all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention
of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of
thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be,
the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough
torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physical
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological and
that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's wish to
lie.
creator on his experience of being interrogated by the Gestapo in WWII.
The main problem with torture is that it encourages the subject to say
anything that will stop the pain, which isn't necessarily the truth. Telling >> the interrogator what they want to hear is often just as effective.
Effective interrogation is more about breaking down a person's resistance to >> talking - because effective lying is difficult, and once a person has
started to speak freely they will often end up betraying the truth even if >> they remain internally committed to maintaining the lie.
It's fiction, but the accounts of interrogation in John Le Carre's cold war >> books are generally considered accurate, not least because the author had
experience of working in that field.
Where physical violence, or the threat of it, can work is where there is a >> simple known unknown that the subject is in possession of and can be induced >> to reveal on the basis that revealing it will cause them less harm than not >> doing so. XKCD:538 illustrates this very well. But most professional
interrogation situations don't fall into this category.
Yes, I agree - torture is abhorrent, but the blanket statement that it doesn't work is wrong. As you say, if there's a specific piece of information sought - who is the leader of your cell, where is the bomb-making equipment stored, etc, then it may
Chilcot states "It is unclear what specific grounds Mr Blair relied
upon in reaching his view" is quite different from finding Blair guilty
of lying or deliberately misleading Parliament. Yes, Blair can rightly
be blamed for not sharing collective responsibility with the Cabinet
and then going on to make honest mistakes of his own. As Blair said of
the Chilcot report:
"The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or
deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take
military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and
in what I believed to be the best interests of the country."
Also in Blair's words:
"There was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence", "no
deception of Cabinet" and "no secret commitment to war"
The baying mob of Blair's detractors appear to get very upset about
this topic. They seem primarily motivated to avenge what they see as political betrayal rather than dispassionately assess what Blair did or
did not do. I imagine many of them prefer Jeremy Corbyn.
On 27/10/2023 10:55, Brian W wrote:well work. Obviously, if the question is "Are you guilty?", whereas you might eventually get the answer you want, it is probably going to be unreliable.
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 10:29:41 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:25:50 +0100, Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> >> wrote:
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:Indeed. It's well known that the TV quiz show Mastermind was based by its >> creator on his experience of being interrogated by the Gestapo in WWII.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas using >>>>> all the methods available if it were to have led to the prevention >>>>> of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens of >>>> thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as Hamas
members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack will be, >>>> the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe enough >>>> torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any kind of
truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physical
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological and >>> that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's wish to >>> lie.
The main problem with torture is that it encourages the subject to say
anything that will stop the pain, which isn't necessarily the truth. Telling
the interrogator what they want to hear is often just as effective.
Effective interrogation is more about breaking down a person's resistance to
talking - because effective lying is difficult, and once a person has
started to speak freely they will often end up betraying the truth even if >> they remain internally committed to maintaining the lie.
It's fiction, but the accounts of interrogation in John Le Carre's cold war
books are generally considered accurate, not least because the author had >> experience of working in that field.
Where physical violence, or the threat of it, can work is where there is a >> simple known unknown that the subject is in possession of and can be induced
to reveal on the basis that revealing it will cause them less harm than not
doing so. XKCD:538 illustrates this very well. But most professional
interrogation situations don't fall into this category.
Yes, I agree - torture is abhorrent, but the blanket statement that it doesn't work is wrong. As you say, if there's a specific piece of information sought - who is the leader of your cell, where is the bomb-making equipment stored, etc, then it may
Torture will elicit confessions. In many cases you won't know whether
the information is reliable especially if all it does is point the
finger at other people and claim that they are fellow terrorists.
The meaning of "torture" is a flexible one.
"As the now-infamous memorandum prepared by John Yoo and Jay Bybee
defined it, torture’s use of the phrase “severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical” in its definition means only pain and
suffering of a degree comparable to what would be expected of a person suffering multiple organ failure or on the verge of death. It is
difficult to imagine what techniques would qualify as torture under that definition."
If you're the legal adviser to a government and your bosses want you to authorise torture, you simply redefine what you intend to do as
"enhanced interrogation techniques".
See eg
https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/2014/professor-discusses-legal-and-ethical-issues-revealed-in-report-on-cias-use-of-torture/
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Chilcot states "It is unclear what specific grounds Mr Blair relied
upon in reaching his view" is quite different from finding Blair guilty
of lying or deliberately misleading Parliament. Yes, Blair can rightly
be blamed for not sharing collective responsibility with the Cabinet
and then going on to make honest mistakes of his own. As Blair said of
the Chilcot report:
"The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or
deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take
military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and
in what I believed to be the best interests of the country."
Also in Blair's words:
"There was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence", "no
deception of Cabinet" and "no secret commitment to war"
The baying mob of Blair's detractors appear to get very upset about
this topic. They seem primarily motivated to avenge what they see as
political betrayal rather than dispassionately assess what Blair did or
did not do. I imagine many of them prefer Jeremy Corbyn.
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better
than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:25:50 +0100, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 09:06 26 Oct 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 19:09:54 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
A theoretical question could be raised today about recent events:
would it have been justified to interrogate a member of Hamas
using all the methods available if it were to have led to the
prevention of the recent massacre in Israel?
That facile and ill-founded[1] question is usually asked in the
theoretical situation that you have one villain who knows where the
time-bomb is. In your general case, that you have to torture tens
of thousands (many of whom will not be correctly identified as
Hamas members) over decades to find out when an unpredicted attack
will be, the answer is clearly no.
[1] Ill-founded in the sense that it is well known that severe
enough torture merely gets you answer you want, rather than any
kind of truth.
You may have assumed military interrogation is primarily physical
torture. However the most effective interrogation is psychological
and that is largely what is practised as it overcomes the subject's
wish to lie.
Indeed. It's well known that the TV quiz show Mastermind was based by
its creator on his experience of being interrogated by the Gestapo in
WWII.
The main problem with torture is that it encourages the subject to
say anything that will stop the pain, which isn't necessarily the
truth. Telling the interrogator what they want to hear is often just
as effective. Effective interrogation is more about breaking down a
person's resistance to talking - because effective lying is
difficult, and once a person has started to speak freely they will
often end up betraying the truth even if they remain internally
committed to maintaining the lie.
It's fiction, but the accounts of interrogation in John Le Carre's
cold war books are generally considered accurate, not least because
the author had experience of working in that field.
Where physical violence, or the threat of it, can work is where there
is a simple known unknown that the subject is in possession of and
can be induced to reveal on the basis that revealing it will cause
them less harm than not doing so. XKCD:538 illustrates this very
well. But most professional interrogation situations don't fall into
this category.
Mark
The Mastermind set up with its chair under bright lights would not be categorised these days as a psychological interrogation method. It is
broadly equivalent to using physical methods, in that both overtly
employ discomfort to encourage compliance.
Some detainess (perhaps holding the most important high-level
information) can resist such approaches and the Al Qaeda Training
Manual contains several lessons about this.
The definition of torture was hotly debated in the American inquiries
into military interrogations, although I am not sure the public is much
wiser for it.
The American military programme of psychological interrogation dates
back to approx 1950s/1960s (partly on the back of "brainwashing"
techniques). Initially the methods used were not unique to
interrogation but starting with the Iraq War some specific new
techniques were deployed, such as the use of loud amplified music and temperature regulation.
I mentioned some early researchers into purely psychological ,methods
in this post: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=169840463700
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts
reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to >> silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in >> the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better
than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts
reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to >>> silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in >>> the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better
than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
On 27 Oct 2023 at 17:16:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts >>>> reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to >>>> silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in
the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better >>>> than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2023 at 17:16:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts >>>>> reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to
silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in
the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better >>>>> than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
I know…the Kindle user I know is always complaining about it, such as lack of sync between devices, jumping 20 pages at a time, connectivity issues, libraries coming and going or not updating, the list is endless. And that’s on an up-to-date Kindle on a stable connection.
On 27 Oct 2023 at 22:39:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2023 at 17:16:25 BST, "Spike"
<aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence
analysts reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the >>>>>> methods used to silence them because of those results; and indeed, >>>>>> for anyone interested in the analytical processes of intelligence
handling, one can do no better than recommend the book “Failing
Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
I know…the Kindle user I know is always complaining about it, such as
lack of sync between devices, jumping 20 pages at a time, connectivity
issues, libraries coming and going or not updating, the list is
endless. And that’s on an up-to-date Kindle on a stable connection.
The simplest thing to do is strip the DRM from any Kindle books you've *bought and paid for* and use Calibre. The idea you can buy something
and have it summarily withdrawn at any time in the future is taking the
piss a bit.
On 27 Oct 2023 at 22:39:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
I know…the Kindle user I know is always complaining about it, such as lack >> of sync between devices, jumping 20 pages at a time, connectivity issues,
libraries coming and going or not updating, the list is endless. And that’s
on an up-to-date Kindle on a stable connection.
The simplest thing to do is strip the DRM from any Kindle books you've *bought
and paid for* and use Calibre. The idea that you can buy something and have it
summarily withdrawn at any time in the future is taking the piss a bit.
On 27 Oct 2023 at 22:39:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2023 at 17:16:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts >>>>>> reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to
silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in
the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better >>>>>> than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
I know…the Kindle user I know is always complaining about it, such as lack >> of sync between devices, jumping 20 pages at a time, connectivity issues,
libraries coming and going or not updating, the list is endless. And that’s
on an up-to-date Kindle on a stable connection.
The simplest thing to do is strip the DRM from any Kindle books you've *bought
and paid for* and use Calibre. The idea you can buy something and have it summarily withdrawn at any time in the future is taking the piss a bit.
On 27 Oct 2023 at 22:39:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2023 at 17:16:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts >>>>>> reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to
silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in
the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better >>>>>> than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
I know…the Kindle user I know is always complaining about it, such as lack >> of sync between devices, jumping 20 pages at a time, connectivity issues,
libraries coming and going or not updating, the list is endless. And that’s
on an up-to-date Kindle on a stable connection.
The simplest thing to do is strip the DRM from any Kindle books you've *bought
and paid for* and use Calibre. The idea you can buy something and have it summarily withdrawn at any time in the future is taking the piss a bit.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2023 at 17:16:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
For anyone interested in the process by which the intelligence analysts >>>>> reached their conclusions about Iraqi WMD, and some of the methods used to
silence them because of those results; and indeed, for anyone interested in
the analytical processes of intelligence handling, one can do no better >>>>> than recommend the book “Failing Intelligence” by Dr Brian Jones, now sadly
out of print.
It’s still available for Kindle (UKP 5.99}
Ah, thanks. Not a Kindle user myself, but I know someone who is…:-)
You can use Kindle on any computer or tablet.
I know…the Kindle user I know is always complaining about it, such as lack of sync between devices, jumping 20 pages at a time, connectivity issues, libraries coming and going or not updating, the list is endless. And that’s on an up-to-date Kindle on a stable connection.
Amazon recently 'offered' me a book, but the pricing puzzled me greatly.
Kindle version £5.71, Hardback £7.01, Paperback £10.45 *
The latter two with free delivery for orders over £10.
* The prices vary somewhat, each time I check.
(Walls: A History of Civilization in Blood and Brick by David Frye)
On 20/10/2023 15:23, JNugent wrote:
[I wrote:]
It was rumoured after the Falklands hoo-ha that Argentina hadThe United Kingdom doesn't and didn't have submarines which fit that
been warned not to attack the Task Force in the event of a UK defeat
and consequent withdrawal, and that a submarine was on station to
enforce this with nuclear weapons if necessary. [...]
narrative. The only nuclear-armed craft are or were Polaris and now
Trident. They are not used tactically.
OK, but rumours do not need to be true, merely to be sufficiently plausible. I defer to your knowledge of the deployment of the UK's
Polaris submarines at the time.
The Royal Navy *was* stated at the time to have had a nuclear
submarine in the south Atlantic, but this would have been a
nuclear-powered ship, not a nuclear armed one. Its armaments would
have been conventional.
Rather more than "stated"! Conqueror was BRD sufficiently close
to sink the Belgrano.
FWIW, my belief is that Argentina should have been warned not toUmm. I think that /would/ have been an empty threat. The Task Force was not equipped to attack the Argentine mainland,
attack the Task Force in any manner at all and not to resist the
British landings on those islands, with any failure meaning that
Argentina's Atlantic naval bases would have been immediately liable
to attack.
and would not
have had international support to do so.
OTOH, the Falklands were far
enough away from Argentina that they were as difficult to defend as to attack, so regaining them [and SGeorgia] was feasible, albeit close-run.
On 27/10/2023 16:04, Pamela wrote:
The Mastermind set up with its chair under bright lights would not
be categorised these days as a psychological interrogation method.
It is broadly equivalent to using physical methods, in that both
overtly employ discomfort to encourage compliance.
Some detainees (perhaps holding the most important high-level
information) can resist such approaches and the Al Qaeda Training
Manual contains several lessons about this.
I haven't seen that alleged training manual. Obviously our own
servicemen are trained in how to resist interrogations. An
interesting film is "Captured", by John Krish, originally intended
for an audience of military personnel, showing how North Korean
soldiers (obviously actors) brainwash and encourage confessions and
encourage distrust between prisoners. I got my copy from Amazon.
The definition of torture was hotly debated in the American
inquiries into military interrogations, although I am not sure the
public is much wiser for it.
The public? Wiser? The public are fuckwits, and rarely bother to read official reports. They probably admire Jack Bauer and assume that all
his methods are reasonable and lawful. But it doesn't matter because
the public aren't entrusted with law enforcement or preventing
terrorism.
However, those who are arrested by the police are often made to
confess to crimes they did not commit, simply by non-violent coercion
over many days.
The American military programme of psychological interrogation dates
back to approx 1950s/1960s (partly on the back of "brainwashing"
techniques). Initially the methods used were not unique to
interrogation but starting with the Iraq War some specific new
techniques were deployed, such as the use of loud amplified music
and temperature regulation.
I mentioned some early researchers into purely psychological methods
in this post: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=169840463700
I recommend "How to Break a Terrorist" by Matthew Alexander. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1416573151/
What "international" sentiment would have been in favour of the islands
and their population being further endangered?
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
On 01/11/2023 in message <kqeqd6Fqf3aU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
What "international" sentiment would have been in favour of the
islands and their population being further endangered?
The USA for a start. They always seem to regard our international
defence obligations as a form of colonialism
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) human
life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done anything >wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have been in
favour of the islands and their population being further endangered?
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
Presumably you've never heard of the Monroe Doctrine. then ?
That's James, not Marilyn btw.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 11:16:54 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) human
life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done anything
wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have been in
favour of the islands and their population being further endangered?
Almost all the combat in the conflict took place at sea, in the air or on open land. There were only three civilian casualities among the islanders
and two Argentine civilian casualties (both of them on board the General Belgrano). That's a considerably smaller proportion than is typical in armed conflict. Had British forces attacked mainland bases, it's likely there
would have been far more civilian casualties.
On 02/11/2023 05:28 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
On 02/11/2023 01:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
Presumably you've never heard of the Monroe Doctrine. then ?
That's James, not Marilyn btw.
Something to with American foreign policy, IIRC.
Nothing to do with the UK.
Nothing to do with the United Nations concept of self-defence, either.
On 02/11/2023 01:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
Presumably you've never heard of the Monroe Doctrine. then ?
That's James, not Marilyn btw.
Something to with American foreign policy, IIRC.
Nothing to do with the UK.
Nothing to do with the United Nations concept of self-defence, either.
On 02/11/2023 05:28 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 11:16:54 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action.
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) human >>> life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done anything >>> wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have been in
favour of the islands and their population being further endangered?
Almost all the combat in the conflict took place at sea, in the air or on
open land. There were only three civilian casualities among the islanders
and two Argentine civilian casualties (both of them on board the General
Belgrano). That's a considerably smaller proportion than is typical in armed >> conflict. Had British forces attacked mainland bases, it's likely there
would have been far more civilian casualties.
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
They and their country had done nothing wrong. Their safety, and those
of British forces, should have been near-paramount.
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 01:19:55 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 05:28 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 11:16:54 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action. >>>>
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) human >>>> life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done anything >>>> wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have been in
favour of the islands and their population being further endangered?
Almost all the combat in the conflict took place at sea, in the air or on >>> open land. There were only three civilian casualities among the islanders >>> and two Argentine civilian casualties (both of them on board the General >>> Belgrano). That's a considerably smaller proportion than is typical in armed
conflict. Had British forces attacked mainland bases, it's likely there
would have been far more civilian casualties.
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
They had already been placed at significant risk by the occupying forces.
They and their country had done nothing wrong. Their safety, and those
of British forces, should have been near-paramount.
Attacking the Argentine mainland would also have been significantly riskier for the British forces. One of the reasons why the liberation force was successful is that the occupiers hadn't had time to properly fortify the islands. The mainland bases, by contrast, were already well defended.
On 03/11/2023 07:47 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 01:19:55 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
They had already been placed at significant risk by the occupying forces.
OK, let's be a little more clear: "why should *any* *extra* risk at all >accrue to Falkland Islands civilians?".
They and their country had done nothing wrong. Their safety, and those
of British forces, should have been near-paramount.
Attacking the Argentine mainland would also have been significantly riskier >> for the British forces. One of the reasons why the liberation force was
successful is that the occupiers hadn't had time to properly fortify the
islands. The mainland bases, by contrast, were already well defended.
The point I was making was that the re-taking of the islands, a
territorial possession of the United Kingdom, should have been
unopposed.
Military opposition was tantamount to murder and attempted
murder.
Military opposition was tantamount to murder and attempted
murder.
The only other alternative to military action was to roll over and let them >get away with it.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 01:43:55 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 07:47 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 01:19:55 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:OK, let's be a little more clear: "why should *any* *extra* risk at all
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
They had already been placed at significant risk by the occupying forces. >>
accrue to Falkland Islands civilians?".
Because the alternative was to leave them in the hands of their oppressors.
They and their country had done nothing wrong. Their safety, and those >>>> of British forces, should have been near-paramount.
Attacking the Argentine mainland would also have been significantly riskier >>> for the British forces. One of the reasons why the liberation force was
successful is that the occupiers hadn't had time to properly fortify the >>> islands. The mainland bases, by contrast, were already well defended.
The point I was making was that the re-taking of the islands, a
territorial possession of the United Kingdom, should have been
unopposed.
Well, ideally Argentina should have withdrawn. But they didn't, and the idea that they could be persuaded to do so by threats is, frankly, completely implausible. And attacking the mainland rather than the islands would almost certainly have served to harden the resolve of the military junta, as it would enable them to present the UK as the aggressor.
Military opposition was tantamount to murder and attempted
murder.
The only other alternative to military action was to roll over and let them get away with it.
On 04/11/2023 10:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 01:43:55 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 07:47 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 01:19:55 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:OK, let's be a little more clear: "why should *any* *extra* risk at all
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
They had already been placed at significant risk by the occupying forces. >>>
accrue to Falkland Islands civilians?".
Because the alternative was to leave them in the hands of their oppressors.
That was *one* alternative. And someone - perhaps you - has snipped
other parts of what I wrote, perhaps in order to make it look as though
was no other alternative.
An alternative (I don't say it was necessarily the only one) would have
been to attack Argentine naval bases from a stand-off position.
Argentina would not necessarily know that.FWIW, my belief is that Argentina should have been warned not toUmm. I think that /would/ have been an empty threat. The Task
attack the Task Force in any manner at all and not to resist the
British landings on those islands, with any failure meaning that
Argentina's Atlantic naval bases would have been immediately liable
to attack.
Force was not equipped to attack the Argentine mainland,
It's surprising the number
of things that people don't know (or don't know enough to be able to
tell when they're being wound up - eg, about "nuclear-armed
submarines" in the Falklands Task Force)!
I defer to your knowledge of the deployment of the UK's
Polaris submarines at the time.
and would notIt seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
have had international support to do so.
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military
action.
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 01:19:55 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 02/11/2023 05:28 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Why should *any* risk at all accrued to Falkland Islands civilians?
War - by definition - is an inherently dangerous pastime.
In fact it's almost a definition of the state of war that innocent
civilians are at risk.
One very good reason to avoid wars when possible. Like the famous pinko commie sympathiser said: "To jaw jaw is better than to war war".
On 3 Nov 2023 at 01:17:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 01:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -Presumably you've never heard of the Monroe Doctrine. then ?
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military action. >>>
That's James, not Marilyn btw.
Something to with American foreign policy, IIRC.
Nothing to do with the UK.
Nothing to do with the United Nations concept of self-defence, either.
Something to do with not tolerating foreign powers attacking countries on the American continent(s).
On 01/11/2023 11:16, JNugent wrote:
Argentina would not necessarily know that.FWIW, my belief is that Argentina should have been warned not toUmm. I think that /would/ have been an empty threat. The Task >>> Force was not equipped to attack the Argentine mainland,
attack the Task Force in any manner at all and not to resist the
British landings on those islands, with any failure meaning that
Argentina's Atlantic naval bases would have been immediately liable
to attack.
I think Argentina would have had a pretty decent idea of the size and general capabilities of the Task Force.
It's surprising the number
of things that people don't know (or don't know enough to be able to
tell when they're being wound up - eg, about "nuclear-armed
submarines" in the Falklands Task Force)!
To repeat my previous response:
I defer to your knowledge of the deployment of the UK's
Polaris submarines at the time.
and would notIt seems to me that the Argentina mainland - especially naval bases -
have had international support to do so.
would have been an entirely appropriate theatre for UK military
action.
According to Churchill, Jellicoe was the one person on either side who could have lost WW1 in an afternoon. Woodward could have lost the
Task Force equally in an afternoon by taking it to within Harrier range
of the mainland [and therefore easy range of the Argentine air force].
We lost enough ships as it was; to put the aircraft carriers into danger would have been the height of folly, and not to be taken seriously. After the Belgrano, the Argentine navy was not the serious threat -- it was the
air force that mattered. Luckily for us, the Falklands were very nearly
out of range of their planes. We were also lucky that several of their bombs failed to explode.
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done
anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the UK
and
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one thing to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use, as much of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the Argentine mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France onside.
So it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade BritishWhy risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done
anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the UK and >> were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one thing >> to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use, as much >> of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the Argentine >> mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France onside.
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide
support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands;
On 11/11/2023 in message <uip044$3lmpp$1@dont-email.me> Andy Walker wrote:
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide
support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands;
Was it a right or an obligation? The Falklands is a British Overseas Territory and so we are responsible for its defence.
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide support for the UK's right
to [attempt to] recover the islands;
On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to beSo it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade BritishWhy risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy >> for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the UK and
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done
anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use, as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the Argentine >> mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France onside.
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands? ISTM that the end result of that would almost certainly have been disastrous for the TF, as suggested in a PP. /Separately/, there was also a political dimension to
the whole affair. Very few people supported the Argentine use of force,
so that wasn't "all right"; I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands; invading Argentina would [IMO] have lost much of that support. In similar vein, sinking the Belgrano may have been militarily necessary, but it cost the
UK much political support both here in the UK and abroad. "Unacceptable"
is in the eye of the beholder.
On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done
anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the
UK and
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one
thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use,
as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the
Argentine
mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France
onside.
So it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade British
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to be that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands?
ISTM that the end
result of that would almost certainly have been disastrous for the TF, as suggested in a PP. /Separately/, there was also a political dimension to the whole affair. Very few people supported the Argentine use of force,
so that wasn't "all right"; I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands; invading Argentina would [IMO] have lost much of that support.
In similar vein,
sinking the Belgrano may have been militarily necessary, but it cost the
UK much political support both here in the UK and abroad. "Unacceptable"
is in the eye of the beholder.
On 12 Nov 2023 at 12:01:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 11/11/2023 in message <uip044$3lmpp$1@dont-email.me> Andy Walker wrote:
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide
support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands;
Was it a right or an obligation? The Falklands is a British Overseas >>Territory and so we are responsible for its defence.
If it is an obligation it is rather hard to see who might be in a position
to
enforce it, and in what tribunal. A moral obligation, certainly.
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 10:29:35 UTC, Andy Walker wrote: >> On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:carriers. Operating those planes in the area of the Falklands was doable, because the Argentine air force was at the limits of its fighter planes' range. Operating them closer to the mainland would have given a big advantage to the Argentinan air force,
[...]
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done >>>>> anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy >>>> for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the UK andSo it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade British
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use, as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the Argentine >>>> mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France onside.
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to be
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval
bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands? ISTM that the end
result of that would almost certainly have been disastrous for the TF, as
suggested in a PP. /Separately/, there was also a political dimension to
the whole affair. Very few people supported the Argentine use of force,
so that wasn't "all right"; I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide
support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands; invading
Argentina would [IMO] have lost much of that support. In similar vein,
sinking the Belgrano may have been militarily necessary, but it cost the
UK much political support both here in the UK and abroad. "Unacceptable"
is in the eye of the beholder.
I make no claim to be a military expert, but as I understand it, using the Task Force to attack Argentine naval bases would have been fantastically risky. The only air power that the UK was able to bring to the Falklands was the planes on board the two
On 12/11/2023 in message <krbtgrFduu5U1@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 12:01:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 11/11/2023 in message <uip044$3lmpp$1@dont-email.me> Andy Walker wrote: >>>
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide
support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands;
Was it a right or an obligation? The Falklands is a British Overseas
Territory and so we are responsible for its defence.
If it is an obligation it is rather hard to see who might be in a position >> to
enforce it, and in what tribunal. A moral obligation, certainly.
What about the Falkland Islanders who (may) feel we have an obligation to defend them?
On 11/11/2023 10:44 pm, Andy Walker wrote:
On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least)None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy >>> for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the
human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done >>>> anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have
been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
UK and
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one
thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use,
as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the
Argentine
mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France
onside.
So it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade British
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to beMaybe. Maybe not. Would it actually be necessary to send a fleet for
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands?
that purpose?
The UK surely has access to medium- to long-range weapons (short of
Polaris / Trident nuclear weapons) which can be used from a distance?
But in the meantime, why not attempt an answer to my straightforward question, which I will lightly re-phrase:
"Was it alright for Argentina to attack and invade British territory,
but would have unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short of
an invasion?"
On 12/11/2023 in message <krbtgrFduu5U1@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 12:01:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 11/11/2023 in message <uip044$3lmpp$1@dont-email.me> Andy Walker >>>wrote:
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide support for the UK's >>>>right to [attempt to] recover the islands;
Was it a right or an obligation? The Falklands is a British Overseas >>>Territory and so we are responsible for its defence.
If it is an obligation it is rather hard to see who might be in a
position to enforce it, and in what tribunal. A moral obligation, >>certainly.
What about the Falkland Islanders who (may) feel we have an obligation
to defend them?
On 12/11/2023 11:55 am, Brian W wrote:two carriers. Operating those planes in the area of the Falklands was doable, because the Argentine air force was at the limits of its fighter planes' range. Operating them closer to the mainland would have given a big advantage to the Argentinan air
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 10:29:35 UTC, Andy Walker wrote: >> On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) >>>>> human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done >>>>> anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have >>>>> been in favour of the islands and their population being further
endangered?
None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathySo it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade British
for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the UK and
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use, as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the Argentine
mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France onside.
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to be
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval >> bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands? ISTM that the end >> result of that would almost certainly have been disastrous for the TF, as >> suggested in a PP. /Separately/, there was also a political dimension to >> the whole affair. Very few people supported the Argentine use of force,
so that wasn't "all right"; I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide >> support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands; invading >> Argentina would [IMO] have lost much of that support. In similar vein,
sinking the Belgrano may have been militarily necessary, but it cost the >> UK much political support both here in the UK and abroad. "Unacceptable" >> is in the eye of the beholder.
I make no claim to be a military expert, but as I understand it, using the Task Force to attack Argentine naval bases would have been fantastically risky. The only air power that the UK was able to bring to the Falklands was the planes on board the
The force that was sent was one aimed at a re-invasion of the islands
and at fighting a "boots on ground" campaign, supported from the air.
Other, differently-constituted forces, for differently-conceived
campaigns, might have been available.
On 12 Nov 2023 at 14:00:58 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 12/11/2023 in message <krbtgrFduu5U1@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter >>wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 12:01:56 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 11/11/2023 in message <uip044$3lmpp$1@dont-email.me> Andy Walker >>>>wrote:
I believe [BICBW] there was general worldwide
support for the UK's right to [attempt to] recover the islands;
Was it a right or an obligation? The Falklands is a British Overseas >>>>Territory and so we are responsible for its defence.
If it is an obligation it is rather hard to see who might be in a >>>position
to
enforce it, and in what tribunal. A moral obligation, certainly.
What about the Falkland Islanders who (may) feel we have an obligation to >>defend them?
What measures can they take should we decline?
I was rather assuming that we would honour a proper obligation
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0o99aleosxd1b01j@news.individual.net...
I was rather assuming that we would honour a proper obligation
THis being an "obligation" to 2,500 then 2,850* now people who in
1968 were not reckoned to be any longer cost effective
quote:
The UK Government prepared a secret deal in 1968 to give
Argentina ownership of the Falkland Islands, it has been
revealed.
* I won't even bother working out what particular small town
or village in the UK has a larger population than this
On 12/11/2023 in message <uirg11$8128$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
On 12/11/2023 in message <uirg11$8128$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0o99aleosxd1b01j@news.individual.net...
I was rather assuming that we would honour a proper obligation
THis being an "obligation" to 2,500 then 2,850* now people who in
1968 were not reckoned to be any longer cost effective
In what way does that change our obligation?
* I won't even bother working out what particular small town
or village in the UK has a larger population than this
How would that affect our legal obligation?
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:31:22 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 11/11/2023 10:44 pm, Andy Walker wrote:
On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:Maybe. Maybe not. Would it actually be necessary to send a fleet for
[...]
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) >>>>>> human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done >>>>>> anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have >>>>>> been in favour of the islands and their population being furtherNone in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy >>>>> for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the >>>>> UK and
endangered?
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one >>>>> thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use,
as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the
Argentine
mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France
onside.
So it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade British
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to be
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval >>> bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands?
that purpose?
The UK surely has access to medium- to long-range weapons (short of
Polaris / Trident nuclear weapons) which can be used from a distance?
I'm not sure what the UK had in that regard back in 1982. In order to be suitable, it would have had to have sufficient firepower to sink or badly damage ships, and be sufficiently accurate to hit relatively small targets.
But in the meantime, why not attempt an answer to my straightforward
question, which I will lightly re-phrase:
"Was it alright for Argentina to attack and invade British territory,
but would have unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short of
an invasion?"
I'll answer the question - it wasn't alright for Argentina to attack and invade British territory,
and it would have been fine, in my book, for the UK to attack Argentine naval and air bases on the mainland, if that were possible back in 1982.
However, I don't actually see how doing that would achieve the aim you stated earlier - avoiding endangering the islanders. What makes you think that, had we attacked mainland bases, the Argentine troops in the Falklands would have surrendered?
After all, by sinking the Belgrano, the Argentine navy was thereafter confined to port - as good as destroyed for all intents and purposes.
The troops in the Falklands still didn't surrender, and it was still necessary to retake the islands using ground troops. Similarly, whilst destroying Argentine mainland airbases would undoubtedly have saved British lives, I dont' see why theArgentinian troops in the Falklands would have surrendered. Retaking the islands by using ground troops was always going to be necessary.
On 12/11/2023 05:33 pm, Brian W wrote:Argentinian troops in the Falklands would have surrendered. Retaking the islands by using ground troops was always going to be necessary.
On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 16:31:22 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 11/11/2023 10:44 pm, Andy Walker wrote:
On 10/11/2023 13:31, JNugent wrote:Maybe. Maybe not. Would it actually be necessary to send a fleet for
[...]
Why risk damaging infrastructure, private property and (not least) >>>>>> human life and limb among the Falklands islanders? *They* hadn't done >>>>>> anything wrong, had they? What "international" sentiment would have >>>>>> been in favour of the islands and their population being further >>>>>> endangered?None in favour of /that/. But plenty who had considerable sympathy >>>>> for the Argentine PoV -- that the "Malvinas" had been snaffled by the >>>>> UK and
were an illegal colony that really belonged to Argentina. It was one >>>>> thing
to re-take the Falklands; it would have been quite another to use, >>>>> as much
of the world would have seen it, bully-boy tactics to attack the
Argentine
mainland. It was particularly important to keep the USA and France >>>>> onside.
So it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade British
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short >>>> of an invasion.
Well, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to be
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval >>> bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands?
that purpose?
The UK surely has access to medium- to long-range weapons (short of
Polaris / Trident nuclear weapons) which can be used from a distance?
I'm not sure what the UK had in that regard back in 1982. In order to be suitable, it would have had to have sufficient firepower to sink or badly damage ships, and be sufficiently accurate to hit relatively small targets.That is true.
It is highly likely that such weapons would have been more accurate and
more potentially devastating than, say, WW2 V2 rockets.
But in the meantime, why not attempt an answer to my straightforward
question, which I will lightly re-phrase:
"Was it alright for Argentina to attack and invade British territory,
but would have unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short of >> an invasion?"
I'll answer the question - it wasn't alright for Argentina to attack and invade British territory,
and it would have been fine, in my book, for the UK to attack Argentine naval and air bases on the mainland, if that were possible back in 1982.
However, I don't actually see how doing that would achieve the aim you stated earlier - avoiding endangering the islanders. What makes you think that, had we attacked mainland bases, the Argentine troops in the Falklands would have surrendered?They would have been ordered to do so by the Argentine government.
After all, by sinking the Belgrano, the Argentine navy was thereafter confined to port - as good as destroyed for all intents and purposes....where they were regarded as safe.
The troops in the Falklands still didn't surrender, and it was still necessary to retake the islands using ground troops. Similarly, whilst destroying Argentine mainland airbases would undoubtedly have saved British lives, I dont' see why the
The pressure would be aimed at the government of Argentina.
two carriers. Operating those planes in the area of the Falklands was doable, because the Argentine air force was at the limits of its fighter planes' range. Operating them closer to the mainland would have given a big advantage to the Argentinan airI make no claim to be a military expert, but as I understand it, using the Task Force to attack Argentine naval bases would have been fantastically risky. The only air power that the UK was able to bring to the Falklands was the planes on board the
all that was available - if we'd had better, it would have been sent. In any case, I can't see how attacking the Argentine mainland, without a re-invasion of the islands, would have liberated them.The force that was sent was one aimed at a re-invasion of the islands
and at fighting a "boots on ground" campaign, supported from the air.
Other, differently-constituted forces, for differently-conceived
campaigns, might have been available.
Unlikely, I think. To attack the Argentine mainland, you'd need some serious air power, of the sort that the US can project using its supercarrier groups. Britain had nothing like that in 1982. AIUI, the two carriers sent (Hermes and Invincible) were
two carriers. Operating those planes in the area of the Falklands was doable, because the Argentine air force was at the limits of its fighter planes' range. Operating them closer to the mainland would have given a big advantage to the Argentinan airI make no claim to be a military expert, but as I understand it, using the Task Force to attack Argentine naval bases would have been fantastically risky. The only air power that the UK was able to bring to the Falklands was the planes on board the
all that was available - if we'd had better, it would have been sent. In any case, I can't see how attacking the Argentine mainland, without a re-invasion of the islands, would have liberated them.The force that was sent was one aimed at a re-invasion of the islands
and at fighting a "boots on ground" campaign, supported from the air.
Other, differently-constituted forces, for differently-conceived
campaigns, might have been available.
Unlikely, I think. To attack the Argentine mainland, you'd need some serious air power, of the sort that the US can project using its supercarrier groups. Britain had nothing like that in 1982. AIUI, the two carriers sent (Hermes and Invincible) were
Our only, as far as I recall, ground attack on the Argentine mainland
was the air base at Rio Grande Operation Mikado which, unfortunately,
was a complete disaster.
Maybe. Maybe not. Would it actually be necessary to send a fleet forSo it was alright for Argentina to attack and invade BritishWell, you've lost me somewhere there. I understand your PoV to be
territory, but unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion.
that the UK should have sent the Task Force to attack the Argentine naval
bases rather than the forces actually on the Falklands?
that purpose?
The UK surely has access to medium- to long-range weapons (short of
Polaris / Trident nuclear weapons) which can be used from a
distance?
But in the meantime, why not attempt an answer to my straightforward question, which I will lightly re-phrase:
"Was it alright for Argentina to attack and invade British territory,
but would have unacceptable for the United Kingdom to retaliate short
of an invasion?"
On Tuesday, 14 November 2023 at 11:08:07 UTC, Jeff wrote:two carriers. Operating those planes in the area of the Falklands was doable, because the Argentine air force was at the limits of its fighter planes' range. Operating them closer to the mainland would have given a big advantage to the Argentinan air
I make no claim to be a military expert, but as I understand it, using the Task Force to attack Argentine naval bases would have been fantastically risky. The only air power that the UK was able to bring to the Falklands was the planes on board the
all that was available - if we'd had better, it would have been sent. In any case, I can't see how attacking the Argentine mainland, without a re-invasion of the islands, would have liberated them.The force that was sent was one aimed at a re-invasion of the islands
and at fighting a "boots on ground" campaign, supported from the air.
Other, differently-constituted forces, for differently-conceived
campaigns, might have been available.
Unlikely, I think. To attack the Argentine mainland, you'd need some serious air power, of the sort that the US can project using its supercarrier groups. Britain had nothing like that in 1982. AIUI, the two carriers sent (Hermes and Invincible) were
Our only, as far as I recall, ground attack on the Argentine mainland
was the air base at Rio Grande Operation Mikado which, unfortunately,
was a complete disaster.
I don't believe that any attacks were actually carried out on the mainland. AIUI Mikado was planned but then cancelled.
On 12/11/2023 13:33, JNugent wrote:
The UK surely has access to medium- to long-range weapons (short of
Polaris / Trident nuclear weapons) which can be used from a
distance?
Ascension to Argentina/Stanley is quite a long way! Most wars are
fought over, and therefore most weapons are designed for, a range of a few >hundred miles at most.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 44:19:03 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,110 |