The Untold Battle of Britain

I'll be the first to admit that then. (As an ex-military.)

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bX01miySwkI


I bet you don't even realize how this sounds to me, but it seems you don't mind a good video. Enjoy. I guess.


Oh really? And what do you know, paintball champion? So it wasn't about genocide during the second world war? It wasn't about genocide in former Yugoslavia? It wasn't about genocide in Rwanda? They've never dropped any Napalm on villages and civilians in Vietnam? They've never dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima?

It's obviously not about peace and diplomacy. It's about big bucks and resources for the elite and their industrial empires, and also about happy puppet-politicians who are allowed to keep their jobs if they agree. Oh, and something else; How can winning be a goal when everybody loses? Newsflash: War costs money and has the potential to damage and traumatize whole generations.


Self-defense is justified in my books, but invading definitely isn't, especially not under the guise of stability, democracy and peace. (It's sounds nicer, doesn't it?) It doesn't change the fact war is disgusting though, and that every soldier is basically a man who's forced to shoot another man, whatever the political agenda dictates. That said, I can only hope that humanity will grow too old for this behaviour.

:)


Definition of a combatant: An armed person who's actively engaging in combat. If you shoot an unarmed soldier, it's murder. If you kill a civilian, it's murder. About 1.366.350 Iraqi civilians got murdered already, and about 16.373 American soldiers were killed in action. So you can do the math, and then have the nerves to tell anyone that war isn't murder. You can dress it up all you want, however you like, but I'll be there, whiping my butt with such euphemisms.

>:(

Those are fekking insane numbers! When I read about how many german and russian soldier died at Stalingrad and Hiroshima...or any other major war period...it just doesn't even hit home. "2.5 million soliders dead", "500 000 killed in one blast". The numbers are just to staggering. Just imagine your own school class from childhood...about 25 kids..I always felt that that was alot of kids when I sat there...now compare that to the number you told about Iraqis killed...that would be 5 AND A HALF THOUSAND classrooms full of kids!! Just dead, killed, shot, bombed, murdered in the last years. Just imagne lining them one after another. When I watch Man United play infront of 80 000 people...it's staggering...the stadium is packed...then imagine 17 PACKED STADIUMS full of dead people...just from ONE country, from ONE conflict. When I look out of my livingroom window, and see the boats pass by, so quietly, listen to the birds, life is so still so peaceful....it's incredible to think about that only 5-6 hours away by plane, millions have died in just a few years time. War fekking sucks, and war is murder! If anybody says differently, they should stop playing war-games on their computer and actually travel down there and see it for themselves.

I believe that the US should pull the fekk out, as with all the other countries. This is a war over resources not "democracy". The Rothschilds, the Warburgs and the Rockefellers have for a too long of a time financed all the misery, death and war our planet can take.

I used to love watching documentaries about wars and real footage...but somehow, somewhere, I just stopped. I sold all my VHS tapes, deleted all my downloads and never ever watch any youtube clips or anything graphic from warzones if I know people are being hurt or killed. It just kills me inside to watch these things. I know they exist, I know they happen, but it doesn't mean I will watch it. If I didn't stop it then, I would probably be a regular at the shrink's office on medication. But imagine todays kids...the new generations, who watch these videoes, who watch the news and see people being blown to pieces. What does it do to their heads? To their emotions? We're gonna have generations of people who are getting post traumatic stress syndrome, without even going to war! Because they've seen 10 000 real murders before they're 30.

I believe that people should stay where they belong, in their natural habitat, not travel half way around the globe and start ethnic conflicts. It's both the people's and the governments faults that this has been allowed to happen. It's not natural, in such a short period of time, in such great numbers. Borders should not be drawn on a map in a office, but by the people themselves. The middle east and Africa are great examples of that. But Europe has it's own problems with borders and wars, so it's not exclusive to the rest of the world. I sound like Ghandi here, but I believe that dialogue and the will of the people should rule. Having one world governements, like the US and UN are trying to implement will only bring hate and conflicts. If the arabs want to have islam and their way of life, then let them. If we want to have our way of life, then let us. But don't mix us and think things are gonna be hunky-dory. We are too different for that. Just look at the conflicts in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia to see the result.

Dariusz

its about definition and right word to describe an act. its not about emotion but about using the right expressions.
If you would said that killing human being regardless of circumstances except in defence of your live or the live of your family,is not right - I would agree.

However jumping on the tree doesn't make a monkey out of human - analogously your claims and emotion doesn't make it true .
Murder is murder, nothing less and nothing more ergo war cannot be murder although can encompass a many murders ....


you wish ....

I do agree on that viewpoint. If somebody invades your home and you kill him/her, it's not "murder", but "self-defence". If someone invades your country, and you kill them, it's not "murder", but "self-defence". Of course, this is logical. But if you go somewhere and kill people over a imaginary and false pretence..then it's murder. The US troops killing people/soldiers/jihadists in Iraq is murder. Why? Because Iraq has not invaded the US. And besides, the US helped build Iraq to what it was when it invaded it. Double stupidity.

If iraqi suicide bombers attacked the US, then attacking Iraq would be somewhat accepted, in one form or another. But occupying a whole country for decades...no.

Dariusz

Does a definition change the act itself?


War is always about emotion. You need to make two or more groups of people angry enough to kill eachother.


I call that murder. (Which is a definition you should be able to understand, according to your own logic.)


Have you ever seen how a woman got cut open alive, and how they killed her baby infront of her eyes while she was bleeding to death? But you're right ofcourse, emotion doesn't make any of that true, or even a murder.


So Hitler's genocide wasn't an organized mass-murder? What's the difference between a murderer and Hitler for example? A murderer who killed one person might get caught and go to jail, and will be called a murderer after his process, if proven to be guilty. Hitler organized a mass-murder of certain ethnic groups based on his psychopathic ideas and it's called a war?

Which words should I use here? Which one is the right definition I wonder? Should I call that a race murder, a mass-murder, a racial extermination, a genocide or a massacre? Does it change anything?

Answer: No, it doesn't.

Ironside, it's government sanctioned war. It is not murder in the context of a civilian killing in self defence because of some idiotic government forcing his hand. What a farce it is when civilians get dragged into it through being guilty by association. I would be VERY angry with my government for causing that and would not see my actions as being murderous in self defence. However, the nature of declared war is just that, killing with mens rea and premeditated thoughts.

As bible say murder is a sin and killing is not that is how the war is justify
Murder is when you sneak and kill someone and killing is when the person see you or expect you to kill him or he kills you no sin

To me the mambo jumbo of bible is wrong as I see it lost of live is murder so wars are mass murders.

To rely on the words of the Bible is a tricky business.
Here is one of my favourite quotes:

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,
"Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.

But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple."
So they began by killing the seventy leaders.

"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

(Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

I have to agree with enkidu here ... .

Or try Numbers chapter 31 ... not really a nice bedtime story to read to the kids just before they go to bed ... :-S

I'm not sure why the intricacies of who kills who in Iraq, and who is a murderer or not, is even discussed here. Every single death of an Iraqi killed by the so called "coalition" is murder by the simple fact that the invasion was illegal. None of the "coalition's" deaths were murders. They were acts of self defense of an illegally invaded nation.

Right now things may be a little more complicated, as the usual American and British stupidity actually created a problem where there was none, and thus radical muslims now have a great place to train and thrive.

.. and Canadian.

and Polish

Actually, Canadian showed Americans middle finger in 2003 and sent no troops to Iraq. But then, you are American so you can't really make much of what's happening around you.


Yes, sadly, Poles were stupid enough to join those who hatched the idiotic and completely failed commercial/military/political operation.

LOL.. The Canadians have sent no troops to Iraq. Yes.. that is quite a revelation there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

Oh I'm sorry they weren't there for the invasion but post invasion.. so let's play semantics. Given your little definition you provided earlier.. that would make them murderers as well.


Actually.. it was Canadian intel along with Russian and British that prompted the invasion to begin with. Perhaps.. if you could learn to pull your head out of your smug a$$ for once and do some research you might not look like such a blatant clown on here most of the time.

Oh but hey.. go right ahead bagging on the US for something your country is just as culpable of. You are a f.cukhead deluxe. Not even worthy of a footnote on here. Jesus.

man, of course it was as he was killing-murdering civilians ....hence the mass-murder and genocide expressions....


yes it does, language is a tool to communicate and to ensure proper understanding you need to use right tool to do the job properly.

You can use for everything a hammer but more often than not it will be a poor workmanship.
The same with words, you keep scream murder every-time and soon its meaning will become meaningless, so what will you achieve apart from emotional release?


From the moral point of view I do agree with you. However legislation has it differently as killing during a war is regulated by law of war where your civilian application do not apply - generally soldiers are supposed to kill!

Soldiers are supposed to kill, so it's murder as that is their stated objective. Never heard of a conscientious objector? Ever wonder why they are that way?

Really!
Do you call polish soldiers killing german soldiers murderers??? ;)


Soldiers have to obey, period! No government can risk an army of "consentious objectors". That is only for rosy times and goody-two-shoes.
(And that's why the Nuremberg: "obeying orders - no excuse" - judgement is laughed at by all militaries in the whole world).

Get real!

no is not as the word murder has historical and cultural connotation, one you cannot change for propaganda reason. Why not say that killing another human being is wrong ?

Well, one kind of soldier. Others go on peace-keeping missions (KFOR) and they try to avert killings. BB, you forget that I approach this from a legalistic perspective. 'Killing' is too loose in this context. Even motive is not the same as mens rea. Please be more specific with your questions.

Soldiers don't have to obey, they have free will. You are following the Nazi logic too much (I'm not calling you this, just saying that you follow that way of thinking). Sometimes we are more than cogs in the wheel and can desert. Your reference to Nuremberg shows this. Sorry but soldiers can be replaced. They can disobey if they have objections.

Ironside, I have studied the definitions of murder extensively and you can't limit it to 'connotations'. You have just shown me that you lack the critical judgement required to be a judge. Study murder cases and you'll see what I mean.

Well, if peace keepers had been abit more active (meaning killing/murdering the criminals) they could had avoided big scale massacres of civilians as in Rwanda or ex-Yugoslavia.


They did not kill but wanted to keep the "peace" and untold civilians lost their lives because of it!
Who was loosing in this context Seanie?


No, Soldiers don't have a free will. No army would be funtioning if Soldiers can and would decide which order to follow and which not or discussing it first broadly and lengthy with families and friends or blogging in the internet about it (what about a poll first?).

No army of the world works that way, can't work that way - nothing Nazi about it!


They can leave the army if they have objections!

PS: That's what the "consentious objections"- laws are for in the first place. That's why better think about it BEFORE you put on the uniform!

its easer to discuss practical cases, all I'm saying is that you prejudice yourself against soldiers when you call their duty(however morally doubtful ) murder.

connotations' fine let use roots instead ....

BB, I completely agree on the first point. Look at Dutchbat in the UN. They should have been quadruple in their numbers and told to sort it out in no uncertain terms.

You know what I think on this point, BB. Killing innocent civilians is just not on. Why should they be the victims of a war waged by lunatics? So many innocent lives have been taken through sheer lunacy. War is one tool of population control and a very unfair one.

I meant in the context of free will to join and free will to exit, BB. Obviously they carry out the great majority of orders given to them, that goes without saying. There is some degree of autonomy in some situations.

Given that war isn't a new concept (in fact, it's one of the oldest), of course it has historical roots but that doesn't change the fact that courts currently have definitions of murder to follow. They can be relaxed as pertaining to wartime activities but the mens rea of murder is still there. You are not going there for joint practice. You are going to murder your opponents.

Innocent civilians are ALWYS the victims by lunatics.
But don't blame the soldiers, blame the lunatics.

Your rosy ideals only work in a world where all share those ideals...not when your enemy is a lawless lunatic!

Just a question: Dresden was a war crime! FACT! Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes! FACT!
But if you could choose between a world conquered by the german and japanese lunatics (and where Dresden and Hiroshima never happened because the Allies didn't use the weapons they had) and our current world, what would you choose?

Do you really care for the innocent civilians of Dresden and Hiroshima that much? Or aren't you still grateful to the murderers of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children?

Should RAF pilots have objected?

murder means unlawful kill as in opposition to lawful kill for example an execution or a war
you killing an enemy combatant you murder unarmed civilian, both action are morally doubtful, but when you kill you do it with government sanction and that mean (democracy) every citizen sanction.

You don't like it - change your government not meaning of the word!

I-S ( aye )

Of course I blame the lunatics. The soldiers protect the civilians, pilots too. Thanks to Spitfires and Hurricanes, we took the nasty Luftwaffe out of the skies and sent them back to Goering in tatters.

When you are dealing with lawless loonies, only force works as was found out when the Nazi machine was dismantled :) :)

You have to care for those innocent civilians who didn't see it coming, BB. The current world, of course. They had to be stopped, no question. My strongest wish is for the use of elite squads in the future to take out High Command. You could save a lot of lives with those who take out leaders. They did it in Serbia and they could have done it in Iraq.

Ironside, you are completely missing the point. Please read up on mens rea and you will see what I mean. War is government sanctioned murder, period!

So you have no problems with the mass murder of civilians in Dresden, Hamburg or Hiroshima?
You don't see the pilots as murderers? No consentious objections?
Got you Seanie! ;)

But since they invented the Nukes we left the age of mass-murdering wars....I too believe the future belongs to small, highly specialized forces who go directly to the heart of the enemy!

I wonder why they hadn't done so in Iraq actually...

Of course I have problems with the needless killing of innocent civilians, BB. How many times can I repeat that to you? You got confused is what you got ;) ;) Those people did not need to die. It was a symbolic show of might which ended the war through surrender. I just dislike America hacking at Iran for allegedly developing a nuke when they actually used 2.

I know what it means Sean.


and because is government sanctioned is not called murder any-more......I have a strong suspicion that you are missing the point.
You are confusing civilian definition with law of war where that definition doesn't apply but if you could apply civilian definition that yeah you are right ....

I-S garbs his claymore, do you understand me now?:)

It's hot in Berlin...very hot...my brain is melting...;)


What IF they do? Do you want a nuke in the hands of a nutter? A lunatic wouldn't had any qualms to use them against your (and mine) family Seanie...

I wonder why you show sympathy for the lunatic but begrudge the US their fight against nutters getting nukes!

Well, please be so kind as to define it, IS.

That's nonsense, IS. Governments are not above the law. They can be summoned to court (MPs) and held to account or hadn't you noticed? Look at Tony Blair and the Iraq enquiry. Read up on the notes.

No, I'm talking about the definition of murder. The government is putting those soldiers in a position where it's murder or be murdered by those that have the mens rea to kill you. In Britain, for example, you know what you are signing up for when you join the army.

Happy garbing ;) ;)

BS, it's hot here too so we both have a ready-made excuse ;) ;) I don't want him to have nukes, BB. The thing is, we can't apply double standards and be hypocritical. He wouldn't be so stupid as to use them but this is another discussion.