Author Topic: Episode 705  (Read 4767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2019, 04:50:39 AM »
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1515
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2019, 07:37:53 AM »
Regarding face scanning, what diagnosis would you guess for this gentleman?



(click to show/hide)

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2019, 11:03:33 AM »
Perhaps if they had pronounced claxon correctly Cara would have recognized the word. That O is a schwa. The word rhymes with Jackson, not with “Wax on.”
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4919
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2019, 02:00:40 PM »
Sometimes it sucks to have the same name as more well-known people.

Nancy Grace Roman?
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11323
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2019, 06:25:20 PM »
Steve said there have been fewer colon cancers because of more colonoscopies.  Was this a slip?  Or do colonoscopies prevent cancer?  By removal of precancerous polyps or something.
Yes   That’s exactly it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11323
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2019, 06:27:19 PM »
If I owned, I would plant a butterfly garden.
Yes. We have milkweed growing and get Monarchs 10 months a year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2690
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2019, 06:38:50 PM »
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2019, 08:02:14 PM »
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

I suggest you read Andrew Roberts’ ‘Walking with Destiny.’  He answers all these arguments, noting that the Internet has facilitated all these baseless accusations.

Even if there’s a scintilla of truth in any of them, his role in continuing the fight against Hitler in 1940 outweighs them all.  The other alternative for prime minister after Neville Chamberlain resigned, Lord Halifax, would have negotiated a peace deal, giving Hitler free hand against the Soviets (whether Stalin would have been so trusting and gullible after the threat of a two front war was removed from Hitler is another matter).

America would have been left isolated with a Hitler dominated Europe and a resurgent Japan.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2690
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2019, 05:02:04 AM »
I'm not arguing against whether he did good, or whether it was better that he existed than not, but I'm saying there are things that can't be explained away as mistakes or as being of your time.

Hitler was of his time, if Hitler never existed, the world wouldn't have been that much better. Maybe worse, had someone else succeeded where he failed.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8401
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2019, 10:26:56 AM »
Sometimes it sucks to have the same name as more well-known people.

And sometimes it’s pretty nice. If you google my real name you’ll get pages and pages of hits for a person who is not me. I am happy that I don’t turn up anywhere near the top of a google search.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8401
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2019, 10:28:45 AM »
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

I’m too lazy to read all those links. Could you summarize in a short sentence or paragraph?
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2690
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2019, 01:17:30 PM »
And sometimes it’s pretty nice. If you google my real name you’ll get pages and pages of hits for a person who is not me. I am happy that I don’t turn up anywhere near the top of a google search.

I agree, sometimes I wish that I had a more common name so that I could be nominatively anonymous.

I’m too lazy to read all those links. Could you summarize in a short sentence or paragraph?

That's the problem, I wasn't finding something that I feel can stand on its own. Also I don't feel like delving much further into it myself. My point isn't specifically about him, but that some actions are unacceptable regardless of what else you do with your life.

Shashi Tharoor's main concern is what Churchill and the British Empire did to India. That's in the title of his book "Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India". I don't think it's controversial to say that the British Empire is responsible for many atrocities. But Tharoor puts Churchill in a category with Hitler and Stalin, and seems to have more of an agenda to vilify him than to accurately portray what he did.

On the other hand, The Churchill Project if anything seems to have a bias in his favor. And they present this as a defense against Tharoor's quote mining, "May 1919":

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

Soren Geiger says this about the quote:

"Churchill was arguing for what he believed with good reason to be a more humane ammunition than high explosive shells or highly lethal gas canisters. The “poison gas” he was in favor of using was tear gas, not phosgene or chlorine. He was advocating the very same practice currently employed by police forces around the globe."

I don't think the full quote helps put Churchill in a positive light, only a little less negative light by pointing out the specific type of gas. It's still Churchill speaking in favor of using terror to subjugate people whose land the British Empire are occupying.

Aside of the issue of gassing, the British Empire and Churchill as "war secretary" did bomb Mesopotamia/Iraq.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29441383

Quote
An uprising in Iraq in May 1920 united Sunni and Shia briefly against the British. It was put down, but required the deployment of more than 100,000 British and Indian troops. Thousands of Arabs were killed. Hundreds of British and Indian soldiers died. The military campaign cost Britain tens of millions of pounds - money it could not afford after the Great War.

A new way of controlling Iraq was needed, and the man who needed it most was Winston Churchill. As war secretary in Lloyd George's coalition government, Churchill had to square huge military budget cuts with British determination to maintain a grip on its mandate in Iraq.

The result became known as "aerial policing". It was a policy Churchill had first mused on in the House of Commons in March 1920, before the Iraqi uprising had even begun.

"It may be possible to effect economies during the course of the present year by holding Mesopotamia through the agency of the Air Force rather than by a military force. It has been pointed out that by your Air Force you have not to hold long lines of communications because the distance would only be one or one-and-a-half hours' flight by aeroplane. It is essential in dealing with Mesopotamia to get the military expenditure down as soon as the present critical state of affairs passes away."

The defeat of the Iraqi uprising was credited in part to the deployment of RAF bombers. The embryonic RAF - attempting to carve out a permanent role for itself and avoid being consumed by the other armed services - took on command of all future military operations in Iraq.

When troubled flared again, villages held by rebellious tribes were attacked from the air.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2019, 01:28:27 PM »
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

I’m too lazy to read all those links. Could you summarize in a short sentence or paragraph?

Overall, Churchill did many more things that were good than were bad.  Revisionists, by cherry picking and selective quoting from what Churchill wrote (and he wrote an incredible amount over his lifetime), can find whatever they want to justify their view of Churchill.  It’s made easier for them in the Internet era since they can publish anything they want.

Churchill can be criticised for many things.  Giving in to Stalin over postwar Eastern Europe.  And allowing the blanket bombing of German cities to proceed too long.  But then, there wasn’t much he could do otherwise.  And the firebombingc of Dresden on February 13-14, 1945 had apparently been requested by the Soviets (which also had the incidental benefit of saving Victor Klemperer from deportation, he was able to disappear in the post bombing confusion - his diaries provide a good account of what it was like for a Jew to live and suffer under Hitler).
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2254
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2019, 02:06:17 PM »
Although not a war crime. Churchill was responsible for sending thousands of allied soldiers to their deaths in a hopeless campaign.

The tragedy that was Gallipoli can be entirely blamed on Churchill.

https://www.history.com/news/winston-churchills-world-war-disaster

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Episode 705
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2019, 03:30:05 PM »
Although not a war crime. Churchill was responsible for sending thousands of allied soldiers to their deaths in a hopeless campaign.

The tragedy that was Gallipoli can be entirely blamed on Churchill.

https://www.history.com/news/winston-churchills-world-war-disaster

Ian Hamilton?  Lord Kitchener?  The idea of taking the Ottoman Empire out of the war was a sort of good idea, but the military planning was bad.  Lord Kitchener procrastinated, delaying sending the 29th division.  The supply ships were poorly arranged, so they had to return to Alexandria to have their stores unloaded and reloaded.  The delays added weeks, perhaps months to the time of the invasion, which the Ottomans and Germans were able to use to prepare defences, and it was obvious that the Gallipoli Peninsula was going to be the target.

The strategic value was doubtful though.  One of the aims was to take pressure off the Russians with the Ottoman invasion of the Caucasus, which had already been defeated by the time of the invasion.  And to send supplies to the Russians, which weren’t available in 1915 anyway.

At least it provided a lesson in what not to do in a seaborne invasion of a defended coast for Normandy.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 03:36:08 PM by bachfiend »
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

 

personate-rain