'Stage is SET' for Italy to leave the EU and Brussels is to BLAME

kudzu said:
In 1920 the British gassed thousands... a half a world away from the UK.
Click to expand...

Will you stop with this presentism crap, the past has to judged with the social and political mores of the times. To do otherwise is to be demonstrate an extraordinarily shallow, false and profoundly ignorant view of history.
 
Havana Moon said:
Will you stop with this presentism crap, the past has to judged with the social and political mores of the times. To do otherwise is to be demonstrate an extraordinarily shallow, false and profoundly ignorant view of history.
Click to expand...

Read what Churchill said about gassing wogs......
 
Havana Moon said:
Yeah tear gas, you dozy bint!
Click to expand...

Comment: Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all ...
www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
Harris did not use gas himself - though the RAF had employed mustard gas against Bolshevik troops in 1919, while the army had gassed Iraqi rebels in 1920 "with excellent moral effect". Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable".

Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas
www.rudaw.net/english/opinion/02112014
Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas By Raed ... The Kurds then used this slaughter of the Assyrians to assert their dominance over the land here in Iraqi Kurdistan.

BRITISH USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ, KILLING KURDS IN THE ...
www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq . ... Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably ... gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral ...
 
kudzu said:
Comment: Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all ...
www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
Harris did not use gas himself - though the RAF had employed mustard gas against Bolshevik troops in 1919, while the army had gassed Iraqi rebels in 1920 "with excellent moral effect". Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable".

Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas
www.rudaw.net/english/opinion/02112014
Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas By Raed ... The Kurds then used this slaughter of the Assyrians to assert their dominance over the land here in Iraqi Kurdistan.

BRITISH USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ, KILLING KURDS IN THE ...
www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq . ... Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably ... gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral ...
Click to expand...

So you post some links to biased websites that confirm your own prejudice, big deal.
 
kudzu said:
Comment: Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all ...
www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
Harris did not use gas himself - though the RAF had employed mustard gas against Bolshevik troops in 1919, while the army had gassed Iraqi rebels in 1920 "with excellent moral effect". Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable".

Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas
www.rudaw.net/english/opinion/02112014
Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas By Raed ... The Kurds then used this slaughter of the Assyrians to assert their dominance over the land here in Iraqi Kurdistan.

BRITISH USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ, KILLING KURDS IN THE ...
www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq . ... Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably ... gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral ...
Click to expand...

The Germans and French used the full panoply of chemical weapons in WW1, but you only single out Churchill because he used tear gas!! So if the RAF had used bombs on recalcitrant Iraqis you'd have no objection or is it only the Brits you have a problem with?



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.2

Ten days later, Churchill addressed the India Office’s reluctance to use tear gas against rebel tribesmen on the Northwest Frontier:

Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to. We have definitely taken the position of maintaining gas as a weapon in future warfare, and it is only ignorance on the part of the Indian military authorities which interposes any obstacle.3

Churchill went on to cite what he saw as a greater good, which in his view made the use of “lachrymatory gas” acceptable: the welfare of soldiers. In all the accounts of his supposed enthusiasm for gas warfare, I have never seen this key minute cited in full:

Having regard to the fact that [the India Office] are retaining all our men, even those who are most entitled to demobilisation, we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier. If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.4

Almost always absent from quotations alleging Churchill’s penchant for the use of gas is the above paragraph, and certainly the first part of it. It testifies that Churchill was thinking more broadly, and more humanely, than most: He was thinking of sparing serving soldiers, most of them not volunteers, from ugly deaths by the most grisly and barbarous methods.

The issue of gas came up again after Britain had occupied Mesopotamia, part of the old Ottoman Empire, and was trying to restore order and establish a state, later Iraq— “nation building,” we would call it today. Britain was not securing her oil supply, which had already been achieved elsewhere. Churchill actually considered “Messpot,” as he called it, a huge waste of money. (See David Freeman, “Churchill and the Making of Iraq,” FH 132.)


https://winstonchurchill.org/public...rchill-advocated-the-first-use-of-lethal-gas/
 
The Wokest said:
Why don't I say "Gas all people who salivate over the thought of gassing other human beings?" You're part of that set, so you'd get gassed too, but it would kill a lot of other shitty worthless people as well.
Click to expand...

Because you think you're funny, sadly you are only funny in the sense of being peculiar rather than comedic.
 
Havana Moon said:
The Germans and French used the full panoply of chemical weapons in WW1, but you only single out Churchill because he used tear gas!! So if the RAF had used bombs on recalcitrant Iraqis you'd have no objection or is it only the Brits you have a problem with?



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.2

Ten days later, Churchill addressed the India Office’s reluctance to use tear gas against rebel tribesmen on the Northwest Frontier:

Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to. We have definitely taken the position of maintaining gas as a weapon in future warfare, and it is only ignorance on the part of the Indian military authorities which interposes any obstacle.3

Churchill went on to cite what he saw as a greater good, which in his view made the use of “lachrymatory gas” acceptable: the welfare of soldiers. In all the accounts of his supposed enthusiasm for gas warfare, I have never seen this key minute cited in full:

Having regard to the fact that [the India Office] are retaining all our men, even those who are most entitled to demobilisation, we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier. If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.4

Almost always absent from quotations alleging Churchill’s penchant for the use of gas is the above paragraph, and certainly the first part of it. It testifies that Churchill was thinking more broadly, and more humanely, than most: He was thinking of sparing serving soldiers, most of them not volunteers, from ugly deaths by the most grisly and barbarous methods.

The issue of gas came up again after Britain had occupied Mesopotamia, part of the old Ottoman Empire, and was trying to restore order and establish a state, later Iraq— “nation building,” we would call it today. Britain was not securing her oil supply, which had already been achieved elsewhere. Churchill actually considered “Messpot,” as he called it, a huge waste of money. (See David Freeman, “Churchill and the Making of Iraq,” FH 132.)


https://winstonchurchill.org/public...rchill-advocated-the-first-use-of-lethal-gas/
Click to expand...

What was the threat to Britain from Iraq in 1920?

If you quote Arthur Harris directly.. The gassings killed whole villages... Tear gas doesn't kill.
 
kudzu said:
What was the threat to Britain from Iraq in 1920?

If you quote Arthur Harris directly.. The gassings killed whole villages... Tear gas doesn't kill.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean this letter, where does it mention gas? Still haven't heard anything from you about the Saudis using white phosphorus against Yemen.

On another note, the Americans firebombed Tokyo and dropped two nuclear weapons yet you seem far more concerned about Arthur Harris than Curtis LeMay why is that?

http://aircrashsites.co.uk/aviation-history/letter-from-arthur-harris-june-2nd-1924/
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
Oh you mean this letter, where does it mention gas? Still haven't heard anything from you about the Saudis using white phosphorus against Yemen.

On another note, the Americans firebombed Tokyo and dropped two nuclear weapons yet you seem far more concerned about Arthur Harris than Curtis LeMay why is that?

http://aircrashsites.co.uk/aviation-history/letter-from-arthur-harris-june-2nd-1924/
Click to expand...

The military control of Irak was transferred to the RAF entirely in order to save money… the decision to hand control of the country to the RAF – which was of course Winston Churchill’s – was made in 1921 and took effect on 1 October, 1922…

snip

In a biography of Hugh Trenchard, the father of the RAF, an operational report about a British attack on a village, sent to Churchill, is quoted:

“The eight machines (at Nasiriyah) broke formation and attacked at different points of the encampment simultaneously… The tribesmen and their families were put to confusion, many of whom ran into the lake, making good targets for our machine-guns.”

Churchill was annoyed at the candour of the writer and insisted that such enthusiasm at slaughtering civilians should not appear in official records again. (Andrew Boyle, Trenchard, p.389)

In Iraq, in the 1920s, the RAF first employed itself against Turkish forces on the border near Mosul, to ensure the oil rich area remained under Imperial control. The RAF flew most of its missions against the Kurds – who have always resented rule from Baghdad.

For ten years the RAF waged an almost continuous bombing campaign in the oil-rich, mountainous northeast region of Iraq against these people, to whom Britain had earlier promised autonomy. The Iraqi Air Force – which the British established, built up, trained and equipped – carried on this work from Baghdad after the Iraqi client state became nominally independent in 1932.

http://www.british-values.com/index-to-articles/bombing/apprenticeship/harris.html
 
kudzu said:
The military control of Irak was transferred to the RAF entirely in order to save money… the decision to hand control of the country to the RAF – which was of course Winston Churchill’s – was made in 1921 and took effect on 1 October, 1922…

snip

In a biography of Hugh Trenchard, the father of the RAF, an operational report about a British attack on a village, sent to Churchill, is quoted:

“The eight machines (at Nasiriyah) broke formation and attacked at different points of the encampment simultaneously… The tribesmen and their families were put to confusion, many of whom ran into the lake, making good targets for our machine-guns.”

Churchill was annoyed at the candour of the writer and insisted that such enthusiasm at slaughtering civilians should not appear in official records again. (Andrew Boyle, Trenchard, p.389)

In Iraq, in the 1920s, the RAF first employed itself against Turkish forces on the border near Mosul, to ensure the oil rich area remained under Imperial control. The RAF flew most of its missions against the Kurds – who have always resented rule from Baghdad.

For ten years the RAF waged an almost continuous bombing campaign in the oil-rich, mountainous northeast region of Iraq against these people, to whom Britain had earlier promised autonomy. The Iraqi Air Force – which the British established, built up, trained and equipped – carried on this work from Baghdad after the Iraqi client state became nominally independent in 1932.

http://www.british-values.com/index-to-articles/bombing/apprenticeship/harris.html
Click to expand...

Any danger of you answering my question about the Saudis using white phosphorus in Yemen? Or indeed using cluster bombs in civilian areas. The Brits also didn't firebomb Tokyo with incendiaries, causing 100, 000 dead, or drop two nuclear bombs either.
 
Havana Moon said:
Any danger of you answering my question about the Saudis using white phosphorus in Yemen? Or indeed using cluster bombs in civilian areas. The Brits also didn't firebomb Tokyo with incendiaries, causing 100, 000 dead, or drop two nuclear bombs either.
Click to expand...

Are they? Is the white phosphorus supplied by the US?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top