Bomber boys - bbc one

[Sternjaeger II]

you just simply, stubbornly don't want to understand what we're saying. It's not the first time, nor it won't be the last, especially when it comes to question the unquestionable United Kingdom.. ironically it's this denial that does more harm than good to this wonderful country..

Anyway, I'm happy with the "agree to disagree" formula..

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

you just simply, stubbornly don't want to understand what we're saying. It's not the first time, nor it won't be the last, especially when it comes to question the unquestionable United Kingdom.. ironically it's this denial that does more harm than good to this wonderful country..

Anyway, I'm happy with the "agree to disagree" formula..

What is it we are denying?

Bongo, don't twist the facts to your advantage...

Facts are facts.....where did I twist them, you said in plain english..

a land's sovereignty is not to be decided by who lives on it

I'm not stubborn, I'm just not convinced in any way by what you are saying.

I am happy to agree to disagree too, hence why I'm here disagreeing....if you promise to stop 'Brit bashing' then I promise to stop disagreeing with you....hows that?

[bongodriver]

There you go confusing Germans with Nazis again

What I meant by this is........surely there is nothing bad about using the term nazi for a form of derogation, you seem to assume that any time a phrase involving the word Nazi what is really meant is German.......this is just not the case.......no such phrase as 'Grammar German'

or are you really just trying to defend Nazis......I'm confused now

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ok chaps, here's a thought.

Hugo Sperrle was in charge of Luftflotte 3, and 'responsible' for the Nov 14th 1940 raid on Coventry.

'The raid reached such a new level of destruction that Joseph Goebbels later used the term Coventriert ("Coventrated") when describing similar levels of destruction of other enemy towns. During the raid, the Germans dropped about 500 tonnes of high explosives, including 50 parachute air-mines, of which 20 were incendiary petroleum mines, and 36,000 incendiary bombs.'

Hugo Sperrle was aquitted at Nuremburg.

Should the British campaign to have this verdict overturned?

Of course not.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Ok chaps, here's a thought.

Hugo Sperrle was in charge of Luftflotte 3, and 'responsible' for the Nov 14th raid on Coventry.

'The raid reached such a new level of destruction that Joseph Goebbels later used the term Coventriert ("Coventrated") when describing similar levels of destruction of other enemy towns. During the raid, the Germans dropped about 500 tonnes of high explosives, including 50 parachute air-mines, of which 20 were incendiary petroleum mines, and 36,000 incendiary bombs.'

Hugo Sperrle was aquitted at Nuremburg.

Should the British campaign to have this verdict overturned?

Of course not.

Now just imagine Germany would start celebrating Sperrle and start building statues to his honor. Throw in some medals for the brave men that brought the war to the enemy.
That would be a bit closer to the issue at hand.

[=CfC= Father Ted]

I thought the bit where Colin MacGregor struggled to keep the DC3 straight during take off was quite interesting.

[Bewolf]

You see guys, if the RAF was only out there to bomb industrial targets, like the US did in Europe, with collateral damage in the civilian populations taken into account, then still uncool, but that is war.
"Intentionally" targetting civilians is what is the issue here. That is entering german territory in regards to the treatment of innocent human beings. Even the Russians did not go this far but a very short period at the end of the war.
I can't help but to think that you are aware of that. And if you are, then what are we argueing about?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

You see guys, if the RAF was only out there to bomb industrial targets, like the US did in Europe, with collateral damage in the civilian populations taken into account, then still uncool, but that is war.
"Intentionally" targetting civilians is what is the issue here. That is entering german territory in regards to the treatment of innocent human beings. Even the Russians did not go this far but a very short period at the end of the war.
I can't help but to think that you are aware of that. And if you are, then what are we argueing about?

I'm not sure what we are arguing about either, everybody agrees intentionally targeting civvies is bad, but I think it is being suggested it was a one sided affair i.e. only the British did it........which we also all know is utter BS.

it's just a shame Hitler didn't surrender....would have saved alot of lives.

[kendo65]

Concerning the earlier reference to the Falklands situation,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/fe...tion-falklands

Is it just me or does the current Argentinian premier come across a little like a South American Sarah Palin? Her comments regarding the British sending a 'destroyer' (with emphasis on the alleged threatening character of the word) were more than a little ludicrous imo

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I'm not sure what we are arguing about either, everybody agrees intentionally targeting civvies is bad, but I think it is being suggested it was a one sided affair i.e. only the British did it........which we also all know is utter BS.

it's just a shame Hitler didn't surrender....would have saved alot of lives.

oh don't be daft Bongo, we're not saying only the British did it, what we're saying is that the celebration of the men who created and perpetrated such policies is out of place, and poses a questionable double standard, period.

Uh and I prefer your mugshot than this new profile pic btw