Body & Soul5 mins ago
Pakistan's Railway Minister offers $100,000 reward.
23 Answers
http://
In England there are calls for a minister to resign for verbally insulting a policeman, yet in Pakistan one of their ministers is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who kills the film-maker of that anti-Islamic movie, it is also said that if anyone brings the film-maker to him alive, he will personally kill him his self.
But has the Pakistani government sacked him and arrested him? Not a chance.
/// A spokesman for Pakistan's prime minister said the government disassociated itself from the minister's statement. ///
Well that's cleared them of any wrong doing then.
In England there are calls for a minister to resign for verbally insulting a policeman, yet in Pakistan one of their ministers is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who kills the film-maker of that anti-Islamic movie, it is also said that if anyone brings the film-maker to him alive, he will personally kill him his self.
But has the Pakistani government sacked him and arrested him? Not a chance.
/// A spokesman for Pakistan's prime minister said the government disassociated itself from the minister's statement. ///
Well that's cleared them of any wrong doing then.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Zeuhl
/// For 'loyal' Brits Churchill was in the right - though i think we are grown up enough to acknowledge some of the questionable things he did
For 'loyal' Brits Churchill was in the right - though i think we are grown up enough to acknowledge some of the questionable things he did
(such as the PR motivated and costly attack on Monte Cassino or the carpet bombing of civilians in Dresden) ///
Seems strange that once again you choose to pick Churchill out, and then state that we are grown up enough to question the things he did.
Doesn't sound to me like a 'Loyal Brit' talking, why not question what Bin Laden did or question in particular what Hitler did?
You mentioned Monte Cassino well the Abbey was a strong strategic post and formed part of the 100 mile Gustav line designed to hold the Allied attackers from advancing any further into Italy, so needed to be taken.
You also mentioned Dresden, yet failed to mention the numerous English cities that the Luftwaffe bombed, in the City of Bath the German bombers were not satisfied with dropping their bombs but also strafed the streets with their guns, mowing down emergency workers and civilians.
/// For 'loyal' Brits Churchill was in the right - though i think we are grown up enough to acknowledge some of the questionable things he did
For 'loyal' Brits Churchill was in the right - though i think we are grown up enough to acknowledge some of the questionable things he did
(such as the PR motivated and costly attack on Monte Cassino or the carpet bombing of civilians in Dresden) ///
Seems strange that once again you choose to pick Churchill out, and then state that we are grown up enough to question the things he did.
Doesn't sound to me like a 'Loyal Brit' talking, why not question what Bin Laden did or question in particular what Hitler did?
You mentioned Monte Cassino well the Abbey was a strong strategic post and formed part of the 100 mile Gustav line designed to hold the Allied attackers from advancing any further into Italy, so needed to be taken.
You also mentioned Dresden, yet failed to mention the numerous English cities that the Luftwaffe bombed, in the City of Bath the German bombers were not satisfied with dropping their bombs but also strafed the streets with their guns, mowing down emergency workers and civilians.
<Doesn't sound to me like a 'Loyal Brit' talking.
I take your point aog but i don't think being loyal means one needs to be stupid or mindless.
<you choose to pick Churchill out.>
of course i do. because from my perspective he was (unlike Hitler and Bin Laden) in the right - yet it is interesting to consider the 'questionable things' that occured but still leave him 'in the right'.
Monte Cassino - if you read the accounts available with info drawn from senior officers at the time, the strategic importance of MC was very dubious and the military advice was to by-pass it and save a lot of unnecessary casualties.
Churchill was about to leave for a meeting at Yalta with Stalin and Roosevelt and was known to be very sensitive to Stalin jibes that compared with Soviet engagements GB wasn't 'pulling its weight'. So, it is widely believed that MC was primarily given the go ahead so Churchill could tell Uncle Joe where to get off! Sadly, that also resulted in many unnecessary casualties.
Bath was an important military target in WW2 with large Naval HQ and naval facilities all around the city and its suburbs. It was also a strategic rail and canal route inland from Bristol docks.
I'm sure the 'no you started it' argument on targeting of civilians could bandy around between GB and Germany but overall the Luftwaffe targeted military and industry targets.
Churchill's stated policy was 'area bombing' to destroy the morale of the german population and Arthur Harris carried out that strategy very effectively. He never denied that Dresden had no military or industrial targets - that was the point.
That dichotomy is what makes Churchill interesting - yes he deliberately targeted women and children, but that rather demonstrates the desperate situation and efforts required to preserve this country and europe's freedom.
As i have posted before, a good friend (and ex teacher) is ex Bomber Command and is still haunted by the dangers he faced and by the 'awful things' he had to do to civilian targets. For him, the saving grace is that it was all done to achieve the greater good of defeating nazi germany and winning the war.
I take your point aog but i don't think being loyal means one needs to be stupid or mindless.
<you choose to pick Churchill out.>
of course i do. because from my perspective he was (unlike Hitler and Bin Laden) in the right - yet it is interesting to consider the 'questionable things' that occured but still leave him 'in the right'.
Monte Cassino - if you read the accounts available with info drawn from senior officers at the time, the strategic importance of MC was very dubious and the military advice was to by-pass it and save a lot of unnecessary casualties.
Churchill was about to leave for a meeting at Yalta with Stalin and Roosevelt and was known to be very sensitive to Stalin jibes that compared with Soviet engagements GB wasn't 'pulling its weight'. So, it is widely believed that MC was primarily given the go ahead so Churchill could tell Uncle Joe where to get off! Sadly, that also resulted in many unnecessary casualties.
Bath was an important military target in WW2 with large Naval HQ and naval facilities all around the city and its suburbs. It was also a strategic rail and canal route inland from Bristol docks.
I'm sure the 'no you started it' argument on targeting of civilians could bandy around between GB and Germany but overall the Luftwaffe targeted military and industry targets.
Churchill's stated policy was 'area bombing' to destroy the morale of the german population and Arthur Harris carried out that strategy very effectively. He never denied that Dresden had no military or industrial targets - that was the point.
That dichotomy is what makes Churchill interesting - yes he deliberately targeted women and children, but that rather demonstrates the desperate situation and efforts required to preserve this country and europe's freedom.
As i have posted before, a good friend (and ex teacher) is ex Bomber Command and is still haunted by the dangers he faced and by the 'awful things' he had to do to civilian targets. For him, the saving grace is that it was all done to achieve the greater good of defeating nazi germany and winning the war.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.