Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[ahinton]

No, that is another one of them there straw-man arguments that we're all so fond of in here. Quite apart from putting words in my mouth, it does not logically follow, that 'anyone who regards this incident as a sadistic murder' must have been affected by cultural Marxism or its off-shoot, political correctness.

For the benefit of those who still don't quite figure where you're coming from here, could I trouble you to define what you perceive as "cultural Marxism" with particular reference to "political correctness" as an alleged "offshoot" thereof?

I regard the incident as a sadistic murder, but I have not been affected by cultural Marxism.

The former matters but I'm not sure that the latter does in a pragmatic assessment of this particular situation.

If you want to 'get this right' and understand 'how it works', it works like this - people who are suggesting clemency, are taking a view on the response to the incident. I contend that people who have the objective mind to see beyond that the individual Marine in question and what he did, and not scapegoat him, will likely be unaffected by the false consciousness of political correctness.

On what grounds and with what certainty do you opine that "people who are suggesting clemency are taking a view on the response to the incident" rather than to the incident itself and "contend that people who have the objective mind to see beyond that the individual Marine in question and what he did, and not scapegoat him, will likely be unaffected by the false consciousness of political correctness"?

Ultimately, of course, his fate has been for the court, rather than those clamouring for clemency, to decide (and will likelyh remain so unless such clamouring is of sufficient intensity to prompt him to appeal is sentence), but I don't understand your reference to (potential) "scapegoating" of the guilty party as I cannot see that the court has treated him differently to any other murderer. In deciding on conviction and appropriate sentence for the ultimate crime, what part could an "objective mind (able) to see beyond...the individual Marine in question and what he did" be expected to play in the passing of such judgement and sentence?

The only possibility here, as far as I can tell, might be "extenuating circumstances" and the only ones on which possibly credible attempts might be mounted are the particular pressures under which said marine operated as part of his professional duties and the psychological damage that might have been caused as a direct consequence of such pressures. To these, I'd have but two responses. Firstly, no one forced the marine into the job that he was doing and it is reasonable to assume that he went into it with his eyes wide open. Secondly, his employers and the contractual responsibilities thrust upon him are solely answerable for any risk of such psychological damage being done to him. On the latter, a sentence might be commuted on the grounds that murder was committed when the balance of the murderer's mind was sufficiently disturbed, but the fact that this murder was evidently carried out sadistically (as you agree) in cold blood, wilfully, consciously and intentionally appears to leave little if any room for consideration of such extenuation.

[Richard Barrett]

No, that is another one of them there straw-man arguments

You said that the fact that the Telegraph's appeal for clemency went viral on Youtube was a "sure sign that cultural Marxism hasn't affected everyone (yet)". I thought what you were saying was that "cultural Marxism" was to blame for people not regarding the incident as a sadistic murder. You now say that wasn't what you had in mind. OK, fine. I presume though that you're using the term "cultural Marxism" not in the original sense of the idea that (official) culture is used to maintain and justify social hierarchies, but in the Tory sense of anything that goes against "traditional values" (monoculturalism, sexism and diverse other prejudices, Christianity etc.), which suggested to me that you go along with Boris Johnson's contention that it's OK to kill wounded enemies in this kind of way because war is such a nasty brutalising business. If it's "our" side doing it, that is.

[Padraig]

It's hard to believe, I know, but my father, aged 17, joined the army in 1900 for the Boer War,stayed in the army in India until 1910 and joined up again for WW1
in1914

I hear a distant bell, Ff!

My grandfather was in the Boer War - my sister has all his medals including that one - and went on to India where my father was born in 1904. He was 32 when I was born in 1936. He was in WW2 as a flight lieutenant in the RAF. Incidentally, his two brothers also joined up for WW2, both air force, one in England and the other in USA; a third brother was in the British Army, the Inniskillings, like his father, but died before WW2. My father never talked about war, the air force, the army or anything like that, and he died before I could frame any questions. My mother died soon after so the military history died with them. I never followed it up, nor did I follow in their footsteps.

I do think of all of them around this time. I knew them all except my grandfather and I remember their kindness to me as a boy. My father did not have to take part - there was no conscription in Northern Ireland; he volunteered. What did he feel he was doing?

[Beef Oven!]

You said that the fact that the Telegraph's appeal for clemency went viral on Youtube was a "sure sign that cultural Marxism hasn't affected everyone (yet)". I thought what you were saying was that "cultural Marxism" was to blame for people not regarding the incident as a sadistic murder. You now say that wasn't what you had in mind. OK, fine. I presume though that you're using the term "cultural Marxism" not in the original sense of the idea that (official) culture is used to maintain and justify social hierarchies, but in the Tory sense of anything that goes against "traditional values" (monoculturalism, sexism and diverse other prejudices, Christianity etc.), which suggested to me that you go along with Boris Johnson's contention that it's OK to kill wounded enemies in this kind of way because war is such a nasty brutalising business. If it's "our" side doing it, that is.

In the main, I don't really listen to what Boris says, so whether I go along with him or not, I can't say right now.

Although when it suits me, I'll refer to him (I'm a bit like that - you know, a human being).

You should also revisit your analysis of the superstructure and the state, your list is out of date. For example, Stonewall, the very rich power-elite that they are, don't really give a monkey's about, for example race, or the working class and they have replaced, amongst others, the retired generals class in the power structure. No room for race and class in "traditional values", so no change there, just some good news for the homosexualists.

I know that Marxists have been, at best, ambivalent about race and gender, so I guess it's not much of a criticism.

[Richard Barrett]

You should also revisit your analysis of the superstructure and the state, your list is out of date. For example, Stonewall, the very rich power-elite that they are, don't really give a monkey's about, for example race, or the working class and they have replaced, amongst others, the retired generals class in the power structure. No room for race and class in "traditional values", so no change there, just some good news for the homosexualists.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but never mind.

[Beef Oven!]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but never mind.

Chuck it in the 'too difficult box' eh?

[Richard Barrett]

Chuck it in the 'too difficult box' eh?

The "barely coherent" box I think.

[teamsaint]

In my old civil service days,(i know, I know)I had three boxes:

In

Out

LBW.



(let the B*****s wait.).

[amateur51]

The "barely coherent" box I think.

And that's being generous.

As for the 'scapegoat' comment ....

[MrGongGong]

The "barely coherent" box I think.

Bizarre indeed .........

it would seem that "sadistic murder" is somehow worthy of understanding if it's "one of ours" and anyone saying otherwise is a 'Marxist'
bonkers

I think you should get back off the wagon Beefy and stick to the good captain

[french frank]

And I hope at least one or two will click the link in that article and join me in signing the Telegraph's petition for clemency in this case.

I'm afraid I can't see this as being anything but nakedly contrarian.

Let us concede that life at the front is hugely stressful, and accept what the military say: that it doesn't get any easier the longer you have to experience it. Let us concede that, in the brutality of combat, seeing comrades killed by 'the enemy' is emotionally difficult to bear. Let us imagine all the anger and grief that builds up inside. And then you are faced with someone who personifies everything that you have been fighting for and against.

To shoot, in cold blood, an injured man whose individual 'guilt' is unknown, and then be sufficiently in control of yourself to admit that you have just deliberately flouted international law - that is straightforward murder. It was a war crime. The very least one can do is allow the law, taking all circumstances into consideration, to take its course. If one asks for clemency in this case, why not in any other? What are the extenuating circumstances here that don't normally apply in other war situations governed by the Geneva Convention?

[MrGongGong]

I'm afraid I can't see this as being anything but nakedly contrarian.

Let us concede that life at the front is hugely stressful, and accept what the military say: that it doesn't get any easier the longer you have to experience it. Let us concede that, in the brutality of combat, seeing comrades killed by 'the enemy' is emotionally difficult to bear. Let us imagine all the anger and grief that builds up inside. And then you are faced with someone who personifies everything that you have been fighting for and against.

To shoot, in cold blood, an injured man whose individual 'guilt' is unknown, and then be sufficiently in control of yourself to admit that you have just deliberately flouted international law - that is straightforward murder. It was a war crime. The very least one can do is allow the law, taking all circumstances into consideration, to take its course. If one asks for clemency in this case, why not in any other? What are the extenuating circumstances here that don't normally apply in other war situations governed by the Geneva Convention?

Well put IMV

[jean]

...Stonewall, the very rich power-elite that they are...have replaced, amongst others, the retired generals...

At the cenotaph yesterday, was that?

I can't have been looking properly.

[Beef Oven!]

Bizarre indeed .........

it would seem that "sadistic murder" is somehow worthy of understanding if it's "one of ours" and anyone saying otherwise is a 'Marxist'
bonkers

I think you should get back off the wagon Beefy and stick to the good captain

What is bizarre is that you and Richard Barrett sound like a couple of 'offended Tories talking about suicide bombers'. All this 'outrage' about "sadistic murder" an' all.

What was it Bob said? 'If d kyap fit.....'

[MrGongGong]

What is bizarre is that you and Richard Barrett sound like a couple of 'offended Tories talking about suicide bombers'. All this 'outrage' about "sadistic murder" an' all.

What was it Bob said? 'If d kyap fit.....'

send me your address in a PM and i'll send you a bottle of Batemans XXXB
I think you need it