Father O Rielly wrote:
The IRA comes looking for you James, because after all, you're responsible for the some of the more controversial aspects of the prosecution of the war in Northern Ireland, are you not?

Ultimately, in a democracy, the legitimacy of the government of a state is given to that government by the people of that state. Therefore, as a people, the British are responsible for today's government and its policies. "The government you elect is the government you deserve.", said Thomas Jefferson. "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.", said H.L. Mencken. So, yes, the people of a democracy are responsible for its government and its policies. Further, if those policies are atrocious, then the people of a state have the capacity to change those/that policies/government. If they do nothing about it, then they should not complain when retribution ensues.

... However, having said all of that, the Ireland situation is difficult to assess in this context - merely because that situation is the culmination of hundreds-of-years of politics/history. So, I cannot blame contemporary British politicians/politics for the difficulties in Ireland. Further, I have to acknowledge that there is no easy solution - therefore, I cannot gripe about today's British politicians doing nothing about it. Indeed, in recent years, great efforts have been made to do something about it (so I can hardly complain about the lack of effort). Regardless, the bottom-line is that the contemporary population of Britain have inherited an Irish problem that has its roots in a past which - for most British people - is long-gone. Certainly, for most English people (and Welsh, I suspect), the problems between catholics and protestants are viewed as naive to the extent that they would call them childish. Certainly, most do not care. Perhaps that's the reason why England is so multicultural, these days.

Anyway, regards the IRA coming to look for me: I would understand their emotion (though don't advocate it). Neither I nor [my] recent governments caused the problems in Ireland. Those problems are a product of very-old times and a bizarre situation whereby the mindsets of a modern populace have failed to move-on. In other words, it is they that are the problem - and not me nor my governments (who have tried to resolve the situation). What can I do? Who should I put in power to resolve this situation? An uncompromising catholic? An uncompromising protestant? But then, wouldn't I be putting power into the hands of people who caused such problems in the first place?! If such people acquired power, then we might all as well resort to adorning 17th century dress and attitudes, again.

As a responsible UK citizen - one seeking equality and fairness for all - my only option is to lend legitimacy to a government that will seek to find a peaceful solution to these ancient problems which will integrate all of my fellow citizens and lead to a situation which is prevalent in England, generally, right now. If somebody wants to come looking for me for that, then sobeit.

For what it's worth, I say all of these things having once endured the horrors of a previous partner of mine being a victim of a past IRA bomb. True, she only had glass-shrapnel in her legs, but emotionally she was a wreck - particularly because she had passed the exact location of the bomb just one minute before it had exploded. So, do I hate the IRA? No, I just hate the reasons why the IRA exist, still, in the 21st century. Likewise, I just hate the reasons why we still have men wanting to dress up in orange clothes whilst blowing their flutes, in the 21st century.

I will respond to the rest of your post in another post, as I've rambled for too long on this particular issue. But, the bottom-line is that it is old mindsets which are the cause of the problems in Ireland - not contemporary British governments.

Father O Rielly wrote:There may also be loyalists from Libya on the lookout for you- be careful when you go outdoors- because of your participation in the bombing campaign against Tripoli. There may also be some folks from Iraq looking for an internet poster named James. And why not? You're a Brit, so by your logic you are as responsible for everything your government has done as they are.

My British government - for all of its failings - should be helping peoples who are victims to tyrannies. Yes, one might question as per whether such ideals are the reasons why my government has gotten itself involved in Iraq and Libya - since the cynics amongst us (including myself) suspect that the economy or democratic/secular security is their primary concern; but as an idealist, I would always vote for a selfless government: as concerned with global freedom and rights, as it is with national freedoms and rights. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so. Does that mean that I am setting myself up as a victim of the next terrorist attack on Uk soil, by people with a less liberalist mindset to myself? Yes. Sobeit.

By this logic, the old grandmas fleeing eastern Germany in 1945 were as guilty as Hitler. Eight year old boys were also genocidal killers. POW's of course, we don't need to mention.

The kids of a nation are its next brainwashed victims. Racism/nationalism/religionism: seeds planted and watered in our kids. Can anyone be truly innocent? Why do you think it is that Hitler invested so much in the Hitler youth? By 1936, it had 4 million members, all aged between 10 & 18, who were feeding upon and aspiring towards his own particular ideology. These were the people, primarily, who would eventually fight-out his wars. Yet, we don't have to analyse Nazism to see the effects of brainwashing in kids. You'll see it in every culture you might wish to analyse.

It is true that 'we' are not responsible for the brainwashing which we receive. It is also true that we can hardly be blamed for accepting this brainwashing - particularly as young children. Yet, it is also true we are guilty of perpetuating this culture in which we are moulded, since we have the mental capacity to escape its grasp. All children, ultimately, are as dangerous as the parents who raise them, since their minds will harbour the thoughts passed onto them by their parents - which were not original thoughts of those parents.

Everybody is innocent until they realise what a sham it all is. Guilt resides in saying/doing nothing.

The greatest thing about a liberal society, should be that it raises children to think for themselves. Too many people think that a liberal society is where one can do what one wishes to do. However, pure liberalism must have its basis in thinking, since the doing is usually a consequence of one's brainwashing. Billions of people think that they are free, but are not, since their actions are artefacts of thoughts/beliefs/attitudes imposed upon them by a previous generation, whilst they themselves were infants.

Why do you want to do what you want to do? Is it because what you want to do is what you want to do, or is it because what you want to do is what is ingrained within you by your parents? True liberation, then, is about escaping old mindsets - and has very-little to do with escaping one's present material circumstances.

The Germans of the 1930's & 1940's must be judged as a whole and not as individuals, or not at all. That means that we cannot judge Germans between the ages of 18 and 65, I'm afraid. A society is complex, yet whole. Kids & grannies are as integral to the society one judges, as are the black-shirted men one wishes to focus one's scorn upon.

jamest wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:
The IRA comes looking for you James, because after all, you're responsible for the some of the more controversial aspects of the prosecution of the war in Northern Ireland, are you not?

Ultimately, in a democracy, the legitimacy of the government of a state is given to that government by the people of that state. Therefore, as a people, the British are responsible for today's government and its policies. "The government you elect is the government you deserve.", said Thomas Jefferson. "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.", said H.L. Mencken. So, yes, the people of a democracy are responsible for its government and its policies. Further, if those policies are atrocious, then the people of a state have the capacity to change those/that policies/government. If they do nothing about it, then they should not complain when retribution ensues.

The British people are responsible huh? All 60 million of them? Did you do a poll? Have you ever attended a committe meeting with about 5-10 members present? Did they all agree on the issues presented?

What you are talking about is idealism, taken from primary grade textbooks and romantic novels. Neither you, nor I, both being citizens of first past the post parliamentary democracies, are responsible for our governments. The present government in Canada was elected with about 39% of the popular vote. Does that make us responsible? In other "liberal" democracies the situation is worse. The US, for example, has very recently demonstrated that it has only two functioning political parties (representing about 300 million people), and both of them adhere to the agenda of the corporate world. Are all those Americans responsible for the Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the tax give-aways to corporations, or what have you? Of course they are not. You may feel that you can run through the streets waving a red flag, and change things before next monday, but history shows that inertial carries such drag as to make that unlikely.

jamest wrote:[
... However, having said all of that, the Ireland situation is difficult to assess in this context - merely because that situation is the culmination of hundreds-of-years of politics/history. So, I cannot blame contemporary British politicians/politics for the difficulties in Ireland. Further, I have to acknowledge that there is no easy solution - therefore, I cannot gripe about today's British politicians doing nothing about it. Indeed, in recent years, great efforts have been made to do something about it (so I can hardly complain about the lack of effort). Regardless, the bottom-line is that the contemporary population of Britain have inherited an Irish problem that has its roots in a past which - for most British people - is long-gone. Certainly, for most English people (and Welsh, I suspect), the problems between catholics and protestants are viewed as naive to the extent that they would call them childish. Certainly, most do not care. Perhaps that's the reason why England is so multicultural, these days.

Anyway, regards the IRA coming to look for me: I would understand their emotion (though don't advocate it). Neither I nor [my] recent governments caused the problems in Ireland. Those problems are a product of very-old times and a bizarre situation whereby the mindsets of a modern populace have failed to move-on. In other words, it is they that are the problem - and not me nor my governments (who have tried to resolve the situation). What can I do? Who should I put in power to resolve this situation? An uncompromising catholic? An uncompromising protestant? But then, wouldn't I be putting power into the hands of people who caused such problems in the first place?! If such people acquired power, then we might all as well resort to adorning 17th century dress and attitudes, again.

As a responsible UK citizen - one seeking equality and fairness for all - my only option is to lend legitimacy to a government that will seek to find a peaceful solution to these ancient problems which will integrate all of my fellow citizens and lead to a situation which is prevalent in England, generally, right now. If somebody wants to come looking for me for that, then sobeit.

For what it's worth, I say all of these things having once endured the horrors of a previous partner of mine being a victim of a past IRA bomb. True, she only had glass-shrapnel in her legs, but emotionally she was a wreck - particularly because she had passed the exact location of the bomb just one minute before it had exploded. So, do I hate the IRA? No, I just hate the reasons why the IRA exist, still, in the 21st century. Likewise, I just hate the reasons why we still have men wanting to dress up in orange clothes whilst blowing their flutes, in the 21st century.

I will respond to the rest of your post in another post, as I've rambled for too long on this particular issue. But, the bottom-line is that it is old mindsets which are the cause of the problems in Ireland - not contemporary British governments.

Yes, don't disagree much about the IRA, but really, this is not the point. Britain (today anyway) is a relatively benign state. Germany in the 1940s was not. Those that "disagreed" with policy may have found themselves in a brutal position. You suggest that once people could reach the point were they could think for themselves, then they are culpable. When they realize it is a sham, they are guilty if they say nothing. But you are assuming a perfect society where people have instant power. This was obviously not the case in Nazi Germany, and really not much better today in some countries. The government in Britain today leans toward the right wing of he political spectrum. If you don't like it, what are you going to do? You could register your vote ( one in about 50 million), or demonstrate in the streets. The fact is, you, personally, have essentially no power in the process. If you had lived in the Germany of the 1940s, the situation would have been even more dire than this- no power, and the possibility of severe consequences for anti-state actions.

Father O Rielly wrote:
Yes, don't disagree much about the IRA, but really, this is not the point. Britain (today anyway) is a relatively benign state. Germany in the 1940s was not. Those that "disagreed" with policy may have found themselves in a brutal position. You suggest that once people could reach the point were they could think for themselves, then they are culpable. When they realize it is a sham, they are guilty if they say nothing. But you are assuming a perfect society where people have instant power. This was obviously not the case in Nazi Germany, and really not much better today in some countries. The government in Britain today leans toward the right wing of he political spectrum. If you don't like it, what are you going to do? You could register your vote ( one in about 50 million), or demonstrate in the streets. The fact is, you, personally, have essentially no power in the process. If you had lived in the Germany of the 1940s, the situation would have been even more dire than this- no power, and the possibility of severe consequences for anti-state actions.

I think perhaps that you underestimate the potential an individual has to undermine and alter a system. Heard of Marx? Mohammad? Hitler? Castro? Arguably, we can even credit one man - John Locke - for creating the liberal movement.
'The people', also, do have the potential to oust government. Heard of the French and Russian revolutions? What about Tunisia, 2011? Libya? Syria?

I don't buy into the notion that individuals or groups of non-politicians (citizens) are powerless. Even if such individuals/groups lack the means to resist, they at-least have the means to leave. Well, it was alot easier in the 1930s to emigrate than it is now.

The ultimate point is that if individuals do nothing to change the system; remain within that system; help to sustain that system: then in what sense can we say that they are not responsible for what the system does? Your sense of what responsibility amounts to seems very short-sighted, imo.

It is a natural tendency for people to not "rock the boat". Even if the system they live in has problems, the fear of change makes them accept e.g. authoritan regimes. If there's a culture of not questioning the rulers, and/or weak democratic traditions, a people might end up like the Germans in 1933.

jamest wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:
Yes, don't disagree much about the IRA, but really, this is not the point. Britain (today anyway) is a relatively benign state. Germany in the 1940s was not. Those that "disagreed" with policy may have found themselves in a brutal position. You suggest that once people could reach the point were they could think for themselves, then they are culpable. When they realize it is a sham, they are guilty if they say nothing. But you are assuming a perfect society where people have instant power. This was obviously not the case in Nazi Germany, and really not much better today in some countries. The government in Britain today leans toward the right wing of he political spectrum. If you don't like it, what are you going to do? You could register your vote ( one in about 50 million), or demonstrate in the streets. The fact is, you, personally, have essentially no power in the process. If you had lived in the Germany of the 1940s, the situation would have been even more dire than this- no power, and the possibility of severe consequences for anti-state actions.

I think perhaps that you underestimate the potential an individual has to undermine and alter a system. Heard of Marx? Mohammad? Hitler? Castro? Arguably, we can even credit one man - John Locke - for creating the liberal movement.
'The people', also, do have the potential to oust government. Heard of the French and Russian revolutions? What about Tunisia, 2011? Libya? Syria?

I don't buy into the notion that individuals or groups of non-politicians (citizens) are powerless. Even if such individuals/groups lack the means to resist, they at-least have the means to leave. Well, it was alot easier in the 1930s to emigrate than it is now.

The ultimate point is that if individuals do nothing to change the system; remain within that system; help to sustain that system: then in what sense can we say that they are not responsible for what the system does? Your sense of what responsibility amounts to seems very short-sighted, imo.

Many in the Middle East saw the American invasion of Iraq as a rather cynical geopolitical grab. Tens of thousands were killed, perhaps a hundred thousand. Some may even want to take revenge for this act. If they could, and on the scale of 1945 Germany, which Americans would be fair targets? The kid working in Starbucks in Seattle, or the Kansas farm family? Or the Vietnamese fisherman on the Texas coast? A few Americans opposed the invasion, but were not able to stop it. As far as I know, no one tried to overthrow the government to stop this, and on one emigrated in protest. Therefore they are all targets by right of their passport, if we follow your logic.

Yes, it's great when popular revolutions take place, but these only work in certain circumstances, and under considerable momentum, requiring much more than "one man". And for every revolution, there are examples of decades or longer of repression and dictatorship too strong to resist. Syria right now is trying to throw off dictatorship, but not showing much sign of success. They may well end up with several more decades of authoritarian rule. That doesn't mean that all Syrians are therefore guilty of whatever crimes their government committs. It just means they are stuck with the status quo. Countries are not individuals, but masses of people with widely differing views and committments.

Father O Rielly wrote:
Many in the Middle East saw the American invasion of Iraq as a rather cynical geopolitical grab. Tens of thousands were killed, perhaps a hundred thousand. Some may even want to take revenge for this act. If they could, and on the scale of 1945 Germany, which Americans would be fair targets?

To be consistent, I would have to say that anyone who is integral to a particular society which is judged to have wronged another society, would be fair game. My reasons for saying this have been:

1) Kids are a society's next [brainwashed] generation of politicians/voters/soldiers, who will invariably perpetuate the attitudes and actions of their forebears. Certainly, it is easy to see that the vanquished peoples of the Roman Empire, for instance, were not just at war with Rome's armies, but with the means Rome had of sustaining those armies for several centuries. In other words, the vanquished peoples of that empire would have been well justified in killing the 'children of Rome'.

2) Anyone who does nothing to stop/reverse the policies of their government, whether it be through apathy or fear, is still responsible - since their sustained integration within the state has served to sustain the authority which resides over that state.

The kid working in Starbucks in Seattle, or the Kansas farm family? Or the Vietnamese fisherman on the Texas coast?

The Roman kid working in the stable? The Pompeian farm family? The freed slave who chooses to live as a Roman citizen and be a fisherman?

The kid will grow to become a politician or soldier, perhaps; the family's produce will serve the economy and feed the legions; likewise the slave's. All are integral to a society which has wronged others. All are helping to sustain and perpetuate said society. None of them are doing anything to reverse the atrocious policies of their leaders. So, in what sense are they any less responsible? Because they silently oppose war? Because they themselves didn't crucify anyone or feed anyone to the lions?
Taking such an argument to its extreme would lead to the conclusion that only one man was responsible for the destruction of Hiroshima - the man who pulled the lever which released the bomb - but I'm sure you would see the farcity in making such a claim as that.

'Responsibility' is a complex concept. Many of us just point the finger at the "man who pulled the lever" and fail to see the bigger picture. Those of us willing to see beyond our apathy, ignorance and fear - must accept that we are as guilty as that man, since we are all integral to a society which produces such men and levers; and our apathy, ignorance and fear, have all contrived to perpetuate such a state-of-affairs. In my opinion, that makes most of irresponsible - which is just a negative connotation of 'responsible'.

A few Americans opposed the invasion, but were not able to stop it. As far as I know, no one tried to overthrow the government to stop this, and on one emigrated in protest. Therefore they are all targets by right of their passport, if we follow your logic.

Yes, since they choose to remain integral to and sustain the society which has wronged others (according to those others). Actions speak louder than words, so they say.

jamest wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:
Many in the Middle East saw the American invasion of Iraq as a rather cynical geopolitical grab. Tens of thousands were killed, perhaps a hundred thousand. Some may even want to take revenge for this act. If they could, and on the scale of 1945 Germany, which Americans would be fair targets?

To be consistent, I would have to say that anyone who is integral to a particular society which is judged to have wronged another society, would be fair game. My reasons for saying this have been:

1) Kids are a society's next [brainwashed] generation of politicians/voters/soldiers, who will invariably perpetuate the attitudes and actions of their forebears. Certainly, it is easy to see that the vanquished peoples of the Roman Empire, for instance, were not just at war with Rome's armies, but with the means Rome had of sustaining those armies for several centuries. In other words, the vanquished peoples of that empire would have been well justified in killing the 'children of Rome'.

2) Anyone who does nothing to stop/reverse the policies of their government, whether it be through apathy or fear, is still responsible - since their sustained integration within the state has served to sustain the authority which resides over that state.

The kid working in Starbucks in Seattle, or the Kansas farm family? Or the Vietnamese fisherman on the Texas coast?

The Roman kid working in the stable? The Pompeian farm family? The freed slave who chooses to live as a Roman citizen and be a fisherman?

The kid will grow to become a politician or soldier, perhaps; the family's produce will serve the economy and feed the legions; likewise the slave's. All are integral to a society which has wronged others. All are helping to sustain and perpetuate said society. None of them are doing anything to reverse the atrocious policies of their leaders. So, in what sense are they any less responsible? Because they silently oppose war? Because they themselves didn't crucify anyone or feed anyone to the lions?
Taking such an argument to its extreme would lead to the conclusion that only one man was responsible for the destruction of Hiroshima - the man who pulled the lever which released the bomb - but I'm sure you would see the farcity in making such a claim as that.

'Responsibility' is a complex concept. Many of us just point the finger at the "man who pulled the lever" and fail to see the bigger picture. Those of us willing to see beyond our apathy, ignorance and fear - must accept that we are as guilty as that man, since we are all integral to a society which produces such men and levers; and our apathy, ignorance and fear, have all contrived to perpetuate such a state-of-affairs. In my opinion, that makes most of irresponsible - which is just a negative connotation of 'responsible'.

A few Americans opposed the invasion, but were not able to stop it. As far as I know, no one tried to overthrow the government to stop this, and on one emigrated in protest. Therefore they are all targets by right of their passport, if we follow your logic.

Yes, since they choose to remain integral to and sustain the society which has wronged others (according to those others). Actions speak louder than words, so they say.

Well James, if nothing else you have made yourself clear: guilt by nationality; a death sentence possible according to passport held.

If you had been around in '45, you may have been one of those Russian soldiers gang raping German women, or blowing the heads off of twelve year olds, because, what the heck, they're Germans. They should have tried harder to find out more than the censored news, and have all attempted to overthrough the government, suicidal though it may have been. They assumably all contributed to the war effort, even if for some it was in the most abstract and minimal sense.

Me, I prefer to judge people as individuals, taking into account all factors that lead them to where they ended up in a crisis. Nationality is not enough.

Father O Rielly wrote:
Well James, if nothing else you have made yourself clear: guilt by nationality; a death sentence possible according to passport held.

If you had been around in '45, you may have been one of those Russian soldiers gang raping German women, or blowing the heads off of twelve year olds, because, what the heck, they're Germans.

My thoughts do not justify such crimes, such retributions, borne of pure malice. There's a distinction to be made, for instance, in nuking the citizens of Hiroshima in order to bring about the end of the war and in nuking the vanquished citizens of Hiroshima because it would be a joy to behold. This is not to say that I agree with the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since I think that the Americans could have made their point by nuking a rural part of Japan, first. But I fully understand why the Americans did it... and it did have the desired effect. Indeed, this highlights the distinction I initially made: that between culling the Jews out of malice as opposed to bombing the citizens of Dresden in order to hasten the war's end. I'm pretty-sure that you must comprehend such a distinction. Therefore, you must understand why mass-killing is not necessarily synonymous with 'a holocaust', which was my initial argument.

I should also point-out that my thoughts pertaining to responsibility do not necessarily justify the mindsets of those who might act upon them. For example, the typical terrorist seems unbothered whether he/she kills men, women or children. For him/her, all elements of a society are fair game, since - I assume - they think that all elements of a society are equally-responsible. Yet, even though I can understand this perspective, this does not necessarily mean that I condone their cause.

Me, I prefer to judge people as individuals, taking into account all factors that lead them to where they ended up in a crisis.

That is the instinctive and emotional way we usually go about our lives: apportioning blame to individuals alone. But if you look at it rationally, an individual is largely the product/construct of his/her upbringing/education/environment. We might also say his/her genetic make-up, but is an individual responsible for that? In other words, I find it nigh on impossible to see how an individual alone can ever be blamed for his/her actions... and that it is the society in which he/she is immersed which is largely responsible for those actions. This is not to excuse or pardon such actions, as imo an individual should be jailed if they are a danger to society. That is, I am not condoning such acts as murder, rape or robbery. They are indeed 'crimes'. I just happen to think that if a society as a whole acknowledged its responsibility for all such crimes, then more would be done to amend the actual origin of those crimes: society itself. As it is, we satisfy ourselves in punishing individuals whilst allowing our particular society to 'churn out' more of the same thing.

Rome Existed wrote:At that time it was accurate bombing to take out half a city to destroy a single factory.

Well actually, I believe so.At that time, 'precision bombing' mean an accuracy of about 50%

BUT the allies DID deliberately target civilians in the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden,in which around 100 THOUSAND civilians died. It was deliberate terrorism..

The justification: Just retribution,to demoralise the German people and to boost British morale.