Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Poppies.
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Absolutely, but the general form is 1st Nov to 11 Nov.
Have you never heard of World War II? 38-55 million civilians killed as opposed to 22-25 million military deaths.
SCAB I think you are confusing the biggest victims with the most numerous victims. A man with a machine gun is less of a victim than a sleeping child killed by the civic duties...I mean Nazis
agree with scram on taht point......and not one of those civilians signed up for it
Are you taking the piss Screampillar? If anyone on this forum would like to actually understand the subject rather than do armchair commentary on something they know little about Ill happily entertain it.
No - I think you might be though? Perhaps you'd care to tell me why a military casualty is more of a victim than a civilan one.
??? Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices ??? including the ultimate sacrifice ??? in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.
That works for me.
Wikipedia. Where she obviously got it from seems to agree scram
So having to engage in killing someone whilst being under threat of being killed yourself and watching your mates die is a walk in the park is it.
ok who upset SCBB????
SCBB we're still friends right?
I'm not. As is typical in areas people don't understand you are using absurdity to hide a lack of evidence or to not answer someone's point.
No one life has greater value than any other. My original point is that often those worst affected are those who fought the wars.
And civilians are immune from that?
In not agreeing with you it doesn't mean I don't understand. You get that right?
A first world war soldier with PTSD is no more or less of a victim than the widow left alone to care for small children.
Yes screampillar - are you dense? If they are directly engaged in the conflict, ie doing those things (killing/being killed) then they are not civilians (as per the Law of Armed Conflict).
You seem to think I am saying that civilians are not victims - which I am not saying at all. They are hugely and fundamentally affected by it - I know because I have met them have you?
Screampillar - I do get that if you disagree it does not mean that you don't understand; but, with respect, your argument does show a lack of understanding.
for last 50 years soldiers have chosen to do it as a job..not one is forced to do it...........
for civilians not one of them chose to be involved and for a parent to watch their child die from the men fighting around them must be one of the worse things.
yes every soldiers life lost is a terrible tradegy.but one that they and their families were prepared for and knew might happen.and they chose to take the risks...
civilians didn't have the choice and so their deaths are even more sad.
You are saying that the military are the biggest casualties in terms of suffering - I am saying they aren't. And I'm not sure about your other point but:
Civilians can be forced to kill or otherwise harm other civilians.
Civilians can be both under threat of being killed and watching their friends and family die.
The situation is the same as with the military. But they are still civilians!
How many British civilian casualties of war have there been in the past 50 years?
I'm talking about all civilians in all wars.
I don't think that matter to me at all Skotty..I don't believe that british civilians are any different to any other civilians
Scrampillar - Im not saying the military is, I am saying the individual soldier is. Big difference.
Im not fussed about whether you're sure about my other point - its enshrined in the law of arm conflict. If you partake in armed conflict you are not a civilian. I do get that they are under threat and have people they care about under threat.
You are assuming that the victimisation is mutually exclusive. It isn't. Multiple victims of varying degrees simultaneously.
One of the purposes of remembrance I would suggest is to specifically recognise that good men and women may have given their lives for "unworthy" as well as "worthy" conflicts. In some ways, being in a politically-motivated conflict makes their fate more poignant, not less.
Remembrance to me is about all the conflicts, the good the bad and the indifferent, because these members of the armed forces chose to do their duty.
If a conflict has had a bad beginning and/or a bad ending, It's the politicians who should be held to account, not the soldiers.
Amen.
Screampillar - we will have to agree to differ. You will not reconcile my view to yours and I have studied the subject in great detail and depth as well witnessing it.
What I am trying to explain to you that civilians can and have been forced by soldiers to commit atrocities on other civilians. and that civilians can be subject to the exactly the same types of suffering that soldiers are.
Do you still not get it?
Fine. But I have a history degree so please don't refer to me as dense or assume I know nothing about the subject at all.
yeah, that was a good one.
Well then I would have expected a better reasoned argument!!! not least your misleading use of figures! In this context the UK figures are more relevant.
338k UK Mil deaths in WW2 versus 67k UK civilian deaths.
Yes I do get that civilians can be forced to do things but the incidence is relatively low.
Should you ever find yourself in Normandy ask the local their view. In my quite extensive travels to Normandy I have found their view is supportive of mine (probably formative).
Yeah so much easier for the soldier (and family) who choses to put themselves in harms way for the defence of others out of selfless commitment!
I was talking about deaths worldwide and my argument is a perfectly reasoned one. Whatever the experience of the fine citizens of Normandy it is not the same as those of civilian women at the fall of Berlin, of those who lived in proximity to Nazi concentration camps (or their unfortunate inhabitants) or of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - all unfortunate civilian victims of war who suffered as much, or more than any soldier did.
But of course you have a wealth of knowledge and I'm just dense so I've got to be wrong.
Please