This is not a dictatorship

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes , we picked up a lot of French (Acadian , Cajun) the same way.>>

Not a single one of them was tortured or murdered by the British.

[Plane]

<<Yes , we picked up a lot of French (Acadian , Cajun) the same way.>>

Not a single one of them was tortured or murdered by the British.

Why not?

Wern't the British into arrogance and  cruelty in those days?

[Michael Tee]

<<Why not?

<<Wern't the British into arrogance and  cruelty in those days?>>

I think most of them were pretty embarrassed by what they were doing.  They knew it was wrong and the people the troops were evicting were pretty much like the kind of people they themselves came from.  Simple farmers and townspeople.

Some of the Acadian towns on the north shore of Prince Edward Island were resettled in a few years.  The settlers hid in the bush and the British didn't even bother to look for them.

"into arrogance and cruelty" is pretty much a meaningless statement.  They had a lot of ideas about the world and their role in it and probably arrogance was a part of it but I don't know about cruelty.  Of course their criminal law was very cruel, but it never involved torture (except for the executions of traitors) and it did not condone murder.  The Acadians were certainly not considered criminals or traitors.

In any event, I'm not aware of any recorded circumstance of torture or murder of an Acadian by British troops in the course of the expulsions.

[Plane]

In any event, I'm not aware of any recorded circumstance of torture or murder of an Acadian by British troops in the course of the expulsions.

Well you wouldn't be would you?

[Lanya]

<<Well you wouldn't be would you?>>

Are you aware of any such instances?

[Michael Tee]

<<Well you wouldn't be [aware of torture of Acadians by British forces] would you?>>

I sure as hell would be.  You should drive through the (formerly) Acadian villages of P.E.I. and Cape Breton Island.  Every one of them has a big Acadian flag flying in front of some public building like a post office or fire hall and plenty of smaller Acadian flags on private residences as well.  There wasn't a village anywhere we went that had not been at least partially re-settled by Acadians.  These folks are very proud of their culture and very keenly aware of the injustices done to them.  If there had been torture, you sure as hell would have heard of it by now, and you would have heard it first from them.

Why on earth would you think that while we know all about the atrocities committed by British troops in the Sepoy Rebellion in India, we would know absolutely nothing about atrocities (if any had occurred) committed by them right here at home?
These discussions are really great for me because I have come to see first-hand how Americans - - well, some Americans - -  -  (a) love to recount tales of sadistic cruelty carried out by everybody else whether any of it actually happened or not; (b) conveniently forget each and every one of their own examples of sadistic cruelty to others and (c) when they can't avoid the historical facts of what they've done, invent with absolutely no back-up evidence similar atrocities that they claim others much better than they are must have done.  Hence we have the allegations that the American veterans of WWII were torturers and murderers (because the American vets of Viet Nam and Iraq were torturers and murderers); that the British who expelled the  Cajuns must have tortured them (because the Americans who expelled the Loyalists tortured them.)

You people really have to get over yourselves.  Not only are you no better than anybody else, there are numerous historically documented events that would seem to indicate you have acted a lot worse than everybody else.  The years of slavery and Jim Crow are excellent examples of all that.  Your treatment of the Loyalists was much worse than the comparable British treatment of the Acadians, except that there were no mass expulsions.  (How could there be when they were all from the same ethnicity and probably related to one another by blood and marriage?)  The most irritating part of these discussions is the assumption that you are somehow fooling the rest of the world.  Just how fucking stupid do you think we are, anyway?

[_JS]

Loyalist suppression in the South was nasty as well. The people who were "fighting for liberty" would destroy loyalist newspapers and imprison anyone who was a vocal loyalist. That included tarring and feathering as Michael mentioned, or outright torture and in a few cases summary execution. The term "Lynch Mob" came from two patriots in Virginia, one a judge and the other an officer who decided that trials weren't necessary for loyalists.

The British agreed to mostly favorable terms with the Americans at the end of the war primarily out of concern for the loyalists, who feared for their very lives (women, children, and men). Loyalist land was confiscated by colonies (states) before the war was over and the owners were not compensated. Some later sued and got small compensation, a fraction of the value. Many times the homes were already burned down.

Wern't the British into arrogance and  cruelty in those days?

LOL...no more than the Patriots.

The war was never between a group of liberty-loving idealogues against a monster tyrannical regime of British evildoers.

[BT]

You people really have to get over yourselves.  Not only are you no better than anybody else, there are numerous historically documented events that would seem to indicate you have acted a lot worse than everybody else.

And yet you and others think we should be held to a higher standard, that somehow we should know better.
That it is a failure of leadership of this administration, even though the record shows that we have behaved badly since the revolution and most probably before.

[sirs]

You people really have to get over yourselves.  Not only are you no better than anybody else, there are numerous historically documented events that would seem to indicate you have acted a lot worse than everybody else.

And yet you and others think we should be held to a higher standard, that somehow we should know better.  That it is a failure of leadership of this administration, even though the record shows that we have behaved badly since the revolution and most probably before.

BDS     

[Universe Prince]

We are behaveing better without much effort.
If some of our guys get out of line they are liable to be caught and punished , who expects any such thing from them?

I'm still not sure why we keep comparing ourselves to the terrorists and saying "See, they're worse; aren't we great?" It's kinda like a person with a height of 5 feet claiming to be tall because he's taller than someone with a height of 4 feet. Actually it's worse than that because some folks keep trying to argue that we're being too nice and that because the terrorists do this or that, then we have no reason to not do the same sort of thing. It's like saying the terrorists are bad so we should be bad too.

Which takes me back to my point. We might be behaving better than terrorists now, but Richpo is arguing that we should just shoot these people. And you're asking why we should care what sort of repercussions that might have among the terrorists. I'm thinking, if we're going to advocate shooting people we ought to have some notion of what might be the consequences of that course of action. And, of course, if we're just going to start shooting terror suspects when we find them, then perhaps we ought to also stop acting like we're engaged in a "war on terror". If you want to play this hard, okay, but let's not lie about what we're doing.

[Universe Prince]

To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

Qualifications

To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner of war status.

Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his or her name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

I am having a bit of trouble find the part of the Geneva Convention that says combatants out of uniform should be executed. Perhaps you could point that out to me.

[Michael Tee]

I  think there's a big disconnect between American idealism and American conduct. 

BT seems to think that there's  a disconnect between someone who condemns the conduct but upholds the ideals.

Judging American conduct, they have behaved very badly.  It's really offensive to see them pointing condemnatory fingers at others because they just don't have the right any more.  Worse still when they condemn the British, whose conduct was almost always better than theirs in every way.

Yes, Americans SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct than Arabs, or even the British, because they have set a very high standard of ideals to live up to.  And at the same time, they should not only be condemned for their crimes against humanity, but where they have acted worse than others in similar circumstances, that must be pointed out too.

BT sees some kind of inconsistency in all this.  I wish he could show us what it is.  Because I don't see any inconsistency at all.

[BT]

Well..... it is kinda like condemning Christians as hypocrites when they don't walk the talk , when everyone knows church is for sinners.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well..... it is kinda like condemning Christians as hypocrites when they don't walk the talk , when everyone knows church is for sinners.>>

Church is for the sinners in the congregation, not in the pulpit.  The preacher is supposed to be the guy straightening the rest of them out.  Why do you think there's so much contempt for fallen church leaders?  Swaggart getting caught pants-down in a motel with a hooker is a much more serious transgression than one of his blue-collar constituents getting caught the same way.

People have to start demanding more from their leaders.  This "we're all sinners" attitude    doesn't cut it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[sirs]

<<Well..... it is kinda like condemning Christians as hypocrites when they don't walk the talk , when everyone knows church is for sinners.>>

Church is for the sinners in the congregation, not in the pulpit.

WHAT?  Church is for EVERYONE.  EVERYONE is supposed to be the "guy straightening the rest of them out".  That's the whole point of Church.  NO ONE IS PERFECT, which includes the Minister.  The Minister simply is the one leading everyone, but is by no means immune to being human and failing to "walk the talk".  Obviously you have no concept of what church is