anticipating the crimes of Saddam Hussein more than 60 years later, said he didn't understand the "squeamishness about the use of gas . . . I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [in Iraq]."As it stands the quote is horrendous. However the the actual quote in full is:
“It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”In other words Hasan has taken a quote in which Churchill expresses a desire to avoid killing people and preventing unnecessary suffering and excises enough of it to appear as though he is urging mass murder against the Kurds.
Later in the column he complains that Colonel Gadaffi is being unfairly maligned.
5 comments:
I remember this one from before (http://fountain.blogspot.com/2009/04/churchill-poison-gas.html). I always slightly shudder at that sort of thing, at least it was 2009 not 2007, as it makes me think we might still be here in 2040.
Anyway, I can't be bothered to read the article but I find this sort of thing strange given there's so many disasters and failings Churchill was very guilty of (I say it as a great admirer).
Oh I thought I'd linked to my old post. I like to be fairly open about recycling.
". I always slightly shudder at that sort of thing, at least it was 2009 not 2007, as it makes me think we might still be here in 2040."
Yeah. I have probably known people online through blogging for longer than say, people I grew up with at secondary school for example, which is weird.
For instance I probably first read stuff by you back in 2002 or 2003!
Better not forget tht back then times were more bloodthirsty.
Nowadays you want to do your military killing from far off.
And as a result the UK has been invded so daintily that to object is to be called a racist.
"Better not forget tht back then times were more bloodthirsty.
Nowadays you want to do your military killing from far off."
Which is perhaps why there are so many 'blue on blue' incidents?
If there are indeed more of them, and it's not just the case that they get reported more openly today...
Guardian. Hasan. Nuff said.
Post a Comment