"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John