The Falklands thread

[Castiel]

While I can fully agree that's true regarding combat effectiveness/chance of getting home, it's also what allows some of the worst atrocities imaginable.

It's an incredibly dangerous game dehumanising others, as to empathise to is humanise.

In a combat situation, to empathise is to get yourself killed. You don't need to lose your own humanity, neither do you need to fall into barbarity. Treating you enemy as an enemy is not the same as considering acts against humanity. You must always justify your actions, not simply dehumanise everyone and everything. It's not a black and white position, how do you empathise with someone who wants to destroy your way of life, your family, your freedom, your life? In most cases that person dehumanises themselves with little help from me.

It still doesn't stop me thinking about it from time to time.....I can empathise with the Para who took his life, I can empathise with the families of those who live's were taken, and I can treat those who lives were forfeit dispassionately at the same time.

 

[estebanrey]

That's true for servicemen; I'm not sure it applies to tabloid journalists. The sinking of an enemy warship is a necessary evil - but it's an event that warrants a more tactful headline than "Gotcha", as if it's all a big game.

It's a Newspaper, that's what they do.

La Prensa (An Argentine Paper) printed "Joy For Argentina As We Reclaim Malvinas" on the day they landed. Now I would argue landing on a small Island, rounding the people up and scaring the hell out of them isn't very nice either but I'm not going mental over a newspaper headline.

 

[elmarko]

In a combat situation, to empathise is to get yourself killed. You don't need to lose your own humanity, neither do you need to fall into barbarity. Treating you enemy as an enemy is not the same as considering acts against humanity. You must always justify your actions, not simply dehumanise everyone and everything. It's not a black and white position, how do you empathise with someone who wants to destroy your way of life, your family, your freedom, your life? In most cases that person dehumanises themselves with little help from me.

I'm not saying it isn't needed in that specific situation, just that the erosion of empathy & dehumanisation can come at a cost in some cases (which results in troops losing it & throwing grenades at groups of civilians which occurred recently as just one example).

 

[Castiel]

I'm not saying it isn't needed in that specific situation, just that the erosion of empathy & dehumanisation can come at a cost in some cases (which results in troops losing it & throwing grenades at groups of civilians which occurred recently as just one example).

That is more related to post traumatic stress, psychological instability and fear than dehumanisation, they may have a lack of empathy at the time, but it isn't as a result of dehumanising a group or individual, it is more to do with their personal psychological state.

Other forms of dehumanisation, such as those carried out by States, Governments and Groups on other groups, based on ethnicity, religion, ideology, caste, gender, social status and so on which in turn justify attrocities and prejudice is another matter.

 

[ikillbears]

Why? There are several research studies which show that Wikipedia is often more accurate than other "authoritative" sources. The idea that wiki is more inaccurate than other types of sources is a fallacy.

I always say this. More eyes glance over Wiki than many books. Even published books make mistakes and all that but because its published people seem to hold its reliability as god like.

 

[wordy]

Indeed. However people need to dehumanise the enemy somehow otherwise the consequences overwhelm you. Once you begin associating the person you are tasked to defend against with yourself and begin wondering about their families and kids etc, you hesitate and you put yourself and your company at risk. I think about this a lot as I get older, questioning my actions and the morality of it all, but during my service it wasn't something I allowed myself to consider. If I did, I might not have come home.

Yeah, it wasn't there for the good of our health and as the only ship worrying the task group it needed to go, regardless of loss of life to the enemy.

I served during the mid 90's and knew plenty of guys who were down there in 1982, they were all glad it got sunk but at the same time none of them were rejoicing the loss of life that came with it's sinking.

That's true for servicemen; I'm not sure it applies to tabloid journalists. The sinking of an enemy warship is a necessary evil - but it's an event that warrants a more tactful headline than "Gotcha", as if it's all a big game.

It should apply to anyone with a modicum of common decency. But I suppose that isn't really something we should be expecting of the sun I suppose.

It's a Newspaper, that's what they do.

La Prensa (An Argentine Paper) printed "Joy For Argentina As We Reclaim Malvinas" on the day they landed. Now I would argue landing on a small Island, rounding the people up and scaring the hell out of them isn't very nice either but I'm not going mental over a newspaper headline.

Don't think anyone is going mental over it, but pretty much everyone can see that that rejoicing in a large scale loss of life such as the sinking of ARA General Belgrano is in poor taste.

 

[daver]

Although to be fair, they used the headline when they thought the ship had only been damaged, and changed it when they found out it had been sunk and there was extensive loss of life.

 

[Dugganator]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21288084

"Argentina’s foreign minister has turned down a foreign office invitation to meet members of the Falkland Islands government in London next week.

Hector Timerman rejected the offer, saying 'The international community does not recognise a third party in this dispute"

To me this seems crazy and dumb by Argentina. I would have thought to show they are willing to recognise the Falkland’s islanders they might be able to work together in some capacity. Even just attending the meeting would have maybe done more than the statement made by their government.

They have no intention of ever it seem recognising the people on that island just so they can keep their claim on going.

Don’t know why but this made me more angry then normal when I read stuff about the Falklands

 

[Edrof]

It's a good thing for him to say. It means that they look even more radical and stupid than before. I love the way he alludes to 'the international community', which in this case is just him and Sean Penn.

 

[Dugganator]

Hopefully this can be used in someway if Argentina keep going to the UN on the matter.

That did make me laugh 'the international community' basically all statements should have that attached from our government or the Falkland Islands Government when making statements aimed at Argentina. I'm sure there are people in 'the international community' who support different views on the issues not just Argentina's view.

Sean Penn haha please go away with your crazy views.

 

[daver]

This situation is comical, Timmerman requests meeting with Hague, Hague says ok, but these two MLAs from Falklands will be there since you will want to talk about the Falklands, suddenly Timmerman has cold feet and tries to pretend it was Hague that requested a meeting, adds a load of nonsensical stuff in his letter about UN security council and nuclear non proliferation or something.

Don't know how anyone can keep a straight face when they keep talking in the media about how they only want to sit down and talk about the falklands, but then refuse any talks where the Falklanders are involved.

 

[Dugganator]

I didnt know that they had requested the meeting with Hague. That just makes the whole event even funnier how stupid or unwilling do you want to make themselves appear to be.

 

[a1ex2001]

I didnt know that they had requested the meeting with Hague. That just makes the whole event even funnier how stupid or unwilling do you want to make themselves appear to be.

It doesn't make it stupid or unreasnable, he requested a meeting with Hague about the ruture of the Falklands, Hague has invited the Falklands governemnt a body that Argentina does not recognise and a body that is not a party to the UN resolution that demands the UK and Argentina negotiate an agreement. Had he attended this new meeting it would have been seen as Argentina recognising the role of the Falklands government and hence the people in the process of negotiating a settlement which is a position the Argentine government consistently rejects.

The real childish act here was Hague inviting the Falklands government in much the same way sending Prince William for a tour of duty in the Falkands during a major aniversary of the war when tensions were high was childish. I do wish we would just rise above these cheap shots.

 

[Macro]

Absolutely, why should the democratically elected government of the Falklands be invited to a meeting discussing the future of the Falkland Islands... /sigh

 

[GAC]

The real childish act here was Hague inviting the Falklands government in much the same way sending Prince William for a tour of duty in the Falkands during a major aniversary of the war when tensions were high was childish. I do wish we would just rise above these cheap shots.

yes bad on hauge, bbc have been reporting that the argies knew from the get go the falkland islands reps would be there.

it just shows the argies dont care for the people who live there what so ever.

 

[Dugganator]

yes bad on hauge, bbc have been reporting that the argies knew from the get go the falkland islands reps would be there.

it just shows the argies dont care for the people who live there what so ever.

Exactly well said.

 

[elmuzzy66.]

At least the islanders get protection, others just get ignored.

 

[Woden]

It doesn't make it stupid or unreasnable, he requested a meeting with Hague about the ruture of the Falklands, Hague has invited the Falklands governemnt a body that Argentina does not recognise and a body that is not a party to the UN resolution that demands the UK and Argentina negotiate an agreement. Had he attended this new meeting it would have been seen as Argentina recognising the role of the Falklands government and hence the people in the process of negotiating a settlement which is a position the Argentine government consistently rejects.

The real childish act here was Hague inviting the Falklands government in much the same way sending Prince William for a tour of duty in the Falkands during a major aniversary of the war when tensions were high was childish. I do wish we would just rise above these cheap shots.

Any discussion on the future of the Falkland Islands, without the islanders themselves themselves being represented would be flat out illegal. Self determination is enshrined in the UN charter, in Article 1 no less!

 

[KatanaDV20]

Cant believe we are without a carrier, how could they do away with the Harriers as well. Yeah Typhoon is now based in Falklands and its a kick-ass jet but its mainly air-dominance plane right? We need a mud-mover...

We need new-build A-10s!!

 

[Woden]

Cant believe we are without a carrier, how could they do away with the Harriers as well. Yeah Typhoon is now based in Falklands and its a kick-ass jet but its mainly air-dominance plane right? We need a mud-mover...

We need new-build A-10s!!

Typhoon is multi-role and is more than capable of hitting ground targets. We also have UAVs designed with a ground attack focus in mind.